Title: The Paston Letters, Volume I (of 6) - New Complete Library Edition
Author: Gairdner, James [Editor]
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Paston Letters, Volume I (of 6) - New Complete Library Edition" ***


[This e-text comes in two forms: Unicode (UTF-8) and Latin-1. Use the
one that works best on your text reader.

  --If “œ” displays as a single character, and apostrophes and
  quotation marks are “curly” or angled, you have the UTF-8 version
  (better). If any part of this paragraph displays as garbage, try
  changing your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding”.
  If that doesn’t work, proceed to:
  --In the Latin-1 version, “œ” is two letters, but French words like
  “étude” have accents and “æ” is a single letter. Apostrophes and
  quotation marks will be straight (“typewriter” form). A handful of
  diacritical marks in quoted material will be missing.

The Gairdner edition of the Paston Letters was printed in six volumes.
Each volume is a separate e-text; Volume VI is further divided into two
e-texts, Letters and Index.

Superscripts are shown with braces { } as vj{ti}, xviiij{cim}. Braces
are not used for anything else. Errata and other transcriber’s notes
are shown in [[double brackets]].

Footnotes have their original numbering, with added page number to make
them usable with the full Index. They are shown at the end of each
paragraph, except where this would interrupt a longer quotation or
letter. Typographical errors are shown in the same way, after any
footnotes.

Except for footnotes and sidenotes, all brackets are in the original, as
are parenthetical question marks and (_sic_) notations. Series of dots
representing damaged text are as in the printed original.]



This edition, published by arrangement with Messrs. ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE
AND COMPANY, LIMITED, is strictly limited to 650 copies for Great
Britain and America, of which only 600 sets are for sale, and are
numbered 1 to 600.

  No. 47

  [[The number 47 is handwritten.]]


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *


              THE PASTON LETTERS

                A.D. 1422-1509


           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


  The
  PASTON LETTERS
  A.D. 1422-1509

  NEW COMPLETE LIBRARY EDITION

  Edited with Notes and an Introduction

  By
  JAMES GAIRDNER
  of the Public Record Office


  _VOLUME I_


    London
    Chatto & Windus

  [Decoration]

    Exeter
    James G. Commin
    1904



  Edinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty



PREFACE


[Sidenote: First publication of the Letters.] Public attention was first
drawn to the Paston Letters in the year 1787, when there issued from the
press two quarto volumes with a very lengthy title, setting forth that
the contents were original letters written ‘by various persons of rank
and consequence’ during the reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard
III. The materials were derived from autographs in the possession of the
Editor, a Mr. Fenn, of East Dereham, in Norfolk, who was well enough
known in society as a gentleman of literary and antiquarian tastes, but
who had not at that time attained any great degree of celebrity. Horace
Walpole had described him, thirteen years before, as ‘a smatterer in
antiquity, but a very good sort of man.’ What the great literary magnate
afterwards thought of him we are not informed, but we know that he took
a lively interest in the Paston Letters the moment they were published.
He appears, indeed, to have given some assistance in the progress of the
work through the press. On its appearance he expressed himself with
characteristic enthusiasm:--‘The letters of Henry VI.’s reign, etc., are
come out, and _to me_ make all other letters not worth reading. I have
gone through one volume, and cannot bear to be writing when I am so
eager to be reading. . . . There are letters from _all_ my acquaintance,
Lord Rivers, Lord Hastings, the Earl of Warwick, whom I remember still
better than Mrs. Strawbridge, though she died within these fifty years.
What antiquary would be answering a letter from a living countess, when
he may read one from Eleanor Mowbray, Duchess of Norfolk?’[1-1]

    [Footnote 1-1: _Walpole’s Letters_ (Cunningham’s ed.), ix. 92.]

So wrote the great literary exquisite and virtuoso, the man whose
opinion in those days was life or death to a young author or a new
publication. And in spite of all that was artificial and affected in his
character,--in spite even of the affectation of pretending a snobbish
interest in ancient duchesses--Walpole was one of the fittest men of
that day to appreciate such a publication. [Sidenote: What was thought
of them by some.] Miss Hannah More was less easily pleased, and she no
doubt was the type of many other readers. The letters, she declared,
were quite barbarous in style, with none of the elegance of their
supposed contemporary Rowley. They might perhaps be of some use to
correct history, but as letters and fine reading, nothing was to be said
for them.[2-1] It was natural enough that an age which took this view of
the matter should have preferred the forgeries of Chatterton to the most
genuine productions of the fifteenth century. The style of the Paston
Letters, even if it had been the most polished imaginable, of course
could not have exhibited the polish of the eighteenth century, unless a
Chatterton had had some hand in their composition.

    [Footnote 2-1: Roberts’s _Memoirs of Hannah More_, ii. 50.]

[Sidenote: General interest in the work.] Yet the interest excited by
the work was such that the editor had no reason to complain of its
reception. The Paston Letters were soon in everybody’s hands. The work,
indeed, appeared under royal patronage, for Fenn had got leave
beforehand to dedicate it to the King as ‘the avowed patron’ of
antiquarian knowledge. This alone had doubtless some influence upon the
sale; but the novel character of the publication itself must have
excited curiosity still more. A whole edition was disposed of in a week,
and a second edition called for, which, after undergoing some little
revision, with the assistance of Mr. George Steevens, the Shakspearian
editor, was published the same year. Meanwhile, to gratify the curious,
the original MS. letters were deposited for a time in the Library of the
Society of Antiquaries; but the King having expressed a wish to see
them, Fenn sent them to Buckingham Palace, then called the Queen’s
Palace, requesting that, if they were thought worthy of a place in the
Royal Collection, His Majesty would be pleased to accept them. They were
accordingly, it would seem, added to the Royal Library; and as an
acknowledgment of the value of the gift, Fenn was summoned to Court, and
received the honour of knighthood.

But the two volumes hitherto published by Fenn contained only a small
selection out of a pretty considerable number of original letters of the
same period in his possession. The reception these two volumes had met
with now encouraged him to make a further selection, and he announced
with his second edition that another series of the Letters was in
preparation, which was to cover the same period as the first two
volumes, and to include also the reign of Henry VII. Accordingly a third
and fourth volume of the work were issued together in the year 1789,
containing the new letters down to the middle of Edward IV.’s reign. A
fifth and concluding volume, bringing the work down to the end of Henry
VII.’s reign, was left ready for publication at Sir John Fenn’s death in
1794, and was published by his nephew, Mr. Serjeant Frere, in 1823.

Of the original MSS. of these letters and their descent Fenn gives but a
brief account in the preface to his first volume, which we will
endeavour to supplement with additional facts to the best of our
ability. [Sidenote: The MSS.] The letters, it will be seen, were for the
most part written by or to particular members of the family of Paston in
Norfolk. Here and there, it is true, are to be found among them State
papers and other letters of great interest, which must have come to the
hands of the family through some indirect channel; but the great
majority are letters distinctly addressed to persons of the name of
Paston, and in the possession of the Pastons they remained for several
generations. In the days of Charles II. the head of the family, Sir
Robert Paston, was created Earl of Yarmouth; but his son William, the
second bearer of the title, having got into debt and encumbered his
inheritance, finally died without male issue, so that his title became
extinct. While living in reduced circumstances, he appears to have
parted with a portion of his family papers, which were purchased by the
great antiquary and collector, Peter Le Neve, Norroy King of Arms. Le
Neve was a Norfolk man, possessed of considerable estates at Witchingham
and elsewhere in the county; and he made it a special object to collect
MSS. and records relating to Norfolk and Suffolk. Just before his death
in 1729 he made a will,[4-1] by which he bequeathed his MSS. to the
erudite Dr. Tanner, afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph’s, and Thomas Martin
of Palgrave; but this bequest was subject to the condition that within a
year after his death they should ‘procure a good and safe repository in
the Cathedral Church of Norwich, or in some other good and public
building in the said city’ for their preservation, the object being to
make them at all times accessible to those who wished to consult them.
The condition, however, was not fulfilled, and the bequest would
naturally have become null; but ‘honest Tom Martin of Palgrave’ (to give
him the familiar name by which he himself desired to be known) married
the widow of his friend, and thus became possessed of his MSS. by
another title.

    [Footnote 4-1: _See_ Appendix after Introduction, No. I.]

The Le Neve collection, however, contained only a portion of the Paston
family papers. On the death, in 1732, of the Earl of Yarmouth, who
outlived Le Neve by three years, some thirty or forty chests of valuable
letters and documents still remained at the family seat at Oxnead. These
treasures the Rev. Francis Blomefield was allowed to examine three years
later with a view to his county history, for which purpose he boarded at
Oxnead for a fortnight.[4-2] Of the results of a general survey of the
papers he writes, on the 13th May 1735, to Major Weldon a number of
interesting particulars, of which the following may be quoted as bearing
upon the subject before us:--‘There is another box full of the pardons,
grants, and old deeds, freedoms, etc., belonging to the Paston family
only, which I laid by themselves, for fear you should think them proper
to be preserved with the family; they don’t relate to any estates. . . .
There are innumerable letters of good consequence in history still lying
among the loose papers, all which I laid up in a corner of the room on a
heap which contains several sacks full.’[5-1] But Blomefield afterwards
became the owner of a considerable portion of these papers; for he not
only wrote his initials on several of them, and marked a good many
others with a mark by which he was in the habit of distinguishing
original documents that he had examined and noted, but he also made a
present to a friend of one letter which must certainly have once been in
the Paston family archives. He himself refers to his ownership of
certain collections of documents in the Preface to his _History of
Norfolk_, where he informs the reader that he has made distinct
reference to the several authors and originals he had made use of in all
cases, ‘except’ (these are his words) ‘where the originals are either in
Mr. Le Neve’s or my own collections, which at present I design to join
to his, so that, being together, they may be consulted at all times.’
Apparently honest Tom Martin was still intending to carry out Le Neve’s
design, and Blomefield purposed to aid it further by adding his own
collections to the Le Neve MSS. But though Martin lived for nearly forty
years after his marriage with Le Neve’s widow, and always kept this
design in view, he failed to carry it out. His necessities compelled him
to part with some of his treasures, but these apparently were mainly
books enriched with MS. notes, not original ancient MSS., and even as he
grew old he did not altogether drop the project. He frequently formed
resolutions that he would, _next year_, arrange what remained, and make
a selection for public use. But at last, at the age of seventy-four, he
suddenly died in his chair without having given effect to his purpose.

    [Footnote 4-2: _Cursory Notices of the Reverend Francis
    Blomefield._ By J. Wilton Rix, Esq.]

    [Footnote 5-1: _Norfolk Archæology_, ii. 210, 211.]

Neither did his friend Blomefield, who died nine years before him, in
January 1762, succeed in giving effect to _his_ good intention of
uniting his collections with the Le Neve MSS. For he died deeply in
debt, and by his will, made just before death, he directed all his
personal property to be sold in payment of his liabilities. His
executors, however, declined to act, and administration was granted to
two principal creditors. Of the Paston MSS. which were owned by him,
a few are now to be found in one of the volumes of the Douce Collection
in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. These, it would seem, were first
purchased by the noted antiquary John Ives,[6-1] who acquired a number
of Le Neve’s, Martin’s, and Blomefield’s MSS.; and after his library was
sold by auction in March 1777, they became part of the collections
relating to the counties of Oxford and Cambridge, which Gough, in his
_British Topography_ (vol. ii. p. 5), informs us that he purchased at
the sale of Mr. Ives’ papers. To this same collection, probably,
belonged also a few of the scattered documents relating to the Paston
family which have been met with among the miscellaneous stores of the
Bodleian Library, for a knowledge of which I was indebted to the late
Mr. W. H. Turner of Oxford.

    [Footnote 6-1: _See_ Nichols’s _Literary Anecdotes_, iii. 199.]

Martin’s executors seem to have done what they could to preserve the
integrity of his collections. A catalogue of his library was printed
at Lynn in 1771, in the hope that some purchaser would be found to take
the whole. Such a purchaser did present himself, but not in the interest
of the public. [Sidenote: By Mr. Worth.] A certain Mr. John Worth,
a chemist at Diss, bought both the library and the other collections,
as a speculation, for £630. The printed books he immediately sold to
a firm at Norwich, who disposed of them by auction; the pictures and
smaller curiosities he sold by auction at Diss, and certain portions
of the MSS. were sent, at different times, to the London market. But
before he had completed the sale of all the collections, Mr. Worth died
suddenly in December 1774. That portion of the MSS. which contained the
Paston Letters he had up to that time reserved. Mr. Fenn immediately
purchased them of his executors, and they had been twelve years in his
possession when he published his first two volumes of selections from
them.

So much for the early history of the MSS. Their subsequent fate is not a
little curious. On the 23rd May 1787, Fenn received his knighthood at
St. James’s, having then and there presented to the King three bound
volumes of MSS. which were the originals of his first two printed
volumes.[6-2] Yet, strange to say, these MSS. were afterwards lost sight
of so completely that for a whole century nobody could tell what had
become of them. They were not in the Royal Library afterwards given up
to the British Museum; they were not to be found in any of the Royal
Palaces. The late Prince Consort, just before his death, caused a
careful search to be made for them, but it proved quite ineffectual.
Their hiding-place remained unknown even when I first republished these
Letters in the years 1872-75.

    [Footnote 6-2: The following announcement appears in the _Morning
    Chronicle_ of the 24th May 1787: ‘Yesterday, John Fenn, Esq.,
    attended the levee at St. James’s, and had the honour of
    presenting to His Majesty (bound in three volumes) the original
    letters of which he had before presented a printed copy; when His
    Majesty, as a mark of his gracious acceptance, was pleased to
    confer on him the honour of knighthood.’]

To this mystery succeeded another of the same kind. The originals of the
other three volumes were not presented to the king; but they, too,
disappeared, and remained for a long time equally undiscoverable. Even
Mr. Serjeant Frere, who edited the fifth volume from transcripts left by
Sir John Fenn after his death, declared that he had not been able to
find the originals of that volume any more than those of the others.
Strange to say, however, the originals of that volume were in his house
all the time, and were discovered by his son, Mr. Philip Frere, in the
year 1865, just after an ingenious _littérateur_ had made the complete
disappearance of _all_ the MSS. a ground for casting doubt on the
authenticity of the published letters. It is certainly a misfortune for
historical literature, or at all events was in those days, that the
owners of ancient MSS. commonly took so little pains to ascertain what
it was that they had got. Since then the proceedings of the Historical
MSS. Commission, which have brought to light vast stores of unsuspected
materials for history, have awakened much more interest in such matters.

Thus three distinct portions of MSS. that had been carefully edited had
all been lost sight of and remained undiscoverable for a long series of
years. The originals of the first two volumes presented to the King
could not be found. The originals of volumes iii. and iv. could not be
found. The originals of volume v. could not be found. These last,
however, after a time, came to light, as we have seen, in 1865, having
been discovered in the house of the late Mr. Philip Frere at Dungate, in
Cambridgeshire; and with them were found a large number of additional
MSS., also belonging to the Paston Collection, among which was the
original of one of the letters of volume iii. separated from all its
fellows, whose place of concealment remained still unknown.

This discovery, however, was important, and at once suggested to me the
possibility of producing a new edition of the Letters arranged in true
chronological order, and augmented by those hitherto unedited. It
suggested, moreover, that more of the originals might even yet be
discovered with a little further search, perhaps even in the same house.
But a further search at Dungate, though it brought to light a vast
quantity of papers of different ages, many of them very curious, did not
lead to the discovery of any other than the single document above
referred to belonging to any of the first four volumes. All that Mr.
Philip Frere could find belonging to the Paston Collection he sold to
the British Museum, and the rest he disposed of by auction.

The question then occurred: Since the originals of volumes iii. and iv.
had not been found at Dungate, might they be in the possession of the
head of the Frere family, the late Mr. George Frere of Roydon Hall, near
Diss, in Norfolk? This was suggested to me as probable by Mr. Philip
Frere, his cousin, and I wrote to him accordingly on the 3rd December
1867. I received an answer from him dated on the 6th, that he did not
see how such MSS. should have found their way to Roydon, but if they
turned up at any time he would let me know. Unluckily he seems to have
dismissed the subject from his mind, and I received no answer to further
inquiries repeated at various intervals. At last it appeared hopeless to
wait longer and defer my edition of the Letters indefinitely on the
chance of finding more originals anywhere. So the first volume of my
edition went to press, and the second, and the third. But just after I
had printed off two Appendices to vol. iii., a friend of Mr. George
Frere’s called upon me at the Record Office, and informed me that a
number of original Paston letters had been discovered at Roydon, which
he had conveyed up to London. After some further communication with Mr.
Frere himself I was allowed to inspect them at his son’s chambers in the
Temple, when I found among them those very originals of Fenn’s third and
fourth volumes which eight years before he could not believe were in his
possession! Every one of them, I think, was there with just two
exceptions--the first a document which, as already mentioned, was found
at Dungate; the second a letter (No. 52 in this edition) now preserved
at Holland House, the existence of which was made known to me before my
second volume was issued by a recent book of the Princess Marie
Liechtenstein.[9-1]

    [Footnote 9-1: _Holland House._ By Princess Marie Liechtenstein,
    vol. ii. p. 198.]

It was mortifying, I confess, not to have received earlier intelligence
of a fact that I had suspected all along. But it was better to have
learned it at the last moment than not till after my last volume was
published. So, having made two Appendices already to that volume, the
only thing to do was to add a third, in which the reader would find a
brief note of the discovery, with copies of some of the unpublished
letters, and as full an account of the others belonging to the same
period as circumstances would permit. Altogether there were no less than
ninety-five new original letters belonging to the period found at Roydon
Hall, along with the originals of Fenn’s third and fourth volumes.

In July 1888 these Roydon Hall MSS. were offered for sale at Christie’s.
They consisted then of 311 letters, mainly the originals of Fenn’s third
and fourth volumes, and of those described in my third Appendix. Of the
former set there were only four letters wanting, viz. the two in volume
iii. whose existence is accounted for elsewhere, and two in volume iv.
‘which,’ the sale catalogue observes, ‘are noted by Fenn himself as
being no longer in his possession.’ As to the letters in my Appendix the
catalogue goes on to say:--

  ‘Of the ninety-five additional letters above mentioned (Gairdner,
  992-1086) _four_ are missing (Nos. 1016, 1029, 1077, 1085). On the
  other hand, on collating the present collection with the printed
  volumes, it was found to contain _four others_ of which no record
  exists either in Fenn’s or Mr. Gairdner’s edition, and which
  consequently appear to have escaped the notice of the latter
  gentleman while examining the treasures at Roydon Hall.’

‘The latter gentleman’ begs leave to say here that he never was at
Roydon Hall in his life, and was only allowed to examine such of the
‘treasures’ found there as were placed before him in the year 1875 in a
certain chamber in the Temple. A well-known bookseller purchased the
MSS. offered at Christie’s for 500 guineas, and some years later (in
1896), sold them to the British Museum. They are thus, at length,
available for general consultation. The number of missing originals,
however, is not quite as given in Christie’s sale catalogue. There are
four, not two, lacking of volume iv. On the other hand, only two letters
of the Appendix are wanting.[10-1]

    [Footnote 10-1: The missing letters of volume iv. are Nos. 24, 97,
    99, and 105 (Nos. 551, 726, 735, and 758 of this edition). The
    last never formed part of Fenn’s collection. I do not know of any
    other noted by him as ‘no longer in his possession.’ The letters
    missing of the Appendix are only Nos. 997 and 1019. Of the four
    said to be missing in Christie’s catalogue, 1016 is not a document
    at all, the number having been accidentally skipped in the
    Inventory, and the other three are in the British Museum. No.
    1077, however, is inaccurately described in the Appendix.]

About fifteen years after the discovery at Roydon there came another
discovery elsewhere. On the 29th March 1890 it was announced in the
_Athenæum_ that the missing originals of Fenn’s first and second
volumes--that is to say, the MSS. presented to King George III.--had
likewise come to light again. They were found at Orwell Park, in
Suffolk, in 1889, after the death of the late Colonel Tomline, and they
remain there in the possession of his cousin, Mr. E. G. Pretyman, M.P.,
now Secretary to the Admiralty, who kindly showed them to me at his
house soon after their discovery. They have come to him among family
papers and heirlooms of which, being only tenant for life, he is not
free to dispose until some doubts can be removed as to their past
history; and I accordingly forbear from saying more on this point except
that their place of deposit indicates that they may either have got
mixed with the private papers and books of Pitt, of which a large number
are in the Orwell library, or with those of his old tutor and secretary,
Dr. George Pretyman, better known as Bishop Tomline. Dr. Pretyman had
just been appointed Bishop of Lincoln when Fenn published his first two
volumes, and it was many years afterwards that he assumed the name of
Tomline. But whether these MSS. came to his hands or to Pitt’s, or under
what circumstances they were delivered to either, there is no evidence
to show. Possibly the King’s illness in 1788 prevented their being
placed, or, it may be, replaced, in the Royal Library, where they were
intended to remain.

The edition of these Letters published by Mr. Arber in 1872-75 was in
three volumes. It was printed from stereotype plates, and has been
reissued more than once by the Messrs. Constable with corrections, and
latterly with an additional volume containing the Preface and
Introduction by themselves, and a Supplement giving the full text of
those newly-found letters of which the reader had to be content with a
bare catalogue in 1875. My original aim to have a complete collection of
all extant Paston Letters had been defeated; and there seemed nothing
for it but to let them remain even at the last in a general series, an
Appendix and a Supplement. The present publishers, however, by
arrangement with Messrs. Constable, were anxious to meet the wants of
scholars who desired to possess the letters, now that the collection
seems to be as complete as it is ever likely to be, in a single series,
and in a more luxurious form than that in which they have hitherto
appeared. I have accordingly rearranged the letters as desired--a task
not altogether without its difficulties when nice chronological
questions had to be weighed and the story of the Pastons in all its
details had for so many years ceased to occupy a foremost place in my
thoughts; and I trust that the unity of the series will now give
satisfaction. At the same time, the opportunity has not been lost of
rectifying such errors as have been brought to my notice, which could
not have been conveniently corrected in the stereotype editions.

Notwithstanding the recovery of the originals of the letters printed by
Fenn, it has not been thought necessary to edit these anew from the MSS.
Whether such a thing would be altogether practicable even now may
perhaps be a question; at all events it would have delayed the work
unduly. Fenn’s editing is, as I have shown in previous editions, fairly
satisfactory on the whole, and it is not to be supposed that a
comparison of all the printed letters with the original MSS. would lead
to results of very material consequence. A large number have been
compared already, and the comparison inspires the greatest confidence in
his care and accuracy. His misreadings are really very few, his method
of procedure having been such as to prevent their being either many or
serious; while as to his suppressions I have found no reason to believe,
from what examination I have been able to make, that any of them were of
very material importance.

It was not editorial carelessness on Fenn’s part which made a new
edition desirable in 1872. It was, first of all, the advance of
historical criticism since his day--or rather, perhaps, I should say, of
the means of verifying many things by the publication of historical
sources and the greater accessibility of historical records. And
secondly, the discovery of such a large number of unprinted documents
belonging to the Paston Collection made it possible to study that
collection as a whole, and fill up the outlines of information which
they contained on matters both public and private. On this subject I may
be allowed simply to quote what I said in 1872 in the preface to the
first volume:--

  ‘The errors in Fenn’s chronology are numerous, and so exceedingly
  misleading that, indispensable as these Letters now are to the
  historian, there is not a single historian who has made use of them
  but has misdated some event or other, owing to their inaccurate
  arrangement. Even writers who have been most on their guard in some
  places have suffered themselves to be misled in others. This is no
  reproach to the former Editor, whose work is indeed a perfect model
  of care and accuracy for the days in which he lived; but historical
  criticism has advanced since that time, and facilities abound which
  did not then exist for comparing one set of documents with another,
  and testing the accuracy of dates by public records. The completion
  of Blomefield’s _History of Norfolk_, and the admirable index added
  to that work of late years by Mr. Chadwick, have also been of
  eminent service in verifying minute facts. Moreover, the
  comprehensive study of the whole correspondence, with the advantage
  of having a part already published to refer to, has enabled me in
  many cases to see the exact bearing of particular letters, which
  before seemed to have no certain place in the chronology, not only
  upon public events, but upon the Private affairs of the Paston
  family. . . .

  [Sidenote: Accuracy of Fenn’s text.] ‘The care taken by Sir John
  Fenn to secure the accuracy of his text can be proved by many tests.
  It might, indeed, be inferred from the elaborate plan of editing
  that he adopted, exhibiting in every case two transcripts of the
  same letter, the one to show the precise spelling and punctuation of
  the original, the other to facilitate the perusal by modern
  orthography. A work on which so much pains were bestowed, and which
  was illustrated besides by numerous facsimiles of the original
  handwritings, signatures, paper-marks, and seals of the letters, was
  not likely to have been executed in a slovenly manner, in so far as
  the text is concerned. But we are not left in this case to mere
  presumptive evidence. The originals of the fifth volume have been
  minutely examined by a committee of the Society of Antiquaries, and
  compared all through with the printed text, and the general result
  of this examination was that the errors are very few, and for the
  most part trivial. Now, if this was the case with regard to that
  volume, which it must be remembered was published after Fenn’s death
  from transcripts prepared for the press, and had not the benefit of
  a final revision of the proof-sheets by the editor, we have surely
  every reason to suppose that the preceding volumes were at least not
  less accurate.

  ‘At all events, any inaccuracies that may exist in them were
  certainly not the result of negligence. I have been favoured by Mr.
  Almack, of Melford, near Sudbury, in Suffolk, with the loan of
  several sheets of MS. notes bequeathed to him by the late Mr.
  Dalton, of Bury St. Edmunds, who transcribed a number of the
  original MSS. for Sir John Fenn. These papers contain a host of
  minute queries and criticisms, which were the result of a close
  examination of the first four volumes, undertaken at Fenn’s request.
  Those on the first two volumes are dated on the 3rd and 7th of May
  1788, more than a year after the book was published. But on vols.
  iii. and iv. there are two separate sets of observations, the first
  of which were made on the transcripts before they were sent to
  press, the other, like those on the two first volumes, on the
  published letters. From an examination of these criticisms, and also
  from the results of the examination of the fifth volume by the
  committee of the Society of Antiquaries,[13-1] I have been led to
  the opinion that the manner in which Sir John Fenn prepared his
  materials for the press was as follows:-- [Sidenote: Mode in which
  Fenn prepared the letters for publication.] Two copies were first
  made of every letter, the one in the exact spelling and punctuation
  of the original, the other in modern orthography. Both these copies
  were taken direct from the original, and possibly in the case of the
  first two volumes they were both made by Fenn himself. In vols. iii.
  and iv., however, it is stated that many of the transcripts were
  made by Mr. Dalton, while those of vol. v. were found to be almost
  all in his handwriting when that volume was sent to press in
  1823.[13-2] But this statement probably refers only to the copies in
  the antique spelling. Those in modern spelling I believe to have
  been made for the most part, if not altogether, by Fenn himself.
  When completed, the two copies were placed side by side, and given
  to Mr. Dalton to take home with him. Mr. Dalton then made a close
  comparison of the two versions, and pointed out every instance in
  which he found the slightest disagreement between them, or where he
  thought an explanation might be usefully bracketed into the modern
  version. These comments in the case of vol. iii. are upwards of 400
  in number, and extend over eighteen closely written pages quarto. It
  is clear that they one and all received the fullest consideration
  from Sir John Fenn before the work was published. Every one of the
  discrepancies pointed out between the two versions is rectified in
  the printed volume, and there cannot be a doubt that in every such
  case the original MS. was again referred to, to settle the disputed
  reading.

  ‘One or two illustrations of this may not be unacceptable to the
  reader. The following are among the observations made by Mr. Dalton
  on the transcripts of vol. iii. as prepared for press. [Sidenote:
  Examples.] In Letter viii. was a passage in which occurred the
  words, “that had of your father certain lands _one_ seven years or
  eight years agone.” Mr. Dalton’s experience as a transcriber appears
  to have suggested to him that “one” was a very common misreading of
  the word “over” in ancient MSS., and he accordingly suggested that
  word as making better sense. His surmise turned out to be the true
  reading, and the passage stands corrected accordingly in the printed
  volume. In Letter xxiv. there was a discrepancy in the date between
  the transcript in ancient spelling and the modern version. In the
  latter it was “the 4th day of December,” whereas the former gave it
  as the 3rd. On examination it appears that the _modern_ version was
  found to be correct, a Roman “iiij.” having been misread in the
  other as “iij.” Thus we have very sufficient evidence that the
  modern copy could not have been taken from the ancient, but was made
  independently from the original MS. Another instance of the same
  thing occurs in the beginning of Letter xli., where the words “to my
  power” had been omitted in the literal transcript, but were found in
  the modern copy.

  ‘Mr. Dalton’s part in the work of transcription appears clearly in
  several of his observations. One of the transcripts is frequently
  referred to as “my copy”; and an observation made on Letter lxxxvi.
  shows pretty clearly that the copy so referred to was the literal
  one. At the bottom of that letter is the following brief
  postscript:--“Utinam iste mundus malignus transiret et
  concupiscentia ejus”; on which Mr. Dalton remarks as follows:--“I
  have added this on _your_ copy as supposing it an oversight, and
  hope it is properly inserted.” Thus it appears that Mr. Dalton’s own
  transcript had the words which were deficient in the other, and
  that, being tolerably certain they existed in the original, he
  transferred them to the copy made by Fenn. Now when it is considered
  that these words are written in the original MS. with peculiarly
  crabbed contractions, which had to be preserved in the literal
  version as exactly as they could be represented in type,[15-1] it
  will, I think, appear evident that Mr. Dalton could never have
  ventured to supply them in such a form without the original before
  him. It is clear, therefore, that his copy was the literal
  transcript, and that of Fenn the modern version.

  ‘Again, in Letter xxxi. of the same volume, on the second last line
  of page 137, occur the words, “that he obey not the certiorari.” On
  this passage occurs the following query--“The word for ‘obey’ seems
  unintelligible. Have I not erred from the original in my copy?”
  Another case will show how by this examination the errors of the
  original transcripts were eliminated. In Letter xxxiv., at the
  bottom of pp. 144-5, occurs the name of Will or William Staunton. It
  appears this name was first transcribed as “Robert Fraunton” in the
  right or modern version; on which Mr. Dalton remarks, “It is William
  in orig.” (Mr. Dalton constantly speaks of the transcript in ancient
  spelling as the “original” in these notes, though it is clear he had
  not the real original before him at the time he made them).
  Strangely enough, Mr. Dalton does not suspect the surname as well as
  the Christian name, but it is clear that both were wrong, and that
  they were set right in consequence of this query directing the
  editor’s attention once more to the original MS.’

    [Footnote 13-1: _Archæol._ vol. xli. p. 39.]

    [Footnote 13-2: _See_ Advertisement in the beginning of the
    volume, p. vii.]

    [Footnote 15-1: The following is the exact form in which they
    stand in the literal or left-hand version:--‘Utia’z iste mu’d
    maligu{s} t’nsir{t} & c’up’ia e{s}.’]

  [[‘The care taken by Sir John
  _opening quotation mark missing_]]

To this I may add some further evidences of Fenn’s editorial care and
accuracy. When the second volume of my first edition was published in
1874, my attention was called, as already mentioned, to the existence at
Holland House of the original of one of those letters[15-2] which I had
reprinted from Fenn. It was one of the letters in Fenn’s third volume,
and only one[15-3] other letter in that volume had then turned up.
I carefully compared both these papers with the documents as printed,
and in both, as I remarked in the Preface to vol. ii., the exact spelling
was given with the most scrupulous accuracy, so that there was scarcely
the most trivial variation between the originals and the printed text.
But a more careful estimate, alike of Fenn’s merits and of his defects
as an editor, became possible when, on the publication of the third
volume of the same edition, I was able, as I have already shown, to
announce at the last moment the result of a cursory inspection of the
originals of his third and fourth volumes. And what I said at that time
may be here transcribed:--

  ‘The recovery of these long-lost originals, although, unfortunately,
  too late to be of the use it might have been in this edition, is
  important in two ways: first, as affording an additional means of
  testing Fenn’s accuracy as an editor; and secondly, as a means of
  testing the soundness of some occasional inferences which the
  present Editor was obliged to draw for himself in the absence of the
  originals. More than one instance occurs in this work in which it
  will be seen that I have ventured to eliminate from the text as
  spurious a heading printed by Fenn as if it were a part of the
  document which it precedes. Thus, in No. 19,[16-1] I pointed out
  that the title, in which Judge Paston is called “Sir William Paston,
  knight,” could not possibly be contemporaneous; and the document
  itself shows that this opinion was well founded. It bears, indeed,
a   modern endorsement in a handwriting of the last century much to the
  same effect as Sir John Fenn’s heading; but this, of course, is no
  authority at all. In the same way I showed that the title printed by
  Fenn, as a heading to No. 191,[16-2] was utterly erroneous, and
  could not possibly have existed in the original MS. This conclusion
  is also substantiated by the document, which, I may add, bears in
  the margin the heading “Copia,” showing that it was a transcript.
  The document itself being an important State Paper, there were
  probably a number of copies made at the time; but as no others have
  been preserved, it is only known to us as one of the Paston Letters.

  ‘Another State Paper (No. 238),[16-3] of which a copy was likewise
  sent to John Paston, has a heading which Sir John Fenn very
  curiously misread. It is printed in this edition[16-4] as it stands
  in the first, _Vadatur J. P._, meaning apparently “John Paston gives
  security, or stands pledged.” But it turns out on examination that
  the reading of the original is _Tradatur J. P._ (Let this be
  delivered to John Paston).

  ‘To return to No. 19, it will be seen that I was obliged to reprint
  from Fenn in the preliminary note a few words which he had found
  written on the back of the letter, of which it was difficult to make
  any perfect sense, but which seemed to imply that the bill was
  delivered to Parliament in the 13th year of Henry VI. I pointed out
  that there seemed to be some error in this, as no Parliament
  actually met in the 13th year of Henry VI. The original endorsement,
  however, is perfectly intelligible and consistent with facts, when
  once it has been accurately deciphered. The handwriting, indeed, is
  very crabbed, and for a considerable time I was puzzled; but the
  words are as follows:--“Falsa billa Will’i Dallyng ad parliamentum
  tempore quo Henricus Grey fuit vicecomes, ante annum terciodecimum
  Regis Henrici vj{ti}.” I find as a matter of fact that Henry Grey
  was sheriff (_vicecomes_) of Norfolk, first in the 8th and 9th, and
  again in the 12th and 13th year of Henry VI., and that Parliament
  sat in November and December of the 12th year (1433); so that the
  date of the document is one year earlier than that assigned to it.

  ‘Again, I ventured to question on internal evidence the authorship
  of a letter (No. 910)[17-1] which Fenn had assigned to William
  Paston, the uncle of Sir John Paston. At the end is the signature
  “Wyll’m Paston,” with a reference in Fenn to a facsimile engraved in
  a previous volume. But the evidence seemed to me very strong that
  the William Paston who wrote this letter was not Sir John’s uncle,
  but his brother. The inspection of the original letter itself has
  proved to me that I was right. The signatures of the two Williams
  were not altogether unlike each other; but the signature appended to
  this letter is unquestionably that of the younger man, not of his
  uncle; while the facsimile, to which Fenn erroneously refers the
  reader, is that of the uncle’s signature taken from a different
  letter.

  ‘It may perhaps be conceived that if even these few errors could be
  detected in Fenn’s work by one who had not yet an opportunity of
  consulting the original MSS., a large number of others would be
  discovered by a minute comparison of the printed volumes with the
  letters themselves. This suspicion, however, is scarcely borne out
  by the facts. I cannot profess to have made anything like an
  exhaustive examination, but so far as I have compared these MSS.
  with the printed text, I find no evidence of more than very
  occasional inaccuracy, and, generally speaking, in matters very
  immaterial. On the contrary, an inspection of these last recovered
  originals has greatly confirmed the opinion, which the originals
  previously discovered enabled me to form, of the scrupulous fidelity
  and care with which the letters were first edited. For the most
  part, not only the words, but the exact spelling of the MSS. is
  preserved, with merely the most trifling variations. Sir John,
  indeed, was not a trained archivist, and there are what may be
  called errors of system in his mode of reading, such as, for
  instance, the omission of contractions that may be held to represent
  a final _e_, or the rendering a final dash by _s_ instead of _es_.
  In such things the plan that he pursued was obvious. But it is
  manifest that in other respects he is very accurate indeed; for he
  had made so careful a study of these MSS. that he was quite familiar
  with most of the ancient modes of handwriting, and, on the whole,
  very seldom mistook a reading.

  ‘I may add, that this recent discovery enables me to vindicate his
  accuracy in one place, even where it seemed before to be very
  strangely at fault. At the end of Letter iii. of the fifth
  volume,[18-1] occurs in the original edition the following
  postscript:--“I warn you keep this letter close, and lose it not;
  rather burn it.” On comparing this letter with the original, the
  Committee of the Society of Antiquaries, some years ago, were amazed
  to find that there was no such postscript in the MS., and they were
  a good deal at a loss to account for its insertion. It now appears,
  however, that this letter was preserved in duplicate, for among the
  newly-recovered MSS. I discovered a second copy, being a corrected
  draft, in Margaret Paston’s own hand, at the end of which occurs the
  P.S. in question.

  ‘It must be acknowledged, however, that Fenn’s mode of editing was
  not in all respects quite so satisfactory. Defects, of which no one
  could reasonably have complained in his own day, are now a serious
  drawback, especially where the original MSS. are no longer
  accessible. Occasionally, as we have seen, he inserts a heading of
  his own in the text of a document without any intimation that it is
  not in the original; but this is so rare a matter that little need
  be said about it. A more serious fault is, that in vols. iii. and
  iv. he has published occasionally mere extracts from a letter as if
  it were the whole letter. In vols. i. and ii. he avowedly left out
  passages of little interest, and marked the places where they
  occurred with asterisks; but in the two succeeding volumes he has
  not thought it necessary to be so particular, and he has made the
  omissions _sub silentio_. For this indeed no one can seriously blame
  him. The work itself, as he had planned it, was only a selection of
  letters from a correspondence, and a liberal use of asterisks would
  not have helped to make it more interesting to the public.
  Occasionally he even inverts the order of his extracts, printing a
  postscript, or part of a postscript, in the body of a letter, and
  placing at the end some passage that occurs in the letter itself,
  for no other reason apparently than that it might read better as a
  whole.

  ‘Thus Letter 37 of this edition[18-2] (vol. iii., Letter vi., in
  Fenn) is only a brief extract, the original being a very long
  letter, though the subjects touched upon are not of very great
  interest. So also Letter 171 (Letter xxx. in Fenn’s third
  volume)[18-3] is a set of extracts. Letter 182 (vol. iii., Letter
  xxxix., in Fenn)[18-4] is the same; and the first part of what is
  given as a postscript is not a postscript in the original, but
  actually comes before the first printed paragraph.

  ‘In short, it was the aim of Sir John Fenn to reproduce with
  accuracy the spelling and the style of the MSS. he had before him;
  but as for the substance, to give only so much as he thought would
  be really interesting. The letters themselves he regarded rather as
  specimens of epistolary art in the fifteenth century than as a
  substantial contribution to our knowledge of the times. To have
  given a complete transcript of every letter, or even a _résumé_ in
  his own words of all that concerned lawsuits, leases, bailiffs’
  accounts, and a number of other matters of equally little interest,
  formed no part of his design; but the task that he had really set
  himself he executed with admirable fidelity. He grudged no labour or
  expense in tracing facsimiles of the signatures, the seals, and the
  watermarks on the paper. All that could serve to illustrate the
  manners of the period, either in the contents of the letters, or in
  the handwritings, or the mode in which they were folded, he esteemed
  most valuable; and for these things his edition will continue still
  to be much prized. But as it was clearly impossible in that day to
  think of printing the whole correspondence, and determining
  precisely the chronology by an exhaustive study of minutiæ, there
  seemed no good reason why he should not give two or three paragraphs
  from a letter without feeling bound to specify that they were merely
  extracts. Yet even these defects are not of frequent occurrence. The
  omissions are by no means numerous, and the matter they contain is
  generally unimportant in itself.’

    [Footnote 15-2: No. 38 in that edition, No. 52 in this.]

    [Footnote 15-3: It was Letter 1 in Fenn’s third volume, No. 18 in
    my first edition, No. 24 in this.]

    [Footnote 16-1: No. 25 in present edition.]

    [Footnote 16-2: No. 230 in present edition.]

    [Footnote 16-3: No. 282 in present edition.]

    [Footnote 16-4: That is to say, in the edition published by Mr.
    Arber in 1875, when it was impossible to correct the text.]

    [Footnote 17-1: No. 1033 in present edition.]

    [Footnote 18-1: No. 787 of this edition.]

    [Footnote 18-2: No. 51 of present edition.]

    [Footnote 18-3: No. 205.]

    [Footnote 18-4: No. 221.]

I took advantage, however, at that time, of the recovery of so many of
the missing originals to make a cursory examination for the further
testing of Fenn’s editorial accuracy. Two or three letters I compared
carefully with the originals throughout, and in others I made special
reference to passages where doubts were naturally suggested, either from
the obscurity of the words or from any other cause as to the correctness
of the reading. The results of this examination I gave in an Appendix at
the end of the Introduction to the third volume in 1875, and such errors
as I was then able to detect are corrected in the present edition.

Apart from such corrections, the letters are here reproduced as they are
printed in previous editions, only in a better order. Fenn’s text has
been followed, where no corrections have been found, in all the letters
printed by him except those of his fifth volume. The exact transcript
given on the left-hand pages of Fenn’s edition has been strictly adhered
to, except that contractions have been extended; and even in this
process we have always been guided by the interpretation given by Fenn
himself in his modern version on the right-hand pages. All the other
letters in this publication are edited from the original MSS., with a
very few exceptions in which these cannot be found. In some places,
indeed, where the contents of a letter are of very little interest, it
has been thought sufficient merely to give an abstract instead of a
transcript, placing the abstract in what is believed to be its true
place in the series chronologically. Abstracts are also given of
documents that are too lengthy and formal to be printed, and, in one
case, of a letter sold at a public sale, of which a transcript is not
now procurable. In the same manner, wherever I have found the slightest
note or reference, whether in Fenn’s footnotes or in Blomefield’s
_Norfolk_--where a few such references may be met with--to any letter
that appears originally to have belonged to the Paston correspondence,
even though the original be now inaccessible, and our information about
the contents the most scanty, the reader will find a notice of all that
is known about the missing document in the present publication.

I wish it were in my power to make the present edition better still. But
there have been always formidable obstacles to completeness during the
thirty years and more since I first took up the business of editing the
letters; and though many of these obstacles have been removed, my
energies are naturally not quite what they once were. The publishers,
however, have thought it time for a more satisfactory edition, and I
hope I have done my best. It remains to say a few words about the
original MSS. and the places in which they now exist.

Of those at Orwell Park I have already spoken. They are contained in
three half-bound volumes, and are the originals of the letters printed
by Fenn in his first and second volumes.

In the British Museum are contained, first of all, four volumes of the
‘Additional MSS.’ numbered 27,443 to 27,446, consisting of the originals
of volume v. of Fenn’s edition which was published after his death, and
a number of other letters first printed by me in the edition of 1872-75.
The nine volumes which follow these, viz. ‘Additional MSS.,’
27,447-27,455, contain also Paston letters but of a later date, and
papers relating to Sir John Fenn’s publication. There is also a separate
volume of ‘Paston letters’ in ‘Additional MS.’ 33,597; but these, too,
are mostly of later date, only eight being of the fifteenth century.
Further, there are the Roydon Hall MSS. (including with, I believe, only
two exceptions the originals of Fenn’s third and fourth volumes), which
are contained in the volumes ‘Additional,’ 34,888-9. And finally there
are two Paston letters (included in this edition) in ‘Additional MS.’
35,251. These are all that are in the British Museum. Besides these
there are, as above noticed, a few MSS. in a volume of the Douce
Collection and the other stray MSS. in the Bodleian Library at Oxford
above referred to. At Oxford, also, though not strictly belonging to the
Paston family correspondence, are a number of valuable papers, some of
which are included in this edition, having an important bearing on the
fortunes of the family. These are among the muniments contained in the
tower of Magdalene College. As the execution of Sir John Fastolf’s will
ultimately devolved upon Bishop Waynflete, who, instead of a college at
Caister, made provision for a foundation of seven priests and seven poor
scholars in Magdalene College, a number of papers relative to the
disputes between the executors and the arrangement between the Bishop
and John Paston’s sons have been preserved among the documents of that
college. My attention was first called to these many years ago by Mr.
Macray, through whom I obtained copies, in the first place, of some
entries from an old index of the deeds relating to Norfolk and Suffolk,
which had already been referred to by Chandler in his Life of Bishop
Waynflete. Afterwards Mr. Macray, who had for some time been engaged in
a catalogue of the whole collection, was obliging enough to send me one
or two abstracts of his own made from the original documents even before
he was able to refer me to his report on the muniments of Magdalene
College, printed in the Fourth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.
It will be seen that I have transcribed several interesting entries from
this source.

Further, there are just a few Paston letters preserved in Pembroke
College, Cambridge.


What remains to be said is only the confession of personal obligations,
incurred mainly long ago in connection with this work. The lapse of
years since my first edition of these letters was issued, in 1872,
naturally reminds me of the loss of various friends who favoured and
assisted it in various ways. Among these were the late Colonel Chester,
Mr. H. C. Coote, Mr. Richard Almack of Melford, Mr. W. H. Turner of
Oxford, Mr. J. H. Gurney, Mr. Fitch, and Mr. L’Estrange of Norwich. On
the other hand, I am happy to reckon still among the living Dr. Jessopp,
Mr. Aldis Wright, Miss Toulmin Smith, and Mr. J. C. C. Smith, now a
retired official of the Probate Office at Somerset House, who all gave
me kindly help so long ago. And I have further to declare my obligations
to Mr. Walter Rye, a gentleman well known as the best living authority
on Norfolk topography and families, for most friendly and useful
assistance in the way of notes and suggestions towards later editions.
I have also quite recently received help (confessed elsewhere) from the
Rev. William Hudson of Eastbourne, and have further had my attention
called to significant documents in the Public Record Office by some of
my old friends and colleagues there.

But among the departed, there is one whom I have reserved for mention by
himself, not so much for any particular assistance given me long ago in
the preparation of this work as for the previous education in historical
study which I feel that I received from intercourse with him. I had been
years engaged in the public service, and always thought that the records
of the realm ought to be better utilised than they were in those days
for the purpose of historical research; but how even Record clerks were
to become well acquainted with them under the conditions then existing
it was difficult to see. For each of us had his own little task assigned
to him, and had really very little opportunity, if ever so willing, to
go beyond it. Nor was there too much encouragement given under official
regulations to anything like historical training; for the Record Office,
when first constituted, was supposed to exist for the sake of litigants
who wanted copies of documents, rather than for that of historical
students who wanted to read them with other objects. Besides, people did
not generally imagine then that past history could be rewritten, except
by able and graphic pens which, perhaps, could put new life into old
facts without a very large amount of additional research. The idea that
the country contained vast stores of long-neglected letters capable of
yielding up copious new information to supplement and to correct the old
story of our national annals had hardly dawned upon anybody--least of
all, perhaps, on humble officials bound to furnish office copies of
‘fines’ and ‘recoveries’ and antiquated legal processes. Even the State
Papers, at that time, were kept apart from the Public Records, and could
only be consulted by special permission from a Secretary of State. No
clerk, either of the Record or State Paper Department, knew more than
was contained within his own particular province. But by the wise policy
of the late Lord Romilly these red-tape bands were ultimately broken;
and just at that time I had the rare privilege of being appointed to
assist the late Reverend John S. Brewer in one of the great works which
his Lordship set on foot to enable the British public to understand the
value of its own MSS. It was to this association with Mr. Brewer that I
feel I owe all my historical training, and I made some acknowledgment of
that debt in 1872 when I dedicated to him my first edition of this work.



INTRODUCTION


_The Paston Family_

The little village of Paston, in Norfolk, lies not far from the sea,
where the land descends gently behind the elevated ground of Mundesley,
and the line of the shore, proceeding eastward from Cromer, begins to
tend a little more towards the south. It is about twenty miles north of
Norwich. The country, though destitute of any marked features, is not
uninteresting. Southwards, where it is low and flat, the ruins of
Bromholm Priory attract attention. But, on the whole, it is an
out-of-the-way district, unapproachable by sea, for the coast is
dangerous, and offering few attractions to those who visit it by land.
Indeed, till quite recently, no railways had come near it, and the means
of access were not superabundant. Here, however, lived for several
centuries a family which took its surname from the place, and whose
private correspondence at one particular epoch sheds no inconsiderable
light on the annals of their country.

Of the early history of this family our notices are scanty and
uncertain. A Norman descent was claimed for them not only by the county
historian Blomefield but by the laborious herald, Francis Sandford,
author of a _Genealogical History of the Kings of England_, on the
evidence of documents which have been since dispersed. Sandford’s
genealogy of the Paston family was drawn up in the year 1674, just after
Sir Robert Paston had been raised to the peerage by the title of
Viscount Yarmouth, before he was promoted to the higher dignity of earl.
It still remains in MS.; but a pretty full account of it will be found
in the fourth volume of _Norfolk Archæology_. The story of the early
ancestors, however, does not concern us here. At the time the family and
their doings become best known to us, their social position was merely
that of small gentry. One of these, however, was a justice of the Common
Pleas in the reign of Henry VI., whose uprightness of conduct caused him
to be commonly spoken of by the name of the Good Judge. He had a son,
John, brought up to the law, who became executor to the old soldier and
statesman, Sir John Fastolf. This John Paston had a considerable family,
of whom the two eldest sons, strange to say, both bore the same
Christian name as their father. They were also both of them soldiers,
and each, in his time, attained the dignity of knighthood. But of them
and their father, and their grandfather the judge, we shall have more to
say presently. After them came Sir William Paston, a lawyer, one of
whose daughters, Eleanor, married Thomas Manners, first Earl of Rutland.
He had also two sons, of whom the first, Erasmus, died before him.
[Sidenote: Clement Paston.] The second, whose name was Clement, was
perhaps the most illustrious of the whole line. Born at Paston Hall, in
the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, he had an early love for ships,
was admitted when young into the naval service of Henry VIII., and
became a great commander. In an engagement with the French he captured
their admiral, the Baron de St. Blankheare or Blankard, and kept him
prisoner at Caister, near Yarmouth, till he had paid 7000 crowns for his
ransom, besides giving up a number of valuables contained in his ship.
Of this event Clement Paston preserved till his death a curious memorial
among his household utensils, and we read in his will that he bequeathed
to his nephew his ‘standing bowl called the Baron St. Blankheare.’ He
served also by land as well as by sea, and was with the Protector
Somerset in Scotland at the battle of Pinkie. In Mary’s reign he is said
to have been the person to whom the rebel Sir Thomas Wyat surrendered.
In his later years he was more peacefully occupied in building a fine
family seat at Oxnead. He lived till near the close of the reign of
Elizabeth, having earned golden opinions from each of the sovereigns
under whom he served. ‘Henry VIII.,’ we are told, ‘called him his
champion; the Duke of Somerset, Protector in King Edward’s reign, called
him his soldier; Queen Mary, her seaman; and Queen Elizabeth, her
father.’[27-1]

    [Footnote 27-1: Blomefield’s _History of Norfolk_, vi. 487, 488.]

Clement Paston died childless, and was succeeded by his nephew, another
Sir William, whose name is well known in Norfolk as the founder of North
Walsham School, and whose effigy in armour is visible in North Walsham
Church, with a Latin epitaph recording acts of munificence on his part,
not only to the grammar-school, but also to the cathedrals of Bath and
Norwich, to Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and to the poor at
Yarmouth.

From Sir William the line descended through Christopher Paston (who, on
succeeding his father, was found to be an idiot, incapable of managing
his affairs), Sir Edmund and Sir William Paston, Baronet, to Sir Robert
Paston, who, in the reign of Charles II., was created, first Viscount
and afterwards Earl of Yarmouth. [Sidenote: The Earl of Yarmouth.] He is
described as a person of good learning, and a traveller who brought home
a number of curiosities collected in foreign countries. Before he was
raised to the peerage he sat in Parliament for Castle Rising. It was he
who, in the year 1664, was bold enough to propose to the House of
Commons the unprecedented grant of two and a half millions to the king
for a war against the Dutch.[27-2] This act not unnaturally brought him
into favour with the Court, and paved the way for his advancement.
Another incident in his life is too remarkable to be passed over. On the
9th of August 1676 he was waylaid while travelling in the night-time by
a band of ruffians, who shot five bullets into his coach, one of which
entered his body. The wound, however, was not mortal, and he lived six
years longer.

    [Footnote 27-2: Clarendon’s _Life_, ii. 440.]

His relations with the Court were not altogether of good omen for his
family. We are told that he once entertained the king and queen, and the
king’s brother, James, Duke of York, with a number of the nobility, at
his family seat at Oxnead. His son, William, who became second Earl of
Yarmouth, married the Lady Charlotte Boyle, one of King Charles’s
natural daughters. This great alliance, and all the magnificence it
involved, was too much for his slender fortunes. Earl William was led
into a profuse expenditure which involved him in pecuniary difficulties.
He soon deeply encumbered his inheritance; the library and the
curiosities collected by his accomplished father had to be sold. The
magnificent seat at Oxnead was allowed to fall into ruin; and on the
death of this second earl it was pulled down, and the materials turned
into money to satisfy his creditors. The family line itself came to an
end, for Earl William had survived all his male issue, and the title
became extinct.

From this brief summary of the family history we must now turn to a more
specific account of William Paston, the old judge in the days of Henry
VI., and of his children. [Sidenote: Thrifty ancestors.] Of them, and of
their more immediate ancestor Clement, we have a description drawn by an
unfriendly hand some time after the judge’s death; and as it is,
notwithstanding its bias, our sole authority for some facts which should
engage our attention at the outset, we cannot do better than quote the
paper at length:--

  ‘_A remembrance of the worshipful kin and ancestry of Paston, born
  in Paston in Gemyngham Soken._

  ‘First, There was one Clement Paston dwelling in Paston, and he was
  a good, plain husband (_i.e._ husbandman), and lived upon his land
  that he had in Paston, and kept thereon a plough all times in the
  year, and sometimes in barlysell two ploughs. The said Clement yede
  (_i.e._ went) at one plough both winter and summer, and he rode to
  mill on the bare horseback with his corn under him, and brought home
  meal again under him, and also drove his cart with divers corns to
  Wynterton to sell, as a good husband[man] ought to do. Also, he had
  in Paston a five score or a six score acres of land at the most, and
  much thereof bond land to Gemyngham Hall, with a little poor
  water-mill running by a little river there, as it appeareth there of
  old time. Other livelode nor manors had he none there, nor in none
  other place.

  ‘And he wedded Geoffrey of Somerton (whose true surname is Goneld)’s
  sister, which was a bondwoman, to whom it is not unknown (to the
  prior of Bromholm and Bakton also, as it is said) if that men will
  inquire.

  ‘And as for Geoffrey Somerton, he was bond also, to whom, etc., he
  was both a pardoner and an attorney; and then was a good world, for
  he gathered many pence and half-pence, and therewith he made a fair
  chapel at Somerton, as it appeareth, etc.

  ‘Also, the said Clement had a son William, which that he set to
  school, and often he borrowed money to find him to school; and after
  that he yede (went) to court with the help of Geoffrey Somerton, his
  uncle, and learned the law, and there begat he much good; and then
  he was made a serjeant, and afterwards made a justice, and a right
  cunning man in the law. And he purchased much land in Paston, and
  also he purchased the moiety of the fifth part of the manor of
  Bakton, called either Latymer’s, or Styward’s, or Huntingfield,
  which moiety stretched into Paston; and so with it, and with another
  part of the said five parts he hath seignory in Paston, but no manor
  place; and thereby would John Paston, son to the said William, make
  himself a lordship there, to the Duke (qu. Duchy?) of Lancaster’s
  great hurt.

  ‘And the said John would and hath untruly increased him by one
  tenant, as where that the prior of Bromholm borrowed money of the
  said William for to pay withal his dismes, the said William would
  not lend it him unless the said prior would mortgage to the said
  William one John Albon, the said prior’s bondsman, dwelling in
  Paston, which was a stiff churl and a thrifty man, and would not
  obey him unto the said William; and for that cause, and for evil
  will that the said William had unto him, he desired him of the
  prior. And now after the death of the said William, the said John
  Albon died; and now John Paston, son to the said William, by force
  of the mortgage sent for the son of the said John Albon to Norwich.’

The reader will probably be of opinion that several of the facts here
recorded are by no means so discreditable to the Pastons as the writer
certainly intended that they should appear. The object of the whole
paper is to cast a stigma on the family in general, as a crafty,
money-getting race who had risen above their natural rank and station.
It is insinuated that they were originally mere _adscripti glebæ_; that
Clement Paston was only a thrifty husbandman (note the original
signification of the word, ‘housebondman’), that he married a bondwoman,
and transmitted to his son and grandson lands held by a servile tenure;
and the writer further contends that they had no manorial rights in
Paston, although William Paston, the justice, had purchased land in the
neighbourhood, and his son John was endeavouring to ‘make himself a
lordship’ there to the prejudice of the rights of the Duchy of
Lancaster. It is altogether a singular statement, very interesting in
its bearing upon the obscure question of the origin of copyholds, and
the gradual emancipation of villeins. Whether it be true or false is
another question; if true, it appears to discredit entirely the supposed
Norman ancestry of the Pastons; but the remarkable thing is that an
imputation of this kind could have been preferred against a family who,
whatever may have been their origin, had certainly long before obtained
a recognised position in the county.

It would appear, however, from the accuser’s own statement, that Clement
Paston, the father of the justice, was an industrious peasant, who
tilled his own land, and who set so high a value on a good education
that he borrowed money to keep his son at school. With the help of his
brother-in-law, he also sent the young man to London to learn the law,
a profession which in that day, as in the present, was considered to
afford an excellent education for a gentleman.[30-1] The good education
was not thrown away. [Sidenote: William Paston the justice.] William
Paston rose in the profession and became one of its ornaments. He
improved his fortunes by marrying Agnes, daughter and heiress of Sir
Edmund Berry of Harlingbury Hall, in Hertfordshire. Some years before
his father’s death, Richard Courtenay, Bishop of Norwich, appointed him
his steward. In 1414 he was called in, along with two others, to
mediate in a dispute which had for some time prevailed in the city of
Norwich, as to the mode in which the mayors should be elected; and
he had the good fortune with his coadjutors to adjust the matter
satisfactorily.[30-2] In 1421 he was made a serjeant, and in 1429 a
judge of the Common Pleas.[30-3] Before that time we find him acting
as trustee for various properties, as of the Appleyard family in
Dunston,[30-4] of Sir Richard Carbonel,[30-5] Sir Simon Felbrigg,[30-6]
John Berney,[31-1] Sir John Rothenhale,[31-2] Sir John Gyney of
Dilham,[31-3] Lord Cobham,[31-4] and Ralph Lord Cromwell.[31-5] He was
also executor to Sir William Calthorp.[31-6] The confidence reposed in
him by so many different persons is a remarkable testimony to the esteem
in which he was held. He was, moreover, appointed one of the king’s
council for the duchy of Lancaster, and on his elevation to the judicial
bench the king gave him a salary of 110 marks (£73, 6s. 8d.), with two
robes more than the ordinary allowance of the judges.

    [Footnote 30-1: ‘Here everything good and virtuous is to be
    learned; all vice is discouraged and banished. So that knights,
    barons, and the greatest nobility of the kingdom, often place
    their children in those Inns of Court; not so much to make the law
    their study, much less to live by the profession (having large
    patrimonies of their own), but to form their manners, and to
    preserve them from the contagion of vice.’--_Fortescue de Laudibus
    Legum Angliæ_ (ed. Amos), 185.]

    [Footnote 30-2: Blomefield’s _Norfolk_, iii. 126.]

    [Footnote 30-3: Dugdale’s _Origines_.]

    [Footnote 30-4: Blomefield, v. 56.]

    [Footnote 30-5: _Ibid._ ii. 257, 285; vii. 217.]

    [Footnote 30-6: _Ibid._ viii. 109.]

    [Footnote 31-1: Blomefield, x. 67.]

    [Footnote 31-2: _See_ Letter 13.]

    [Footnote 31-3: Blomefield, vi. 353.]

    [Footnote 31-4: _Ibid._ x. 176.]

    [Footnote 31-5: _Ibid._ v. 27.]

    [Footnote 31-6: _Ibid._ vi. 517.]

In addition to all this he is supposed to have been a knight, and is
called Sir William Paston in Fenn’s publication. But this dignity was
never conferred upon him in his own day. [Sidenote: Not a knight.] There
is, indeed, one paper printed by Fenn from the MSS. which were for a
long time missing that speaks of him in the heading as ‘Sir William
Paston, Knight’; but the original MS. since recovered shows that the
heading so printed is taken from an endorsement of a more modern date.
This was, indeed, a confident surmise of mine at a time when the MS. was
inaccessible; for it was clear that William Paston never could have been
knighted. His name occurs over and over again on the patent rolls of
Henry VI. He is named in at least one commission of the peace every year
to his death, and in a good many other commissions besides, as justices
invariably were. He is named also in many of the other papers of the
same collection, simply as William Paston of Paston, Esquire; and even
in the body of the petition so inaccurately headed, he is simply styled
William Paston, one of the justices. Nor does there appear to be any
other foundation for the error than that single endorsement. He left a
name behind him of so great repute, that Fuller could not help giving
him a place among his ‘Worthies of England,’ although, as he remarks, it
did not fall strictly within the plan of his work to notice a lawyer who
was neither a chief justice nor an author.

[Sidenote: His character.] Of his personal character we are entitled to
form a favourable estimate, not only from the honourable name conferred
on him as a judge, but also from the evidences already alluded to of the
general confidence felt in his integrity. True it is that among these
papers we have a complaint against him for accepting fees and pensions
when he was justice, from various persons in the counties of Norfolk and
Suffolk;[32-1] but this only proves, what we might have expected, that
he had enemies and cavillers as well as friends. Of the justice of the
charges in themselves we have no means of forming an independent
judgment; but in days when all England, and not least so the county of
Norfolk, was full of party spirit and contention, it was not likely that
a man in the position of William Paston should escape imputations of
partiality and one-sidedness. Before his elevation to the bench, he had
already suffered for doing his duty to more than one client. Having
defended the Prior of Norwich in an action brought against him by a
certain Walter Aslak, touching the advowson of the church of Sprouston,
the latter appears to have pursued him with unrelenting hatred. The
county of Norfolk was at the time ringing with the news of an outrage
committed by a band of unknown rioters at Wighton. On the last day of
the year 1423, one John Grys of Wighton had been entertaining company,
and was heated with ‘wassail,’ when he was suddenly attacked in his own
house. [Sidenote: Outrage by William Aslak.] He and his son and a
servant were carried a mile from home and led to a pair of gallows,
where it was intended to hang them; but as ropes were not at once to be
had, they were murdered in another fashion, and their bodies horribly
mutilated before death.[32-2] For nearly three years the murderers went
unpunished, while the country stood aghast at the crime. But while it
was still recent, at a county court holden at Norwich, Aslak caused a
number of bills, partly in rhyme, to be posted on the gates of Norwich
priory, and of the Grey Friars, and some of the city gates, distinctly
threatening William Paston with the fate of John Grys, and insinuating
that even worse things were in store for him.

    [Footnote 32-1: No. 25.]

    [Footnote 32-2: _See_ No. 6. Compare J. Amundesham Annales, 16. In
    the latter Grys’s Christian name is given as William, and the
    outrage is said to have taken place on Christmas Day instead of
    New Year’s Eve.]

Against open threats like these William Paston of course appealed to the
law; but law in those days was but a feeble protector. Aslak had the
powerful support of Sir Thomas Erpingham, by which he was enabled not
only to evade the execution of sentence passed against him, but even to
continue his persecution. He found means to deprive Paston of the favour
of the Duke of Norfolk, got bills introduced in Parliament to his
prejudice, and made it unsafe for him to stir abroad. The whole country
appears to have been disorganised by faction; quarrels at that very time
were rife in the king’s council-chamber itself, between Humphrey, Duke
of Gloucester, the Protector, and Bishop Beaufort; nor was anything so
firmly established by authority but that hopes might be entertained of
setting it aside by favour.

William Paston had two other enemies at this time. ‘I pray the Holy
Trinity,’ he writes in one place, ‘deliver me of my three adversaries,
this cursed Bishop for Bromholm, Aslak for Sprouston, and Julian Herberd
for Thornham.’ The bishop whom he mentions with so much vehemence,
claimed to be a kinsman of his own, and named himself John Paston, but
William Paston denied the relationship, maintaining that his true name
was John Wortes. [Sidenote: John Wortes.] He appears to have been in the
first place a monk of Bromholm, the prior of which monastery having
brought an action against him as an apostate from his order, engaged
William Paston as his counsel in the prosecution. Wortes, however,
escaped abroad, and brought the matter before the spiritual jurisdiction
of the court of Rome, bringing actions against both the prior and
William Paston, the latter of whom he got condemned in a penalty of
£205. On this William Paston was advised by friends at Rome to come at
once to an arrangement with him; but he determined to contest the
validity of the sentence, the result of which appears to have been that
he was excommunicated. His adversary, meanwhile, found interest to get
himself appointed and consecrated Bishop of Cork; and though his name
does not appear in the ordinary lists of bishops of that see, the
Vatican archives show that he was provided to it on the 23rd May
1425.[34-1]

    [Footnote 34-1: Nos. 10, 11, 12. Maziere Brady in his book on the
    _Episcopal Succession_, vol. ii. p. 79, gives the following entry
    from the archives of the Vatican:--

    ‘Die 10{o} kal. Junii 1425, provisum est ecclesiæ Corcagen. in
    Hibernia, vacanti per mortem Milis (_Milonis_), de persona Ven.
    Fratris Johannis Pasten, prioris conventualis Prioratus Bromholm,
    Ordinis Cluniacensis.’--_Vatican_.

    Also on Sept. 14, 1425, ‘Johannes Paston, Dei gratia electus
    Korkagen, solvit personaliter 120 florenos auri,’ etc.
    --_Obligazioni_.]

  [[Fratris Johannis Pasten ... Ordinis Cluniacensis.’
  _text reads ‘Fratis ... Chuniacensis’_]]

As for Julian Herberd, William Paston’s third enemy, we have hitherto
known nothing of her but the name. It appears, however, by some Chancery
proceedings[34-2] recently discovered, that Julian Herberd was a widow
who considered herself to have been wronged by Paston as regards her
mother’s inheritance, of which he had kept her from the full use for no
less than forty years. Paston had, indeed, made her some pecuniary
offers which she did not think sufficient, and she had attempted to
pursue her rights against him at a Parliament at Westminster, when he
caused her to be imprisoned in the King’s Bench. There, as she
grievously complains, she lay a year, suffering much and ‘nigh dead from
cold, hunger, and thirst.’ The case was apparently one of parliamentary
privilege, which she had violated by her attempted action, though she
adds that he threatened to keep her in prison for life if she would not
release to him her right, and give him a full acquittance. She also
accuses him of having actually procured one from her by coercion, and of
having by false suggestion to the Lord Chancellor caused her committal
to the Fleet, where she was kept for a whole year, ‘beaten, fettered,
and stocked,’ that no man might know where she was. At another time,
also, she says he kept her three years in the pit within Norwich Castle
on starvation diet. The accusation culminates in a charge which seems
really inconceivable:--

  ‘Item, the said Paston did bring her out of the Round House into
  your Palace and brought her afore your Chief Justice, and then the
  said Paston commanded certain persons to bring her to prison to your
  Bench, and bade at his peril certain persons to smite the brain out
  of her head for suing of her right; and there being in grievous
  prison during half year and more, fettered and chained, suffering
  cold, hunger, thirst, in point of death, God and ye, gracious King,
  help her to her right.’

    [Footnote 34-2: Printed in Appendix to this introduction.]

What we are to think of all this, not having Paston’s reply, I cannot
say.

Scanty and disconnected as are the notices we possess of William Paston,
we must not pass by without comment his letter to the vicar of the abbot
of Clugny, in behalf of Bromholm Priory.[35-1] It was not, indeed, the
only occasion[35-2] on which we find that he exerted himself in behalf
of this ancient monastery, within a mile of which, he tells us, he was
born. [Sidenote: Bromholm Priory.] Bromholm Priory was, in fact, about
that distance from Paston Hall, as miles were reckoned then (though it
is nearer two of our statute miles), and must have been regarded with
special interest by the family. It was there that John Paston, the son
of the judge, was sumptuously buried in the reign of Edward IV. It was a
monastery of some celebrity. Though not, at least in its latter days,
one of the most wealthy religious houses, for it fell among the smaller
monasteries at the first parliamentary suppression of Henry VIII., its
ruins still attest that it was by no means insignificant. Situated by
the sea-shore, with a flat, unbroken country round about, they are
conspicuous from a distance both by sea and land. Among the numerous
monasteries of Norfolk, none but Walsingham was more visited by
strangers, and many of the pilgrims to Walsingham turned aside on their
way homeward to visit the Rood of Bromholm. For this was a very special
treasure brought from Constantinople two hundred years before, and
composed of a portion of the wood of the true Cross. Many were the
miracles recorded to have been wrought in the monastery since that
precious relic was set up; the blind had received their sight, the lame
had walked, and lepers had been cleansed; even the dead had been
restored to life. It was impossible that a native of Paston could be
uninterested in a place so renowned throughout all England.

    [Footnote 35-1: No. 20.]

    [Footnote 35-2: _See_ No. 47, p. 56.]

Yet about this time the priory must have been less prosperous than it
had once been. Its government and constitution were in a transition
state. It was one of the twenty-eight monasteries in England which
belonged to the Cluniac order, and were originally subject to the
visitation of the Abbot of Clugny in France. Subjection to a foreign
head did not tend at any time to make them popular in this country, and
in the reign of Henry V. that connection was suddenly broken off. An act
was passed suppressing at once all the alien priories, or religious
houses that acknowledged foreign superiors. The priors of several of the
Cluniac monasteries took out new foundation charters, and attached
themselves to other orders. Those that continued signed deeds of
surrender, and their monasteries were taken into the king’s hands. About
nine or ten years later, however, it would seem that a vicar of the
Abbot of Clugny was allowed to visit England, and to him William Paston
made an appeal to profess in due form a number of virtuous young men who
had joined the priory in the interval.

[Sidenote: Land purchased by Judge Paston.] From the statement already
quoted as to the history of the Paston family, it appears that William
Paston purchased a good deal of land in Paston besides what had
originally belonged to them. It was evidently his intention to make a
family residence, and transmit to his sons a more absolute ownership in
the land from which they derived their name. Much of his father’s land
in Paston had been copyhold belonging to the manor of Gimingham Hall;
but William Paston bought ‘a moiety of the fifth part’ of the adjacent
manor of Bacton, with free land extending into Paston. He thus
established himself as undoubted lord of the greater part of the soil,
and must have felt a pardonable pride in the improved position he
thereby bequeathed to his descendants. At Paston he apparently
contemplated building a manor house; for he made inquiry about getting
stone from Yorkshire conveyed by sea to Mundesley, where there was then
a small harbour[36-1] within two miles of Paston village. To carry out
the improvements [Sidenote: Highways diverted.] he proposed to make
there and on other parts of his property, he obtained licence from the
king a year before his death to divert two public highways, the one at
Paston and the other at Oxnead, a little from their course.[36-2] The
alterations do not appear to have been of a nature that any one had a
right to complain of. Full inquiry was made beforehand by an inquisition
_ad quod damnum_[37-1] whether they would be to the prejudice of
neighbours. At Paston the extent of roadway which he obtained leave to
enclose was only thirty-two and a half perches in length by one perch in
breadth. It ran on the south side of his mansion, and he agreed to make
a new highway of the same dimensions on the north side. The vicar of
Paston seems to have been the neighbour principally concerned in the
course that the new thoroughfare was to take, and all particulars had
been arranged with him a few months before William Paston died.

    [Footnote 36-1: No. 7.]

    [Footnote 36-2: Patent 6th July, 21 Henry VI., p. 1, m. 10.]

    [Footnote 37-1: _Inquis. a. q. d._ (arranged with _Inquisitions
    post-mortem_), 21 Henry VI., No. 53.]

[Sidenote: John Paston has disputes with his neighbours.] But it would
seem upon the judge’s death his great designs were for some time
interrupted. The family were looked upon by many as upstarts, and young
John Paston, who was only four-and-twenty, though bred to the law like
his father, could not expect to possess the same weight and influence
with his neighbours. A claim was revived by the lord of Gimingham Hall
to a rent of eight shillings from one of Paston’s tenants, which had
never been demanded so long as the judge was alive. The vicar of Paston
pulled up the ‘doles’ which were set to mark the new highway, and
various other disturbances were committed by the neighbours. It seems to
have required all the energies not only of John Paston upon the spot,
but also of his brother Edmund, who was in London at Clifford’s Inn, to
secure the rights of the family; insomuch that their mother, in writing
to the latter of the opposition to which they had been exposed,
expresses a fear lest she should make him weary of Paston.[37-2] And,
indeed, if Edmund Paston was not weary of the dispute, his mother
herself had cause to be; for it not only lasted years after this, but
for some years after Edmund Paston was dead the stopping of the king’s
highway was a fruitful theme of remonstrance. When Agnes Paston built a
wall it was thrown down before it was half completed; threats of heavy
amercements were addressed to her in church, and the men of Paston spoke
of showing their displeasure when they went in public procession on St.
Mark’s day.[37-3]

    [Footnote 37-2: Letter 62.]

    [Footnote 37-3: Nos. 194, 195, 196.]

[Sidenote: Oxnead.] The Manor of Oxnead, which in later times became the
principal seat of the family, was also among the possessions purchased
by Judge Paston. He bought it of William Clopton of Long Melford, and
settled it upon Agnes, his wife. But after his death her right to it was
disputed. It had formerly belonged to a family of the name of Hauteyn,
and there suddenly started up a claimant in the person of one John
Hauteyn, whose right to hold property of any kind was [Sidenote: John
Hauteyn.] supposed to have been entirely annulled by the fact of his
having entered the Order of Carmelite Friars. It seems, however, he had
succeeded in getting from the Pope a dispensation to renounce the Order
on the plea that he had been forced into it against his will when he was
under age, and being thus restored by the ecclesiastical power to the
condition of a layman, he next appealed to the civil courts to get back
his inheritance. This danger must have been seen by William Paston
before his death, and a paper was drawn up (No. 46) to show that Hauteyn
had been released from his vows on false pretences. Nevertheless he
pursued his claim at law, and although he complained of the difficulty
of getting counsel (owing, as he himself intimated, to the respect in
which the bar held the memory of Judge Paston, and the fact that his son
John was one of their own members), he seems to have had hopes of
succeeding through the influence of the Duke of Suffolk. His suit,
however, had not been brought to a successful determination at the date
of Suffolk’s fall. It was still going on in the succeeding summer; but
as we hear no more of it after that, we may presume that the altered
state of the political world induced him to abandon it. According to
Blomefield, he and others of the Hauteyn family released their rights to
Agnes Paston ‘about 1449’; but this date is certainly at least a year
too early.[38-1]

    [Footnote 38-1: Nos. 63, 87, 93, 128; Blomefield, vi. 479.]

William Paston also purchased various other lands in the county of
Norfolk.[38-2] Among others, he purchased from Thomas Chaucer, a son of
the famous poet, the manor of Gresham,[39-1] of which we shall have
something more to say a little later. We also find that in the fourth
year of Henry VI. he obtained, in conjunction with one Thomas Poye,
a grant of a market, fair and free-warren in his manor of Shipden which
had belonged to his father Clement before him.[39-2]

    [Footnote 38-2: It would appear that he had also an estate at
    Therfield, in Hertfordshire, as shown by an inscription in the
    east window of the north aisle of the parish church, in which were
    portraits of himself and his wife underwritten with the words,
    _Orate pro animabus domini Willelmi Paston et Agnetis uxoris ejus,
    benefactorum hujus ecclesiæ_ (Chauncey’s _Hertfordshire_, 88).]

    [Footnote 39-1: Blomefield, viii. 127.]

    [Footnote 39-2: _Patent Roll_, 4 Henry VI., p. 2, m. 13;
    Blomefield, viii. 102. A further notice relating to Judge Paston
    has been given me by Sir James Ramsay in the following
    memorandum:--‘£432 for arrears of salary due to late William
    Paston, paid to his executor, John Paston, from _parva custuma_ of
    the port of London. L.T.R. Enrolled Customs Account of Henry VI.
    (entry 8 Nov. 37 Hen. VI.--Mich. 38 Hen. VI.)’ in Public Record
    Office. So the arrears of the judge’s salary were only paid in
    1458, fourteen years after his death.]

[Sidenote: John Paston’s marriage.] The notices of John Paston begin
when he was on the eve of marrying, a few years before his father’s
death. The match was evidently one that was arranged by the parents,
after the fashion of the times. The lady was of a good family--daughter
and heiress of John Mauteby, Esq. of Mauteby in Norfolk. The friends on
both sides must have been satisfied that the union was a good one; for
it had the one great merit which was then considered everything--it was
no disparagement to the fortunes or the rank of either family. Beyond
this hard business view, indeed, might have been found better arguments
to recommend it; but English men and women in those days did not read
novels, and had no great notion of cultivating sentiment for its own
sake. Agnes Paston writes to her husband to intimate ‘the bringing home
of the gentlewoman from Reedham,’ according to the arrangement he had
made about it. It was, in her words, ‘the first acquaintance between
John Paston and the said gentlewoman’ (one would think Dame Agnes must
have learned from her husband to express herself with something of the
formality of a lawyer); and we are glad to find that the young lady’s
sense of propriety did not spoil her natural affability. ‘She made him
gentle cheer in gentle wise, and said he was verily your son; and so I
hope there shall need no great treaty between them.’ Finally the judge
is requested by his wife to buy a gown for his future daughter-in-law,
to which her mother would add a goodly fur. ‘The gown,’ says Dame Agnes,
‘needeth for to be had; and of colour it would be a goodly blue, or else
a bright sanguine.’[40-1]

    [Footnote 40-1: No. 34.]

[Sidenote: Character of his wife.] ‘The gentlewoman’ thus introduced to
John Paston and the reader proved to the former a most devoted wife
during about six-and-twenty years of married life. Her letters to her
husband form no inconsiderable portion of the correspondence in these
volumes, and it is impossible to peruse them without being convinced
that the writer was a woman not only of great force of character, but of
truly affectionate nature. It is true the ordinary style of these
epistles is very different from that of wives addressing their husbands
nowadays. There are no conventional expressions of tenderness--the
conventionality of the age seems to have required not tenderness but
humility on the part of women towards the head of a family; the subjects
of the letters, too, are for the most part matters of pure business; yet
the genuine womanly nature is seen bursting out whenever there is
occasion to call it forth. Very early in the correspondence we meet with
a letter of hers (No. 47) which in itself is pretty sufficient evidence
that women, at least, were human in the fifteenth century. Her husband
was at the time in London just beginning to recover from an illness
which seems to have been occasioned by some injury he had met with. His
mother had vowed to give an image of wax the weight of himself to Our
Lady of Walsingham on his recovery, and Margaret to go on a pilgrimage
thither, and also to St. Leonard’s at Norwich. That she did not
undertake a journey of a hundred miles to do more efficient service was
certainly not owing to any want of will on her part. The difficulties of
travelling in those days, and the care of a young child, sufficiently
account for her remaining in Norfolk; but apparently even these
considerations would not have deterred her from the journey had she not
been dissuaded from it by others. ‘If I might have had my will,’ she
writes, ‘I should have seen you ere this time. I would ye were at home,
if it were for your ease (and your sore might be as well looked to here
as it is there ye be), now liever than a gown, though it were of
scarlet.’ Could the sincerity of a woman’s wishes be more artlessly
expressed?

Let not the reader suppose, however, that Margaret Paston’s acknowledged
love of a scarlet gown indicates anything like frivolity of character or
inordinate love of display. We have little reason to believe from her
correspondence that dress was a ruling passion. The chief aim
discernible in all she writes--the chief motive that influenced
everything she did--was simply the desire to give her husband
satisfaction. And her will to do him service was, in general, only
equalled by her ability. During term time, when John Paston was in
London, she was his agent at home. It was she who negotiated with
farmers, receiving overtures for leases and threats of lawsuits, and
reported to her husband everything that might affect his interests, with
the news of the country generally. Nor were threats always the worst
thing she had to encounter on his account. For even domestic life, in
those days, was not always exempt from violence; and there were at least
two occasions when Margaret had to endure, in her husband’s absence,
things that a woman ought to have been spared.

[Sidenote: The Manor of Gresham.] One of these occasions we proceed to
notice. The manor of Gresham, which William Paston had purchased from
the son of the poet Chaucer, had been in the days of Edward II. the
property of one Edmund Bacon, who obtained from that king a licence to
embattle the manor-house. It descended from him to his two daughters,
Margaret and Margery. The former became the wife of Sir William de
Kerdeston, and her rights were inherited by a daughter named Maud, who
married Sir John Burghersh.[41-1] This moiety came to Thomas Chaucer by
his marriage with Maud Burghersh, the daughter of the Maud just
mentioned. The other became at first the property of Sir William
Molynes, who married Bacon’s second daughter Margery. But this Margery
having survived her husband, made a settlement of it by will, according
to which the reversion of it after the decease of one Philip Vache and
of Elizabeth his wife, was to be sold; and William, son of Robert
Molynes, was to have the first option of purchase. This William Molynes
at first declined to buy it, being apparently in want of funds; but he
afterwards got one Thomas Fauconer, a London merchant, to advance the
purchase-money, on an agreement that his son should marry Fauconer’s
daughter. The marriage, however, never took effect; the Molynes family
lost all claim upon the manor, and the same Thomas Chaucer who acquired
the other moiety by his wife, purchased this moiety also, and conveyed
both to William Paston.[42-1]

    [Footnote 41-1: _Inquisitions post-mortem_, 27 Edw. III., No. 28,
    and 30 Edw. III., No. 42. Blomefield inaccurately makes Maud,
    whom Sir John Burghersh married, the daughter of Edmond Bacon
    instead of his granddaughter.--(_Hist. of Norf._ viii. 127.)]

    [Footnote 42-1: No. 16. Blomefield gives a somewhat different
    account, founded doubtless on documents to which I have not had
    access. He says that Margery, widow of Sir William Molynes,
    settled her portion of the manor on one Thomas de la Lynde, with
    the consent of her son Sir William Molynes, who resigned all claim
    to it.]

  [[Footnote 41-1: _Inquisitions post-mortem_, 27 Edw. III.,
  _comma after “III.” missing_]]

The whole manor of Gresham thus descended to John Paston, as his
father’s heir. But a few years after his father’s death he was troubled
in the possession of it by Robert Hungerford, son of Lord Hungerford,
who, having married Eleanor Molynes, a descendant of the Sir William
Molynes above referred to, had been raised to the peerage as Lord
Molynes,and laid claim to the whole inheritance of the [Sidenote:
Claimed by Lord Molynes.] Molynes family. He was still but a young
man,[42-2] heir-apparent to another barony; and, with the prospect of a
great inheritance both from his father and from his mother, who was the
daughter and sole heir of William Lord Botraux, he certainly had little
occasion to covet lands that were not his own. Nevertheless he listened
to the counsels of John Heydon of Baconsthorpe, a lawyer who had been
sheriff and also recorder of Norwich, and whom the gentry of Norfolk
looked upon with anything but goodwill, regarding him as the ready tool
of every powerful oppressor. His chief patron, with whom his name was
constantly coupled, was Sir Thomas Tuddenham; and the two together,
especially during the unpopular ministry of the Duke of Suffolk,
exercised an ascendency in the county, of which we hear very numerous
complaints. Heydon persuaded Lord Molynes that he had a good claim to
the manor of Gresham; and Lord Molynes, without more ado, went in and
took possession on the 17th of February 1448.[43-1]

    [Footnote 42-2: According to the inquisition taken on his father’s
    death (_Inq. p. m._, 37 Hen. VI., No. 17), he was over thirty in
    June 1459. If we are to understand that he was then only in his
    thirty-first year, he could not have been twenty when he first
    dispossessed John Paston of Gresham. But ‘over thirty’ may perhaps
    mean two or three years over.]

    [Footnote 43-1: No. 102.]

To recover his rights against a powerful young nobleman connected with
various wealthy and influential families required, as John Paston knew,
the exercise of great discretion. Instead of resorting at once to an
action at law, he made representations to Lord Molynes and his legal
advisers to show how indefensible was the title they had set up for him.
He secured some attention for his remonstrances by the intercession of
Waynflete, bishop of Winchester.[43-2] Conferences took place between
the counsel of both parties during the following summer, and the
weakness of Lord Molynes’ case was practically confessed by his
solicitors, who in the end told Paston to apply to his lordship
personally. Paston accordingly, at no small expense to himself, went and
waited upon him at Salisbury and elsewhere, but was continually put off.
At last, on the 6th of October, not, as I believe, the same year, but
the year following, he succeeded in doing to Lord Molynes to some extent
what Lord Molynes had already done to him. He took possession of ‘a
mansion within the said town,’ and occupied it himself, having doubtless
a sufficiency of servants to guard against any sudden surprise. After
this fashion he maintained his rights for a period of over three months.
The usual residence of Lord Molynes was in Wiltshire, and his agents
probably did not like the responsibility of attempting to remove John
Paston without express orders from their master. But on the 28th of
January 1450, while John Paston was away in London on business, there
came before the mansion at Gresham a company of a thousand persons, sent
to recover possession for Lord Molynes. They were armed with cuirasses
and brigandines, with guns, bows, and arrows, and with every kind of
offensive and defensive armour. They had also mining instruments, long
poles with hooks, called cromes, used for pulling down houses, ladders,
pickaxes, and pans with fire burning in them. With these formidable
implements they beset the house, at that time occupied only by Margaret
Paston and twelve other persons; and having broken open the outer gates,
they set to work undermining the very chamber in which Margaret was.
Resistance under the circumstances was impossible. Margaret was forcibly
carried out. The house was then thoroughly rifled of all that it
contained--property estimated by John Paston at £200[44-1]--the
doorposts were cut asunder, and the place was left little better than a
ruin. Further, that there might be no mistake about the spirit in which
the outrage was perpetrated, the rioters declared openly, that if they
had found John Paston, or his friend John Damme, who had aided him with
his counsel about these matters, neither of them should have escaped
alive.[44-2]

    [Footnote 43-2: No. 79.]

    [Footnote 44-1: A value probably equal to about £3000 of our
    money.]

    [Footnote 44-2: Nos. 102, 135.]

John Paston drew up a petition for redress to Parliament, and another to
the Lord Chancellor; but it was some months before his case could be
attended to, for that year was one of confusion and disorder
unparalleled. It was that year, in fact, which may be said to have
witnessed the first outbreak of a long, intermittent civil war. History
has not passed over in silence the troubles of 1450. [Sidenote: Troubled
times, A.D. 1450.] The rebellion of Jack Cade, and the murder of two
bishops in different parts of the country, were facts which no historian
could treat as wholly insignificant. Many writers have even repeated the
old slander, which there seems no good reason to believe, that Jack
Cade’s insurrection was promoted by the intrigues of the Duke of York;
but no one appears to me to have realised the precise nature of the
crisis that necessarily followed the removal of the Duke of Suffolk. And
as we have now arrived at the point where the Paston Letters begin to
have a most direct bearing on English history, we must endeavour in a
few words of historical retrospect to make the matter as clear as
possible.


_The Duke of Suffolk_

[Sidenote: Fall of the Duke of Suffolk.] As to the causes of Suffolk’s
fall we are not left in ignorance. Not only do we possess the full text
of the long indictment drawn up against him this year in Parliament, but
a number of political ballads and satires, in which he is continually
spoken of by the name of Jack Napes, help us to realise the feeling with
which he was generally regarded. Of his real merits as a statesman, it
is hard to pronounce an opinion; for though, obviously enough, his whole
policy was a failure, he himself seems to have been aware from the first
that it was not likely to be popular. Two great difficulties he had to
contend with, each sufficient to give serious anxiety to any minister
whatever: the first being the utter weakness of the king’s character;
the second, the practical impossibility of maintaining the English
conquests in France. To secure both himself and the nation against the
uncertainties which might arise from the vacillating counsels of one who
seems hardly ever to have been able to judge for himself in State
affairs, he may have thought it politic to ally the king with a woman of
stronger will than his own. At all events, if this was his intention, he
certainly achieved it. The marriage of Henry with Margaret of Anjou was
his work; and from Margaret he afterwards obtained a protection which he
would certainly not have received from her well-intentioned but
feeble-minded husband.

[Sidenote: The king’s marriage.] This marriage undoubtedly recommended
itself to Henry himself as a great means of promoting peace with France.
The pious, humane, and Christian character of the king disposed him
favourably towards all pacific counsels, and gave him a high opinion of
the statesman whose policy most obviously had in view the termination of
the disastrous war between France and England. King René, the father of
Margaret of Anjou, was the brother of the French king’s consort; so it
was conceived that by his and Margaret’s intercession a permanent peace
might be obtained, honourable to both countries. For this end, Henry was
willing to relinquish his barren title to the kingdom of France, if he
could have been secured in the possession of those lands only, such as
Guienne and Normandy, which he held irrespective of that title.[45-1] He
was willing to relinquish even the duchies of Anjou and Maine, King
René’s patrimony, though the latter had long been in the possession of
the English. It was of course out of the question that Henry should
continue to keep the father of his bride by force out of his own lands.
Suffolk therefore promised to give them up to the French king, for the
use of René and his brother, Charles of Anjou; so that instead of the
former giving his daughter a dower, England was called upon to part with
some of her conquests. But how would the English nation reconcile itself
to such a condition? Suffolk knew well he was treading in a dangerous
path, and took every possible precaution to secure himself. He pleaded
beforehand his own incompetency for the charge that was committed to
him. He urged that his familiarity with the Duke of Orleans and other
French prisoners lately detained in England brought him under suspicion
at home, and rendered him a less fitting ambassador for arranging
matters with France. Finally he obtained from the King and Council an
instrument under the Great Seal, pardoning him beforehand any error of
judgment he might possibly commit in conducting so critical a
negotiation.[46-1]

    [Footnote 45-1: Stevenson’s _Wars of the English in France_, i.
    132.]

    [Footnote 46-1: Rymer, xi. 53.]

His success, if judged by the immediate result, seemed to show that so
much diffidence was unnecessary. The people at large rejoiced in the
marriage of their king; the bride, if poor, was beautiful and
attractive; the negotiator received the thanks of Parliament,
and there was not a man in all the kingdom,--at least in all the
legislature--durst wag his tongue in censure. The Duke of Gloucester,
his chief rival and opponent in the senate, was the first to rise from
his seat and recommend Suffolk, for his services, to the favour of the
Crown.[46-2] If he had really committed any mistakes, they were as yet
unknown, or at all events uncriticised. Even the cession of Maine and
Anjou at this time does not seem to have been spoken of.

    [Footnote 46-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 73. That Gloucester secretly
    disliked Suffolk’s policy, and thought the peace with France too
    dearly bought, is more than probable. At the reception of the
    French ambassadors in 1445, we learn from their report that Henry
    looked exceedingly pleased, especially when his uncle the French
    king was mentioned. ‘And on his left hand were my Lord of
    Gloucester, at whom he looked at the time, and then he turned
    round to the right to the chancellor, and the Earl of Suffolk, and
    the Cardinal of York, who were there, smiling to them, and it was
    very obvious that he made some signal. And it was afterwards
    mentioned by-------- (_blank in orig._), that he pressed his
    Chancellor’s hand and said to him in English, “I am very much
    rejoiced that some who are present should hear these words. They
    are not at their ease.”’--Stevenson’s _Wars of the English in
    France_, i. 110-11.]

Happy in the confidence of his sovereign, Suffolk was promoted to more
distinguished honour. From an earl he was raised to the dignity of a
marquis; from a marquisate, a few years later, to a dukedom. He had
already supplanted older statesmen with far greater advantages of birth
and pre-eminence of rank. [Sidenote: Suffolk’s ascendency.] The two
great rivals, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and Cardinal Beaufort, were
both eclipsed, and both died, within six weeks of each other, two years
after the king’s marriage, leaving Suffolk the only minister of mark.
But his position was not improved by this undisputed ascendency.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1447.] The death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester,
aroused suspicions in the public mind that were perhaps due merely to
time and circumstance. Duke Humphrey, with many defects in his
character, had always been a popular favourite, and just before his
death he had been arrested on a charge of treason. That he could not
possibly have remained quiet under the new _régime_ is a fact that we
might presume as a matter of course, but there is no clear evidence that
he was guilty of intrigue or conspiracy. The king, indeed, appears to
have thought he was so, but his opinions were formed by those of Suffolk
and the Queen; and both Suffolk and the Queen were such enemies of Duke
Humphrey, that they were vehemently suspected of having procured his
death.[47-1]

    [Footnote 47-1: An interesting and valuable account of the death
    of Duke Humphrey, from original sources, will be found in _The
    Hall of Lawford Hall_, pp. 104-13.]

Complaints against the minister now began to be made more openly, and
his conduct touching the surrender of Anjou and Maine was so generally
censured, that he petitioned the king that a day might be appointed on
which he should have an opportunity of clearing himself before the
Council. On the 25th of May 1447 his wish was granted, and in the
presence of a full Council, including the Duke of York, and others who
might have been expected to be no very favourable critics, he gave a
detailed account of all that he had done. How far he made a really
favourable impression upon his hearers we do not know; but in the end he
was declared to have vindicated his integrity, and a proclamation was
issued forbidding the circulation of such slanders against him in
future, under penalty of the king’s displeasure.[48-1]

    [Footnote 48-1: Rymer, xi. 173.]

The nature of the defence that he set up can only be a matter of
speculation; but it may be observed that as yet no formal delivery of
Anjou or Maine had really taken place at all. The former province,
though it had been before this overrun and laid waste by the English,
does not appear ever to have been permanently occupied by them. Delivery
of Anjou would therefore have been an idle form; all that was required
was that the English should forbear to invade it. But with Maine the
case was different. It had been for a long time in the hands of the
English, and pledges had certainly been given for its delivery by
Suffolk and by Henry himself in December 1445.[48-2] As yet, however,
nothing had been concluded by way of positive treaty. No definite peace
had been made with France. Difficulties had always started up in the
negotiations, and the ambassadors appointed on either side had been
unable to do more than prolong from time to time the existing truce,
leaving the matter in dispute to be adjusted at a personal interview
between the two kings, for which express provision was made at the time
of each new arrangement. But the personal interview never took place. In
August 1445 it was arranged for the following summer. In January 1446 it
was fixed to be before November. In February 1447 it was again to be in
the summer following. In July it was settled to be before May 1448; but
in October the time was again lengthened further.[48-3] There can be
little doubt that these perpetual delays were due merely to hesitation
on the part of England to carry out a policy to which she was already
pledged. Charles, of course, could not allow them to go on for ever. In
the treaty of July 1447, an express provision was for the first time
inserted, that the town and castle of Le Mans, and other places within
the county of Maine, should be delivered up to the French. It seems also
to have been privately arranged that this should be done before the 1st
of November; and that the further treaty made at Bourges on the 15th of
October should not be published until the surrender was
accomplished.[49-1] But the year 1447 had very nearly expired before
even the first steps were taken to give effect to this arrangement. At
length, on the 30th of December, an agreement was made by Matthew Gough,
who had the keeping of Le Mans, that the place should be surrendered by
the 15th of January, on receipt of letters patent from the King of
France, for compensation to be made to grantees of the English crown.

    [Footnote 48-2: _See_ Stevenson’s _Wars of the English in France_,
    ii. [639] to [642].]

    [Footnote 48-3: Rymer, xi. 97, 108, 151, 182, 189, etc.]

    [Footnote 49-1: Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. [714, 715].]

Even this arrangement, however, was not adhered to. Matthew Gough still
found reasons for refusing or delaying the surrender, although the
English Government protested the sincerity of its intentions. But
Charles now began to take the matter into his own hands. [Sidenote:
Siege of Le Mans, A.D. 1448.] Count Dunois and others were sent to
besiege the place, with a force raised suddenly out of various towns;
for France had been carefully maturing, during those years of truce,
a system of conscription which was now becoming serviceable. At the first
rumour of these musters the English Government was alarmed, and Sir
Thomas Hoo, Lord Hastings, Henry’s Chancellor of France, wrote urgently
to Pierre de Brézé, seneschal of Poitou, who had been the chief
negotiator of the existing truce, deprecating the use of force against
a town which it was the full intention of his Government to yield up
honourably.[49-2] Such protests, however, availed nothing in the face
of the obvious fact that the surrender had not taken place at the time
agreed on. The French continued to muster forces. In great haste an
embassy was despatched from England, consisting of Adam de Moleyns,
Bishop of Chichester, and Sir Thomas Roos; but the conduct of the
garrison itself rendered further negotiation nugatory. By no means could
they be induced, even in obedience to their own king, to surrender the
city peacefully. Dunois and his army accordingly drew nearer. Three
sharp skirmishes took place before the siege could be formed; but at
length the garrison were fully closed in. All that they could now do was
to make a composition with the enemy; yet even this they would not have
attempted of themselves. The efforts of the English envoys, however,
secured for the besieged most favourable terms of surrender. Not only
were they permitted to march out with bag and baggage, but a sum of
money was delivered to each of the captains, by the French king’s
orders; with which, and a safe-conduct from Charles, they departed into
Normandy.[50-1]

    [Footnote 49-2: Stevenson’s _Wars_, i. 198. _See_ also a letter of
    the 18th Feb. 1448, of which an abstract is given in vol. ii. of
    the same work, p. 576.]

    [Footnote 50-1: _Chron. de Mat. de Coussy_ (in Buchon’s
    collection), p. 34.]

It was on Friday, the 15th of March 1448, the day on which the truce
between the two countries was to have expired, that the brave Matthew
Gough, along with his colleague, Fulk Eton, formally delivered up to the
French, not only the town and castle of Le Mans, but also the whole
county of Maine except the lordship of Fresnay. [Sidenote: Its
surrender.] Standing on the outer bridge, they made a public protest
before their soldiers, and caused a notary to witness it by a formal
document, that what they did was only in obedience to their own king’s
commands, and that the king himself, in giving up possession of the
county of Maine, by no means parted with his sovereign rights therein;
that he only gave up actual possession in order that King René and his
brother, Charles of Anjou, might enjoy the fruits of their own lands,
and in the hope that a firm peace might be established between England
and France. Four days before this was done the truce had been prolonged
for two years more.[50-2]

    [Footnote 50-2: Rymer, xi. 199, 204. Stevenson’s _Wars_, i. 207.]

The reluctant cession of such a valuable province as Maine boded ill for
the security of the neighbouring duchy of Normandy. The government of
Normandy was at this time committed to Edmund Beaufort, Marquis of
Dorset, who had just been created Duke of Somerset. His appointment to
the post had been due rather to favour than to merit. The Duke of York
was then Regent of France, and had given good proof of his competence to
take charge of the entire kingdom. But Somerset, who was head of the
house of Beaufort, nearly allied in blood to the Crown, and who had come
into possession of immense wealth by the death of his uncle, the
Cardinal of Winchester, had the ambition of an Englishman to show his
talent for governing. His influence with the king and Suffolk obtained
for him the government of Normandy; and that he might exercise it
undisturbed, York was recalled from France. The change was ill advised;
for the times demanded the best of generalship, and the utmost political
discretion. Somerset, though not without experience in war, had given no
evidence of the possession of such qualities; and they had been
notoriously wanting in his brother John, who was Duke of Somerset before
him, when his ambition, too, had been gratified by a command in France.
Duke John, we are told, absolutely refused to give any one his
confidence as to what he was going to do at any period of the campaign.
He used to say that if his shirt knew his plans he would burn it; and
so, with a great deal of manœuvring and mystery, he captured a small
place in Britanny called La Guerche, made a vain attempt to reduce
another fortress, and then returned to England.[51-1] It may have been
owing to public discontent at the small result of his great
preparations, that he was accused of treason on his return; when, unable
to endure so great a reproach, he was believed to have put an end to his
own life.[51-2]

    [Footnote 51-1: Basin, _Histoire de Charles VII._ etc. i. 150-1.]

    [Footnote 51-2: _Hist. Croylandensis Continuatio_ in Fulman’s
    _Scriptores_, p. 519.]

With a full recollection of the indiscretions of his brother John, the
King’s Council must have hesitated to confide to Duke Edmund such an
important trust as the government of Normandy. They must have hesitated
all the more, as the appointment of Somerset involved the recall of the
Duke of York. And we are told that their acts at the time betrayed
symptoms of such irresolution; insomuch that one day a new governor of
Normandy was proclaimed at Rouen, and the next his commission was
revoked and another named in his stead.[51-3] But at last the influence
of Somerset prevailed. He was not, however, permitted to go abroad
without warning of the dangers against which he had to provide. The
veteran Sir John Fastolf drew up a paper for his guidance, pointing out
that it was now peculiarly important to strengthen the fortifications on
the new frontier, to protect the seaports, to preserve free
communication with England, and (what was quite as politic a suggestion
as any) to appoint a wise chancellor and a council for the impartial
administration of justice, so as to protect the inhabitants from
oppression.[52-1] From the comment made upon these suggestions, either
by Fastolf himself or by his secretary William Worcester, it would seem
that they were not acted upon; and to this cause he attributed the
disasters which soon followed in quick succession, and brought upon the
Duke of Somerset the indignation and contempt of a large number of his
countrymen. These feelings, probably, were not altogether just. The duke
had done good service before in France, and part of the blame of what
occurred may perhaps be attributed to divided management--more
especially to the unruly feelings of a number of the English soldiers.

    [Footnote 51-3: Basin, i. 192.]

    [Footnote 52-1: Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. [592].]

The garrison which had been compelled against its will to give up Le
Mans found it hard to obtain quarters in Normandy. It was doubtful
whether they were not labouring under their own king’s displeasure, and
the captains of fortified towns were afraid to take them in. At last
they took possession of Pontorson and St. James de Beuvron, two towns
situated near the confines of Britanny which had been laid waste during
the previous wars and had since been abandoned. They began to victual
and fortify themselves in these positions, to the alarm of their
neighbours, until the Duke of Britanny felt it necessary to complain to
the Duke of Somerset, requesting that they might be dislodged. Somerset,
in reply, promised to caution them not to do anything in violation of
the truce, but declined to bid them evacuate their positions. Diplomatic
intercourse went on between one side and the other, always in the most
courteous terms, but every day it was becoming more apparent that all
confidence was gone.

[Sidenote: A.D. 1449.] At last, in March 1449, the English justified the
suspicions that had long been entertained of them. A detachment of about
600 men, under François de Surienne, popularly named L’Arragonois,
a leader in the pay of England,[53-1] who had, not long before, been
knighted by Henry, crossed the frontier southwards into Britanny,
[Sidenote: Capture of Fougères.] took by assault the town and castle of
Fougères, and made dreadful havoc and slaughter among the unsuspecting
inhabitants. The place was full of wealthy merchants, for it was the
centre of a considerable woollen manufacture, and the booty found in it
was estimated at no less than two millions of gold.[53-2] Such a prize
in legitimate warfare would undoubtedly have been well worth the taking;
but under the actual circumstances the deed was a glaring, perfidious
violation of the truce. Somerset had been only a few days before
protesting to the King of France that, even if all his towns were open
and undefended, they would be perfectly secure from any assault by the
English;[53-3] yet here was a town belonging to the Duke of Britanny,
a vassal of the King of France who had been expressly included in the
truce, assaulted and taken by fraud. Somerset disavowed the deed, but
refused to make restitution. He professed to write to the king for
instructions how to act; but he utterly destroyed his flimsy pretence of
neutrality by writing to the King of France, desiring him not to give
assistance to the Duke of Britanny.[53-4]

    [Footnote 53-1: Stevenson’s _Wars_, i. 473; ii. 573.]

    [Footnote 53-2: Stevenson’s _Reductio Normanniæ_, 406.]

    [Footnote 53-3: _Ibid._ 402.]

    [Footnote 53-4: _Ibid._ 406.]

The truth is that the expedition had been fully authorised, not only by
Somerset in Normandy, but by the king and the Duke of Suffolk in
England. It was suggested to L’Arragonois when he was in England by
Suffolk himself, who assured him that he would do the king a most
excellent service by taking a place of so much consequence. He was
further given to understand that he incurred no danger or
responsibility; for even if he were besieged by the Duke of Britanny,
ample succours would be despatched to relieve him. Unfortunately, during
the next few months, the English had too much to do to keep their word,
and L’Arragonois was compelled to surrender the place again to the Duke
of Britanny after a five weeks’ siege. Feeling himself then absolved
from every engagement to England, he next year sent back the Order of
the Garter to Henry, declaring himself from that time a subject of his
natural lord the King of Arragon, in whose country he proposed to spend
the remainder of his days.[54-1]

    [Footnote 54-1: Stevenson’s _Wars_, i. 275, 278, etc.]

Notwithstanding the richness of the booty won by the capture of
Fougères, the English ought to have been aware that they would have a
heavy price to pay for it. The alienation of a friend in the Duke of
Britanny evidently did not grieve them, although that in itself should
have been a matter of some concern; for the duke, though nearly related
to the French king, had studied to keep himself neutral hitherto. To his
and his father’s pacific policy it was owing that the commerce of
Britanny had prospered and Fougères itself become rich, while
neighbouring districts were exposed to the ravages of war. But the
resentment of the Duke of Britanny was not a cause of much apprehension.
The effect of the outrage upon the French people was a much more serious
matter, and this was felt immediately. The King of France, when he heard
the news, was at Montils by Tours on the point of starting for Bourges.
He immediately changed his purpose and turned back to Chinon that he
might be nearer Britanny. A secret treaty was made between the king and
the duke to aid each other on the recommencement of hostilities with the
English. [Sidenote: Pont-de-l’Arche taken by the French.] A plot was
also laid to surprise the town of Pont-de-l’Arche on the Seine, just as
Fougères had been surprised by the English. It was completely
successful, and Pont-de-l’Arche was captured by stratagem early in the
morning of the 16th of May, by a body of adventurers professedly in the
service of Brittany. There could be no mistake about the significance of
the retribution. To the Duke of Britanny the capture of Pont-de-l’Arche
was of no value, except in the way of retaliation, for it was at a great
distance from his borders; while to France it was a most important gain
if used with a view to the recovery of Normandy. But France was quite as
free to disavow the deed as the English Government had been to disavow
the taking of Fougères.

Charles had, in fact, gained, in a strategic point of view, quite as
great an advantage as the English had gained in point of material
wealth. But morally his advantage was greater still, for he showed
himself perfectly open to treat for the redress of outrages on both
sides, and was willing to put Pont-de-l’Arche again into the hands of
the English if they would have restored Fougères. All conferences,
however, were ineffectual, and the French followed up their advantage by
taking Gerberoy and Conches. In the south they also won from the English
two places in the neighbourhood of Bordeaux.[55-1] Still, Charles had
not yet declared war, and these things were avowedly no more than the
acts of desultory marauders. His ambassadors still demanded the
restitution of Fougères, which possibly the English might now have been
willing to accord if they could have had the French captures restored to
them, but that in the surrender of the place they would have had to
acknowledge Britanny as a feudal dependency of Charles.[55-2]
Negotiations were accordingly broken off, and Charles having besides
received particulars of a breach of the truce with Scotland in the
preceding year, which even an English writer does not venture to
defend,[55-3] at length made a formal declaration of hostilities.[55-4]

    [Footnote 55-1: _Reductio Normanniæ_, 251.]

    [Footnote 55-2: _Ibid._ 503.]

    [Footnote 55-3: ‘Eodem anno [26 Hen. VI.], Rex visitans boreales
    partes Angliæ usque Donelmense monasterium, quasi omnes domini et
    alii plebei illius patriæ in magna multitudine quotidie ei in
    obviam ostendebant, quare, concilio habito, minus formidabant
    interrumpere trugas inter ipsum et Regem Scotiæ prius suis
    sigillis fidelitatis confirmatas; sed posterius hujus trugarum
    interruptio vertebatur Anglicis multo magis in dispendium quam
    honorem, quia recedente Rege Scoti magnam partem Northumbriæ bina
    vice absque repulsu destruxerunt, et juxta Carlele erant ex
    Anglicis capti et interfecti ad numerum duorum millium; et sic
    tandem Rex Angliæ cum ejus concilio pro saniori deliberatione cum
    damnis ad pacem inclinare reducitur.’--_Incerti Scriptoris
    Chronicum_ (Ed. Giles), Hen. VI. p. 36.]

    [Footnote 55-4: _Reductio Normanniæ_, 254.]

Never, it must be owned, did England incur the grave responsibilities of
war with a greater degree of foolhardiness. Somerset himself seemed only
now to have wakened up to the defenceless state of Normandy. He had just
sent over Lord Hastings and the Abbot of Gloucester with a message to
the English Parliament desiring immediate aid. The French, he said, were
daily reinforcing their garrisons upon the frontier, and committing
outrages against the truce. General musters were proclaimed throughout
the kingdom, and every thirty men of the whole population were required
to find a horseman fully equipped for war. Meanwhile, the English
garrisons in Normandy were too feeble to resist attack. Not a single
place was furnished with sufficient artillery, and the fortifications,
almost everywhere, had fallen into such decay that even if filled with
men and guns they could not possibly be defended. Besides this, the
whole province was in such extreme poverty that it could no longer
endure further imposts for the charges of its own defence.[56-1]

    [Footnote 56-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 147.]

[Sidenote: Progress of the French.] No marvel, therefore, that the
progress of the French arms was, from this time, uninterrupted. On the
19th July the town of Verneuil was taken by the aid of a miller who had
been maltreated by some of the garrison; and, some time afterwards, the
castle also surrendered. In August operations were carried on in several
parts of the Duchy at once. Towns near the sea and towns near the French
frontier were attacked at the same time; and Pont-Audemer, Lisieux,
Mantes, Vernon, and other places were recovered from the English. Then
followed in quick succession the capture of Essay, Fécamp, Harcourt,
Chambrois, Roche-Guyon, and Coutances. In October, Rouen, the capital of
the province, was invested. On the 19th the inhabitants with one accord
rose in arms against the English, who found it necessary to retreat into
the castle. In this stronghold Somerset himself was assailed by the King
of France, and, after a vain attempt to secure better terms, agreed to
surrender not only it but the fortresses of Arques, Caudebec, and
several other places, leaving the gallant Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, as
a hostage until they were delivered up. Meanwhile, the Duke of Britanny
overran Lower Normandy and recovered his own Fougères after a siege of
little more than a month. François L’Arragonois, finding no hope of
succours, surrendered the place and afterwards went over to the French.

In short, before the end of the year, the English had lost nearly
everything in the North of France. The inhabitants everywhere conspired
to betray towns and garrisons, and every man not English-born took part
against the English. Even King René, Henry’s father-in-law, assisted
Charles at the siege of Rouen, and shared the honours of his triumphal
entry. At the end of the year 1449 the English held nothing in Normandy
except a few towns upon the sea-coast or a little way inland--the chief
of these being Honfleur, Bayeux, Caen, and Cherbourg. The last-named
fortress remained untaken till the 12th of August in the following year.
When it surrendered, the whole of Normandy was finally lost.

The news of these reverses so rapidly following each other of course
produced in England the most profound dissatisfaction. The Parliament to
which Somerset had applied for aid had been removed after Whitsunday to
Winchester on account of the insalubrity of the air in London and
Westminster, and had been finally dissolved on the 16th of July. A new
Parliament was then called for a winter session to provide for the
defence of Normandy, when, in fact, it was too late.[57-1] By the time
it had assembled Rouen was already lost. [Sidenote: Unpopularity of
Suffolk.] The secret odium with which the policy of Suffolk had been
viewed for years past could now no longer be restrained. It was
difficult to persuade the many that the disgrace which had befallen the
English arms was not due to treachery as much as to incompetence. The
cession of Maine and Anjou was more loudly blamed than ever, and Suffolk
was considered to have negotiated the king’s marriage mainly with a view
to his own advantage. It was remembered how he had once imprudently
boasted that he possessed no less weight in the counsels of the King of
France than in those of his own sovereign; it was again murmured that he
had been the cause of Gloucester’s death. And notwithstanding the
protection of the Court, these feelings found expression in Parliament.

    [Footnote 57-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 143, 171. Even when the new
    Parliament met at Westminster on the 6th November it was obliged
    to adjourn to the City of London on account of the unhealthiness
    of the air. We must remember that Westminster was then little
    better than a flat muddy island, with a vast extent of marshy land
    and stagnant pools between Pimlico and the Thames.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1450.] At the beginning of the New Year, an incident
occurred which served still further to precipitate his ruin. [Sidenote:
Murder of the Bishop of Chichester.] Adam de Moleyns, Bishop of
Chichester, keeper of the Privy Seal, who, as we have seen, had been
sent over to France in the beginning of 1448, to arrange the peaceful
cession of Le Mans, was at this time sent to Portsmouth to pay the wages
of certain soldiers and sailors. He was a scholar as well as a
statesman, and corresponded occasionally with the celebrated Æneas
Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius II.[58-1] But, like Suffolk, he was
believed to make his own advantage out of public affairs. He had the
reputation of being very covetous; the king’s treasury was ill supplied
with money, and he endeavoured to force the men to be satisfied with
less than their due. On this they broke out into open mutiny, cried out
that he was one of those who had sold Normandy, and thereupon put him to
death.[58-2] This was on the 9th day of January 1450. During the
altercation he let fall some words, probably in justification of his own
conduct, which were considered to reflect most seriously upon that of
the Duke of Suffolk,[58-3] and a cry arose for the duke’s impeachment in
Parliament.

    [Footnote 58-1: _Æneæ Sylvii Epp._ 80, 186.]

    [Footnote 58-2: According to his friend, Æneas Sylvius, the mode
    of death inflicted on him was decapitation. (_Opera_, 443.)]

    [Footnote 58-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 176.]

It must certainly be acknowledged by any candid student of history that
the state of the English Constitution in early times did not admit of
true and impartial justice being done to an accused minister. So long as
a man in Suffolk’s position was upheld by the power of the Crown, it was
to the last degree dangerous to say anything against him; but when the
voice of complaint could no longer be restrained, the protection he had
before received ceased to be of any use to him. It became then quite as
dangerous to say anything in his favour as it had been formerly to
accuse him. The Crown could not make common cause with one whose conduct
was under suspicion; for the king could do no wrong, and the minister
must be the scapegoat. The party, therefore, which would insist on any
inquiry into the conduct of a minister, knew well that they must succeed
in getting him condemned, or be branded as traitors themselves. Such
proceedings accordingly began inevitably with intrigue. Lord Cromwell
was Suffolk’s enemy at the council-table, and used his influence
secretly with members of the House of Commons, to get them to bring
forward an impeachment in that chamber. That he was a dangerous opponent
Suffolk himself was very well aware. A little before Christmas, William
Tailboys, one of the duke’s principal supporters, had set a number of
armed men in wait for him at the door of the Star Chamber, where the
council met, and Lord Cromwell narrowly escaped being killed. The
attempt, however, failed, and Tailboys was committed to the Tower; from
which it would seem that he must soon afterwards have been released.
Cromwell then brought an action against him in the Court of Exchequer to
recover damages for the assault, and was awarded £3000; on which
Tailboys was committed to the Sheriff of London’s prison; and this was
all the redress obtained by Cromwell till, by a special Act in the
ensuing Parliament, Tailboys was removed from that place of confinement,
and lodged in the Tower once more, for a period of twelve months. Owing
to the king’s protection he was not brought to trial.[59-1]

    [Footnote 59-1: W. Worc. _Rolls of Parl._ v. 200. I find by an
    entry in the _Controlment Roll_, 30 Hen. VI., that on St.
    Bartholomew’s Day, 1451, William Tailboys and nineteen other
    persons belonging to South Kyme, in Lincolnshire, were outlawed at
    the suit of Elizabeth, widow of John Saunderson, for the murder of
    her husband.]

An evil day, nevertheless, had arrived for the Duke of Suffolk, which
not all the influence of the king, nor the still greater influence of
Margaret of Anjou, who owed to him her proud position as Henry’s
consort, was able to avert. On the 22nd of January the duke presented a
petition to the king that he might be allowed to clear himself before
Parliament of the imputations which had been cast on him in consequence
of the dying words of Bishop Moleyns. He begged the king to remember how
his father had died in the service of King Henry V. at Harfleur--how his
elder brother had been with that king at Agincourt--how two other
brothers had fallen in the king’s own days at Jargeau, when he himself
was taken prisoner and had to pay £20,000 for his ransom--how his fourth
brother had been a hostage for him in the enemies’ hands and died there.
He also reminded the king that he had borne arms for four-and-thirty
years, had been thirty years a Knight of the Garter, and had served in
the wars abroad for seventeen years at a time, without ever coming home.
Since then he had been fifteen years in England about the king’s person,
and he prayed God that if ever he died otherwise than in his bed, it
might be in maintaining the quarrel that he had been at all times true
to Henry.[60-1]

    [Footnote 60-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 176.]

Four days after this a deputation from the Commons waited on the Lord
Chancellor, desiring that as Suffolk had confessed the prevalence of
injurious reports against him, he might be committed to custody. This
request was laid by the Chancellor before the king and council on the
following day, and the opinion of the judges being taken as to the
legality of the proposed arrest, he was allowed to remain at liberty
until a definite charge should be brought against him. Such a charge was
accordingly declared two days later by the Speaker, who did not hesitate
to tell the Lord Chancellor, in the name of the Commons, that Suffolk
was believed to be in league with the French king to promote an invasion
of England, and had fortified the castle of Wallingford with a view of
assisting the invaders. The duke, on this, was committed to the Tower.

[Sidenote: Suffolk impeached.] On the 7th of February he was formally
impeached by the Commons. A copy of the articles of impeachment will be
found in the Paston Letters (No. 76). Nothing was said in them of the
fortification of Wallingford Castle, but a number of specific charges
were made, many of them authenticated by the exact day and place when
the alleged treasonable acts were committed, tending to show that in his
communications with the French he had been invariably opposed to the
interests of his own country. It was alleged that he had been bribed to
deliver Anjou and Maine, and that as long ago as the year 1440 he was
influenced by corrupt motives to promote the liberation of the Duke of
Orleans; that he had disclosed the secrets of the English
council-chamber to the French king’s ambassadors; that he had even given
information by which France had profited in the war, and that he had
rendered peace negotiations nugatory by letting the French know
beforehand the instructions given to the English envoys. Further, in the
midst of invasion and national disgrace, he had hoped to gratify his own
ambition. The king, who was still childless, was to be deposed; and the
duke had actually hoped to make his own son king in his place. It seems
that he had obtained some time before a grant of the wardship of
Margaret Beaufort, daughter of the late Duke of Somerset, who was the
nearest heir to the Crown in the Lancastrian line, and since his arrest
he had caused her to be married to his own son, Lord John De la
Pole.[61-1] Such was the foundation on which the worst charge rested.

    [Footnote 61-1: So it is stated in the impeachment. According to
    the inquisition on Suffolk’s death, his son was born on the 27th
    September 1442, and was therefore at this time only in his eighth
    year.--Napier’s _Historical Notices of Swyncombe and Ewelme_,
    108.]

A month passed before he was heard in his own defence. The Commons
impeached, but it was for the Lords to try him. Meanwhile, another bill
of indictment had been prepared by the malice of his enemies, in which
all the failures of his policy were visited upon him as crimes, and
attributed to the worst and most selfish motives. For his own private
gain, he had caused the Crown to be prodigal of grants to other persons,
till it was so impoverished that the wages of the household were unpaid,
and the royal manors left to fall into decay. He had granted the earldom
of Kendal, with large possessions both in England and in Guienne, to a
Gascon, who ultimately sided with the French, but had happened to marry
his niece. He had weakened the king’s power in Guienne, alienated the
Count of Armagnac, and caused a band of English to attack the king’s
German allies; he had disposed of offices to unworthy persons without
consulting the council, granted important possessions in Normandy to the
French king’s councillors, given to the French queen £13,000 of the
revenues of England, appropriated and misapplied the king’s treasure and
the subsidies granted by Parliament for the keeping of the sea. These
and some minor charges formed the contents of the second bill of
indictment.[61-2]

    [Footnote 61-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 179-182.]

He was brought from the Tower on the 9th day of March, and required to
make answer before the Lords to the contents of both bills. He requested
of the king that he might have copies, which were allowed him; and that
he might prepare his answer more at ease, he was removed for a few days
to a tower within the king’s palace at Westminster. [Sidenote: His
defence.] On the 13th he was sent for to make his answer before the king
and lords. Kneeling before the throne, he replied to each of the eight
articles in the first bill separately. He denied their truth entirely,
and offered to prove them false in whatever manner the king would
direct. He declared it absurd to consider Margaret Beaufort as
heir-presumptive to the Crown, and used other arguments to show the
improbability of his designs on the succession. In all else he showed
that the other lords of the council were quite as much committed as he;
and as to the delivery of Anjou and Maine, he laid the responsibility
entirely upon the murdered Bishop of Chichester.[62-1]

    [Footnote 62-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 182.]

Next day, the Chief Justice, by the king’s command, asked the Lords what
advice they would give the king in the matter. It was a Saturday, and
the Lords deferred their answer till the following Monday; but on the
Monday nothing was done. On the Tuesday the king sent for all the Lords
then in London to attend him in his own palace, where they met in an
inner chamber. When they were assembled, Suffolk was sent for, and
kneeling down, was addressed briefly by the Lord Chancellor. He was
reminded that he had made answer to the first bill of the Commons
without claiming the right of being tried by the peers; and he was asked
if he had anything further to say upon the subject. He replied that the
accusations were too horrible to be further spoken of, and he hoped he
had sufficiently answered all that touched the king’s person, and the
state of his kingdom. Nevertheless, he submitted himself entirely to the
king, to do with him whatever he thought good.[62-2]

    [Footnote 62-2: _Ibid._]

On this an answer was returned to him in the king’s name by the Lord
Chancellor. A miserably weak and evasive answer it was, showing clearly
that the king desired to protect his favourite, but had not the
manliness to avow he thought him worthy of protection. The Lord
Chancellor was commissioned to say, that as to the very serious charges
contained in the first bill, the king regarded Suffolk as not having
been proved either guilty or innocent; but touching those contained in
the second bill, which amounted only to misprisions, as Suffolk did not
put himself upon his peerage, but submitted entirely to the king, the
latter had determined, without consulting the Lords, and not in the way
of judgment (for he was not sitting in tribunal), but merely in virtue
of the duke’s own submission, [Sidenote: He is ordered to leave
England.] to bid him absent himself from England for five years, from
the first day of May ensuing.[63-1]

    [Footnote 63-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 183.]

It is clear upon the face of the matter, that although the king was made
to take the sole responsibility of this decision, it was really a thing
arranged, and not arranged without difficulty, between the friends of
Suffolk and some of the leading members of the House of Lords.
Immediately after it was pronounced, Viscount Beaumont, who was one of
Suffolk’s principal allies, made a protest on behalf of the Lords, that
what the king had just done, he had done by his own authority, without
their advice and counsel. He accordingly besought the king that their
protest might be recorded in the rolls of Parliament, for their
protection, so that the case might not henceforth be made a precedent in
derogation of the privileges of the peerage.[63-2] Thus it was clearly
hoped on all sides a great crisis had been averted. Suffolk was got rid
of, but not condemned. A victim was given over to popular resentment,
but the rights of the Peers for the future were to be maintained. And
though the Crown lowered itself by an avowed dereliction of duty, it was
not severely censured for preferring expediency to justice.

    [Footnote 63-2: _Ibid._]

On the following night the duke left Westminster for Suffolk. The people
of London were intensely excited, and about two thousand persons sallied
out to St. Giles’ hoping to intercept his departure, but they succeeded
only in capturing his horse and some of his servants, whom they
maltreated, as might have been expected. Even after this the excitement
was scarcely diminished. Seditious manifestoes were thrown about in
public and secretly posted on church doors.[64-1] The duke had more than
a month to prepare for leaving England, and seems to have spent the time
in the county of Suffolk. [Sidenote: He embarks for Flanders.] On
Thursday the 30th of April he embarked at Ipswich for Flanders; but
before going he assembled the gentlemen of the county, and, taking the
sacrament, swore he was innocent of the sale of Normandy and of the
other treasons imputed to him.[64-2] He also wrote an interesting letter
of general admonitions for the use of his young son, at that time not
eight years old, whom he was not to see again for at least five years,
and too probably not at all. This letter, which is known to us only by a
copy preserved in the Paston correspondence (No. 117), can hardly fail
to awaken sympathy with the writer. As an evidence of unaffected piety
to God and sincere loyalty to his king, it will probably outweigh with
most readers all the aspersions cast by Parliament on the purity of his
intentions.

    [Footnote 64-1: Rymer, xi. 268.]

    [Footnote 64-2: W. Worc. 468, 469.]

Two ships and a little pinnace conveyed him from the Suffolk coast
southwards till he stood off Dover, when he despatched the small vessel
with letters to certain persons in Calais to ascertain how he should be
received if he landed there. The pinnace was intercepted by some ships
which seem to have been lying in wait for his passage; and when it was
ascertained where the duke actually was, they immediately bore down upon
him. Foremost among the pursuers was a ship called the _Nicholas of the
Tower_, the master of which, on nearing Suffolk’s vessel, sent out a
boat to ask who they were. Suffolk made answer in person, and said that
he was going by the king’s command to Calais; on which they told him he
must speak with their master. They accordingly conveyed him and two or
three others in their boat to the _Nicholas_. When he came on board the
master saluted him with the words, ‘Welcome, traitor!’ and sent to know
if the shipmen meant to take part with the duke, which they at once
disowned all intention of doing. The duke was then informed that he must
die, but was allowed the whole of the next day and night to confess
himself and prepare for the event.[64-3] On Monday the 2nd of May the
rovers consummated their design. In sight of all his men Suffolk was
drawn out of the _Nicholas_ into a boat in which an axe and block were
prepared. [Sidenote: Is murdered at sea.] One of the crew, an Irish
churl, then bade him lay down his head, telling him in cruel mockery
that he should be fairly dealt with and die upon a sword. A rusty sword
was brought out accordingly, and with nearly half a dozen strokes the
fellow clumsily cut off his head. He was then stripped of his russet
gown and velvet doublet. His body was brought to land and thrown upon
the sands at Dover; and his men were at the same time allowed to
disembark.[65-1]

    [Footnote 64-3: _English Chronicle_, ed. Davies, p. 69.]

    [Footnote 65-1: _Paston Letters_, Nos. 120, 121.]

The source from which we learn most of these particulars is a letter of
William Lomner to John Paston written when the news was fresh. The
writer seems to have been quite overpowered by the tragic character of
the event, and declares he had so blurred the writing with tears that he
fears it would not be easy to decipher. Indications of genuine human
feeling like this are so rare in letters of an early date that we are in
danger of attributing to the men of those days a coldness and brutality
which were by no means so universal as we are apt to suppose. The truth
is that when men related facts they regarded their own feelings as an
impertinence having nothing whatever to do with the matter in
hand.[65-2] The art of letter-writing, besides, had not yet acquired the
freedom of later days. It was used, in the main, for business purposes
only. We shall meet, it is true, in this very correspondence, with one
or two early specimens of jesting epistles; but, on the whole, I suspect
paper was too valuable a commodity and writing too great a labour to be
wasted on things irrelevant.

    [Footnote 65-2: Even the passage above referred to would probably
    be an illustration of this if the original letter were examined.
    As we have reprinted it from Fenn, it stands thus: ‘Right
    worshipful Sir, I recommend me to you, and am right sorry of that
    I shall say, _and have so wesshe this little bill with sorrowful
    tears that uneathes ye shall read it_.’ The words in italics would
    probably be found to be an interlineation in the original, for
    though they stand at the beginning of the letter, they were
    clearly written after it was penned, and the only reason why they
    were inserted was to excuse the illegibility of the writing.]

But whatever feeling may have been excited by the news of Suffolk’s
murder in men like William Lomner, who possibly may have known the duke
personally, we may well believe that the nation at large was neither
afflicted nor very greatly shocked at the event. Even the prior of
Croyland, the head of a great religious community in Lincolnshire,
speaks of it as the just punishment of a traitor, and has not a word to
say in reprobation.[66-1] Mocking dirges were composed and spread
abroad, in which his partisans were represented as chanting his funeral
service, and a blessing was invoked on the heads of his murderers. These
were but the last of a host of satires in which the public indignation
had for months past found a vent.[66-2] Suffolk had been represented on
his imprisonment as a fox driven into his hole, who must on no account
be let out again. He had been rhymed at as the Ape with his Clog who had
tied Talbot our good dog, in allusion to the fact of Talbot, Earl of
Shrewsbury, having been given up as a hostage to the French after the
surrender of Rouen.[66-3] He had been reviled as an upstart who had
usurped the place of better men, and who systematically thwarted and
neutralised all that better men could do. If any one wept for the fall
of such a man, it was not on public grounds.

    [Footnote 66-1: _Contin. of Croyland Chronicle_, p. 525.]

    [Footnote 66-2: Wright’s _Political Poems_ (in Rolls series), ii.
    232.]

    [Footnote 66-3: _Ibid._ 222, 224.]

As a specimen of these political satires we cannot resist the temptation
to quote a short poem which must have been composed towards the close of
the year 1449, after the surrender of Rouen and before Suffolk’s fall.
It is far less personal than the others, being not so much an invective
against Suffolk as a wail over the loss of England’s great men, and the
decay of her fortunes. The leading statesmen and warriors of that and
the former age are here spoken of by their badges, which the reader will
find interpreted in the margin:--

  ‘The Root[a] is dead, the Swan[b] is gone,
    The fiery Cresset[c] hath lost his light.
  Therefore England may make great moan
    Were not the help of God Almight’.
  The Castle[d] is won where care begun,
    The Portè-cullis[e] is laid adown;
  Yclosèd we have our Velvet Hat[f]
    That covered us from many stormes brown.
  The White Lion[g] is laid to sleep,
    Thorough the envy of th’ Apè[h] Clog;
  And he is bounden that our door should keep;
    That is Talbot, our good dog.
  The Fisher[i] has lost his angle hook;
    Get them again when it will be.
  Our Millè-sail[k] will not about,
    It hath so long gone empty.
  The Bear[l] is bound that was so wild,
    For he hath lost his Ragged Staff.
  The Carte-nathe[m] is spoke-less
    For the counsel that he gaf.
  The Lily[n] is both fair and green;
    The Conduit[o] runneth not, I wean.
  The Cornish Chough[p] oft with his train
    Hath made our Eagle[q] blind.
  The White Hart[r] is put out of mind
    Because he will not to them consent;
  Therefore, the Commons saith, is both true and kind,
    Both in Sussex and in Kent.
  The Water Bouge[s] and the Wine Botell
    With the Fetterlock’s[t] chain bene fast.
  The Wheat Ear[u] will them sustain
    As long as he may endure and last.
  The Boar[w] is far into the West,
    That should us help with shield and spear.
  The Falcon[x] fleeth and hath no rest
    Till he wit where to bigg his nest.’

    [Footnote a: The Regent Bedford.]

    [Footnote b: Humphrey, Duke of Glo’ster.]

    [Footnote c: The last Duke of Exeter.]

    [Footnote d: Rouen Castle.]

    [Footnote e: The Duke of Somerset.]

    [Footnote f: The Cardinal Beaufort.]

    [Footnote g: The Duke of Norfolk, who had gone on pilgrimage to
    Rome in 1447. (Dugdale.)]

    [Footnote h: The Duke of Suffolk.]

    [Footnote i: Lord Fauconberg who was taken prisoner by the French
    at the capture of Pont-de-l’Arche.]

    [Footnote k: Robert, Lord Willoughby.]

    [Footnote l: The Earl of Warwick.]

    [Footnote m: The Duke of Buckingham.]

    [Footnote n: Thomas Daniel. He and the two next are courtiers.]

    [Footnote o: John Norris.]

    [Footnote p: John Trevilian.]

    [Footnote q: The King.]

    [Footnote r: Earl of Arundel.]

    [Footnote s: Lord Bouchier.]

    [Footnote t: Prior of St. John’s.]

    [Footnote u: The Duke of Exeter.]

    [Footnote w: The Earl of Devonshire.]

    [Footnote x: The Duke of York, who had been sent into Ireland to
    be out of the way.]

Almost concurrently with the news of Suffolk’s murder came tidings,
mentioned by William Lomner in the very same letter, of another disaster
in France, more gloomy, if possible, than any that had occurred before.
[Sidenote: Defeat of Sir T. Kiriel.] A force under Sir Thomas Kiriel had
been sent to the aid of the Duke of Somerset in Normandy after the loss
of Rouen. It disembarked at Cherbourg, and proceeding towards Caen,
where the duke had now taken up his position, besieged and took
Valognes. They were now in full communication with the garrisons of Caen
and Bayeux, when they were suddenly attacked at the village of
Fourmigni, and routed with great slaughter. Between three and four
thousand Englishmen were left dead upon the field; Kiriel himself was
taken prisoner; even the brave Matthew Gough (well known to Frenchmen of
that day as Matago) found it needful to fall back with his company of
1500 men for the safeguard of Bayeux, which a month afterwards he was
compelled after all to give up to the enemy.[68-1]

    [Footnote 68-1: Berry’s narrative in Stevenson’s _Expulsion of the
    English from Normandy_, 336. _Wars of the Engl._ ii. [360].
    _Paston Letters_, No. 120.]

Meanwhile the Parliament, which had been prorogued over Easter, was
ordered to meet again at Leicester instead of Westminster. The reason
given for the change of place was still, as before, the unhealthiness of
the air about Westminster; and doubtless it was a very true reason. It
is possible, however, that the political atmosphere of London was quite
as oppressive to the Court as the physical atmosphere could be to the
Parliament. During their sitting at Leicester a much needed subsidy was
voted to the king, and an Act passed for the application of certain
revenues to the expenses of the Royal Household in order to stop the
exactions of purveyors. But they had hardly sat a month when the session
was suddenly put an end to from a cause which we proceed to notice.


_Rebellion of Jack Cade_

The murder of the Duke of Suffolk had not made things better than they
had been before. The ablest of the ministers, who had hitherto guided
the king’s counsels, was now removed, but his place was left for a time
altogether unsupplied. The men of Suffolk’s party, such as Lord Say,
Viscount Beaumont, and Thomas Daniel, still remained about the king, and
were nearly as unpopular as he had been. The offices formerly held by
Suffolk were divided among them and their particular friends.[68-2] Even
if the Court had desired to call in men of greater weight, they were not
then at hand. The Duke of Somerset was in France, and the Duke of York
in Ireland; so that some time must have elapsed before either of them
could have taken part in public affairs at home. Meanwhile it was said
that the resentment of the Court for Suffolk’s murder would be visited
upon the county of Kent; and the county of Kent was of opinion that it
suffered abuses enough already. The exactions of the king’s officers,
both in the way of taxation and purveyance, were felt to be extortionate
and capricious. The collectors of the revenue were appointed by the
knights of the shire, and these, instead of being freely chosen by the
people, were but the nominees of a few great men who compelled their
tenants to vote according to their pleasure. There were, besides, grave
cases of injustice in which people were accused of treason, and kept in
prison without trial, on the information of persons about the Court who
had influence to obtain grants of their lands from the Crown.

    [Footnote 68-2: _See_ No. 123. William Worcester says Lord
    Beauchamp was made treasurer, and Lord Cromwell the king’s
    chamberlain. Lord Beauchamp’s appointment is on the _Patent
    Rolls_. See _Calendarium Rot. Patent_, p. 294.]

[Sidenote: Cade’s Rebellion.] Hence arose Jack Cade’s rebellion,
a movement which we must not permit ourselves to look upon as a vulgar
outbreak of the rabble. Whole districts of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex rose
in arms, clamouring for redress of grievances; and it is certain that
the insurgents met with a large amount of sympathy, even from those who
did not actually take part with them.[69-1] As their leader, they
selected a man who called himself Mortimer, and who, besides some
experience in war, was evidently possessed of no small talent for
generalship. It afterwards turned out that his real name was Cade, that
he was a native of Ireland, and that he had been living a year before in
the household of Sir Thomas Dacre in Sussex, when he was obliged to
abjure the kingdom for killing a woman who was with child. He then
betook himself to France and served in the French war against England.
What induced him to return does not appear, unless we may suppose, which
is not unlikely, that some misdemeanour when in the service of France
made the French soil fully as dangerous to him as the English. In
England he seems to have assumed the name of Aylmer, and passed himself
off as a physician. He married a squire’s daughter, and dressed in
scarlet; and when the rebellion broke out in Kent he called himself John
Mortimer, a cousin of the Duke of York.

    [Footnote 69-1: The late Mr. Durrant Cooper, in an interesting
    paper read before a meeting of the Kent Archæological Society,
    examined the long list of names given on the _Patent Roll_ of 28
    Henry VI., and proved from them that the insurrection was by no
    means of a very plebeian or disorderly character. ‘In several
    hundreds,’ he says, ‘the constables duly, and as if legally,
    summoned the men; and many parishes, particularly Marden,
    Penshurst, Hawkhurst, Northfleet, Boughton-Malherbe, Smarden, and
    Pluckley, furnished as many men as could be found in our day fit
    for arms.’]

The first disturbances took place at Whitsuntide in the latter end of
May. In the second week of June[70-1] a considerable army from the
counties of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex encamped upon Blackheath. The king,
who, on receiving news of the rising, had dissolved the parliament then
sitting at Leicester, arrived in London on Saturday the 13th, and took
up his quarters at the priory of St. John’s, near Smithfield. He had
with him 20,000 men under arms, but for some reason or other did not set
out against the rebels till the following Thursday, the 18th.[70-1]
They, meanwhile, had withdrawn in the night-time,[70-2] and the king and
his host occupied their position on Blackheath. The royal forces,
however, proceeded no further. Only a detachment, under Sir Humphrey
Stafford and his brother William, was sent to pursue the insurgents. An
encounter took place at Sevenoaks on the 18th,[70-3] in which both the
Staffords were killed. Their defeat spread dismay and disaffection in
the royal camp. The noblemen who had accompanied the king to Blackheath
could no longer keep their men together, the latter protesting that
unless justice were done on certain traitors who had misled the king,
they would go over to the Captain of Kent. To satisfy them, Lord Say was
arrested and sent to the Tower; but even with this concession the king
did not dare presume upon their loyalty. He withdrew to Greenwich, and
the whole of his army dispersed. The king himself returned to London by
water, and made preparations during the next two or three days to remove
to Kenilworth. The mayor and commons of the city went to him to beseech
him to remain, offering to live and die with him, and pay half a year’s
cost of his household. But all was to no purpose. The king had not even
the manliness of Richard II. at Smithfield, and he took his departure to
Kenilworth.[71-1]

    [Footnote 70-1: These dates were given differently in previous
    issues of this Introduction. For a rectification of the chronology
    of the rebellion I am indebted to Kriehn’s _English Rising_ in
    1450, pp. 125 and following.]

    [Footnote 70-2: According to No. 119 of our collection this
    retreat would appear to have been on the 22nd June, but that date
    is certainly an error.]

    [Footnote 70-3: The 18th June is given as the date of Sir Humphrey
    Stafford’s death in _Inquis. post mortem_, 28 Henry VI. No. 7.]

    [Footnote 71-1: W. Worc.--_Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_
    (edited by me for the Camden Soc.), 67.--Chronicle in MS. Cott.
    Vitell. A. xvi.]

The city, thus deserted by its sovereign, knew not for a time what to
do. A party within the Common Council itself ventured to open
negotiations with the insurgents, and Alderman Cooke passed to and fro
under the safe-conduct of the Captain.[71-2] To many it may have seemed
doubtful loyalty to support the government of Lord Say and his friends
against an oppressed population. On the 1st day of July[71-3] the
insurgents entered Southwark. On the 2nd a Common Council was called by
the Lord Mayor to provide means for resisting their entry into the city;
but the majority voted for their free admission, and Alderman Robert
Horne, who was the leading speaker against them, was committed to prison
for his boldness. [Sidenote: The rebels enter London.] That same
afternoon the so-called Mortimer and his followers passed over London
Bridge into the city. The Captain, after passing the drawbridge, hewed
the ropes asunder with his sword. His first proceedings were marked by
order and discipline. He issued proclamations in the king’s name against
robbery and forced requisitions, but he rode through the different
streets as if to place the capital under military government; and when
he came to London Stone, he struck it with his sword, saying, ‘Now is
Mortimer lord of this city.’ Finally, he gave instructions to the Lord
Mayor about the order to be kept within his jurisdiction, and returned
for the night to his quarters in Southwark. On the following morning,
Friday the 3rd, he again entered the city, when he caused Lord Say to be
sent for from the Tower. That no resistance was made to this demand by
Lord Scales, who had the keeping of the fortress, may seem strange. But
there was a reason for it which most of the chroniclers do not tell us.
The king had been obliged to listen to the grievances of his ‘Commons’
and to withdraw his protection from his favourites. He had granted a
commission ‘to certain lords and to the mayor and divers justices, to
inquire of all persons that were traitors, extortioners, or oppressors
of the king’s people.’[72-1] Lord Say was accordingly formally arraigned
at a regular sessions at the Guildhall. But when the unfortunate
nobleman claimed the constitutional privilege of being tried by his
peers, the pretence of law was finally laid aside. A company of the
insurgents took him from the officers and hurried him off to the
Standard in Cheap, where, before he was half shriven, his head was cut
off and stuck upon a long pole. A son-in-law of his named Crowmer, who
was then very unpopular as sheriff of Kent, met with a similar fate. He
was beheaded in Cade’s presence at Mile End. Barbarity now followed
violence. The lifeless heads of Say and Crowmer were carried through the
streets, and made to kiss each other. At the same time one Bailey was
beheaded at Whitechapel on a charge of necromancy, the real cause of his
death being, as it was reported, that he was an old acquaintance of
Cade’s who might have revealed something of his past history.

    [Footnote 71-2: Holinshed, iii. 632.]

    [Footnote 71-3: I leave this part of the story as it was
    originally written, though here, too, the chronology seems to
    require rectification, especially from sources since published,
    for which the reader may consult Kriehn’s work, p. 129.]

    [Footnote 72-1: MS. Vitellius A. xvi. fol. 107, quoted by Kriehn,
    p. 92.]

It may have been the expectation of inevitable exposure that induced
Cade now to relax discipline, and set an example of spoliation himself.
He entered and pillaged the house of Philip Malpas, an alderman known as
a friend of the Court, and therefore unpopular in the city. Next day he
dined at a house in the parish of St. Margaret Pattens, and then robbed
his host. At each of these acts of robbery the rabble were sharers of
the spoil. But, of course, such proceedings completely alienated all who
had anything to lose, and the mayor and aldermen began to devise
measures for expelling Cade and his followers from the city. For this
end they negotiated with Lord Scales and Matthew Gough, who had then the
keeping of the Tower.

For three days successively Cade had entered the city with his men, and
retired in the evening to Southwark. But on Sunday, the 5th of July, he
for some reason remained in Southwark all day. In the evening the mayor
and citizens, with a force under Matthew Gough, came and occupied London
Bridge to prevent the Kentish men again entering the city. [Sidenote:
Battle on London Bridge.] The Captain called his men to arms, and
attacked the citizens with such impetuosity, that he drove them back
from the Southwark end of the bridge to the drawbridge in the centre.
This the insurgents set on fire, after inflicting great losses on the
citizens, many of whom were slain or drowned in defending it. Matthew
Gough himself was among those who perished. Still, the fight was
obstinately contested, the advantage being for the moment now with one
party and now with the other. It continued all through the night till
nine on the following morning; when at last the Kentish men began to
give way, and a truce was made for a certain number of hours.

  [[Sidenote: Battle on London Bridge.
  _final . missing_]]

A favourable opportunity now presented itself for mediation. Although
the king had retired to Kenilworth, he had left behind him in London
some leading members of his council, among whom were Cardinal Kemp,
Archbishop of York,[73-1] then Lord Chancellor, and Waynflete, Bishop of
Winchester. The former had taken refuge in the Tower, under the
protection of Lord Scales; and he called to him the latter, who lay
concealed at Holywell.[73-2] A conference was arranged between them and
the insurgents, and both the Cardinal and Bishop Waynflete[73-3] with
some others crossed the river and met with Cade in St. Margaret’s Church
in Southwark. In the end matters were satisfactorily arranged, and the
bishop produced two general pardons prepared by the Chancellor, the
first for the Captain himself, and the second for his followers. The
offer was embraced with eagerness. The men were by this time disgusted
with their leader, and alarmed at the result of their own acts. By
thousands they accepted the amnesty and began to return homewards. But
Cade, who knew that his pardon would avail him little when the history
of his past life came to be investigated, wisely made friends to himself
after the fashion of the Unjust Steward. He broke open the gaols of the
King’s Bench and Marshalsea, and formed a new company out of the
liberated prisoners.[74-1] He then despatched to Rochester a barge laden
with the goods he had taken from Malpas and others in London, and
prepared to go thither himself by land. He and his new following appear
to have been still in Southwark on the 8th of July, but to have passed
through Dartford to Rochester on the 9th, where they continued still in
arms against the king on the 10th and 11th.[74-2] An attempt they made
upon the castle of Queenborough was resisted by Sir Roger Chamberlain,
to whom a reward was given in the following year in acknowledgment of
his services.[74-3] Meanwhile a proclamation was issued offering a
reward of a thousand marks for Cade’s apprehension, and ten marks for
that of any of his followers; ‘for,’ says a contemporary chronicler, ‘it
was openly known that his name was not Mortimer; his name was John Cade;
and therefore his charter stood in no strength.’[74-4]

    [Footnote 73-1: Inaccurately called Archbishop of Canterbury by
    Fabyan and others. He was not translated to Canterbury till 1452.]

    [Footnote 73-2: Hall’s _Chronicle_. Holy Well was a mineral spring
    to the north of London, much frequented before the Reformation,
    when it was stopped up as being considered a place of
    superstitious resort. A century afterwards it was discovered anew
    by a Mr. Sadler, from whom the locality is named to this day
    Sadler’s Wells.]

    [Footnote 73-3: Some doubt seems to be thrown on Hall’s statement
    that both prelates crossed the river, as earlier writers say the
    Chancellor _sent_ pardons under the Great Seal. William Worcester,
    moreover, makes no mention of the cardinal, but says that the
    Bishop of Winchester and others of the king’s council spoke with
    the Captain of Kent. But the ‘Short English Chronicle’ in the
    _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, edited by me for the Camden
    Society in 1880 (p. 68), does exactly the reverse, and omitting
    all reference to the Bishop of Winchester, says: ‘And forthewithe
    went the Chaunseler to the Capteyne and sessed him and gave him a
    chartur and his men an other.’]

    [Footnote 74-1: Hall’s _Chronicle_.]

    [Footnote 74-2: See _Act of Attainder_, 29 Hen. VI. _Rolls of
    Parl._ vi. 224.]

    [Footnote 74-3: Devon’s _Issue Rolls_, 471. Davies’ _English
    Chron._ 67.]

    [Footnote 74-4: _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 68.]

The feeble remains of the rebellion were already quarrelling about the
booty Cade had conveyed out of London. Their leader now took horse and
escaped in disguise towards the woody country about Lewes. He was
pursued by Alexander Iden, a gentleman who had just been appointed
sheriff of Kent in place of the murdered Crowmer. [Sidenote: Capture and
death of Cade.] Iden overtook him in a garden at Heathfield, and made
him prisoner, not without a scuffle, in which Cade was mortally wounded,
so that on being conveyed to London he died on the way. It only remained
to use his carcass as a terror to evil-doers. His head was cut off and
placed upon London Bridge, with the face looking towards Kent. His body
was drawn through the streets of London, then quartered, and the
quarters sent to four different places very widely apart,--one of them
to Blackheath, one to Norwich, one to Salisbury, and one to
Gloucester.[75-1]

    [Footnote 75-1: W. Worc. Fabyan. Davies’ _English Chronicle_
    (Camden Soc.), 67. Ellis’ _Letters_, 2nd Series i. 115.]

If the dispersion of traitors’ limbs for exhibition in many places could
have effectually repressed disloyalty, the whole realm ought now to have
been at rest. The quarters of another Kentish rebel, who, under the name
of Bluebeard, had raised disturbances in the preceding February, were at
that moment undergoing public exhibition in London, Norwich, and the
Cinque Ports. Those of two others were about this time despatched by the
sheriffs of London to Chichester, Rochester, Portsmouth, Colchester,
Stamford, Coventry, Newbury, and Winchester. The heads of all these
wretches were set upon London Bridge, which in the course of this
miserable year bore no less than twenty-three such horrid
ornaments.[75-2]

    [Footnote 75-2: Ellis, _ib._ MS. Vitell. A. xvi.]

[Sidenote: Further disturbances.] But with all this, sedition was not
put down, even in the county of Kent; for I find by the evidence of
authentic records that a new rising took place in August at Feversham,
under one William Parminter, who, undeterred by the fate of Cade,
gathered about him 400 men, and called himself _the second_ Captain of
Kent. This affair is quite unnoticed by historians, and all I know of it
is derived from a pardon to one of those engaged in it.[75-3] But even
Parminter was not the last ‘Captain of Kent’ that made his appearance
this year; for the very same title was immediately afterwards assumed by
one John Smyth, for whose capture a reward of £40 was ordered to be paid
to the Duke of Somerset on the 3rd of October.[75-4] And the
chroniclers, though they do not mention these disturbances, tell us that
such things were general over all the kingdom. In Wiltshire, at the time
that Cade was at Blackheath, William Ayscough, Bishop of Salisbury, had
one day said mass at Edington, when he was dragged from the altar by a
band of his own tenants and murdered in his alb and stole at the top of
a neighbouring hill. He was the second bishop who had been murdered that
year by the populace. Another insurrection in the same county in August
is mentioned in a letter of James Gresham’s, the number of the
insurgents being reported at nine or ten thousand men.[76-1] These
instances may suffice as evidence of the widespread troubles of the
time.

    [Footnote 75-3: _See_ document in Appendix to this Introduction;
    also Devon’s _Issue Rolls_, p. 472. It would seem as if the entry
    there dated 5th August ought to have been 5th September, as
    Parminter does not seem to have been taken even on the last day of
    August.]

    [Footnote 75-4: Nicolas’s _Proceedings of the Privy Council_, vi.
    101.]

    [Footnote 76-1: _See_ No. 131.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Fastolf.] Of the degree of private suffering and
misery inflicted in particular cases by these commotions we have a
lively picture in Letter 126. At the time when Cade and his followers
were encamped upon Blackheath, Sir John Fastolf, a noted warrior of the
time, of whom we shall have much to say hereafter, was residing at his
house in Southwark. He was a man who had not succeeded in standing well
with his contemporaries, and the fact may have contributed not a little
to the sensitiveness of a naturally irascible character. In one
engagement with the French[76-2] he was actually accused of cowardice,
a charge which he seems afterwards satisfactorily to have disproved. For
some years, however, he had given up soldiering and returned to his
native country, where he served the king in a different manner as a
member of his Privy Council. But in this capacity too he was unpopular.
His advice should have been valuable at least in reference to the
affairs of France; but it does not seem to have been taken. The warnings
and counsels which he gave with reference to the maintenance of the
English conquests in France he caused his secretary, William Worcester,
to put in writing for his justification; but though his admonitions were
neglected by those to whom they were addressed, popular rumour held him
partly accountable for the loss of Normandy. Of this opinion some
evidence was given in the course of Cade’s insurrection.

    [Footnote 76-2: The Battle of Patay.]

As a member of the King’s Council Fastolf thought it right to send a
messenger to ascertain what were the demands of the insurgents.
[Sidenote: John Payn and the rebels.] He therefore commanded one John
Payn, who was in his service, to take a man with him and two of the best
horses of his stable, and ride to Blackheath. When he arrived there,
Cade ordered him to be taken prisoner. To save his master’s horses from
being stolen, Payn gave them to the attendant, who galloped away with
them as fast as he could, while he himself was brought before the
Captain. Cade then asked him what he had come for, and why he had caused
his fellow to run away with the horses. He answered that he had come to
join some brothers of his wife, and other companions who were among the
insurgents. On this some one called out to the Captain that he was a man
of Sir John Fastolf’s, and that the two horses were Sir John’s. The
Captain raised a cry of ‘Treason!’ and sent him through the camp with a
herald of the Duke of Exeter before him, in the duke’s coat-of-arms. At
four quarters of the field the herald proclaimed with an _Oyez_ that
Payn had been sent as a spy upon them by the greatest traitor in England
or France, namely, by one Sir John Fastolf, who had diminished all the
garrisons of Normandy, Le Mans, and Maine, and thereby caused the loss
of all the king’s inheritance beyond sea. It was added that Sir John had
garrisoned his place with the old soldiers of Normandy, to oppose the
Commons when they came to Southwark; and, as the emissary of such a
traitor, Payn was informed that he should lose his head.

He was brought to the Captain’s tent, where an axe and block were
produced. But fortunately he had friends among the host; and Robert
Poynings, Cade’s swordbearer and carver, who afterwards married John
Paston’s sister Elizabeth, declared plainly that there should die a
hundred or two others if Payn were put to death. He was therefore
allowed to live on taking an oath that he would go to Southwark and arm
himself, and return to join the Commons. He accordingly carried to
Fastolf a statement of their demands, advising him at the same time to
put away his old soldiers and withdraw himself into the Tower. The old
warrior felt that the advice was prudent; he left but two of his
servants in the place, and but for Payn the insurgents would have burned
it to the ground. The faithful dependant, however, had to pay the full
penalty of his master’s unpopularity. He seems to have entertained the
rioters for some time at his own cost. Afterwards the Captain took from
him some valuable clothes and armour, and sent men to ransack his
chamber of bonds, money, and other stores. The insurgents also robbed
his house in Kent, and threatened to hang his wife and children.
Finally, on the night of the battle on London Bridge, Cade thrust him
into the thickest of the combat, where he continued six hours unable to
extricate himself, and was dangerously wounded.

To have passed through all this was surely a severe enough trial; yet
after that commotion he had further trouble to endure. He was impeached
by the Bishop of Rochester, and thrown into the Marshalsea by command of
the queen. He was also threatened to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, in
order that he might accuse his master Fastolf of treason; but in the end
his friends succeeded in procuring for him a charter of pardon. To earn
this, however, as we find from the document itself, he had to appear
before the king in person, during a progress which he made in Kent the
year after the rebellion, and, amid a crowd of other supplicants whose
bodies were stripped naked down to their legs, humbly to beg for
mercy.[78-1]

    [Footnote 78-1: _See_ Appendix to Introduction.]


_The Dukes of York and Somerset_

[Sidenote: The Duke of York.] Cade’s rebellion was attributed by the
Court to the machinations of the Duke of York. The disturbances that had
prevailed for some months previously seem to have been partly associated
with his name. When Adam de Moleyns, Bishop of Chichester, was murdered
in the beginning of the year, the malcontents talked of inviting York
over from Ireland to redress the wrongs of the people. The exclusion of
York and other lords of royal blood from the king’s councils was also
made an express ground of complaint by the Kentish insurgents. The
repetition of his name in the mouths of the disaffected was anything but
grateful to the party then in power. It was construed as being in itself
an evidence of his disloyalty. But the popular complaints as to his
treatment were both just and reasonable, for it was a matter that
concerned the public weal. The rank, wealth, and lineage of the Duke of
York, his connection with the blood-royal, his large possessions, and
finally his well-proved ability both as a general and an
administrator--all marked him out as one who ought to have been invited
to take a leading part in the government of the realm; but a faction
about the king had taken care to keep him as much as possible at a
distance from the Court. Moreover, it had maligned and aspersed him in
his absence, so that it would have been positively insecure for himself
to allow the charges to accumulate. A time had clearly come when it was
no longer his duty to obey the orders of others. His enemies were
becoming more and more unpopular every day, and the only hope of
improving the administration of affairs depended upon his taking the
initiative.

[Sidenote: Comes over from Ireland.] He accordingly determined to avail
himself of the privilege due to his rank, and lay his requests at the
foot of the throne. A little before Michaelmas he came over from
Ireland, collected 4000 of his retainers upon the Welsh Marches, and
with them proceeded to London. His coming, although unsolicited by the
king and without leave asked, was nevertheless not altogether
unexpected. Attempts were made to stop his landing at Beaumaris, and
bodies of men lay in wait for him in various places to interrupt his
progress. For this, however, he could not have been unprepared. He knew
well the hatred entertained towards him at the Court, for he had
experienced pretty much the same thing years before in going to Ireland,
as now in coming from it. Although he was sent to that country in the
king’s service, and as the king’s lieutenant, there were persons
commissioned to apprehend him at several points in his journey thither;
and now on his return similar efforts were made to prevent his advance
to London. As regards himself they were altogether fruitless; but it is
not improbable that they succeeded in deterring many of his followers
from joining him. William Tresham, the Speaker of the last Parliament,
having received a summons from the duke to meet him, was waylaid and
murdered in Northamptonshire by a body of the retainers of Lord Grey of
Ruthin. For two months the murderers went at large. The sheriff of the
county durst not arrest them, and it was only on the meeting of
Parliament that a special act was passed for their punishment.[80-1]

    [Footnote 80-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 211-12.]

York, however, pursued his way, in spite of all opposition, to the royal
presence, and great was the dismay of those then about the king.
According to an act passed against him nine years later, his approach
was not unaccompanied by violence. He and his followers, it is said,
came in warlike array to Westminster Palace, and ‘beat down the spears
and walls’ in the king’s chamber. If so, we should infer that his access
to the king was opposed even at the last moment. But the opposition was
ineffectual, and the reception he met with from Henry himself did not
indicate that the king at all resented his conduct.

It must have been on his first interview with Henry that he presented a
petition and received a reply from him, which are printed in Holinshed
as follows:--


_Richard, Duke of York: his letter to King Henry_[80-2]

  Please it your Highness to conceive that since my departing out of
  this your realm by your commandment, and being in your service in
  your land of Ireland, I have been informed that divers language hath
  been said of me to your most excellent estate which should sound to
  my dishonour and reproach and charge of my person; howbeit that I
  have been, and ever will be, your true liegeman and servant, and if
  there be any man that will or dare say the contrary or charge me
  otherwise, I beseech your rightwiseness to call him before your high
  presence, and I will declare me for my discharge as a true knight
  ought to do. And if I do not, as I doubt not but I shall, I beseech
  you to punish me as the poorest man of your land. And if he be found
  untrue in his suggestion and information, I beseech you of your
  highness that he be punished after his desert in example of all
  other.

  Please it your Excellency to know that as well before my departing
  out of this your realm for to go into your land of Ireland in your
  full noble service, as since, certain persons have lain in wait for
  to hearken upon me, as Sir John Talbot, knight, at the castle of
  Holt, Sir Thomas Stanley, knight, in Cheshire, Pulford at Chester,
  Elton at Worcester, Brooke at Gloucester, and Richard, groom of your
  chamber, at Beaumaris; which had in charge, as I am informed, to
  take me, and put me into your castle of Conway, and to strike off
  the head of Sir William Oldhall, knight, and to have put in prison
  Sir William Devereux, knight, and Sir Edmund Malso (Mulso), knight,
  withouten enlarging until the time that your Highness had appointed
  their deliverance.

  Item, at such time as I was purposed for to have arrived at your
  haven of Beaumaris, for to have come to your noble presence to
  declare me your true man and subject, as my duty is, my landing was
  stopped and forebarred by Henry Norris, Thomas Norris, William
  Buckley, William Grust, and Bartholomew Bould, your officers in
  North Wales, that I should not land there, nor have victuals nor
  refreshing for me and my fellowship, as I have written to your
  Excellency here before; so far forth, that Henry Norris, deputy to
  the chamberlain of North Wales, said unto me that he had in
  commandment that I should in no wise have landing, refreshing, nor
  lodging, for men nor horse, nor other thing that might turn to my
  worship or ease; putting the blame upon Sir William Say, usher of
  your chamber, saying and affirming that I am against your intent and
  [held] as a traitor, as I am informed. And, moreover, certain
  letters were made and delivered unto Chester, Shrewsbury, and to
  other places, for to let mine entry into the same.

  Item, above all wrongs and injuries above said, done unto me of
  malice without any cause, I being in your land of Ireland in your
  honourable service, certain commissions were made and directed unto
  divers persons, which for the execution of the same sat in certain
  places, and the juries impanelled and charged. Unto the which juries
  certain persons laboured instantly to have me indicted of treason,
  to the intent for to have undone me and mine issue, and corrupted my
  blood, as it is openly published. Beseeching your Majesty royal of
  your righteousness to do examine these matters, and thereupon to do
  such justice in this behalf as the cause requireth; for mine intent
  is fully to pursue to your Highness for the conclusion of these
  matters.

    [Footnote 80-2: The whole of this correspondence is attributed by
    Holinshed and Stow to the year 1452; but it appears to me clearly
    to belong to the year 1450, when the Duke had just returned from
    Ireland. See _Chronicle of London_, 136; though internal evidence
    alone will, I think, satisfy the careful student.]


_The Answer of King Henry to the Duke of York_

  Cousin, we have seen the bill that ye took us late, and also
  understand the good humble obedience that ye in yourself show unto
  us, as well in word as in deed; wherefore our intent is the more
  hastily to ease you of such things as were in your said bill.
  Howbeit that at our more leisure we might answer you to your said
  bill, yet we let you wit that, for the causes aforesaid, we will
  declare you now our intent in these matters. Sith it is that a long
  time among the people hath been upon you many strange language, and
  in especial anon after your [qu. their?][82-1] disordinate and
  unlawful slaying of the bishop of Chichester,[82-2] divers and many
  of the untrue shipmen and other said, in their manner, words against
  our estate, making menace to our own person by your sayings, that ye
  should be fetched with many thousands, and ye should take upon you
  that which ye neither ought, nor, as we doubt not, ye will not
  attempt; so far forth that it was said to our person by divers, and
  especially, we remember, of one Wasnes which had like words unto us.
  And also there were divers of such false people that went on and had
  like language in divers of our towns of our land, which by our
  subjects were taken and duly executed. Wherefore we sent to divers
  of our courts and places to hearken and to take heed if any such
  manner coming were, and if there had been, for to resist it; but
  coming into our land our true subject as ye did, our intent was not
  that ye, nor less of estate of our subjects, nor none of your
  servants should not have been letted nor warned, but in goodly wise
  received; howbeit that peradventure your sudden coming, without
  certain warning, caused our servants to do as they did, considering
  the causes abovesaid. And as to the indictment that ye spoke of, we
  think verily and hold for certain, that there was none such. And if
  ye may truly prove that any person was thereabouts, the matter shall
  be demeaned as the case shall require, so that he shall know it is
  to our great displeasure. Upon this, for the easing of your heart in
  all such matters, we declare, repute and admit you as our true and
  faithful subject, and as our faithful cousin.

    [Footnote 82-1: I have no doubt this is a misreading of the
    contracted form ‘y{r}’ which was intended for ‘their.’ To accuse
    York of the murder of the Bishop of Chichester, and apparently as
    a principal, not an accessory in that murder, when he was at the
    time in Ireland, would have been absurd. Besides, the tenor of the
    whole of this reply is to exculpate York of all charges.]

    [Footnote 82-2: Misprinted ‘Chester’ in Holinshed.]

So far, York had gained his object. The charges against him were
repudiated by the highest authority in the kingdom. But it was
impossible that the matter could rest there. His own interests and those
of the public alike compelled him to demand a full inquiry into the
machinations of his adversaries, and when admitted to freer intercourse
with Henry he was able to support this request by most inconvenient
arguments. Town and country now listened with eagerness for news of a
long looked-for crisis, while, as it seemed, the old _régime_ was being
quietly laid aside at Westminster. [Sidenote: A change of government.]
‘Sir, and it please,’ writes one newsmonger, William Wayte, the clerk of
Justice Yelverton, ‘Sir, and it please, I was in my lord of York’s
house, and I heard much thing more than my master writeth unto you of.
I heard much thing in Fleet Street. But, sir, my lord was with the king,
and he visaged so the matter that all the king’s household was and is
afraid right sore. And my said lord hath put a bill to the king and
desired much thing which is much after the Commons’ desire; and all is
upon justice, and to put all those that be indicted under arrest without
surety or mainprise, and to be tried by law as law will; insomuch that
on Monday Sir William Oldhall was with the king at Westminster more than
two hours, and had of the king good cheer.’[83-1]

    [Footnote 83-1: _See_ No. 142.]

Sir William Oldhall, a friend and companion-in-arms of the Duke of York
in France, had been summoned to the king’s councils more than once
before.[83-2] But the last occasion was eleven years before this, at a
time when it was doubtless felt to be necessary to obtain the sanction
beforehand of all parties in the State to the proposed negotiations for
peace at Calais. From that day till now we do not hear of him, and we
may presume that he was not invited to Court. By the Duke of York’s
letter just quoted, it would seem that courtiers had planned to have him
beheaded. But now the old exclusiveness was defeated. Men whose
patriotism and generalship, it was believed, would have averted the loss
of France, were at length allowed free access to their sovereign; while
men who were believed to have culpably misdirected the king, and by
their favouritism and partiality to have perverted the course of justice
throughout the kingdom, stood in fear of a strict inquiry being made
into their misdeeds. For such was the sole purport of the ‘bill,’ or
petition presented by the Duke of York as mentioned by William Wayte,
the exact text of which will be seen in No. 143. The king’s answer to
this is preserved in Holinshed as follows:--

    [Footnote 83-2: Nicolas’s _Proceedings of the Privy Council_, iv.
    212, v. 108.]


_The Answer of King Henry to the Duke of York_

  Cousin, as touching your bill last put up to us, we understand well
  that ye, of good heart, counsel and advertise us to the setting up
  of justice and to the speedy punishing of some persons indicted or
  noised, offering your service to be ready at commandment in the
  same; sith it is, that for many causes moving us to have determined
  in our soul to stablish a sad and substantial Council, giving them
  more ample authority and power than ever we did before this, in the
  which we have appointed you to be one. But sith it is not
  accustomed, sure, nor expedient, to take a conclusion and conduct by
  advice or counsel of one person by himself, for the conservation (?)
  it is observed that the greatest and the best, the rich and the
  poor, in liberty, virtue and effect of their[84-1] voices be equal;
  we have therefore determined within ourself to send for our
  Chancellor of England and for other Lords of our Council, yea and
  all other, together within short time, ripely to common of these and
  other our great matters. In the which communication such
  conclusions, by the grace of God, shall be taken, as shall sound to
  His pleasure, the weal of us and our land, as well in these matters
  as in any other.

    [Footnote 84-1: Misprinted ‘your’ in Holinshed.]

[Sidenote: Politics in Norfolk.] The time was favourable to men like
John Paston, who had been wronged by a powerful neighbour such as Lord
Molynes, and had been hitherto denied redress. There seemed also a hope
of destroying, once for all, the influence of Tuddenham and Heydon in
the county of Norfolk. It was proposed that on the Duke of York visiting
Norfolk, which he intended to do, the mayor and aldermen of Norwich
should ride to meet him, and that complaints should be preferred against
the party of Tuddenham and Heydon in the name of the whole city. ‘And
let that be done,’ adds William Wayte, ‘in the most lamentable wise;
for, Sir, but if (_i.e._ unless) my Lord hear some foul tales of them,
and some hideous noise and cry, by my faith they are else like to come
to grace.’ Owing to the influence of the Duke of York, a new Parliament
was summoned to meet in November, and John Paston was urged by some
friends to get himself returned as a member. But it was still more
strongly recommended that the Earl of Oxford should meet the duke,
apparently with the view of arranging the list of candidates--a
responsibility which the earl, for his part, seems to have declined. The
Duke of Norfolk met with the Duke of York at Bury St. Edmunds, and these
two dukes settled that matter between them. The Earl of Oxford modestly
contented himself with reporting their decision, and advising that their
wishes should be carried into effect.[85-1]

    [Footnote 85-1: Nos. 142, 145, 148, and 149. The influence of a
    powerful nobleman on the elections was evidently quite a matter of
    course. What use York made of it, or attempted to make of it,
    cannot so easily be determined. Of the two candidates proposed by
    him for the county of Norfolk, only one was returned, the name of
    Sir Miles Stapleton being substituted for that of Sir William
    Chamberlain (_see_ vol. ii. p. 185 note 1). It appears from two of
    the above cited letters that Stapleton was a favourite candidate
    with the Pastons and their friends, and that he was urged to wait
    on the Duke of York on his coming to Norwich.]

The Parliament met on the 6th November, and Sir William Oldhall was
chosen Speaker. About the same time a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_
which had been issued as early as the first of August,[85-2] began its
labours at Norwich, and the Earl of Oxford stayed away from Parliament
to attend it. Mr. Justice Yelverton was sent down from Westminster to
sit on that tribunal along with him. There seemed hope at last of
redress being had for the wrongs and violence that had prevailed in the
county of Norfolk; but the course of justice was not yet an easy one.
Great pressure had been put upon the king, even at the last moment, that
Yelverton should be countermanded, and Lord Molynes had spoken of his
own dispute with Paston in the king’s presence in a manner that made the
friends of the latter wish he had been then at Westminster to see after
his own interests. The Lords of the Council, however, determined that
Yelverton should keep his day for going into Norfolk. When he arrived
there, he had occasion to report that there were many persons
ill-disposed towards Tuddenham and Heydon, but that it was most
important they should be encouraged by a good sheriff and under-sheriff
being appointed, else there would be a total miscarriage of justice. For
the annual election of sheriffs had been delayed this year, apparently
owing to the state of parties. Until the Duke of York arrived in London
for the Parliament, his friends would not allow them to be nominated;
and the state of suspense and anxiety occasioned by this delay is
clearly shown in the letters written during November.[86-1]

    [Footnote 85-2: _See_ No. 119.]

    [Footnote 86-1: Nos. 151, 153, 154, 155, 156.]

The truth is, the Duke of York had not yet succeeded in establishing the
government upon anything like a firm or satisfactory basis. In times
like our own there is little difficulty in determining the
responsibility of ministers; but in the rough judgment of the ‘Commons’
of those days an error in policy was nothing short of treason. Whoever
took upon him to guide the king’s counsels knew very well the danger of
the task; and York (if I understand his character aright) was anxious,
until he was driven desperate, never to assume more authority than he
was distinctly warranted in doing. He could not but remember that his
father had suffered death for conspiring to depose Henry V., and that
his own high birth and descent from Edward III. caused his acts to be
all the more jealously watched by those who sought to estrange him from
his sovereign. He therefore made it by no means his aim to establish for
himself a marked ascendency. He rather sought to show his moderation.
I find, indeed, that at this particular period he not only removed two
members of the Council, Lord Dudley and the Abbot of St. Peter’s at
Gloucester, but sent them prisoners to his own castle of Ludlow.[86-2]
This, however, he could hardly have done without permission from the
king, as it was the express object of his petition above referred to,
that persons accused of misconducting themselves in high places should
be committed for trial; and judging from the terms of the king’s answer,
I should say that it must have been done by the authority of the new
Council, which Henry therein declared it to be his intention to
constitute.

    [Footnote 86-2: Stow’s _Chronicle_, p. 392.]

This new Council was probably what we should call in these days a
coalition ministry. [Sidenote: The Duke of Somerset.] York’s great
rival, the Duke of Somerset, had come over from Normandy a little before
York himself came over from Ireland. On the 11th of September, while
Cardinal Kemp, who was then Lord Chancellor, was sitting at Rochester on
a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ to try the Kentish rebels,[87-1] he
affixed the Great Seal to a patent appointing Somerset Constable of
England.[87-2] In that capacity, as we have already seen, the duke
arrested one of the new Kentish leaders that started up after Cade’s
rebellion had been quelled. There is no doubt that he stood high in the
king’s confidence, and that he was particularly acceptable to Queen
Margaret. He was, nevertheless, one of the most unpopular men in
England, on account of his surrender of Caen and total loss of Normandy
in the preceding year; and as the Parliament was now called, among other
reasons, expressly to provide for the defence of the kingdom, and for
speedy succours being sent to preserve the king’s other dominions in
France,[87-3] it was impossible that his conduct should not be inquired
into. The short sitting of Parliament before Christmas was greatly
occupied by controversy between York and Somerset.[87-4] On the 1st of
December the latter was placed under arrest. His lodgings at the Black
Friars were broken into and pillaged by the populace, and he himself was
nearly killed, but was rescued from their violence by a barge of his
brother-in-law the Earl of Devon. Next day the Dukes of York and Norfolk
caused proclamation to be made through the city that no man should
commit robbery on pain of death, and a man was actually beheaded in
Cheap for disobeying this order. As a further demonstration against
lawlessness, the king and his lords, on Thursday the 3rd December, rode
through the city in armour, either side of the way being kept by a line
of armed citizens throughout the route of the procession. It was the
most brilliant display of the kind the Londoners of that day had ever
seen.[88-1]

    [Footnote 87-1: _See_ vol. ii. pp. 161-2.]  [[Letter 131]]

    [Footnote 87-2: Rymer, xi. 276.]

    [Footnote 87-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210.]

    [Footnote 87-4: W. Worc.]

    [Footnote 88-1: MS. Cott. Vitell. A. xvi. Stow in his _Chronicle_
    dates this procession a day later.]

The Duke of Somerset did not long remain in prison. Very soon after
Christmas the king made him captain of Calais, and gave him the entire
control of the royal household.[88-2] The Court was evidently bent on
the restoration of the old order of things, so far as it dared to do so.
The chief obstacle to this undoubtedly was the Parliament, which was, on
the whole, so favourable to the Duke of York, that one member, Young of
Bristol, had even ventured to move that he should be declared heir to
the crown.[88-3] Parliament, however, could be prorogued; and, as Young
found shortly afterwards, its members could be committed to the Tower.
The speech of the Lord Chancellor on the meeting of Parliament had
declared that it was summoned for three important causes: first, to
provide for the defence of the kingdom, and especially the safeguard of
the sea; secondly, for the speedy relief of the king’s subjects in the
south of France, and aid against the French; thirdly, for pacifying the
king’s subjects at home, and punishing the disturbances which had lately
been so frequent. But practically nothing was done about any of these
matters before Christmas. An act was passed for the more speedy levying
of a subsidy granted in the last Parliament, and also an act of
attainder against the murderers of William Tresham. The Lord Chancellor
then, in the king’s name and in his presence, prorogued the Parliament
till the 20th of January, declaring that the matters touching the
defence of the kingdom were too great and difficult to be adequately
discussed at that time. The same excuse, however, was again used for
further prorogations until the 5th of May; and meanwhile fears began to
be entertained in the country that all that had been done hitherto for a
more impartial administration of justice was about to be upset.[88-4]

    [Footnote 88-2: W. Worc.]

    [Footnote 88-3: _The Chronicle of London_ (p. 137) says that ‘all
    the Commons’ agreed to this proposition, and stood out for some
    time against the Lords on the subject.]

    [Footnote 88-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210-14.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1451.] During the whole course of the succeeding year
matters were in a very unsettled condition. At the very opening of the
year we hear complaints that the sheriff, Jermyn, had not shown himself
impartial, but was endeavouring to suppress complaints against certain
persons at the coming sessions at Lynn. It was feared the king would
pardon Tuddenham and Heydon the payment of their dues to the Exchequer
for Suffolk; and if they did, payment of taxes would be generally
refused, as Blake, the Bishop of Swaffham, having gone up to London,
informed the Lord Chancellor himself. From London, too, men wrote in a
manner that was anything but encouraging. The government was getting
paralysed alike by debt and by indecision. ‘As for tidings here,’ writes
John Bocking, ‘I certify you all is nought, or will be nought. The king
borroweth his expenses for Christmas. The King of Arragon, the Duke of
Milan, the Duke of Austria, the Duke of Burgundy, would be assistant to
us to make a conquest, and nothing is answered nor agreed in manner save
abiding the great deliberation that at the last shall spill all
together.’ Chief-Justice Fortescue had been for a week expecting every
night to be assaulted.[89-1] The only symptom of vigour at headquarters
was the despatch of a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ into Kent, for
the trial of those who had raised disturbances during the preceding
summer. As for the county of Norfolk, the only hope lay in a strong
clamour being raised against oppressors. Sir John Fastolf showed himself
anxious about the prosecution of certain indictments against Heydon, and
his servant Bocking, and Wayte, the servant of Judge Yelverton, urged
that strong representations should be made to Lord Scales against
showing any favour to that unpopular lawyer.[89-2]

    [Footnote 89-1: In earlier issues of this Introduction was added:
    ‘probably for no other reason than his high impartiality.’ Mr.
    Plummer, I find, who knows him better, has not the same opinion of
    Fortescue’s impartiality as a politician, but considers that he
    was in danger just because he was so strong a Lancastrian. _See_
    Introduction to _The Governance of England_, p. 50.]

    [Footnote 89-2: Nos. 167, 169-174.]

[Sidenote: Tuddenham and Heydon.] By and by it was seen what good reason
the friends of justice had for their apprehensions. It had been arranged
that Tuddenham and Heydon should be indicted at a sitting of the
commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ at Norwich in the ensuing spring.
Rumours, however, began to prevail in Norwich that they who had promoted
this commission in the county of Norfolk--the Earl of Oxford and Justice
Yelverton, as well as John Paston and John Damme--were to be indicted in
Kent by way of revenge. John Damme had before this caused Heydon to be
indicted of treason for taking down one of those hideous memorials of a
savage justice--the quarter of a man exposed in public. The man was
doubtless a political victim belonging to Heydon’s own party; but Heydon
was now looking to recover his influence, and he contrived to get the
charge of treason retorted against Damme. Symptoms were observed in
Norwich that the unpopular party were becoming bolder again. ‘Heydon’s
men,’ wrote James Gloys to John Paston, ‘brought his own horse and his
saddle through Aylesham on Monday, and they came in at the Bishop’s
Gates at Norwich, and came over Tombland and into the Abbey; and sithen
they said they should go to London for Heydon. Item, some say that
Heydon should be made a knight, and much other language there is which
causeth men to be afeard, weening that he should have a rule
again.’[90-1]

    [Footnote 90-1: Nos. 179 and 180.]

Full well might Sir John Fastolf and others apprehend that if Heydon or
Tuddenham appeared in answer to the indictment, it would be with such a
following at his back as would overawe the court. No appearance was put
in for them at all at several of the sessions of _Oyer and Terminer_.
One sitting was held at Norwich on the 2nd of March. Another was held
just after Easter on the 29th of April, and Justice Prisot, not the most
impartial of judges, was sent down to Norwich to hold it. Strong
complaints were put in against Tuddenham and Heydon on the part of the
city of Norwich, and also by the town of Swaffham, by Sir John Fastolf,
Sir Harry Inglos, John Paston, and many others; but, as Fastolf’s
chaplain afterwards informed his master, ‘the judges, by their
wilfulness, might not find in their heart to give not so much as a beck
nor a twinkling of their eye toward, but took it to derision, God reform
such partiality!’ The one-sidedness of Prisot, indeed, was such as to
bring down upon him a rebuke from his colleague Yelverton. ‘Ah, Sir
Mayor and your brethren,’ said the former, ‘as to the process of your
complaints we will put them in continuance, but in all other we will
proceed.’ Yelverton felt bound to protest against such unfairness.
[Sidenote: Partial justice.] Yet even this was not the worst; for
Prisot, seeing that, with all he could do, the result of the proceedings
at Norwich would scarcely be satisfactory to Tuddenham and Heydon, took
it upon him, apparently by his own authority, to remove them to
Walsingham, where they had most supporters. And there, accordingly,
another session was opened on Tuesday the 4th of May.[91-1]

    [Footnote 91-1: Nos. 119, 185, 186, 192.]

It was, according to Sir Thomas Howys, ‘the most partial place of all
the shire.’ All the friends and allies of Tuddenham and Heydon, knights
and squires, and gentlemen who had always been devoted to their
pleasure, received due warning to attend. A body of 400 horse also
accompanied the accused, and not one of the numerous complainants
ventured to open his mouth except John Paston. Even he had received a
friendly message only two days before that he had better consider well
whether it was advisable to come himself, as there was ‘great press of
people and few friends’; and, moreover, the sheriff was ‘not so whole’
as he had been. What this expression meant required but little
explanation. As Sheriff of Norfolk, John Jermyn was willing to do Paston
all the service in his power, but simple justice he did not dare to
do.[91-2]

    [Footnote 91-2: Nos. 189, 192.]

[Sidenote: John Paston and Lord Molynes.] He had but too good an excuse
for his timidity. Of John Paston’s complaint against Tuddenham and
Heydon we hear no more; we can easily imagine what became of it. But we
know precisely what became of an action brought by Paston at this
sessions against his old adversary Lord Molynes, for his forcible
expulsion from Gresham in the preceding year. John Paston, to be sure,
was now peaceably reinstated in the possession of that manor;[91-3] but
he had the boldness to conceive that undermining his wife’s chamber,
turning her forcibly out of doors, and then pillaging the whole mansion,
were acts for which he might fairly expect redress against both Lord
Molynes and his agents. He had accordingly procured two indictments to
be framed, the first against his lordship, and the second against his
men. But before the case came on at Walsingham, Sheriff Jermyn gave
notice to Paston’s friends that he had received a distinct injunction
from the king to make up a panel to acquit Lord Molynes.[92-1] Royal
letters of such a tenor do not seem to have been at all incompatible
with the usages of Henry VI.’s reign. John Paston himself said the
document was one that could be procured for six-and-eightpence.

    [Footnote 91-3: No. 178.]

    [Footnote 92-1: No. 189.]

There was no hope, therefore, of making Lord Molynes himself responsible
for the attack on Gresham. The only question was whether the men who had
done his bidding could not be made to suffer for it. After the acquittal
of their master, John Osbern reports a remarkable conversation that he
had with Sheriff Jermyn in which he did his best to induce him to accept
a bribe in Paston’s interest. The gift had been left with the under
sheriff for his acceptance. Jermyn declined to take it until he had seen
Paston himself, but Osbern was fully under the impression that he would
be glad to have it. Osbern, however, appealed also to other arguments.
‘I remembered him,’ he tells Paston, ‘of his promises made before to you
at London, when he took his oath and charge, and that ye were with him
when he took his oath and other divers times; and for those promises
made by him to you at that time, and other times at the _Oyer and
Terminer_ at Lynn, ye proposed you by the trust that ye have in him to
attempt and rear actions that should be to the avail of him and of his
office.’ The prospect of Paston being valuable to him as a litigant had
its weight with the sheriff, and he promised to do him all the good in
his power except in the action against Lord Molynes’ men; for not only
Lord Molynes himself but the Duke of Norfolk had written to him to show
them favour, and if they were not acquitted he expected to incur both
their displeasure and the king’s. In vain did Osbern urge that Paston
would find sufficient surety to save the sheriff harmless. Jermyn said
he could take no surety over £100, and Lord Molynes was a great lord who
could do him more injury than that.[93-1]

    [Footnote 93-1: No. 193.]

  [[The gift had been left with the under sheriff
  _text unchanged: expected form “under-sheriff”_]]

The diplomacy on either side seems to have been conducted with
considerable _finesse_. Jermyn declared that he had been offered twenty
nobles at Walsingham in behalf of the Lord Molynes, but that he had
never received a penny either from him or from any of Paston’s
adversaries. Osbern then offered if he would promise to be sincere
towards Paston, that the latter would give him a sum in hand, as much as
he could desire, or would place it in the hands of a middle man whom
Jermyn could trust. In the end, however, he was obliged to be satisfied
with Jermyn’s assuring him that if he found it lay within his power to
do anything for Paston, he would take his money with good will. The
negotiator’s impression was that he was fully pledged to get Lord
Molynes’ men acquitted, but that in all other actions he would be found
favourable to Paston.[93-2]

    [Footnote 93-2: _Ibid._]

[Sidenote: Parliament.] About this time Parliament, which had now been
prorogued for nearly five months, met again at Westminster. The king’s
necessities were doubtless the all-sufficient cause why its meeting
could no longer be dispensed with. The Crown was already in debt to the
sum of £372,000, and was daily becoming more so. The expenses of the
royal household amounted to £24,000 a year, while the yearly revenue out
of which they should have been paid was only £5000. Nor was it by any
means advisable to remedy the matter by imposing fresh taxation; for the
people were so impoverished by the payment of subsidies, the exactions
of the king’s purveyors, and the general maladministration of justice,
that the experiment could hardly have been made with safety. An act of
resumption was the only expedient by which it seemed possible to meet
the difficulty; and all grants of crown lands made to any persons since
the first day of the reign were accordingly recalled by statute.[93-3]
In return for this the Commons preferred a petition to the king that he
would for ever remove from his presence and counsels a number of persons
to whom they alleged it was owing both that his possessions had been
diminished, and that the laws had not been carried into execution.
Foremost on the list was the Duke of Somerset; and with him were named
Alice, widow of the late Duke of Suffolk, William Booth, Bishop of
Chester (that is to say, of Coventry and Lichfield),[94-1] Lord Dudley,
Thomas Daniel, and twenty-five others. It was petitioned that they
should never again be permitted to come within twelve miles of the royal
presence, on pain of forfeiture of lands and goods. But the days had not
yet come when a petition against ministers by the Commons was tantamount
to their dismissal. The king indeed felt it best on this occasion to
yield somewhat; but he yielded on no principle whatever. He declared in
reply that he himself saw no cause for their removal; but he was content
to dismiss the most of them for a year, during which period accusations
brought against any of them might be inquired into. Those who were Peers
of the realm, however, he refused to send away; and he insisted on
retaining the services of one or two others who had been accustomed
continually to wait upon him.[94-2]

    [Footnote 93-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 217.]

    [Footnote 94-1: The modern see of Chester was separated from this
    diocese in the time of Henry VIII.]

    [Footnote 94-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 216.]

Parliament seems shortly after this to have been dissolved, and no
parliament met again till two years later. Of course the influence of
Somerset increased when both Lords and Commons were dismissed into the
country; and we perceive that by the end of the year Thomas Daniel, one
of the old unpopular adherents of the Duke of Suffolk, who,
nevertheless, had not always been acceptable to the Court, was expecting
to recover favour by means of Somerset.[94-3] He is represented as
having cultivated the Duke’s friendship for a quarter of a year; so that
we may conclude Somerset’s ascendency was at this time unmistakable.
With what degree of discretion he made use of it there is little
evidence to show. One advantage that Daniel hoped to gain through his
influence was the friendship of Tuddenham and Heydon, by whose means,
and by the good offices of Lord Scales, he expected to be allowed to
re-enter the manor of Bradeston, of which he had already dispossessed
one Osbert Munford last year, but had subsequently been dispossessed
himself. The value of a disputed title in any part of England probably
depended very much upon who was supreme at Court.

    [Footnote 94-3: No. 206. Daniel had been out of favour at one time
    during Suffolk’s ascendency. _See_ No. 75, p. 86.]

But high as Somerset stood in the king’s favour, the course of events
did not tend to make him more acceptable to the people. The loss of
Normandy, in the preceding year, was itself a thing not likely to be
readily forgotten; but the misfortunes of the English arms did not end
with the loss of Normandy. So great, indeed, was the despondency
occasioned by that event that, in the opinion of French writers, Calais
itself would not have been able to hold out if the French had
immediately proceeded to attack it. But Charles was afraid he might have
been deserted by the Duke of Burgundy, whose interests would hardly have
been promoted by the French king strengthening himself in that quarter,
and he declined to attempt it.[95-1] Relieved, however, of the necessity
of maintaining a large force in Normandy, he found new occupation for
his troops in completing the conquest of Guienne, of which a beginning
had already been made by the capture of Cognac and of some places near
Bayonne and the Pyrenees. In November 1450 the French laid siege to
Bourg and Blaye on the Garonne, both of which places capitulated in the
spring of the following year. They were the keys of the more important
city of Bordeaux, which, now perceiving that there was no hope of
succour from England, was obliged to follow their example. This was in
June 1451. [Sidenote: Loss of Gascony and Guienne.] Two months
afterwards Bayonne, too, was obliged to capitulate; and with it the
whole of Gascony and Guienne was as completely lost to the English as
Normandy had been in the preceding year. Calais was now all that
remained to them of their conquests and possessions in France; nor were
they without considerable apprehension that they might be expelled from
Calais too.

    [Footnote 95-1: Basin, i. 247-48.]

These disasters, which were but the natural sequel to the loss of
Normandy, only served to make more bitter the reflection how the
government of that duchy had been taken out of the able hands of the
Duke of York and given to the incompetent Somerset. The jealousy with
which the latter regarded his rival was heightened by the consciousness
of his own unpopularity. The Duke of York was living in seclusion at his
castle of Ludlow, but Somerset seems to have regarded him with daily
increasing apprehension. He was continually instilling into the king
distrust of York’s fidelity as a subject; until at last the latter
thought it expedient to make a public declaration of his loyalty.
[Sidenote: York’s manifesto.] He accordingly issued the following
manifesto:--

  [Sidenote: A.D. 1452.]

  Forasmuch as I, Richard Duke of York, am informed that the King, my
  sovereign lord, is my heavy lord, greatly displeased with me, and
  hath in me a distrust by sinister information of mine enemies,
  adversaries, and evil-willers, where[as] God knoweth, from whom
  nothing is hid, I am, and have been, and ever will be, his true
  liegeman, and so have I before this, divers times, as well by mouth
  as by writing, notified and declared to my said sovereign lord: And
  for that this notice so comen unto me of the displeasure of my said
  sovereign lord is to me so grievous, I have prayed the reverend
  father in God, the Bishop of Hereford,[96-1] and my cousin the Earl
  of Shrewsbury, to come hither and hear my declaration in this
  matter; wherein I have said to them that I am true liegeman to the
  King my sovereign lord, ever have been, and shall be to my dying
  day. And to the very proof that it is so, I offer myself to swear
  that on the blessed Sacrament, and receive it, the which I hope
  shall be my salvation at the day of doom. And so for my special
  comfort and consolation I have prayed the said lords to report and
  declare unto the King’s highness my said offer; and to the end and
  intent that I will be ready to do the same oath in presence of two
  or three lords, such as shall please the King’s highness to send
  hither to accept it. In witness whereof I have signed this schedule
  with my sign manual, and set thereunto my signet of arms. Written in
  my castle of Ludlow, the 9th of January, the 30th year of the reign
  of my sovereign lord, King Henry the Sixth.[96-2]

    [Footnote 96-1: Reginald Butler or Boulers, whose appointment to
    the see, dated 23rd December 1450, was no doubt due to the Duke of
    York’s influence.]

    [Footnote 96-2: Stow’s _Chronicle_, p. 393.]

He appears to have waited nearly a month to learn the effect of this
remonstrance. Meanwhile reports came that the French were advancing to
lay siege to Calais. At such a juncture it was peculiarly intolerable
that the administration of affairs should still be intrusted to hands so
notoriously incompetent as those of Somerset; and York, as being the
only man who could stir in such a matter with effect, now made up his
mind to take active steps for Somerset’s removal. Nothing, however,
could be done for such an object without a considerable force of armed
men to support him. York accordingly issued the following address to the
burgesses of Shrewsbury:--

  Right worshipful friends, I recommend me unto you; and I suppose it
  is well known unto you, as well by experience as by common language
  said and reported throughout all Christendom, what laud, what
  worship, honour, and manhood, was ascribed of all nations unto the
  people of this realm whilst the kingdom’s sovereign lord stood
  possessed of his lordship in the realm of France and duchy of
  Normandy; and what derogation, loss of merchandize, lesion of
  honour, and villany, is said and reported generally unto the English
  nation for loss of the same; namely (_i.e._ especially) unto the
  Duke of Somerset, when he had the commandance and charge thereof:
  the which loss hath caused and encouraged the King’s enemies for to
  conquer and get Gascony and Guienne, and now daily they make their
  advance for to lay siege unto Calais, and to other places in the
  marches there, for to apply them to their obeisance, and so for to
  come into the land with great puissance, to the final destruction
  thereof, if they might prevail, and to put the land in their
  subjection, which God defend. And on the other part it is to be
  supposed it is not unknown to you how that, after my coming out of
  Ireland I, as the King’s true liegeman and servant (and ever shall
  be to my life’s end) and for my true acquittal, perceiving the
  inconvenience before rehearsed, advised his Royal Majesty of certain
  articles concerning the weal and safeguard, as well of his most
  royal person, as the tranquillity and conservation of all this his
  realm: the which advertisements, howbeit that it was thought that
  they were full necessary, were laid apart, and to be of none effect,
  through the envy, malice, and untruth of the said Duke of Somerset;
  which for my truth, faith, and allegiance that I owe unto the King,
  and the good will and favour that I have to all the realm, laboreth
  continually about the King’s highness for my undoing, and to corrupt
  my blood, and to disinherit me and my heirs, and such persons as be
  about me, without any desert or cause done or attempted, on my part
  or theirs, I make our Lord Judge. Wherefore, worshipful friends, to
  the intent that every man shall know my purpose and desire for to
  declare me such as I am, I signify unto you that, with the help and
  supportation of Almighty God, and of Our Lady, and of all the
  Company of Heaven, I, after long sufferance and delays, [though it
  is] not my will or intent to displease my sovereign lord, seeing
  that the said Duke ever prevaileth and ruleth about the King’s
  person, [and] that by this means the land is likely to be destroyed,
  am fully concluded to proceed in all haste against him with the help
  of my kinsmen and friends; in such wise that it shall prove to
  promote ease, peace, tranquillity, and safeguard of all this land:
  and more, keeping me within the bounds of my liegeance, as it
  pertaineth to my duty, praying and exhorting you to fortify,
  enforce, and assist me, and to come to me with all diligence,
  wheresoever I shall be, or draw, with as many goodly and likely men
  as ye may, to execute the intent abovesaid. Written under my signet
  at my castle of Ludlow, the 3rd day of February.

  Furthermore I pray you that such strait appointment and ordinance be
  made that the people which shall come in your fellowship, or be sent
  unto me by your agreement, be demeaned in such wise by the way, that
  they do no offence, nor robbery, nor oppression upon the people, in
  lesion of justice. Written as above, etc.

    Your good friend,
    R. YORK.[98-1]

    To my right worshipful friends, the bailiffs, burgesses and
    commons of the good town of Shrewsbury.

    [Footnote 98-1: Ellis’s _Letters_, First Series, i. 11-13.]

[Sidenote: York marches towards London.] Having thus collected a
sufficient body of followers, the duke began his march to London. The
Earl of Devonshire, Lord Cobham, and other noblemen also collected
people and joined him.[98-2] The king and Somerset, however, being
informed of his intentions, set out from the capital to meet him,
issuing, at the same time, an imperative summons to Lord Cobham, and
probably to the duke’s other adherents, to repair immediately to the
royal presence.[98-3] But the duke, who had no desire to engage the
king’s forces, turned aside and hoped to reach London unmolested. He
sent a herald before him to desire liberty for himself and his allies to
enter the city; but strict injunctions to the contrary had been left by
the king, and his request was refused. Disappointed in this quarter, it
was natural that he should look for greater sympathy in Kent, where,
doubtless, smouldered still the remains of past disaffection. He
accordingly crossed the Thames at Kingston Bridge, and proceeded with
his host to Dartford. The king’s army followed and pitched their camp
upon Blackheath. And so, on the 1st of March 1452, there lay, within
eight miles of each other, two formidable hosts, which any further
movement must apparently bring into collision.

    [Footnote 98-2: _English Chronicle_ (ed. Davies), 69.]

    [Footnote 98-3: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 116.
    According to Fabyan, the king and Somerset set out on the 16th of
    February. The summons to Lord Cobham, though dated Westminster,
    was issued on the 17th.]

To judge from one contemporary account,[99-1] the duke’s position must
have been a strong one. He had a body of ordnance in the field, with no
less than 3000 gunners. He himself had 8000 men in the centre of his
position; while the Earl of Devonshire lay to the south with another
detachment of 6000, and Lord Cobham by the river-side commanded an equal
force. Seven ships lay on the water filled with the baggage of the
troops. But the strength of the king’s army appears to have largely
exceeded these numbers;[99-2] and even if the duke had wished to provoke
a conflict, it was evidently more prudent to remain simply on the
defensive. He accordingly left the responsibility of further action to
those of the king’s party.

    [Footnote 99-1: _Cottonian Roll_, ii. 23. _See_ Appendix to this
    Introduction.]

    [Footnote 99-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 346. The statement in the Act
    of Attainder passed against the Duke of York seven years
    afterwards, that he was ‘of no power to withstand’ the king on
    this occasion, is liable to suspicion, but it is confirmed by the
    testimony of Whethamstede, 348.]

In this crisis the lords who were with the king took counsel together,
and determined, if possible, to labour for a compromise.[99-3] An
embassy was appointed to go to the Duke of York, and hear what he had to
say. It consisted of the wise and good prelate Waynflete, Bishop of
Winchester, and Bourchier, Bishop of Ely (afterwards Archbishop of
Canterbury), the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, Lord Beauchamp, Lord
Sudeley, and some others. The answer made by York was, that no ill was
intended against either the king or any of his Council; that the duke
and his followers were lovers of the commonweal; but that it was their
intention to remove from the king certain evil-disposed persons, through
whose means the common people had been grievously oppressed. Of these
the Duke of Somerset was declared to be the chief; and, indeed, his
unpopularity was such that even those on the king’s side would seem to
have seconded the Duke of York’s demand. After a consultation the king
consented that Somerset should be committed to custody until he should
make answer to such charges as York would bring against him.[100-1]

    [Footnote 99-3: ‘The Lords, both spiritual and temporal, took the
    matter in hand.’ _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_ (Camden
    Soc.), 69. So also _Chronicle of London_, 137.]

    [Footnote 100-1: Fabyan.]

Nothing more seemed necessary to avert civil war. On a simple pledge
given by the king that Somerset should be placed in confinement, and
afterwards put on his trial, the Duke of York at once broke up his camp
and ordered his men home. He then repaired himself to the king’s tent to
express his loyalty. [Sidenote: York is entrapped,] But no sooner had he
arrived there than he found he was deceived. The king, in violation of
his promise, kept the Duke of Somerset attending upon him as his chief
adviser, and York was virtually a prisoner. He was sent on to London in
advance of the king, in a kind of honourable custody, attended by two
bishops, who conducted him to his own residence; but what to do with him
when he got there was a difficulty. His enemies feared to send him to
the Tower. There were 10,000 men yet remaining in the Welsh Marches,
who, on such a rumour, would have come up to London; and it was not very
long before they were reported to be all under arms, and actually on the
march, with the duke’s young son at their head--Edward, Earl of March,
boy as he was, not yet quite ten years old.[100-2]

    [Footnote 100-2: Fabyan. _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 69,
    and the MS. Chronicle, Vitell. A. xvi.]

York had distinctly accused the Duke of Somerset as a traitor. He was
now in Somerset’s power, but the latter did not dare to retort the
charge upon him. Yet if Somerset was not a traitor, the course pursued
by York was utterly indefensible. He had actually taken up arms against
the Crown, to remove by force the minister in whom the king had placed
his confidence. But unfortunately Somerset knew too well that if he made
this a ground of accusation against his rival, recrimination would be
sure to follow, and he himself would incur a weight of public odium
which might possibly lead to the same result as in the case of Suffolk.
The wisest and most politic course for himself was not to impeach the
Duke of York, but, if possible, to shut his mouth and let him go free.
No accusation, therefore, was drawn up. [Sidenote: and compelled to
swear allegiance.] An oath of allegiance, binding him over to keep the
peace in time coming, was all that was required. It was on the 1st of
March that York had repaired to the king’s tent and found himself in his
rival’s power. On the 10th he was brought to St. Paul’s, and there
publicly made oath as follows:--

  I, Richard, Duke of York, confess and beknow that I am and ought to
  be humble subject and liegeman to you, my sovereign Lord, King Henry
  the Sixth, and owe therefore to bear you faith and truth as to my
  sovereign lord, and shall do all the days unto my life’s end; and
  shall not at any time will or assent, that anything be attempted or
  done against your noble person, but wheresoever I shall have
  knowledge of any such thing imagined or purposed I shall, with all
  the speed and diligence possible to me, make that your Highness
  shall have knowledge thereof, and even do all that shall be possible
  to me to the withstanding thereof, to the utterest of my life.
I   shall not in no wise any thing take upon me against your royal
  estate or the obeisance that is due thereto, nor suffer any other
  man to do, as far forth as it shall lie in my power to let it; and
  also I shall come at your commandment, whensoever I shall be called
  by the same, in humble and obeisant wise, but if [_i.e._ unless] I
  be letted by any sickness or impotency of my person or by such other
  causes as shall be thought reasonable to you, my sovereign lord.
I   shall never hereafter take upon me to gather any routs, or make any
  assembly of your people, without your commandment or licence, or in
  my lawful defence. In the interpretation of which my lawful defence,
  and declaration thereof, I shall report me at all times to your
  Highness, and, if the case require, unto my peers: nor anything
  attempt by way of faite against any of your subjects, of what
  estate, degree, or condition that they be. But whensoever I find
  myself wronged or aggrieved, I shall sue humbly for remedy to your
  Highness, and proceed after the course of your laws, and in none
  other wise, saving in mine own lawful defence in manner above said;
  and shall in all things abovesaid and other have me unto your
  Highness as an humble and true subject ought to have him to his
  Sovereign Lord.

  All these things above said I promise truly to observe and keep, by
  the Holy Evangelists contained in this book that I lay my hand upon,
  and by the Holy Cross that I here touch, and by the blessed
  Sacrament of our Lord’s body that I shall now with His mercy
  receive. And over this I agree me and will that if I any time
  hereafter, as with the grace of our Lord I never shall, anything
  attempt by way of fear or otherwise against your royal majesty and
  obeisance that I owe thereto, or anything I take upon me otherwise
  than is above expressed, I from that time forth be unabled, [held
  and taken as an untrue and openly forsworn man, and unable][102-1]
  to all manner of worship, estate, and degree, be it such as I now
  occupy, or any other that might grow unto me in any wise.

  And this I here have promised and sworn proceedeth of mine own
  desire and free voluntee and by no constraining or coercion. In
  witness of all the which things above written I, Richard, Duke of
  York above named, subscribe me with mine own hand and seal, with
  this mine own seal, &c.[102-2]

    [Footnote 102-1: These words are not in the copy in the _Rolls
    of Parliament_, but they occur in that given in Holinshed’s
    _Chronicle_.]

    [Footnote 102-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 346.]

With this guarantee for his future loyalty, the duke was permitted to
return into his own country.

Somerset might well be pleased that the matter should be settled thus;
for if the charges York brought, or at least was prepared to have
brought, against him were only one-half true (and some of them certainly
were true altogether), his administration of the Duchy of Normandy was a
mixture of indiscretion and dishonesty at which the nation had good
right to be indignant. We have already seen how in concert with the Duke
of Suffolk he had authorised a perfidious breach of the truce with
France in the capture of Fougères. We have also seen how ill prepared he
was for the consequences; how he discovered too late the weakness of all
the garrisons; how the French king recovered town after town, and the
English were finally expelled from Normandy in less than a year and a
half after the unjustifiable outrage. [Sidenote: York’s charges against
Somerset.] But if any credit may be given to the further charges
brought against him by the Duke of York,--charges which agree only
too well with the character attributed to him by the most impartial
authorities[102-3]--Somerset had himself to blame in great measure for
the defenceless condition of the country committed to his protection.
On his first going into Normandy he had jobbed the offices under his
control. For the sake of private emolument he had removed a number of
trusty and experienced captains, filling their places with creatures of
his own, or men who had paid _douceurs_ for their posts; and only on
receipt of still greater bribes would he consent to restore any of those
that had been put out. He had, however, actually reduced many garrisons,
while he had taxed the inhabitants of the Duchy beyond all reason for
the means of defence. His administration of justice, too, had been such
as to excite the most vehement dissatisfaction, and had made the whole
native population impatient of English government. He had, moreover,
pocketed the compensation given by France to the dispossessed Englishmen
of Anjou and Maine. Worse still, after all his maladministration and ill
success, he had prevailed on the king to make him captain of Calais,
which it seemed as if he was on the point of losing also in as careless
and culpable a manner as he had already lost Normandy.

    [Footnote 102-3: The character given of the Duke of Somerset by
    the contemporary historian Basin is on the whole favourable, and
    may be supposed to be impartial. He describes him as handsome in
    person, gentle and urbane in manner, and well inclined towards
    justice; but all these graces were marred by an insatiable avarice
    which would not let him rest content with the immense wealth he
    had inherited from Cardinal Beaufort; and by continually coveting
    the riches of others he brought ruin on himself. Basin, i. 193.]

Here, however, is the full text of the accusation,[103-1] as prepared by
York himself:--

  Thies articles and pointes folowyng yeve, shewe and ministre I,
  Richard Duc of York, youre true liegman and servaunt unto youre
  highnesse, summarily purposyng and declaryng thaym ayeinst Edmond
  Duc of Somerset for the grete welfare and the comen availle and
  interesse of youre mageste Roiall and of this youre noble roialme,
  aswell to bryng to knawlege and understondyng the meanes and causes
  of the grete myscheves and inconvenientz which late befe[l] unto
  this youre said noble roiame, as in losse of youre lyvelode by yonde
  thee see and otherwyse in ponisshment of deservitours and excuse of
  innocencie, and also in puttyng aside and eschuyng of the grete and
  importable hurte and prejudice which ben like, withouten that
  purviaunce be had of remedie, to succede in shorte tyme. To the
  which articles and every of theym I, the seid Duc of York, desire of
  youre egall and indifferent rightwesnesse that the seid Edmond
  answere by his feith and trouth, the sacrement of his othe
  thereuppon made, duly and truly as lawe and conscience requireth;
I   also desiryng, for the veraly examinacion and knowlech of trouth
  theruppon to be had, and for the grete and singuler weel of this
  youre said Roiame, to be admytted to the prefe, and to yeve evidence
  in the said articles that folowyn in such as he woll denye, after
  the equite and consideracion of lawe in such case, and processe had,
  and also of good feith and conscience justice thereafter to be don
  and executid.

  First, I article and declare that the seid Edmond Duc of Somersett
  hath be meane, consenter, occasioner, cause and mediatour, both by
  his inwarde knowlege and expresse consent, by counseill, and
  worchyng thurghe diverse subtyle weyes and meanes, as by violent
  presumpcion and otherwyse is knowen and understonde, and furthermore
  also by his inordinate negligence, lacchesse and wilfull
  rechelessnes and insaciate covetyse, of the losse and amission of
  youre Duchie of Normandie, rejoissed and possessed at this tyme, for
  the defence of his negligent kepyng and otherwyse before reherced,
  by youre enemyes. Which may clerly by (_sic_) understonde by the
  meanes and causes that folowen; of the which and for such one he is
  openly called, reputed and had by the comen fame and voice. Of the
  which oon cause is that the seid Duc of Somersett, at his first
  comyng into Normandie, chaunged and putt out of theire occupacion
  and youre service, withoute skyll, cause or reason, all the true and
  feithfull officers, for the most partie, of all Normandie, and put
  in such as hym liked for his owne singuler availe and covetyse, as
  it apperith well, inasmoch as ther coude noon of theym that were so
  put out be restored agayn withoute grete giftes and rewardes, which
  was full unfittyng. And furthermore did put in prison many diverse
  and notable persones of youre seid Duchie, withoute cause, justice
  or any ordinarie processe made agayn theym or due examinacion, and
  by that meane did grete extorcions and rered unlawfully grete sommes
  undre colour of amendes and composicions, wherby the cuntre for such
  wrong and faute of justice grucched sore agayn hym and his
  governaunce and caused the people to arise in theire conseytes and
  to take grete displeasir; and that was a grete occasion and cause of
  the losse of youre said Duchie of Normandie.

  Item, the seid Edmond Duc of Somerset was cause and consenter
  voluntarie of the brekyng of the trues and pais for a tyme had
  betwene youre highnes and youre uncle of Fraunce, which was well
  understond at the taking of Fogiers in Britaigne by Sir Fraunceys
  Larragonneys thurgh his avise, consentement, and counseile; and also
  duryng the said trues made more strong and fortified diverse places
  disopered by youre commaundement, as Morteyn and Seint Jakes de
  Beveron, ageyn the appointement of the seid trues; uppon which youre
  uncle did sommon hym to make a-seeth [_satisfaction_] and for to
  disimpaire the seid fortifying and wrong don agayn the trues, and in
  asmoch as non aseeth by hym was don, nor [he] lefte not of his seid
  fortifiyng, caused youre seid uncle to have, as he pretende, cause
  to breke the said trues on his partie; which brekyng of trues was
  oon of the verray cause of losse of Normandie. And thus he brake the
  seide trues ayeinst his promysse and true feith made to youre
  highnes, which was to kepe and entretyn the said trues, and so did
  ayen the lawe in this behalve and youre statutes of the roiame.

  Item, he put away and diminisshed diverse garnisons and other strong
  places of youre seid Duchie of Normandie of soudiours and of men of
  werre which were accustumed to abide uppon the suerte and saufgarde
  of the same, howe be hit he had verrayly knowlege that youre ennmyes
  were full determi[ned] for to ley seges to put the same places in
  theire subjeccion, not paiyng duely nor contentyng such soudiours as
  abode uppon the defences of the same places; he reryng at that tyme
  in youre said Duchie as grete tailles and aides as were in long tyme
  before duryng the werre; and that caused the soudiours in diverse
  strong places for poverte, not havyng hors nor harneys, and also the
  nombre diminisshed, to be of non poiaire to make resistence, and
  that was a grete cause of the losse of Normandie. The losse of which
  caused the perdicion of Gascoigne and Guyen.

  Item, the Duc of Somersett wold yeve noo counseile, aide ne helpe
  unto the capitanis of diverse stronge places and garnisons which at
  that tyme, constreyned by nede, desired of hym provision and relief
  for abillement of werre to resiste the malice of theire enemyes
  daily makyng fressh feetes of werre uppon theym; he gevyng theym
  noone aide nor help, but lete theym contynue in theire malice, howe
  be it that diverse places were lost before: and what tyme that the
  said places were beseged and sent for help and socour unto hym he
  wold graunte no maner of comforte, but suffred hem appoint and
  compounde with here enemyes as well as they myght for theire ease
  and suertee, makyng no maner of provision for the kepyng of the
  places which remayned; insomuch that he made non ordinaunce nor
  provision for the toun, castell, and places of Rouen, neither of
  men, stuffe ne vitaile, the knowlage that he had of youre enemyes
  comyng thereunto notwithstondyng, yevyng licence unto the
  Archiebisshopp, chanons and burgeys of the same toun for to goo or
  sende to compounde with youre enemyes for the deliveraunce of the
  same, notwithstondyng that afore that tyme the enemyes which were
  entred in to the same toun were worshiply put oute and betyn of by
  the Erle of Shrowesbury and other notable persones, and withdrawen
  to Pontlarge and Loviers, and at that tyme, they beyng so
  withdrawen, licenced to appointe as it is aforeseid. Which was
  plainly ayeinst his promys, feith and liegeaunce that he of right
  oweth unto you, and ayeinst the tenure of the endentures made betwix
  youre highnes and hym of the charge of that londe, the which
  licence, and it had not ben don, the seid toun had abiden undre
  youre obeisaunce, the losse of whiche was a verray ope
  . . . .[106-1] cause of the perdicion of Normandie.

  Item, the said Duc of Somersett, for to colour his defautes and
  wilfull purp[o]s in the premisses, entred in to youre palaice of
  Rouen not vitailed nor fo[rnisshed][106-1] for defence, where he
  myght savely absentid hym, and yeldid up the said Palaice and
  Castell, and moreover other good tounes, castels and
  [fortresses],[106-1] as Caudebek, and other diverse, as Tancarville,
  Moustervillers, Arques, key of all Caulx, not beseged nor in perell
  of losse at that tyme, for the enlargisshyn[g] and deliveraunce of
  hym, his childre and goodes; which myght not, nor hath not, be done
  nor seen by lawe, resoun or cronikel, or by cours or a . . . . . .
  any leftenant, all though that he had be prisoner: Witnesse the Duc
  of Orliaunce, the Duc of Burbon, the Duc of Alansum and other . . .
  . . . for whom was none delyvered, al though they had many strong
  places of theire owen. And furthermore fore the suertee of
  delyveraunce of . . . . . . tounes, castell and forteresses which
  were wel furnysshed for to have resisted youre enemyes, and to have
  biden within youre obeisaunce, delyvered in ostage the Erle of
  Shrowesbury, that tyme Marescall of Fraunce, and other notable
  persones which shuld have defended youre lande there ayens the
  malice of youre enemyes; and in likewyse apointed to delyver Honflu,
  which was in noo gret perell, ne had be that it was retardyd by
  youre lettres and so by that fraudelent and inordinat meane all was
  lost and yoldon up, as hereafter by more evident declaracions it
  shalbe clerely [proved].[106-2]

  Item, the said Duc of Somerset hath contrived and ymagined, helped
  or consented to the grete and importable losse of Cales to be undre
  the obeisaunce of the Duc of Burgoyn, as it apperith openly by
  diverse skilles, evidencez, and resons; that is to sey, in asmuch as
  he desired and made laboures, or at the lest toke uppon hym, for to
  be capiten of the seid Toun of Cales, knowyng and understondyng well
  the grete murmur and sclaunder which daily rennyth agayn hym for the
  losse and sale, as it is surmyttid, of Normandie, to the grete
  discoragyng of the soudiours of the said Toun; where as the comen
  fame is that he will bylike sotill meanes contrive and ymagyn the
  losse and amission of youre said Toun of Cales, like as he hath
  afore causid the perdicion of youre Duchie of Normandie; which
  apperith well, in asmoch as he hath desirid the terme of a monyth
  without more, that, in case that the said Toun were besegid and not
  rescuyd within the said monyth, that than he shuld stond discharged
  though it were delyvered to youre enemyes; within which tyme it were
  impossible, or at the lest full unlikly, that never myght be
  assembled for the rescu therof, where as it may and hath be
  here-before kept ayens the force of youre enemyes moche lenger tyme
  in grete jupardy; which is so grete an hevynesse and trouble to
  youre said soudiours, that by theire langage, demenyng and
  communicacion it may be understond that they will not be so herty
  nor feithfull to the welfare and defence of the said Toun as they
  shuld be in case they had a captayn more agreable unto theym. And
  also this premisse apperith well in asmoch as the comen voyce,
  langage, and fame is, and also grete prefe and evidence shalbe made
  theruppon, that the seid Duc of Somerset, in hope of mariage to be
  doon and had be twix the Duc son of Burgoyn[107-1] and one of his
  doughters, had made a promysse and behest to the said Duc of
  Burgoyne, or Duchesse by his meane, concent and massangers, of the
  delyverey of the Toun of Cales, to be done by such sotill meanes as
  shuld not be understond neither of youre highenes nor of youre
  subgettz.

  Item, the said Duc of Somerset is cause of grete hurte, robbery,
  manslauter and other myscheves daily done and contynued in this
  youre roialme, in asmoch as he resceyved and had at the delyverey of
  Anjoy and Mayn iij.{xx} xij.{m} (72,000) frankes or there aboutes,
  which were graunted and ordeyned to the Englisshmen havyng theire
  [_there_] lyvelode for theire recompense and asyth for the lyverey
  up of theire seid lyvelode at the said delyveraunce, and wold not
  dispose the same money nor departe therfrom, bot kepith it still to
  his owne use and singuler availe, notwithstondyng that he was
  recompensid for his lyvelode in that cuntrey in youre Duchie of
  Normandie of a more value than the gift therof was worth, which
  causith the said Englisshmen to be here in grete povertee; of which
  povertee no doute commyth grete myscheve daily within your said
  roiame. And also in so muche as many diverse soudiours of Normandye
  were not paied theire wages, where he rerid grete and notable sommes
  of youre Duchie of Normandie for ther agrement, which non paiement
  and poverte causith also daily grete inconvenientz within this your
  lande.

  Item, that these forsaid articles and poyntz be just and true it may
  well appere by many grete presumpcions beside evident prefes that
  shalbe made thereuppon with open and notarie fame and voice of the
  people, and also inasmoch as the said Duc of Somerset hath be double
  and untrue in many and diverse pointes, and in especiall that he
  hath desirid a recompense of youre highnes for the counte of Mayn
  for the delyverance therof, where it was specified in youre lettres
  patentes of your graunte therof to hym made that ye shuld be at your
  libertee to dispose it at your pleasere in case that ye for the
  meane of the pease wold do make a lyverey thereof unto youre uncle
  of Fraunce; and yit at the tyme of delyveraunce thereof he wold not
  agree therto unto tyme that he were recompensid, as it is aforesaid,
  in youre Duchie of Normandie to a more value than his said graunte
  drue to.

  Item, thees forsaid articles, everyche of theym and every parte of
  theym, purposyth and ministre I, Richard, Duc of York, ayens the
  said Duc of Somersett joyntly and severally not atteigne to a more
  strate nor chargeable prefe than your lawe in such case and processe
  will require; desiryng of youre highnesse and rightuous justice that
  in asmoche as lawfully may ayenst hym be foundon or previd, that
  jugement in that partie be had and executid unto youre highnes for
  yours and youre roialmes prosperite and welfare, indende not elles
  bot the salvacion and indempnite of youre most roiale persone, and
  also alle youre feithfull subgettz, in which y reporte me to God and
  all the word [_world_].

    [Footnote 103-1: Printed in this Introduction for the first time
    from the original in the Cottonian MS., Vesp. C. xiv. f. 40. The
    first paragraph of this document is quoted by Stowe in his
    _Chronicle_, p. 397, and the charges are referred by him to the
    thirty-third year of the king’s reign, _i.e._ the latter part of
    A.D. 1454, which is certainly erroneous. The date which he
    intended, indeed, was the latter part of the year 1453, when the
    Duke of Somerset was arrested and sent to the Tower; but this date
    also is quite impossible.]

    [Footnote 106-1: MS. mutilated.]

    [Footnote 106-2: A line seems here to be cut off in the MS. at
    the bottom of the leaf.]

    [Footnote 107-1: Charles, afterwards Charles the Bold, son of
    Philip the Good, who was at this time Duke of Burgundy.]

  [[Anjoy and Mayn iij.{xx} xij.{m} (72,000) frankes
  _the letters shown as {superscripts} were printed directly above
  the preceding numbers_]

I imagine this paper must have been really handed in by York to the
lords of the king’s Council. It is preserved among the MSS. in the
Cottonian Library, a large number of which were undoubtedly at one time
part of the public records of the realm. But in any case we can hardly
doubt that Somerset understood quite sufficiently the grounds on which
he was so generally hated; nor is it by any means improbable that the
armed remonstrance of the Duke of York produced some real effect, if
only for a time. This at least we know, that only four days after the
oath taken by York at St. Paul’s, active and energetic measures began to
be taken for the defence of Calais. [Sidenote: Defence of Calais.]
Historians, as Sir Harris Nicolas truly remarks, do not seem hitherto to
have been aware of the imminent danger in which even Calais at this time
stood of being lost, like the other English conquests, a full century
before it was actually recovered by the French. Rumours that Calais
would be besieged reached England in the beginning of May 1450, along
with the news of the Duke of Suffolk’s murder.[108-1] In August 1451 a
reinforcement of 1150 men was sent thither in twelve vessels, under the
Lords Beauchamp and Sudeley. In the February following, as we have seen,
York wrote of the success of the French in Gascony having emboldened
them to lay siege to Calais again. And now, on the 14th of March, when
Charles was advancing towards the last English stronghold, with the most
formidable army that had been seen for years, and when men had begun to
fear that he would be able not only to gain possession of Calais with
ease, but even to invade and ravage England, steps were at last taken
for the immediate formation of a fleet.

    [Footnote 108-1: Letter 121.]

A royal navy had undoubtedly existed for a long time before the days of
Henry VI., but it never amounted in itself to a very formidable force,
and in time of war recourse was always had to impressment on the large
scale. But the neglect of the sea was during this reign the constant
complaint of Englishmen. For want of an efficient fleet the mercantile
interest continually suffered, the fisheries could not safely be
visited, and even the dwellers at home were insecure. The fact was
confessed by the greatest eulogists of Henry VI., who had not a thought
of impugning his government. ‘Our enemies,’ says Capgrave in his
_Illustrious Henries_,--‘Our enemies laugh at us. They say, “Take off
the ship from your precious money, and stamp a sheep upon it to signify
your sheepish minds.” We who used to be conquerors of all nations are
now conquered by all. The men of old used to say that the sea was
England’s wall, and now our enemies have got upon the wall; what think
you they will do to the defenceless inhabitants? Because this business
has been neglected for so many years it now happens that ships are
scanty, and sailors also few, and such as we have unskilled for want of
exercise. May God take away our reproach and raise up a spirit of
bravery in our nation!’[109-1]

    [Footnote 109-1: _Capgrave de Illust. Henricis_, 135.]

There were already available for the king’s service a certain number of
ships in the Thames, and at Winchelsea and Sandwich. The chief of these
vessels was called the _Grace Dieu_--a name which was perhaps
traditional, for it was handed down to Tudor times when, with the king’s
own Christian name prefixed, it was always given to the largest of the
fleet.[109-2] The Earl of Shrewsbury[110-1] was appointed to take the
command of the whole army at sea, and efforts were made to augment the
squadron with as large a force as possible. On the 14th of March 1452 a
commission was given to Lord Clifford, which was doubtless one of a
number given to various noblemen, to negotiate for this purpose with
shipowners, knights, and gentlemen in the district where he commonly
resided; and he was instructed to take the command of all such vessels
as he could raise, and bring them into the Downs to join with
Shrewsbury. The appeal to patriotism was not made in vain. Many
shipowners came forward, offering not only to lend but to victual their
own ships for the service. But full powers were also given to arrest
ships, shipmasters, and mariners, to make up a sufficient number. To
every man not furnished with victuals by the benevolence of others,
twelve pence a week was offered on the king’s behalf, with a customary
share in any booty that he might help to capture at sea. Captains of
ships were to have in addition a reward of ten marks, or £10, at the
discretion of Lord Clifford. Altogether we may presume that the
defensive measures taken at this time were sufficient, for we hear no
more during the next few years of any attempt to lay siege to Calais.

    [Footnote 109-2: The _Henry Grace Dieu_ of Henry VIII.’s time is,
    however, better known by its popular epithet of the _Great
    Harry_.]

    [Footnote 110-1: The Earl of Shrewsbury, as already mentioned, had
    been given up to the French in 1449 as a hostage for the delivery
    of certain towns in Normandy. It is said that he only recovered
    his liberty on taking oath never to bear arms again against the
    French, but that on visiting Rome in the year of Jubilee, 1450, he
    obtained an absolution from this engagement.--_Æneæ Sylvii Opera_,
    441.]


_Amnesty at Home--Disaster Abroad_

[Sidenote: General pardon.] As to internal dissensions at home, it was
quite in accordance with the weakness of the king’s character to believe
that he had now stilled the chief elements of danger. His piety
suggested to him to complete the good work by a general political
amnesty. The year 1450, as being the concluding year of a half-century,
had been celebrated as a jubilee at Rome, during which a general
indulgence and pardon were granted to all who visited the Imperial City.
There was also, according to precedent, a bull issued at the close of
the year to extend these benefits still further. Taking his example from
the great Spiritual Ruler, the king, on Good Friday, the 7th of April
1452, offered publicly a general pardon to all who had been guilty of
acts of disloyalty to himself, and who would apply to his Chancery for
letters patent.[111-1] The offer was, undoubtedly, both gracious and
humane. It sprang from a genuine love of peace on the king’s part, and
probably went far to make the government of Somerset endurable for some
months longer. Amid the confusion and troubles of the times, thousands
must have felt that they needed the royal clemency to protect them
against the severity of the laws. One hundred and forty-four persons,
among whom was Thomas Young of Bristol--he who had proposed in
Parliament that York should be proclaimed heir to the crown--obtained
sealed pardons on that very Good Friday. Some two or three thousand
others laid claim to the like indulgence, and had patents granted to
them at a later date.[111-2] Only a very few persons were excepted on
account of the enormity of their offences.

    [Footnote 111-1: Whethamstede, 317.]

    [Footnote 111-2: The names are all entered on the _Pardon Roll_ of
    30 and 31 Henry VI. Among the hosts of less interesting names, we
    find that the Duke of York took out a pardon on the 3rd of June;
    the Duke of Norfolk and the young Duke of Suffolk on the 23rd of
    the same month; Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, on the 1st; Thomas
    Courtenay, Earl of Devon, on the 20th, and Sir William Oldhall,
    who is called of Hunsdon, on the 26th. Ralph, Lord Cromwell, had
    one on the 22nd May, and Robert Wynnyngton of Dartmouth (the
    writer of Letter 90) on the 28th July. On the 12th July a joint
    pardon was given to Sir Henry Percy, Lord Ponynges, and Eleanor,
    his wife, kinswoman and heir of Sir Robert Ponynges. At later
    dates we have also pardons to Henry, Viscount Bourchier, and Sir
    John Talbot, son and heir of the Earl of Shrewsbury.]

One part of his kingdom, however, Henry himself did not expect to pacify
by such means only. The state of the county of Norfolk had been so
represented to him that he felt it necessary to send thither the Duke of
Norfolk. ‘Great riots, extortions, horrible wrongs and hurts,’ were the
subject of complaint, and nothing but an impartial inquiry would give
satisfaction. The duke on coming into the country issued a proclamation,
urging all who had any complaints to make to lay them freely and
fearlessly before him. But free and fearless evidence was not likely to
be had without a strong guarantee for the protection of witnesses.
Already the news of the duke’s coming had got wind, and some of the
dependants of Lord Scales, who had been amongst the principal offenders,
had given notice that any complaints against _them_ would be redressed
in another fashion after the duke’s departure. In the absence of the
duke Lord Scales had been always hitherto the natural ruler of the
county, and it was under his protection that Sir Thomas Tuddenham, Sir
Miles Stapleton, John Heydon, and others had dared to make themselves
unpopular. Norfolk accordingly declared in the same proclamation that he
intended henceforth to vindicate for himself so long as he lived the
chief power and authority in the county which bore his name, subject
only to that of the king himself. [Sidenote: Intended royal visit to
Norfolk.] And to give still greater encouragement to the well-disposed,
he announced that the king himself would shortly visit the county,
before whom all who desired it should have their grievances
redressed.[112-1]

    [Footnote 112-1: No. 210.]

That the king actually visited Norfolk at this time I do not find from
any other evidence. A letter written on St. George’s Day says that he
had been expected at Norwich or Claxton for ten days past. Encouraged by
the duke’s proclamation, several gentlemen of the county had drawn up a
complaint against Charles Nowell, and were waiting to know in what
manner they should present it. [Sidenote: Complaint against Charles
Nowell.] This Charles and a number of others appear to have been keeping
the country east of Norwich at the time in continual alarm and
confusion. They held their rendezvous at the house of one Robert
Ledeham, from which they would issue out in bands of six, or twelve, or
sometimes thirty or more, fully armed with bows and arrows, spears and
bills, jacks and sallets.[112-2] No place was sacred from their
outrages. On Mid-Lent Sunday they had attacked two servants of the
Bishop of Norwich inside the church at Burlingham, and would have killed
them behind the priest’s back while they were kneeling at the mass. On
the 6th of April they had endeavoured to break into the White Friars at
Norwich on pretence of wishing to hear evensong; but having publicly
declared in the town that they intended to get hold of certain citizens,
either alive or dead, the doors were shut against them. Happily, before
they accomplished their purpose the mayor and aldermen came to the spot.
A multitude of people had meanwhile assembled in the streets, and the
rioters, finding the odds considerably against them, quietly took their
departure.[113-1]

    [Footnote 112-2: Coats of mail and helmets.]

    [Footnote 113-1: Nos. 211, 217, 241.]

[Sidenote: John Paston assaulted at Norwich Cathedral.] John Paston had
a complaint of his own to make against these wrongdoers. Charles Nowell
himself, and five others, had attacked him at the door of Norwich
Cathedral. He had with him at the time two servants, one of whom
received a blow on the naked head with a sword; and he himself was
seized and had his arms held behind him, while one of the company struck
at him. But for a timely rescue his death would seem to have been
certain. On the very day on which this occurred his wife’s uncle, Philip
Berney, was waylaid by some of the same fellowship, in the highway under
Thorpe Wood. Berney was riding, accompanied by a single servant, when
their two horses first were wounded by a discharge of arrows. They were
then speedily overtaken by their assailants, who broke a bow over Philip
Berney’s head, and took him prisoner, declaring him to be a traitor. To
give a further colour to their proceedings, they led him prisoner to the
Bishop of Norwich, demanding surety of him to keep the peace, and, when
they had obtained it, let him go. Philip Berney lived more than a year
after the adventure, but he never recovered from the effects of this
rough usage.[113-2]

    [Footnote 113-2: Nos. 212, 213, 227, 228, 241.]

Outrages like these, it must be remembered, were not the work of lawless
brigands and recognised enemies of the whole community. They were merely
the effect of party spirit. The men who did them were supported by
noblemen and country gentlemen. One, by name Roger Church, probably the
most daring, and at the same time the most subtle, of the gang, had got
himself made bailiff of the hundred of Blofield.[113-3] Charles Nowell
was a friend of Thomas Daniel, who, after being a year and a half out of
favour, had recently recovered his influence in Norfolk through the
medium of the Duke of Somerset.[114-1] By this means he seems again to
have obtained possession of the manor of Bradeston, the right to which
he had disputed in 1450, apparently more by arms than by law, with
Osbert Mountford, marshal of Calais. Charles Nowell was appointed by
Daniel bailiff of the manor, with the slender but not insignificant
salary of twopence a day; and he and his fellows, Roger Church, Robert
Ledeham, John Ratcliff, and Robert Dalling, made it their chief business
to maintain Daniel in possession.

    [Footnote 113-3: Nos. 214, 241.]

    [Footnote 114-1: No. 206.]

To put an end to such a state of matters as this, the Duke of Norfolk’s
coming must have been truly welcome. But if any man expected that the
power of duke or king could suddenly terminate the reign of anarchy, and
initiate an era of plain impartial justice, he must have been a sanguine
mortal. As one of the first effects of the duke’s coming, some of the
leading oppressors of the country were driven to a course of chicanery
instead of violence. [Sidenote: Roger Church.] Roger Church got himself
arrested by some of his own company, and was brought before the duke as
a promoter of sedition. He was accused of having taken part in an
unlawful assembly at Postwick, with the view of stirring up an
insurrection. He confessed the fact, and offered to turn king’s evidence
on his accomplices. He then named a number of thrifty husbandmen,
farmers, and gentlemen of the neighbourhood, alleging that about three
hundred persons were implicated in the intended rising. The truth, as it
presently turned out, and as Church himself afterwards confessed, was,
that the movement had been got up by himself, at the instigation of
Robert Ledeham, who promised to procure his pardon through the influence
of Daniel. By solicitations addressed to various unsteady characters he
had induced some to believe that an insurrection would be well
supported. A little company of fifteen men accordingly met him under a
wood at Postwick, and he told them he had discovered an excellent name
for their captain, who should be called John Amend-All. But beyond this
meeting and naming of the captain nothing seems ever to have come of the
project.[114-2]

    [Footnote 114-2: Nos. 214, 217, 218, 219, 241.]

John Paston was certainly one of those mentioned by Church. The chief
persons accused were the friends of Osbert Mountford, and Paston was one
of them. But John Falgate, one of the deluded victims who had been
present at the meeting at Postwick, being subjected to examination
before the sheriff, exonerated Paston, and, while acknowledging his own
share in the conspiracy, pronounced the tale told by Roger Church in his
confession to be altogether an invention. We need not be surprised to
hear that after this a petition from the county of Norfolk was sent up
to the Lord Chancellor, praying that Church should not be allowed the
benefit of the general pardon, offered upon Good Friday.[115-1] But
Church persevered in his policy. He appears to have been a reckless kind
of adventurer. He probably claimed the benefit of clergy, for we find
him three months after his arrest in the hands of officers of the Bishop
of Norwich. His goods also were seized for a debt that he owed the
bishop. But in spite of the contradictions given by other witnesses, in
July he adhered to what he had said in April, and instead of retracting
his former accusations, said he meant to impeach some one else whom he
could not at that time name,--a man who, he said, had more money in his
purse than all of those whom he had accused before. The coolness with
which he persisted in these statements gave an impression that he was
even yet relying upon powerful friends to support him.[115-2]

    [Footnote 115-1: The petition, I think, must have been effectual,
    for I did not find Church’s name on the _Pardon Roll_, 30 and 31
    Henry VI.]

    [Footnote 115-2: Nos. 214, 216, 218.]

The conclusion of the affair must be a matter of speculation, for we
hear nothing more of it. The political history of England, too, is, at
this point, almost a blank. We know from the Privy Council Proceedings
that there was some difficulty in the spring of 1452 in preserving
friendly relations with Scotland in consequence of some Border outrages
perpetrated by the Earl of Douglas. And this is absolutely all the light
we have on the domestic affairs of England for about a twelvemonth after
the Duke of York’s oath of allegiance at St. Paul’s. I have found,
however, by an examination of the dates of privy seals, [Sidenote: A
royal progress.] that in July the king began a progress into the west of
England, which is not altogether without significance. He reached Exeter
on the 18th, and from thence proceeded by Wells, Gloucester, Monmouth,
and Hereford to Ludlow, where he arrived on the 12th of August, and from
which he returned homewards by Kenilworth and Woodstock, arriving at
Eltham in the beginning of September. In October he made another circuit
northwards by St. Albans to Stamford, Peterborough, and Cambridge. There
can hardly be a doubt the object of these journeys was mainly to
conciliate those who had declared their opposition to the Duke of
Somerset, especially when we consider that the visit to Ludlow must have
been nothing less than a visit to the Duke of York. York was now more
than pardoned. He was honoured by his sovereign.

Financially, however, we may well suppose that the duke was not the
better of the royal visit. Perhaps also the state of the country did not
conduce to the prosperity of great landowners. At all events we find
that at the end of the year York was glad to pledge some pieces of
jewellery to Sir John Fastolf for a loan of £437, to be repaid next
Midsummer.[116-1] The transaction is in every way curious, as
illustrating the sort of dealings in money matters which were at that
time by no means uncommon among knights and noblemen. It is certainly
highly characteristic of such a knight as Sir John Fastolf, who, quite
unlike the Falstaff of the dramatist, instead of being always needy, was
always seeking to increase the wealth that he had amassed by long years
of thrift and frugality.

    [Footnote 116-1: No. 223.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Fastolf.] We have had occasion to mention the
historic Fastolf before; and it is time that we should now direct
attention to the circumstances of his private life and his connection
with the Paston family. John Paston, as the reader has already been
informed, was ultimately his executor, and to this circumstance may
safely be attributed the preservation of so many of his letters, most of
which have certainly been handed down with the papers of the Paston
family. Nevertheless, up to the time at which we have now arrived we do
not find that he directly corresponded with any of them. We can see,
however, that he had a high regard for John Paston’s advice in business,
and sometimes sent letters and documents of importance by him to his
agent in Norfolk, Sir Thomas Howes.[117-1] He seems to have been related
in blood to John Paston’s wife,[117-2] and he acknowledges Paston
himself as his cousin in his will. From the general tenor of most of his
letters we should certainly no more suspect him of being the old soldier
that he actually was than of being Shakespeare’s fat, disorderly knight.
Every sentence in them refers to lawsuits and title-deeds, extortions
and injuries received from others, forged processes affecting property,
writs of one kind or another to be issued against his adversaries,
libels uttered against himself, and matters of the like description.
Altogether the perusal is apt to give us an impression that Sir John
would have made an acute and able, though perhaps not very highminded,
solicitor. If ever his agent, Sir Thomas Howes, was, or seemed to be,
a little remiss in regard to some particular interest, he was sure to
hear of it, and yet woe to him if he did things on his own responsibility
which turned out afterwards to be a failure.[117-3] Sir John was not the
man to pass over lightly injuries done by inadvertence.

    [Footnote 117-1: Nos. 153, 159, 162, 186, 188, 203.]

    [Footnote 117-2: Note the passages in Margaret Paston’s letter
    (No. 222):--‘Yet I suppose Sir John, if he were spoken to, would
    be gladder to let his kinsmen have part than strangers.’ And
    again:--‘Assay him in my name of such places as ye suppose is most
    clear.’]

    [Footnote 117-3: No. 202.]

The familiarity shown by Fastolf with all the forms and processes of the
law is probably due not so much to the peculiarity of his personal
character as to the fact that a knowledge of legal technicalities was
much more widely diffused in that day than it is in ours. Even in the
days when Master Shallow first made himself ridiculous to a London
audience by claiming to be justice of the peace and _coram_,
_custalorum_, and _ratolorum_, there can hardly be a doubt that the
knowledge of legal terms and processes was not a thing so entirely
professional as it is now. But if we go back to an earlier time, the
Paston letters afford ample evidence that every man who had property to
protect, if not every well-educated woman also, was perfectly well
versed in the ordinary forms of legal processes. Sir John Fastolf had a
great deal of property to take care of, and consequently had much more
occasion to make use of legal phraseology than other people. Had it been
otherwise we should hardly have had any letters of his at all; for the
only use of writing to him, and probably to most other people in those
days, was to communicate on matters of business.

There are also parts of his correspondence from which we might almost
infer that Sir John was a merchant as well as a lawyer. His ships were
continually passing between London and Yarmouth, carrying on the outward
voyage building materials for his works at Caister, and bringing home
malt or other produce from the county of Norfolk. In two of his letters
we have references to his little ship _The Blythe_,[118-1] which,
however, was only one of several; for, in the year 1443, he obtained a
licence from the Crown to keep no less than six vessels in his service.
These are described as of four different kinds: two being what were
called ‘playtes,’ a third a ‘cog-ship,’ a fourth a ‘farecoft,’ and the
two others ‘balingers,’ for the carriage of goods and building materials
for the use of his household. These vessels were to be free from all
liability to arrest for the service of the king.[118-2]

    [Footnote 118-1: Nos. 171, 173.]

    [Footnote 118-2: Rymer, xi. 44.]

[Sidenote: Building of Caister Castle.] The object of these building
operations was the erection of a stately castle at Caister, not far from
Yarmouth, the place of the old warrior’s birth. As early as the reign of
Henry V., it seems, he had obtained licence to fortify a dwelling there,
‘so strong as himself could devise’;[118-3] but his occupation in the
French wars had suspended a design which must have been a special object
with him all through life. The manor of Caister had come to him by
natural descent from his paternal ancestry; but even during his mother’s
widowhood, when Sir John was a young man of about six-and-twenty, we
find that she gave up her life tenure of it to vest it entirely in her
son.[119-1] Since that day he had been abroad with Henry V. at Agincourt
and at the siege of Rouen. He had afterwards served in France under the
Regent Bedford,--had taken several strong castles and one illustrious
prisoner,[119-2]--had held the government of conquered districts, and
had fought, generally with success and glory, in almost every great
battle of the period. Nor had he been free, even on his return to
England, to go at once and spend the rest of his days on his paternal
domains in Norfolk. His counsels were needed by his sovereign. His
experience abroad must have qualified him to give important advice on
many subjects of vital interest touching both France and England, and we
have evidence that he was, at least occasionally, summoned to take part
in the proceedings of the Privy Council. But now, when he was upwards of
seventy years of age, the dream of his youth was going to be realised.
Masons and bricklayers were busy at Caister,[119-3] building up for him
a magnificent edifice, of which the ruins are at this day the most
interesting feature in the neighbourhood. Sadly imperfect ruins indeed
they are,--in some places even the foundations would seem to have
disappeared, or else the plan of the building is not very intelligible;
but a noble tower still rises to a height of ninety feet,--its top
possessed by jackdaws,--and a large extent of mouldered walls, pierced
with loopholes and surmounted by remains of battlements, enable the
imagination to realise what Caister Castle must have been when it was
finished over four hundred years ago. A detached fragment of these
ruins, too, goes by the name of the Bargehouse; and there, beneath a
low-browed arch still visible, tradition reports that Sir John Fastolf’s
barge or barges would issue out on their voyages or enter on their
return home.

    [Footnote 118-3: Dawson Turner’s _Historical Sketch of Caister
    Castle_, p. 31. He does not state his authority.]

    [Footnote 119-1: _See_ ‘Early Documents’ in vol. ii. p. 4.]

    [Footnote 119-2: The Duke of Alençon.]

    [Footnote 119-3: Nos. 224, 225.]

According to Dawson Turner, the foundations of Caister Castle must have
enclosed a space of more than six acres of ground.[119-4] The inventory
of the furniture contained in it at Fastolf’s death[119-5] enumerates no
less than six-and-twenty chambers, besides the public rooms, chapel, and
offices. An edifice on such a scale must have been some time in
building:--many years, we should suppose, passed away before it was
completed. And we are not without evidence that such was actually the
case; for a chamber was set apart for the Lady Milicent, Fastolf’s wife,
who is believed to have died in 1446, and yet the works were still going
on in 1453. In this latter year we find that John Paston was allowed to
have some control of the building operations, and that chambers were to
be built for him and his wife. Meanwhile it appears he had chosen an
apartment in which to set up his coffers and his counting-board for the
time. Possibly when he was able to visit Caister he may have acted as
paymaster of the works.[120-1]

    [Footnote 119-4: _Historical Sketch_, p. 4.]

    [Footnote 119-5: No. 389.]

    [Footnote 120-1: Nos. 224, 225.]

The great castle, however, was now not far from completion; and before
the end of the following year Sir John Fastolf had removed from London
and taken up his residence at Caister, where, with the exception of one
single visit to the capital, he seems to have spent all the remainder of
his days.

We have said that very few notices are to be found of the internal
affairs of England in the year 1452, subsequent to the Duke of York
swearing allegiance at St. Paul’s. But just about that time, or not very
long after, the affairs of Guienne came once more to demand the serious
consideration of the Council. It is true that Guienne and Gascony were
now no longer English possessions. [Sidenote: Attempt to recover
Guienne.] Bayonne, the last stronghold, had been given up in the
preceding August, and, the English forces being now expelled, all hope
of recovering the lost provinces might well have been abandoned, but
that the inhabitants were desirous to put themselves once more under the
protection of the King of England. The fact is that the Gascons, who had
been three centuries under English rule, did not at all relish the
change of masters. Under the crown of England they had enjoyed a liberty
and freedom from taxation which were unknown in the dominions of Charles
VII.; and on the surrender of Bordeaux and Bayonne, the French king had
expressly promised to exempt them from a number of impositions levied
elsewhere. But for this promise, indeed, those cities would not so
readily have come to terms.[121-1] Unfortunately, it was not very long
before the ministers of Charles sought to evade its fulfilment. They
represented to the people that for their own protection, and not for the
benefit of the royal treasury, the imposition of a _taille_ would enable
the king to set a sufficient guard upon the country, and that the money
would not in reality be taken from them, as it would all be spent within
the province. The English, it was to be feared, would not remain patient
under the loss, not only of the provinces themselves, but also of a very
valuable commerce that they had hitherto maintained with the south of
France; for Gascony supplied England with wine, and was a large consumer
of English wool. Hence there was every reason to fear that some attempt
would be made by the enemy to recover the lands from which he had been
expelled, and it was the interest of the inhabitants themselves to
provide an adequate force to ward off invasion.[121-2]

    [Footnote 121-1: Basin, i. 251.]

    [Footnote 121-2: _Ibid._ 257.]

With arguments like these the French king’s officers went about among
the people endeavouring to compel them to forego a liberty which had
been secured to them under the Great Seal of France. In vain were
deputations sent from Bordeaux and Gascony beseeching the king to be
faithful to his promise. The petitioners were sent back with an answer
urging the people to submit to exactions which were required for the
defence of the country. The citizens of Bordeaux were greatly
discontented, and an embassy, headed by the Sieur de l’Esparre, was sent
over to the King of England to offer him the allegiance of the lost
provinces once more, on his sending a sufficient fleet and army to their
rescue. The proposal being laid before a meeting of the English Council,
was of course most readily agreed to; and it was arranged that a fleet,
under the command of the Earl of Shrewsbury, should sail for the Garonne
in October. On the 18th of that month the earl accordingly embarked with
a body of 4000 or 5000 soldiers. The French army having withdrawn, he
easily obtained possession of Bordeaux, and sent its captain, Oliver de
Coëtivy, a prisoner into England. Other towns then readily opened their
gates to the invaders, of which one of the principal was Castillon in
Perigord; and very soon, in spite of the opposition of their French
governors, the greater part of the lost provinces had put themselves
again under the protection of the English.[122-1]

    [Footnote 122-1: Basin, i. 258-261. Leclerq (in Petitot’s
    Collection), 37-38.]

  [[sent its captain, Oliver de Coëtivy
  _spelling unchanged: expected form “Olivier”_]]

The suddenness with which these things were done seems for a time to
have disconcerted the French king. Winter was now coming on, and
probably nothing effective could be done for some time, so Charles lay
maturing his plans in silence. As he surveyed the position at leisure,
he probably found that any further efforts of the invaders could be
checked with tolerable facility. France still retained possession of the
two little towns of Bourges and Blaye, which we have already mentioned
as being the keys of Bordeaux, and also of various other strong places
in which he had been careful to leave considerable garrisons. [Sidenote:
A.D. 1453.] It was therefore the beginning of June in the following year
before he took any active steps to expel the enemy from their conquests.
He then marched southwards from Lusignan, near Poitiers, and laid siege
to Chalais in Perigord, on the borders of Saintonge. In the space of
five days it was taken by assault. Out of a garrison of 160 men no less
than half were cut to pieces. The other half took refuge in a tower
where they still held out for a time in the vain hope of succours, till
at last they were compelled to surrender unconditionally. Of the
prisoners taken, such as were of English birth were ransomed; but as for
those who were Gascons, as they had sworn fealty to Charles and departed
from their allegiance, they were all beheaded. After this, one or two
other ill-defended places fell into the hands of the French. On the 14th
July siege was laid to Castillon on the Dordogne, a position which when
won gave the French free navigation into the Gironde. The besieging army
was furnished with the most perfect mechanism of war that the skill or
science of that age could supply. It had a train of artillery, with no
less than 700 gunners, under the conduct of two able engineers of Paris,
the brothers Bureau. The place was thoroughly closed in, when
Shrewsbury, hearing of the danger in which it stood, came with haste out
of Bordeaux with a body of 800 or 1000 horse, followed shortly after by
4000 or 5000 foot.[123-1]

    [Footnote 123-1: Basin, i. 261-4. Leclerq, 39-41. Matt. de Coussy,
    121.]

At daybreak on the 17th, the earl came suddenly upon the besiegers, and
succeeded without difficulty in thoroughly defeating a body of archers,
who had been posted at an abbey outside the town. This detachment being
completely taken by surprise, was obliged to save itself by flight, and
after a little skirmishing, in which some 80 or 100 men were slain on
both sides, the greater number of the Frenchmen succeeded in gaining a
park in which the main body of the besiegers had entrenched themselves.
Further pursuit being now unnecessary, the English returned to the
abbey, where they were able to refresh themselves with a quantity of
victuals which the French had left behind them. ‘And because the said
skirmish,’ writes the French chronicler De Coussy, ‘had been begun and
was done so early that as yet Talbot had not heard mass, his chaplain
prepared himself to sing it there; and for this purpose the altar and
ornaments were got ready.’ But this devout intention the earl presently
abandoned; for a cloud of dust was seen in the distance, and it was
reported to him that even the main body of the French were rapidly
retreating. Immediately the earl was again on horseback, and as he left
the abbey he was heard to say, ‘I will hear no mass to-day till I have
overthrown the company of Frenchmen in the park before me.’[123-2]

    [Footnote 123-2: Basin, i. 264-5. De Coussy, 122.]

Unfortunately, it turned out that the report of the retreat of the
French was utterly unfounded. The cloud of dust had been raised by a
body of horses which they had sent out of the camp to graze. The French
army remained in its position, with artillery drawn up, ready to meet
the earl on his advance. The English, nevertheless, came on with their
usual shout, ‘A Talbot! A Talbot! St. George!’ and while their foremost
men just succeeded for an instant in planting their standard on the
barrier of the French lines, they were mowed down behind by the
formidable fire of the French artillery. Against this all valour was
fruitless; about 500 or 600 English lay dead in front; and the French,
opening the barrier of their park, rushed out and fought with their
opponents hand to hand. For a while the conflict was still maintained,
with great valour on both sides; but the superior numbers of the French,
and the advantage they had already gained by their artillery, left very
little doubt about the issue. After about 4000 Englishmen had been slain
in the hand-to-hand encounter, the remainder fled or were made
prisoners. Some were able to withdraw into the town and join themselves
to the besieged garrison; others fled through the woods and across the
river, in which a number of the fugitives were drowned. [Sidenote:
Defeat and death of Talbot.] In the end the body of the veteran Talbot
was found dead upon the field, covered with wounds upon the limbs, and a
great gash across the face.[124-1]

    [Footnote 124-1: De Coussy, 124.]

So fell the aged warrior, whose mere name had long been a terror to
England’s enemies. By the confession of a French historian, who hardly
seems to feel it a disgrace to his countrymen, the archers, when they
closed around him, distinctly refused to spare his life, so vindictively
eager were they to despatch him with a multitude of wounds.[124-2] Yet
it must be owned that in this action he courted his own death, and
risked the destruction of a gallant army. For though he was led to the
combat by a false report, he was certainly under no necessity of
engaging the enemy when he had discovered his mistake, and he was
strongly dissuaded from doing so by Thomas Everingham.[124-3] But his
own natural impetuosity, inflamed probably still more by the
unreasonable taunts of the men of Bordeaux, who, it seems, were
dissatisfied that no earlier attempt had been made to resist the advance
of the French king into Guienne,[124-4] induced him to stake everything
on the issue of a most desperate and unequal conflict.

    [Footnote 124-2: Basin, i. 267-8.]

    [Footnote 124-3: _Ibid._ 265.]

    [Footnote 124-4: De Coussy, 122.]

With him there also died upon the field his eldest son, Lord Lisle, his
illegitimate son, Henry Talbot, Sir Edward Hull, and thirty other
knights of England. About double that number were taken prisoners, the
most notable of whom was John Paston’s old persecutor, the Lord
Moleyns.[125-1] Never had the English arms experienced such a disastrous
overthrow.

    [Footnote 125-1: J. Chartier, 265; Berry, 469.]

The Gascons now gave up their cause as altogether hopeless. A fresh army
had lately marched into their country, and was laying siege to several
places at once towards the east of Bordeaux, so that it was manifest
that city would soon be shut in by the royal forces. Castillon was no
longer able to hold out. It surrendered on the second day after Talbot’s
death. About the same time Charles in person laid siege to Cadillac, one
of the most important places in the neighbourhood, protected by a strong
castle. The town was speedily carried by assault, and a few weeks later
the castle was also taken. Other places in like manner came once more
into the power of the French king. At Fronsac an English garrison
capitulated and was allowed to leave the country, each soldier bearing
in his hand a baton till he reached the seaside. Very soon Bordeaux was
the only place that held out; nor was the defence even of this last
stronghold very long protracted. Its surrender was delayed for a time
only in consequence of the severity of the conditions on which Charles
at first insisted; but a sickness which began to ravage his camp at
length inclined him to clemency. On the 17th of October the city
submitted to Charles, the inhabitants engaging to renew their oaths of
allegiance, and the English having leave to return in their own ships to
England. To secure himself against their future return, or any fresh
rebellion of the citizens, Charles caused to be built and garrisoned, at
the expense of the latter, two strong towers, which were still standing
at the beginning of the last century. Thus was Gascony finally lost to
the Crown of England.

We must now return to the domestic affairs of the kingdom. Matters had
been hung up, as it were, in a state of unstable equilibrium ever since
Good Friday 1452. The political amnesty, proceeding, as it did, from the
king’s own heart, and removing every stain of disloyalty from those who
had laboured most to change his policy, helped, in all probability, to
keep up a precarious state of tranquillity much longer than it could
otherwise have been preserved. The danger of Calais, too, had passed
away for the time, although it was always recurring at intervals so long
as Henry VI. was king. So that, perhaps, during the latter part of the
year 1452, the country was in as quiet a state as could reasonably have
been expected. At least, the absence of information to the contrary may
be our warrant for so believing. [Sidenote: A.D. 1453.] But the new year
had no sooner opened than evidences of disaffection began to be
perceived. [Sidenote: Robert Poynings.] On the 2nd of January Robert
Poynings--the same who had taken a leading part in Cade’s rebellion, and
had, it will be remembered, saved the life of one of Sir John Fastolf’s
servants from the violence of the insurgents--called together an
assembly of people at Southwark, many of whom were outlaws. What his
object was we have no distinct evidence to show. He had received the
king’s general pardon for the part he took in the movement under Cade;
but he had been obliged to enter into a recognisance of £2000, and
find six sureties of £200 each, for his good behaviour; so that he, of
all men, had best cause to beware of laying himself open to any new
suspicion of disloyalty. Yet it appears he not only did so by this
meeting at Southwark, but that immediately afterwards he confederated
with one Thomas Bigg of Lambeth, who had been one of Cade’s petty
captains, and having met with him and about thirty others at Westerham
in Kent, tried to stir up a new rising in the former seat of rebellion.
From Kent he further proceeded into Sussex, and sent letters to two
persons who had been indicted of treason, urging them to come and meet
him at Southwark on the last day of February; ‘at which time and place,’
says the Parliament Roll, ‘the same Robert Poynings gave them money,
thanking them heartily of their good will and disposition that they were
of unto him in time past, praying them to continue their good will, and
to be ready and come to him at such time as he should give them
warning.’[126-1] Altogether it would appear from the record of the
charge itself that nothing very serious came of this display of
disaffection on the part of Poynings; but it must at least be noted as a
symptom of the times.

    [Footnote 126-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 396. _See_ also the pardon
    granted to him five years later. _Patent Roll_, 36 Hen. VI. m.
    12.]

[Sidenote: Parliament.] Soon after this a Parliament was called. The
Crown was in need of money; but Somerset did not dare to convoke the
legislature at Westminster. It met in the refectory of the abbey of
Reading on the 6th of March. In the absence of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Cardinal Kemp, who was Chancellor, the Bishop of
Lincoln[127-1] opened the proceedings by a speech on behalf of the king,
declaring the causes of their being summoned; which were merely stated
to be, in general terms, for the good government of the kingdom and for
its outward defence. The necessity of sending reinforcements into
Gascony was not mentioned, and apparently was not thought of; for up to
this time the success of Shrewsbury had been uninterrupted, and the
French king had not yet begun his southward march. The Commons elected
one Thomas Thorpe as their Speaker, and presented him to the king on the
8th. Within three weeks they voted a tenth and fifteenth, a subsidy of
tonnage and poundage, a subsidy on wools, hides, and woolfells, and a
capitation tax on aliens,--all these, except the tenth and fifteenth, to
be levied for the term of the king’s natural life. They also ordained
that every county, city, and town should be charged to raise its quota
towards the levying of a body of 20,000 archers within four months. For
these important services they received the thanks of the king,
communicated to them by the Chancellor, and were immediately prorogued
over Easter, to sit at Westminster on the 25th of April.[127-2]

    [Footnote 127-1: Called William, Bishop of Lincoln, on the _Rolls
    of Parliament_, but his name was John Chedworth.]

    [Footnote 127-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 227-31.]

On their reassembling there, they proceeded to arrange the proportion of
the number of archers which should be raised in each county, and the
means by which they were to be levied. The Commons, however, were
relieved of the charge of providing 7000 men of the number formerly
agreed to, as 3000 were to be charged upon the Lords and 3000 more on
Wales and the county palatine of Cheshire, while an additional thousand
was remitted by the king, probably as the just proportion to be levied
out of his own household. For the remaining 13,000, the quota of each
county was then determined. But soon afterwards it was found that the
need of such a levy was not so urgent as had at first been supposed, and
the actual raising of the men was respited for two years, provided that
no emergency arose requiring earlier need of their services.[128-1]

    [Footnote 128-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 231-3.]

The possibility of their being required in Gascony after the success of
the Earl of Shrewsbury in the preceding year, seems no more to have
occurred to the Government, than the thought of sending them to
Constantinople, where possibly, had the fact been known, they might at
this very time have done something to prevent that ancient city from
falling into the hands of the Turks. For it was in this very year, and
while these things occupied the attention of the English Parliament,
that the long decaying Eastern Empire was finally extinguished by the
fall of its metropolis.

After this, some new Acts were passed touching the pay of the garrison
at Calais, and for the making of jetties and other much-needed repairs
there. For these purposes large sums of money were required, and the
mode in which they were to be provided gives us a remarkable insight
into the state of the exchequer. To the Duke of Somerset, as Captain of
Calais, there was owing a sum of £21,648, 10s., for the wages of himself
and his suite since the date of his appointment; and on the duke’s own
petition, an Act was passed enabling him to be paid, not immediately,
but after his predecessor, Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham, should have
received all that was due to him in a like capacity.[128-2] The pay of
the officers of Calais, it would thus appear, but that it seems to have
been discharged by the Captain for the time being out of his own
resources, must at this time have been more than two years in arrear. If
such was the state of matters, we gain some light on the causes which
induced Somerset, after his loss of Normandy, to add to his unpopularity
by accepting a post of so much responsibility as the Captainship of
Calais. He was one of the few men in England whose wealth was such that
he could afford to wait for his money; and he was too responsible for
the rotten government which had led to such financial results to give
any other man a post in which he would certainly have found cause of
dissatisfaction.

    [Footnote 128-2: _Ibid._ v. 233.]

It was necessary, however, to provide ready money for the repairs and
the wages of the garrison from this time, and it was accordingly enacted
that a half of the fifteenth and tenth already voted should be
immediately applied to the one object, and a certain proportion of the
subsidy on wools to the other. At the same time a new vote of half a
fifteenth and tenth additional was found necessary to meet the
extraordinary expenditure, and was granted on the 2nd of July.[129-1]

    [Footnote 129-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 234-6.]

This grant being announced by the Speaker to the king, who was then
sitting in Parliament, Henry thanked the Commons with his own mouth, and
then commissioned the chancellor, Cardinal Kemp, to prorogue the
assembly; alleging as his reasons the consideration due to the zeal and
attendance of the Commons, and the king’s own intention of visiting
different parts of his kingdom for the suppression of various
malpractices. ‘The king, also,’ he added, ‘understood that there were
divers petitions exhibited in the present Parliament to which no answer
had yet been returned, and which would require greater deliberation and
leisure than could now conveniently be afforded, seeing that the autumn
season was at hand, in which the Lords were at liberty to devote
themselves to hunting and sport, and the Commons to the gathering in of
their harvests.’ As these weighty matters, whatever they were, required
too much consideration to be disposed of before harvest-time, we might
perhaps have expected an earlier day to be fixed for the reassembling of
the legislature than that which was actually then announced. Perhaps,
also, we might have expected that as the Parliament had returned to
Westminster, it would have been ordered to meet there again when it
renewed its sittings. But the king, or his counsellors, were of a
different opinion; and the Parliament was ordered to meet again on the
12th of November at Reading.

Long before that day came, calamities of no ordinary kind had overtaken
both king and nation. About the beginning of August,[130-1] news must
have come to England of the defeat and death of the Earl of Shrewsbury;
and Somerset at last was quickened into action when it was too late.
Great preparations were made for sending an army into Guienne, when
Guienne was already all but entirely lost. It is true the Government
were aware of the danger in which Talbot stood for want of succours, at
least as early as the 14th of July; even then they were endeavouring to
raise money by way of loan, and to arrest ships and sailors. But it is
evident that they had slept too long in false security, and when they
were for the first time thoroughly awake to the danger, the disaster was
so near at hand that it could not possibly have been averted.[130-2]

    [Footnote 130-1: It appears not to have been known on the 4th of
    August. Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. 487-8.]

    [Footnote 130-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 151-4,
    155-7. Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. 481-92.]


_The King’s Prostration_

Whether it was in any degree owing to this national calamity,--in which
case, the impression made by the event may well have been deepened by
the knowledge that it was attributed to the remissness of Somerset,--or
whether it was due entirely to physical or other causes quite
unconnected with public affairs, [Sidenote: The king falls ill.] in
August the king fell ill at Clarendon, and began to exhibit symptoms of
mental derangement.[130-3] Two months later an event occurred in which,
under other circumstances, he could not but have felt a lively interest.
After eight years of married life, the queen for the first time bore him
a child. It was a son and received the name of Edward; but for a long
time afterwards the father knew nothing of the event. So entirely were
his mental faculties in abeyance, that it was found impossible to
communicate to him the news. The affairs of his kingdom and those of his
family were for the time equally beyond his comprehension.

    [Footnote 130-3: W. Worc. In an almanac of that time I find the
    following note, which dates the beginning of the king’s illness on
    the 10th of August:--‘In nocte S. Laurentii Rex infirmatur et
    continuavit usque ad Circumcisionem Anni 1455, in p. . . .’ (?) (a
    word unintelligible at the end). MS. Reg. 13, C. 1.]

  [[began to exhibit symptoms of mental derangement
  _text reads “symptons”_]]

The failure of royalty to perform any of its functions, however weakly
they might have been performed before, was a crisis that had not
occurred till now. A heavier responsibility lay with Somerset and the
Council, who could not expect that acts done by their own authority
would meet with the same respect and recognition as those for which they
had been able to plead the direct sanction of their sovereign. And now
they had to deal with a factious world, in which feuds between powerful
families had already begun to kindle a dangerous conflagration. In the
month of August, probably of the year before this, Lord Thomas Nevill,
a son of the Earl of Salisbury, married a niece of Lord Cromwell at
Tattersall in Lincolnshire. After the wedding the earl returned into
Yorkshire, when, having reached the neighbourhood of York, some
disturbance arose between his retainers and those of Lord Egremont, son
of the Earl of Northumberland.[131-1] As to the cause of the dispute we
are left entirely ignorant; but it grew into a serious quarrel between
the Nevills and the Percys. The chief maintainers of the feud were, on
the one side, Sir John Nevill, a younger son of the Earl of Salisbury,
and on the other Lord Egremont. Both parties were repeatedly summoned to
lay their grievances before the Council; but the most peremptory letters
and mandates had hitherto been ineffectual. Illegal gatherings of people
on either side continued in spite of every prohibition; and the whole
north of England seems to have been kept in continual disorder.[131-2]

    [Footnote 131-1: W. Worc.]

    [Footnote 131-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 140-2,
    147-9, 154-5.]

The case was not likely to be improved when the source of all legal
authority was paralysed. And yet so bad was the state of matters before,
that the king’s illness, instead of being an aggravation of the evil,
positively brought with it some perceptible relief. The Council were no
longer able to avoid calling in the aid of one whose capacity to rule
was as indisputable as his birth and rank. A Great Council was summoned
for the express purpose of promoting ‘rest and union betwixt the lords
of this land’; and according to the usage in such cases, every peer of
the realm had notice to attend. Gladly, no doubt, would Somerset have
omitted to send such notice to his rival; and it seems actually to have
been the case that no summons was at first sent to the Duke of York. But
afterwards the error was rectified, and York being duly summoned, came
up to Westminster and took his seat at the Council-table[132-1] on the
21st of November. Before taking part in the proceedings, however, he
addressed himself to the lords then assembled, declaring how he had come
up in obedience to a writ of privy seal, and was ready to offer his best
services to the king; but as a previous order had been issued, by what
authority he could not say, to certain old councillors to forbear from
attending the king’s councils in future, he required that any such
prohibition might be removed. This was unanimously agreed to, and the
government of England was at once restored to a free and healthy
condition.[132-2]

    [Footnote 132-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi.
    163-5.]

    [Footnote 132-2: _Patent Roll_, 32 Hen. VI. m. 20. _See_ Appendix
    to this Introduction.]

The Duke of Somerset was not present at this meeting of the Council. He
doubtless saw too clearly the storm gathering against him. To his former
responsibility for the loss of Normandy was now added further
responsibility for the loss of Guienne. The accusations against him were
accordingly renewed; but they were taken up this time, not by York but
by the Duke of Norfolk. [Sidenote: Norfolk accuses Somerset.] A set of
articles of impeachment was drawn up by the latter, to which Somerset
made some reply, and was answered again by Norfolk. The accuser then
pressed the matter further, urging that the loss of Normandy and of
Guienne should be made a subject of criminal inquiry according to the
laws of France; and that other misdemeanours charged upon him should be
investigated according to the modes of procedure in England. Finally,
lest his petition should be refused by the Council, Norfolk desired that
it might be exemplified under the king’s Great Seal, protesting that he
felt it necessary, for his own credit, that what he had done in the
matter should be known as widely as possible.[132-3]

    [Footnote 132-3: No. 230.]

In the end it was determined that the Duke of Somerset should be
arrested and committed to the Tower. This resolution was carried into
effect a little before Christmas, and the different lords retired during
the festive season to their own country quarters. But all who had given
their votes against Somerset knew well that they stood in considerable
danger. The battle that he had lost would have to be fought over again
with the queen, who now put in a claim to be intrusted with the entire
government of the kingdom. Every man of Somerset’s party got his
retainers in readiness, and while other lords were out of town, the
harbinger of the Duke of Somerset secured for his company all the
lodgings that were to be got in Thames Street, Mark Lane, St.
Katherine’s, and the neighbourhood of the Tower. The Duke of Norfolk was
warned by a faithful servant to beware of parties in ambush on his way
to London. Everything clearly showed that the faction which had been
dispossessed of power had sanguine hopes of reinstating themselves at an
early opportunity.[133-1]

    [Footnote 133-1: No. 235.]

And this, it is probable, they might have done with the greatest
possible ease, were it not that the king’s loss of his faculties was so
complete and absolute that it was impossible, by any means whatever, to
obtain a semblance of acting upon his authority. [Sidenote: A.D. 1454.]
About New Year’s Day, when the new-born prince was conveyed to Windsor,
the Duke of Buckingham took the child in his arms and presented him to
the king, beseeching him to give him a father’s blessing. Henry returned
no answer. [Sidenote: The king and his child.] The duke remained some
time with the child in the king’s presence, but could not extract from
him the slightest sign of intelligence. The queen then came in, and
taking the infant in her arms, presented him to his father, with the
same request that the duke had made before her. But all their efforts
were in vain; the king continued dumb, and showed not the slightest
perception of what they were doing, except that for one moment only he
looked upon the babe, and then cast down his eyes again.[133-2]

    [Footnote 133-2: _Ibid._]

There were no hopes, therefore, that the king himself would interfere in
any way to protect his favourites in the Council. [Sidenote: Every man
looks to himself.] Every man felt it necessary to see to his own
security. The Lord Chancellor himself, Cardinal Kemp, ‘commanded all his
servants to be ready, with bow and arrows, sword and buckler, crossbows,
and all other habiliments of war, to await upon the safeguard of his
person.’ The Duke of Buckingham caused to be made ‘2000 bends with
knots--to what intent,’ said a cautious observer, ‘men may construe as
their wits will give them.’ Further from the court, of course, the old
disturbances were increased. ‘The Duke of Exeter, in his own person,
hath been at Tuxforth beside Doncaster, in the north country, and there
the Lord Egremont met him, and the two be sworn together, and the duke
is come home again.’ The Earl of Wiltshire and the Lord Bonvile made
proclamations in Somersetshire, offering sixpence a day to every man
that would serve them; and these two noblemen, along with the Lords
Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford, and Egremont, were preparing to come up to
London each with as strong a body of followers as he could possibly
muster.[134-1]

    [Footnote 134-1: No. 235.]

The Duke of York and his friends on their side did the same; and it was
high time they should, otherwise the machinations of Somerset would
certainly have been their ruin. The latter had spies in every great
household, who reported to him everything that could be construed to the
disadvantage of his opponents. [Sidenote: The Duke of York and Thorpe.]
Among York’s private enemies, moreover, was Thomas Thorpe, Speaker of
the House of Commons, who was also a Baron of the Exchequer. In the
former capacity his functions had been for some time suspended; for
Parliament, which had been prorogued to the 12th November at Reading,
only met on that day to be prorogued again to the 11th February, in
consequence of the mortality which prevailed in the town. Meanwhile, in
Michaelmas term, the Duke of York took an action of trespass against him
in his own Court of Exchequer, and a jury had awarded damages to the
amount of £1000. On this judgment was given that he should be committed
to the Fleet till the damages were paid, and in the Fleet the Speaker
accordingly remained till the next meeting of Parliament.[135-1] In his
confinement he was now busily employed in drawing up a bill of articles
against the Duke of York, which doubtless, with the aid of a little
favour at Court, would have been highly serviceable to the cause of
Somerset.[135-2]

    [Footnote 135-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 238-9.]

    [Footnote 135-2: No. 235.]

The legal proceedings of which Thorpe was a victim appear doubtless to
have been connected with party politics. His son and heir, Roger Thorpe,
at the beginning of the reign of Henry VII. procured an Act of
Parliament in his favour, showing that both he and his father had
suffered injustice in the cause of the House of Lancaster, and that the
Duke of York’s action of trespass against his father was owing to his
having arrested, at the king’s command, ‘certain harness and other
habiliments of war of the said duke’s.’[135-3] No doubt this must have
been the case, but was the king’s command constitutional? Or was it,
perhaps, only the command of Somerset given in the king’s name? An agent
had no right to obey an unconstitutional order.

    [Footnote 135-3: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 295.]

About the 25th of January the Duke of York was expected in London,
accompanied by a select body of men of his household retinue. With him
came his son, the Earl of March, at this time not quite twelve years
old; to whom, nevertheless, a separate household had already been
assigned by his father, and consequently another company marched in the
name of the Earl of March. These, however, were sent forward a little in
advance. Along with the Duke of York there also came up, or was expected
to come, his powerful friend the Earl of Warwick, who, besides the
retinue by which he was attended, was to have a thousand men awaiting
his arrival in London. Even these noblemen and their companies formed a
most powerful confederacy. But there were two other great personages
besides who travelled with them on the same road, whose sympathy and
co-operation with York at this time no reader would have conjectured.
The king’s two half-brothers, the Earls of Richmond and Pembroke, were
expected to reach London in the duke’s company; and they, too, had
wisely taken with them a good number of followers, for, notwithstanding
their relation to the Crown, it was thought not unlikely that they would
be arrested on their arrival.[136-1]

    [Footnote 136-1: No. 235.]

In short, the continuance of the king’s infirmity had now rendered it
clear to every man that unless the Council were willing to comply with
the Queen’s demands, and yield up to her the uncontrolled management of
public affairs, the government of the kingdom must be placed in the
hands of the Duke of York. And yet some little time was necessarily
allowed to pass before any special powers could be intrusted to him.
Parliament was not to sit again till the 11th February, and Reading was
still the place where it was appointed to assemble. The Earl of
Worcester, who filled the office of Lord Treasurer, was commissioned to
go down to Reading, and cause it to adjourn from the 11th to the 14th of
the month, to meet that day at Westminster. Meanwhile a commission was
granted to the Duke of York to act as the king’s lieutenant on its
reassembling.[136-2]

    [Footnote 136-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 238-9.]

  [[on its reassembling.[136-2] _final . missing_]]

[Sidenote: Parliament and the Speaker.] On the 14th, accordingly, the
Houses met in the royal palace of Westminster; but the Commons were
without a Speaker, and another of their members, by name Walter Rayle,
was also undergoing imprisonment, from what cause does not appear. The
Commons, therefore, before proceeding to business, demanded of the King
and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, that their ancient privileges
should be respected, and their Speaker and the other member liberated.
The case was taken into consideration by the Peers on the following day,
when it was explained by the Duke of York’s counsel that the Speaker had
a few months before gone to the house of Robert Nevill, Bishop of
Durham, and there taken away certain goods and chattels belonging to the
duke against his will; that for this he had been prosecuted in the Court
of Exchequer, as it was a privilege of that court that its officers in
such cases should not be sued before any other tribunal; that a jury had
found him guilty of trespass, and awarded to the duke damages of £1000
and £10 costs. Speaker Thorpe had accordingly been committed to the
Fleet for the fine due to the king. The proceedings against him had not
been taken during the sitting of Parliament, and it was urged that if he
should be released by privilege of Parliament a great wrong would be
done to the duke. It was a delicate question of constitutional law, and
the Lords desired to have the opinion of the judges. But the chief
justices, after consultation with their brethren, answered, in the name
of the whole body, that it was beyond their province to determine
matters concerning the privilege of Parliament; ‘for this high court of
Parliament,’ they said, ‘is so high and mighty in his nature that it may
make law, and that that is law it may make no law; and the determination
and knowledge of the privilege belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament,
and not to the Justices.’ Nevertheless, as to the accustomed mode of
procedure in the lower courts, the Judges remarked that in ordinary
cases of arrest a prisoner was frequently liberated on a writ of
_supersedeas_ to enable him to attend the Parliament; but no general
writ of _supersedeas_, to surcease all processes, could be allowed; ‘for
if there should be, it should seem that this high court of Parliament,
that ministereth all justice and equity, should let the process of the
common law, and so it should put the party complainant without remedy,
for so much as actions at the common law be not determined in this high
court of Parliament.’[137-1]

    [Footnote 137-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 239-40.]

From this carefully considered reply it was clear to the Lords that they
were at least nowise bound to interfere in behalf of the imprisoned
Speaker, unless they considered the liberties of Parliament likely to be
prejudiced by the circumstances of his particular case. It was
accordingly decided that he should remain in prison, and that the
Commons should be directed to choose another Speaker. This they did on
the following day, and presented Sir Thomas Charleton to the Lord
Chancellor as their new representative; who being accepted by that
functionary in the name of the king, both Houses at once proceeded to
business.[137-2]

    [Footnote 137-2: _Ibid._ 240.]

A month later the Commons came before the Duke of York, as the king’s
lieutenant, with two very urgent petitions. [Sidenote: Defence of
Calais.] The first related to the defence of Calais and the safeguard of
the sea. Notwithstanding the very liberal grants which had already been
voted by this Parliament, Calais was still in danger, and the sea was
still very insufficiently protected; insomuch that the Lord Chancellor
had told the House of Commons £40,000 would be required to obviate very
serious perils. The Commons were very naturally alarmed; a modern House
of Commons would have been indignant also. They had in the preceding
year voted no less than £9300 for Calais, partly for repairs and partly
for making jetties, besides all the sums voted for the pay of the
garrison and the tonnage and poundage dues, which ought to have been
applied to general purposes of defence. They therefore humbly petitioned
to be excused from making any further grants; ‘for they cannot, may not,
ne dare not make any mo grants, considered the great poverty and penury
that be among the Commons of this land, for whom they be comen at this
time; and that this their excuse might be enacted in this high court of
Parliament.’ The money already voted was evidently conceived to be
somewhere, and was considered to be quite sufficient to do the work
required; so the Commons were told in reply by my Lord Chancellor the
Cardinal, ‘that they should have good and comfortable answer, without
any great delay or tarrying.’[138-1]

    [Footnote 138-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 240.]

[Sidenote: A council required.] The second petition was that ‘a sad and
wise Council’ might be established, ‘of the right discreet and wise
lords and other of this land, to whom all people might have recourse for
ministering justice, equity, and righteousness; whereof they have no
knowledge as yet.’ The Duke of York was only the king’s lieutenant in
Parliament. With the assent of the Great Council he could prorogue or
dissolve it and give the royal assent to any of its acts. But the
business of the nation imperatively required that some smaller body of
statesmen should be intrusted with more general powers. Even before the
king’s illness the constitution of some such body had been promised to
the Parliament at Reading as a thing contemplated by the king
himself;[138-2] and it was now more necessary than ever. The only
problem was how to confer upon it an authority that could not be
disputed.

    [Footnote 138-2: _Ibid._ 241.]

But while the Lords are taking this point into consideration, we invite
the reader’s attention to a piece of private history.

[Sidenote: Thomas Denyes.] A few years before the date at which we have
now arrived, one Thomas Denyes, a trusted servant of the Earl of Oxford,
seems to have caused his master some little inconvenience by falling in
love with a lady who resided in the neighbourhood of Norwich. We regret
that we cannot inform the reader who she was. All that we know is that
her Christian name was Agnes, which was at that time popularly corrupted
into Anneys and frequently confounded with Anne, and that she was an
acquaintance of John Paston’s. With John Paston, accordingly, the earl
thought it best to communicate, and in doing so earned for himself the
heartfelt gratitude of Denyes by one of those small but truly gracious
acts which reveal to us better than anything else the secret of the
power of the English aristocracy. The lady seems not to have given her
admirer any great encouragement in his suit. She had property of her own
worth 500 marks, and could have had a husband in Norfolk with land of
100 marks value, which was more than Denyes could offer her. But the
Earl of Oxford requested John Paston to intercede with her in behalf of
her wooer, promising her that if the marriage took effect the Earl would
show himself liberal to them both. He further offered, if it would be
any satisfaction to her, to go himself into Norfolk and visit
her.[139-1]

    [Footnote 139-1: Nos. 124, 240.]

This intercession was effectual, and the lady became the wife of Thomas
Denyes. It was a triumph of love and ambition to a poor dependant on a
great earl. But with increase of wealth, as others have found in all
ages, Denyes experienced an increase of anxieties and of business also.
A suit in Chancery was commenced against him and his wife by a gentleman
of the name of Ingham, who considered himself to have a claim on the
lady’s property for a considerable sum of money. Ingham’s son Walter was
active in procuring the _subpœna_. But Denyes, strong, as he believed,
in a great lord’s favour, conceived a plan by which he might either
interrupt the suit or revenge it on the person of Walter Ingham. On the
11th of January 1454--just about the time the queen and Buckingham were
making those vain attempts to introduce his child to the notice of the
unhappy king--when, consequently, it was still uncertain whether York or
Somerset would have the rule, and when lawless persons all over the
country must have felt that there was more than usual immunity for bad
deeds to be hoped for,--Thomas Denyes wrote a letter in the name of the
Earl of Oxford to Walter Ingham, requiring his presence at the earl’s
mansion at Wivenhoe, in Essex, on the 13th. This letter reached Ingham
at Dunston, in Norfolk, and he at once set out in obedience to the
summons. [Sidenote: Walter Ingham waylaid.] But as he was nearing his
destination, on the 12th, he was waylaid by a party in ambush hired by
Denyes, who beat him so severely upon the head, legs, and back that he
was maimed for life, and compelled to go on crutches for the rest of his
days. Ingham complained of the outrage to the Lord Chancellor, Cardinal
Kemp, who sent a sergeant-at-arms to arrest Denyes at Lincoln’s Inn; but
he at first refused to obey the arrest. Shortly afterwards, however, he
was committed to the Fleet prison; and Ingham, with the favour of the
cardinal and the Earl of Oxford, who utterly repudiated the act of his
dependant, presented a petition to Parliament that he should not be
admitted to bail or mainprise until he had been tried for the outrage
and all actions between him and Ingham had been fully discussed and
settled.[140-1]

    [Footnote 140-1: Nos. 238, 239.]

The Earl of Oxford seems to have been thoroughly incensed, and not
without reason, against a servant who had so abused his trust. Cardinal
Kemp, as chancellor, was not less righteously indignant; and a bill was
actually passed through the House of Peers in accordance with the prayer
of Ingham’s petition. Yet it is difficult to understand why the
punishment of the wrong committed was not left to the operation of
ordinary criminal law. The case, perhaps, affected too seriously the
honour of a nobleman, and the discretion to be allowed to a retainer.
But whatever may have been the cause, poor Denyes now becomes positively
an object for compassion--all the more so because his chief feeling in
the matter was not a selfish one. [Sidenote: Denyes and his wife in
prison.] Besides imprisoning Denyes himself in the Fleet, the cardinal
and the Earl of Oxford threw his wife into the Counter, and afterwards
sent her to Newgate, where she suffered the discomforts of a gaol apart
from her husband, although she was then with child. ‘Which standeth too
nigh mine heart,’ is the brief expression in which he conveys his
feelings to John Paston, while apparently he was expecting to hear that
his wife was either dead or prematurely delivered; for the treatment she
had met with brought on the pains of labour long before the right time
had come. Denyes, however, made friends with the warden of the Fleet
prison, who contrived in some manner to make interest for her with her
gaoler, so that afterwards she was rather better treated, and at last
admitted to bail.[141-1]

    [Footnote 141-1: No. 239.]

Poor Denyes was in dread of still further evils arising out of the case
when he wrote these facts to John Paston. The bill against him had
already passed through the Lords, and he was in fear that it might pass
through the Commons also, which we afterwards learn that it did
not.[141-2] His adversary, moreover, was bent upon revenge; ‘for
Ingham,’ he said, ‘lieth, beside that, to take away my wife’s daughter
out of Westminster,[141-3] to make an end of my wife if he can, and also
to arrest my servants, that I dread that she nor I shall have no
creature to attend us ne help us; and such malice have I never heard of
here before. And it is told me that beside that they will despoil, if
any good they can find of mine in Norwich or Norfolk, and imprison my
servants there.’ All this he urgently implored Paston to prevent to the
best of his ability. And it must be said that John Paston, although he
considered himself little bound to Denyes, except in so far as he had
promoted his marriage at the Earl of Oxford’s solicitation, on this
occasion stood his friend. He wrote a letter to the earl urgently
interceding for the unhappy wife; and though it seems probable the
letter that he first wrote was not actually sent, we may fairly presume
that he either devised a second to the same effect, or used his
influence otherwise to the same end. Certain it is that he made some
effort for which Denyes was beyond measure grateful.[142-1]

    [Footnote 141-2: No. 244.]

    [Footnote 141-3: Apparently Agnes Denyes had taken sanctuary at
    Westminster before her imprisonment. The manner in which Denyes
    here speaks of her daughter gives us reason to believe that she
    was a widow before he married her.]

    [Footnote 142-1: Nos. 240, 245.]

‘The cardinal is dead and the king is relieved.’ Such were the last
words of a postscript which Denyes appended to his first melancholy
letter, complaining of his own and his wife’s imprisonment. A rumour
apparently had been spread that the king’s health was beginning to
improve; for which, as we shall see, there was very little foundation.
[Sidenote: Death of Cardinal Kemp.] But it was perfectly true that
Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England, was
dead. Little as we know, beyond a few broad facts of his career, whereby
to judge his real character and aims, it is certain that he was an
accomplished statesman. A follower originally of Cardinal Beaufort,--the
man who of all others could serve two masters, Rome and England, with
the least degree of repugnance, and of whom the best that can be said
is, that he never scrupled to betray the former in what appeared to be
the interest of the latter,--Kemp was, perhaps, as honest a specimen of
the political churchman as an essentially bad system could produce. The
clergy, however, were really needed as statesmen; few laymen had the
ability, learning, or education to enable them to do the essential work
of the nation; and Kemp was one who had gained for himself, by his own
talents, the highest position to which a subject could aspire in
England, not only in the realm but in the Church.

Thus, at a time when the functions of royalty itself were suspended, the
chancellor, the official keeper of the king’s conscience, was suddenly
taken away; and in him England also lost her primate, always one of the
most important members of the Council. The formation of a governing
Council was now more important than ever; but the most pressing
questions of all were the appointment of a new chancellor and of a new
archbishop. Who was to take upon himself to nominate either the one or
the other? The queen’s modest claim to be invested with the functions of
her husband had not been listened to by the Lords; but the powers as yet
conferred upon the Duke of York were only to represent the king in
Parliament.

It was upon the 19th of March that the Commons had pressed their
petition for the establishment of a Council. Cardinal Kemp died on the
22nd. [Sidenote: Deputation of Lords to the king.] On the 23rd the Lords
appointed twelve of their number as a deputation, headed by Waynflete,
Bishop of Winchester, to ride to Windsor and endeavour, if possible, to
lay the state of matters before the king. Their instructions were drawn
up in six articles, but only two were to be communicated to the king if
they found him unable to pay attention to what was said. These two were
a mere assurance of anxiety to hear of his recovery, and that the Lords,
under the presidency of the duke as his lieutenant, were using their
best discretion in the affairs of the nation. If any response were made
to these two articles, the deputation was then to tell him of the death
of Cardinal Kemp, and ask to know his pleasure who should be the new
archbishop and who should be appointed chancellor. They were to say that
for the security of the Great Seals (there were at this time no less
than three Great Seals used in the Chancery)[143-1] the Lords had caused
them to be produced in Parliament, and after being seen by all the Lords
they were enclosed in a coffer sealed by a number of the Peers present,
and then laid up in the Treasury. Finally, they were to ask the king’s
mind touching the establishment of a Council, telling him how much it
was desired by the Commons, and suggesting the names of certain Lords
and persons whom it was thought desirable to appoint as Councillors. All
these matters, however, were to be communicated only to the king in the
strictest privacy.[143-2]

    [Footnote 143-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vol. vi.
    preface, pp. clxxviii.-ix.]

    [Footnote 143-2: _Rolls of Parl._ 240-1.]

The deputation returned two days after with a report of the total
failure of their mission. They had waited on the king at Windsor just
after he had dined, but could get from him no answer nor sign that he
understood their message. [Sidenote: The king’s imbecility.] The Bishop
of Winchester then told the king that the Lords had not dined, and that
after they had they would wait on him again. After dinner accordingly
they were again with him, and tried all they could to elicit an answer;
but the king was speechless. They then proposed that he should go into
another room, and he was led between two men into his bedchamber. A
third and last effort was then made to rouse him by every expedient that
could be imagined; and when all else failed, a question was put to him
which involved no more than a simple yes or no. Was it his Highness’s
pleasure that they should wait on him any longer? A long pause was
allowed in the hope that any mere physical difficulty might be overcome.
A faint nod, even a shake of the head, would have been regarded with
some degree of satisfaction. But it was all in vain. ‘They could have no
answer, word ne sign; and therefore with sorrowful hearts, came their
way.’[144-1]

    [Footnote 144-1: _Rolls of Parl._ 241.]

It was now clear that the highest constitutional authority resided for
the time in the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. The reader, imbued with
modern notions of the power and prestige of the House of Commons, may
possibly think that their votes, too, should have been consulted in the
formation of a Government. Such a view, however, would be radically
erroneous. The influence which the House of Commons has in later times
acquired--an influence so great that, at times unhappily, Acts are even
passed by Peers against their own sense of right and justice, in
deference to the will of the Lower Chamber--is a thing not directly
recognised by the constitution, but only due to the control of the
national purse-strings. Strictly speaking, the House of Commons is not a
legislative body at all, but only an engine for voting supplies. The
Peers of the realm, in Parliament or out of Parliament, are, according
to the constitution, the sovereign’s privileged advisers. A king may, no
doubt, at any time call to him what other councillors he pleases, and
the prerogative of the Lords may lie dormant for a very long period of
time; but the Peers of the realm have, individually or in a body,
a right to tender their advice upon affairs of state, which belongs to
no other class in the community.

On the 27th of March, therefore--two days after the report of the
deputation that had seen the king at Windsor--the Lords took the first
step towards the establishment of order and government, by electing
Richard, Duke of York, as Protector and Defender of the realm.
[Sidenote: The Duke of York Protector.] The title of Protector
essentially implied an interim administrator during a period when the
king, by legal or physical incapacity, was unable to exercise his regal
functions in person. A Protector’s tenure of power was therefore always
limited by the clause _quamdiu Regi placeret_. It was terminable by the
king himself the moment he found himself able to resume the actual
duties of royalty. Even a protectorship like that of Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester, instituted in consequence of the king being an infant, was
terminated before the royal child was eight years old by the act of his
coronation. The crowned and anointed infant became a king indeed, and
therefore no longer required the services of a Protector; so from that
day Duke Humphrey had ceased to wield any authority except that of an
ordinary member of the Council. But, indeed, even during his
protectorship, his powers were greatly circumscribed; and it had been
expressly decided by the Council that he was not competent to perform an
act of state without the consent of a majority of the other Lords.
Richard, therefore, knowing that his powers would be limited, was most
anxious that his responsibility should be accurately defined, that no
one might accuse him thereafter of having exceeded the just limits of
his authority. He delivered in a paper containing certain articles, of
which the first was as follows:--

  ‘Howbeit that I am not sufficient of myself, of wisdom, cunning, nor
  ability, to take upon me that worthy name of Protector and Defender
  of this land, nor the charge thereto appertaining, whereunto it hath
  liked you, my Lords, to call, name, and desire me unworthy
  thereunto;--under protestation, if I shall apply me to the
  performing of your said desire, and at your instance take upon me,
  with your supportation, the said name and charge, I desire and pray
  you that in this present Parliament and by authority thereof it be
  enacted, that of yourself and of your free and mere disposition, ye
  desire, name and call me to the said name and charge, and that of
  any presumption of myself, I take them not upon me, but only of the
  due and humble obeisance that I owe to do unto the king, our most
  dread and Sovereign Lord, and to you the Peerage of this land, in
  whom by the occasion of the infirmity of our said Sovereign Lord,
  resteth the exercise of his authority, whose noble commandments I am
  as ready to perform and obey as any his liege man alive; and at such
  time as it shall please our blessed Creator to restore his noble
  person to healthful disposition, it shall like you so to declare and
  notify to his good grace.’[146-1]

    [Footnote 146-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 242.]

In reply to this, it was put on record that it was ‘thought by the Lords
that the said Duke desireth that of his great wisdom for his discharge.’
And they, too, for their own justification, resolved that an Act should
be made according to a precedent during the king’s minority, setting
forth that they themselves, from the sheer necessity of the case, had
been compelled to take upon themselves the power of nominating a
Protector. So jealous were the Lords of anything like an invasion of the
royal prerogative!

Further, the duke required that the Lords would aid him cordially in the
execution of his duties and would exactly define such powers and
liberties as they meant him to exercise; that they would arrange what
salary he should receive; and that all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
belonging to the King’s Council would agree to act in the Councils of
the Protector. These matters being at length satisfactorily adjusted,
the duke was formally created Protector by patent on the 3rd of April.
It was, however, at the same time provided by another patent that the
office should devolve on the king’s son as soon as he came of
age.[146-2] After this, five Lords were appointed to have the keeping of
the sea against the king’s enemies, and in addition to the subsidies
already voted by Parliament for that object, a loan, amounting in all to
£1000, was levied upon the different seaports.[146-3] This was but light
taxation, and was no doubt cheerfully submitted to. The good town of
Bristol, we know, did more than it was asked; for Sturmyn, the Mayor,
fitted out a stately vessel expressly for the war.[146-4] Evidently
there were zeal and patriotism in the country whenever there was a
government that could make good use of them.

    [Footnote 146-2: _Ibid._ 243.]

    [Footnote 146-3: _Rolls of Parl._ 244-5.]

    [Footnote 146-4: No. 249.]

[Sidenote: Calais again in danger.] And there was real need of that
patriotism; for the French were again threatening Calais. They also made
a descent in great force on the isles of Jersey and Guernsey, but were
defeated by the valour and loyalty of the inhabitants, who killed or
took prisoners no less than five hundred of their assailants.[147-1] A
Council was called to meet at Westminster on the 6th of May, to take
measures for the defence of Calais,[147-2] the result of which and of
further deliberations on the subject was seen in the appointment of the
Duke of York as captain or governor of the town, castle, and marches.
This office was granted to him by patent on the 18th of July,[147-3] but
he only agreed to undertake it, as he had done the Protectorship,
subject to certain express conditions to which he obtained the assent of
the Lords in Parliament. Among these was one stipulation touching his
remuneration, in which he affirms that he had served the king formerly
at his own cost in the important offices he had filled in France and in
Ireland, so that owing to non-payment of his salary, he had been obliged
to sell part of his inheritance and pawn plate and jewels which were
still unredeemed.[147-4] A very different sort of governor this from the
avaricious Somerset!

    [Footnote 147-1: No. 247.]

    [Footnote 147-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 174.]

    [Footnote 147-3: Rymer, xi. 351. Carte’s _Gascon and French
    Rolls_.]

    [Footnote 147-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 252.]

Meanwhile other changes had been made in the administration. On the 2nd
of April--the day before the duke’s appointment as Protector--the Great
Seal had been given to Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, as chancellor;
[Sidenote: Disturbances in the North.] and to prevent any renewal of
disturbances in the North by the earl’s former opponent Lord Egremont,
his father, the Earl of Northumberland, was summoned before the Council.
But before the day came which was given him to make his appearance, news
arrived that Lord Egremont had already been making large assemblies and
issuing proclamations of rebellion, in concert with the Duke of Exeter.
To restore tranquillity, it was thought proper that the Duke of York
should go down into Yorkshire, where he no sooner made his appearance
than his presence seems to have put an end to all disturbances. The Duke
of Exeter disappeared from the scene and was reported to have gone up
secretly to London; but the adherents of Lord Egremont continued to give
some trouble in Westmoreland. Thither the Duke of York accordingly
received orders from the Council to proceed; but he probably found it
unnecessary, for on the 8th of June it is stated that he intended
remaining about York till after the 20th. Every appearance of
disturbance seems to have been quelled with ease; and a number of the
justices having been sent into Yorkshire for the punishment of past
offences, the Protector was able to return to London in the beginning of
July.[148-1]

    [Footnote 148-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 178,
    193-7. Nos. 247, 249.]

It was at this time that the two eldest sons of the Duke of York,
Edward, Earl of March, and Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who were of the ages
of twelve and eleven respectively, addressed the following interesting
letter to their father:[148-2]--

  ‘_To the ryght hiegh and myghty Prince, oure most worschipfull and
  gretely redoubted lorde and fader, the Duke of Yorke, Protector and
  Defensor of Englonde._

  ‘Ryght hiegh and myghty Prince, oure most worschipfull and gretely
  redoubted lorde and Fader, in as lowely wyse as any sonnes con or
  may we recomaunde us un to youre good lordeschip. And plaese hit
  youre hieghnesse to witte that we have receyved youre worschipful
  lettres yesturday by your servaunt William Cleton, beryng date at
  Yorke the xxix day of Maij, by the whiche William and by the
  relacion of John Milewatier we conceyve your worschipfull and
  victorious spede ageinest your enemyse, to ther grete shame, and to
  us the most comfortable tydinges that we desired to here. Where of
  we thonke Almyghty God of his yeftes, beseching Hym hertely to geve
  yowe that grace and cotidian fortune here aftur to knowe your
  enemyse and to have the victory of them. And yef hit plaese your
  hieghnesse to knowe of oure wilfare, at the makyng of this lettre we
  were in good helith of bodis, thonked be God; beseching your good
  and graciouse Faderhode of youre daily blessing. And where ye
  comaunde us by your said lettres to attende specialy to oure lernyng
  in our yong age that schulde cause us to growe to honour and
  worschip in our olde age, Please hit youre hieghnesse to witte that
  we have attended owre lernyng sith we come heder, and schall here
  aftur; by the whiche we trust to God youre graciouse lordeschip and
  good Fadurhode schall be plaesid. Also we beseche your good
  lordeschip that hit may plaese yowe to sende us Harry Lovedeyne,
  grome of your kechyn, whos service is to us ryght agreable; and we
  will sende yow John Boyes to wayte on youre good Lordeschip. Ryght
  hiegh and myghty Prince, our most worschipfull and gretely redoubted
  lorde and Fader, We beseche Almyghty God yeve yowe as good lyfe and
  longe as youre owne Princely hert con best desire. Writen at your
  Castill of Lodelow the iij day of June.--Youre humble sonnes,

    ‘E. MARCHE,
    ‘E. RUTLOND.’

    [Footnote 148-2: Printed from the original in MS. Cott., Vespasian
    F. xiii. fol. 35.]

Soon after the duke had returned to London his presence was required at
a Great Council summoned for the 18th of July, to consider the
expediency of liberating on bail his great rival and personal enemy, the
Duke of Somerset, who had been now seven months in prison. [Sidenote:
The Duke of Somerset.] On this point York had only one piece of advice
to offer, which was, that as he had been committed to custody upon
suspicion of treason, the opinion of the judges should be taken before
he was released from confinement. That he had remained so long without a
trial was not unnatural, considering the nature of the times. It was a
bold step indeed to try him at all, while there was a chance of the
weak-minded king’s recovery; but this step was certainly resolved on.
The 28th of October was the day appointed for his trial; and the Duke of
Norfolk, who, as we have seen, had been the first to move the capital
charge against him, was ordered by that day to be ready to produce his
proofs. Meanwhile the lords concurred that it was clearly inexpedient to
let him go, especially as the number of lords assembled was not so great
as it should have been on the occasion; and the opinion of the Duke of
York was not only agreed to, but at his request was put on
record.[149-1]

    [Footnote 149-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 207.]

Six days later it was agreed at another meeting of the Council that the
Duke of York should return into the North with the Duke of Exeter in his
custody, whom he was to confine in the castle of Pomfret as a state
prisoner.[150-1]

    [Footnote 150-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 217,
    218.]

By these decisive steps the authority of the Duke of York was at length
secured on something like a stable footing. During the remainder of his
protectorate there could no longer be a doubt to whose hands power was
committed; and England, at last, had the blessing of real government,
able and vigorous, but at the same time moderate. The resolutions of the
Council soon became known to the public. ‘As for tidings,’ wrote William
Paston to his brother in Norfolk, ‘my lord of York hath taken my lord of
Exeter into his award. The Duke of Somerset is still in prison, in worse
case than he was.’ William Paston wrote in haste, but these were two
matters of public importance to be mentioned before all private affairs
whatever.[150-2] And yet the private affairs of which he wrote in the
same letter will not be without interest to the readers of this
Introduction. [Sidenote: Sir J. Fastolf goes to reside in Norfolk.]
William Paston now reported to his brother that Sir John Fastolf was
about to take his journey into Norfolk within a few days, and proposed
to take up his residence at Caister. His going thither must have been
regarded as an event not only in the neighbourhood of Yarmouth but even
in the city of Norwich. At all events it was highly important to John
Paston, whose advice the old knight valued in many matters. ‘He saith,’
wrote William Paston to his brother, ‘ye are the heartiest kinsman and
friend that he knoweth. He would have you at Mauteby[150-3] dwelling.’
This must have been written in the latter part of July. Sir John did not
actually go into Norfolk quite so soon as he intended; but he appears to
have been there by the beginning of September.[150-4]

    [Footnote 150-2: No. 254.]

    [Footnote 150-3: The manor of Mauteby, which came to John Paston
    by his marriage, was only three miles distant from Caister.]

    [Footnote 150-4: No. 260.]

There in his completed castle of Caister he had at length taken up his
abode, to spend the evening of his days in the place of his birth, and
on the inheritance of his ancestors. There during the next five years he
spent his time, counting over the items of a number of unsettled claims
he had against the crown,[151-1] and meditating also, it would seem, on
another account he had with Heaven. For the latter the foundation of a
college[151-2] or religious endowment, in which were to be maintained
‘seven priests and seven poor folk’ at Caister, might possibly liquidate
his debts. But in his transactions with his fellowmen he was certainly
for the most part a creditor, and by no means one of the most generous.
Instances will be found in his letters in abundance showing with what
vehemence (testy old soldier that he was!) he perpetually insisted on
what was due to himself;--how he desired to know the names of those who
would presume to resist his agent, Sir Thomas Howes--how they should be
requited ‘by Blackbeard or Whitebeard, that is to say, by God or the
Devil’;[151-3]--how he noted that Sir John Buck had fished his stanks
and helped to break his dam;[151-4] how he had been informed that at a
dinner at Norwich certain gentlemen had used scornful language about
him, and desired to know who they were.[151-5] In this perpetual
self-assertion he seems neither to have been over-indulgent towards
adversaries nor even sufficiently considerate of friends and dependants.
‘Cruel and vengeable he hath been ever,’ says his own servant Henry
Windsor, ‘and for the most part without pity and mercy.’[151-6] So also
on the part of his faithful secretary, William Worcester, we find a
complaint of shabby treatment, apparently at this very time when the
household was removed to Caister. To a letter in which John Paston had
addressed him as ‘Master Worcester,’ the latter replied with a request
that he would ‘forget that name of mastership,’ for his position was by
no means so greatly improved as to entitle him to such respect. His
salary was not increased by one farthing in certainty--only ‘wages of
household in common, _entaunt come nows plaira_’--which apparently
means, assured to him only during his master’s pleasure. When he
complained to his master of this, all the satisfaction he obtained was
that Sir John expressed a wish he had been a priest, when he could have
rewarded him with a living.[152-1]

    [Footnote 151-1: Nos. 309, 310.]

    [Footnote 151-2: Nos. 340, 350, 351, 385, 386, 387.]

    [Footnote 151-3: No. 125.]

    [Footnote 151-4: Nos. 160, 161.]

    [Footnote 151-5: No. 272.]

    [Footnote 151-6: No. 332.]

    [Footnote 152-1: Nos. 258, 259.]

There are, indeed, in more than one of Worcester’s letters in this
collection symptoms of ill-concealed chagrin and disappointment. Nor
were such feelings unnatural in one who, probably out of regard for an
ill-appreciated hero, had devoted the best energies of his life to the
services of such a master as Fastolf. [Sidenote: William Worcester.] A
native of Bristol, the son of one William Worcester, who lived in St.
James’s Bec in that town, he was descended by the mother’s side from a
wealthy family of Coventry, and often called himself, instead of
Worcester, by his mother’s maiden name of Botoner. Born in the year
1415, he had entered the university of Oxford in 1432, and been four
years a student at Hart Hall, now Balliol College; after which he had
gone into Fastolf’s service. For many years he had been steward of Sir
John’s manor of Castle Combe in Wiltshire, and MSS. still exist in his
handwriting relating to the holding of manorial courts there.[152-2] He
had also been Fastolf’s secretary in drawing up various statements
regarding the wars in France in vindication of his master’s
policy.[152-3] He was a man of literary tastes, who had already
presented some compositions to his patron.[152-4] Later in life he wrote
a book of annals, which is an important historical authority for the
period. It seems to have been about a year before his master’s death
that he set himself assiduously to learn French, under the tuition of a
Lombard named Caroll Giles.[152-5] From this instructor he had purchased
several books, and Henry Windsor suspected he had run himself into debt
in consequence. He had fairly owned to Windsor ‘he would be as glad and
as fain of a good book of French or of poetry, as my master Fastolf
would be to purchase a fair manor.’[152-6] But he had a special object
in view in which a knowledge of this language was important; for he had
begun translating, at Fastolf’s request, from a French version, Cicero’s
treatise _de Senectute_. This work appears to have been left on his
hands at Sir John Fastolf’s death, and on the 10th of August 1473 he
presented it to his patron’s old friend, Bishop Waynflete, at Esher.
‘Sed nullum regardum recepi de episcopo’ (but I received no reward from
the bishop), is his melancholy comment on the occasion.[153-1] The work
was ultimately printed by Caxton in 1481. Worcester was an assiduous
collector of information on topics of every description, and a number of
his commonplace books remain at this day. But like many men of letters
after him, he found that industry of this sort may look in vain for any
reward beyond the satisfaction of gratified curiosity.[153-2]

    [Footnote 152-2: Add. MS. 28,208, B.M.]

    [Footnote 152-3: Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. [519], _sq._]

    [Footnote 152-4: ‘Stellæ versificatæ pro anno 1440 ad instantiam
    J. Fastolfe militis.’ MS. Laud., B. 23 (according to the old
    pressmark).]

    [Footnote 152-5: Letter 370.]

    [Footnote 152-6: In previous editions it was here remarked:--‘This
    French zeal appears to have excited the contempt of some of his
    acquaintances--among others of Friar Brackley, who nicknamed him
    Colinus Gallicus.’ The discovery of additional letters, formerly
    published in a Supplement, but now incorporated with the series,
    seems to show that this was an error, or at all events very
    doubtful. It is clear from Letter 404 that a certain ‘W. W.’ and
    Colinus Gallicus were different persons (_see_ vol. iii. p. 213,
    note 3), and the references to ‘W. W.’ at p. 230 as the knight’s
    secretary and one of his executors remove any doubt that we might
    otherwise entertain that he was William Worcester. But a new
    difficulty arises from that identification, that Friar Brackley
    calls ‘W. W.’ an Irishman, which William Worcester was not; and
    the references at p. 220 of the same volume would imply that he
    was really an Irishman in nationality, and also a one-eyed man of
    dark visage. Such may have been Worcester’s personal appearance;
    but why was he called an Irishman?

    It is with some hesitation that I hazard a new conjecture as
    to the person nicknamed Colinus Gallicus; but on comparing the
    different passages where that nickname occurs, I am inclined
    to think it was meant for Judge Yelverton.]

  [[p. iii. 230 = Letter 417; p. iii. 220 = Letter 409]]

    [Footnote 153-1: Itin. 368.]

    [Footnote 153-2: Tanner’s _Bibliotheca_. _See_ also a notice of
    William Worcester in _Retrospective Review_, Second Series, ii.
    451-4.]

Along with the announcement that Sir John Fastolf was about to go into
Norfolk, William Paston informed his brother that the old knight’s
stepson, Stephen Scrope, would reside at Caister along with him.
[Sidenote: Stephen Scrope.] Of this Stephen Scrope our Letters make not
unfrequent mention; but the leading facts of his history are obtained
from other sources. He was the son of Sir Stephen Scrope, by his wife
Lady Milicent, who married Fastolf after her husband’s death. At the
time of this second marriage of his mother, young Scrope was about ten
or twelve years of age, and being heir to a considerable property, his
stepfather had the management of his affairs during his minority.
Bitterly did he complain in after years of the manner in which Sir John
had discharged the trust. According to the unfeeling, mercenary fashion
in which such matters were then managed, Fastolf sold his wardship to
Chief-Justice Gascoigne for 500 marks; ‘through the which sale,’ wrote
Scrope at a later date, ‘I took sickness that kept me a thirteen or
fourteen years [en]suing; whereby I am disfigured in my person and shall
be whilst I live.’ Gascoigne held this wardship for three years, and by
right of it intended to marry Scrope to one of his own daughters; but as
the young lad’s friends thought the match unequal to his fortune,
Fastolf bought the wardship back again.[154-1] Stephen Scrope, however,
when he grew up, was not more grateful for the redemption than for the
original sale of his person. ‘He bought me and sold me as a beast’ (so
he writes of Sir John Fastolf), ‘against all right and law, to mine hurt
more than 1000 marks.’ In consequence of the stinginess of his
stepfather he was obliged, on coming of age, to sell a manor which was
part of his inheritance and take service with Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester in France; by whom, according to his own account, he had some
hope of obtaining restitution of the lordship of the Isle of Man, which
had belonged to his uncle the Earl of Wiltshire in the days of Richard
II. But Sir John Fastolf got him to give up his engagement with the duke
and serve with himself, which he did for several years, to the
satisfaction of both parties. Afterwards, however, on some dispute
arising, Scrope returned to England, when Sir John sent home word that
he must pay for his meat and drink. To do this he was driven to contract
a marriage which, by his own account, was not the most advantageous for
himself; and his stepfather, instead of showing him any compassion,
brought an action against him by which he was deprived of all the little
property that his wife had brought him.[154-2]

    [Footnote 154-1: No. 97.]

    [Footnote 154-2: Scrope’s _History of the Manor of Castle Combe_,
    pp. 264-283. The MSS. formerly at Castle Combe, to which Mr.
    Scrope refers in this work, have since been presented by him and
    Mr. Lowndes, the present lord of the manor, to the British Museum.
    One of them we have reprinted in No. 97.]

Of this first wife of Stephen Scrope we know nothing,[154-3] except that
she died and left him a daughter some years before we find any mention
of him in the Paston correspondence. His necessities now compelled him
to resort to the same evil system of bargaining in flesh and blood of
which he had complained in his own case. ‘For very need,’ he writes, ‘I
was fain to sell a little daughter I have for much less than I should
have done by possibility,’--a considerable point in his complaint being
evidently the lowness of the price he got for his own child. It seems
that he disposed of her wardship to a knight[155-1] whose name does not
appear; but the terms of the contract became matter of interest some
time afterwards to John Paston and his mother, when Scrope, who, besides
being disfigured in person, was probably not far from fifty years of
age, made an offer for the hand of Paston’s sister Elizabeth, a girl of
about twenty. The proposed match did not take effect; but it was for
some time seriously entertained. Agnes Paston writes that she found the
young lady herself ‘never so willing to none as she is to him, if it be
so that his land stand clear.’[155-2] The reader will perhaps think from
this expression that the young lady had been pretty early taught the
importance of considering worldly prospects; but there were other
motives which not improbably helped to influence her judgment. ‘She was
never in so great sorrow as she is now-a-days,’ wrote Elizabeth Clere to
John Paston, as a reason for concluding the matter at once with Scrope,
if no more desirable suitor presented himself. Her mother would not
allow her to see any visitor, and was suspicious even of her intercourse
with the servants of her own house. ‘And she hath since Easter the most
part been beaten once in the week or twice, and sometimes twice in one
day, and her head broken in two or three places.’[155-3] Such was the
rough domestic discipline to which even girls in those days were
occasionally subjected!

    [Footnote 154-3: She is not unlikely to have been the lady
    mentioned in No. 97. ‘Fauconer’s daughter of London, that Sir
    Reynold Cobham had wedded.’ This I find need not have been, as I
    have stated in a footnote, the widow of Sir Reginald Cobham of
    Sterborough, who died in 1446; for there was an earlier Sir
    Reginald Cobham, whose widow Elizabeth was married to William
    Clifford as early as 1438. (_Inquisitions post mortem_, 16 Hen.
    VI. No. 31.) Thus there is the less difficulty in attributing
    Letter 97 to a much earlier date than that assigned to it by the
    endorsement.]

    [Footnote 155-1: Letter 94.]

    [Footnote 155-2: No. 93.]

    [Footnote 155-3: No. 94.]

Some years certainly elapsed after this before either Stephen Scrope
found a wife or Elizabeth Paston a husband. The former ultimately
married Joan, the daughter of Richard Bingham, judge of the King’s
Bench; the latter was married to Robert Poynings, whom we have already
had occasion to notice as an ally of Jack Cade in 1450, and a ringleader
in other movements a few years later. This second marriage appears to
have taken place about New Year’s Day 1459;[156-1] before which time we
find various other proposals for her hand besides that of Scrope.[156-2]
Among these it may be noted that Edmund, Lord Grey of Hastings, wrote to
her brother to say that he knew a gentleman with property worth 300
marks (£200) a year to whom she might be disposed of. No doubt, as in
similar cases, this gentleman was a feudal ward, whose own opinion was
the very last that was consulted as to the lady to whom he should be
united. But it is time that we return to the current of public
affairs.[156-3]

    [Footnote 156-1: _See_ No. 374.]

    [Footnote 156-2: Nos. 236, 250, 252.]

    [Footnote 156-3: We ought not to leave unnoticed one fact in the
    relations of Scrope and Fastolf which is much more creditable to
    both of them than the disputes above mentioned. In the year 1450,
    Scrope translated from the French and dedicated to Sir John, ‘for
    his contemplation and solace,’ a work entitled _Ditz de
    Philosophius_ (Sayings of Philosophers), of which the original MS.
    is now in the Harleian Collection, No. 2266. That Fastolf was a
    real lover of literature, and encouraged literary tastes in those
    about him, there can be no question.]


_The Strife of Parties_

[Sidenote: The king’s recovery.] At Christmas, to the great joy of the
nation, the king began to recover from his sad illness. He woke up, as
it were, from a long sleep. So decidedly had he regained his faculties,
that, first, on St. John’s Day (27th December), he commanded his almoner
to ride to Canterbury with an offering, and his secretary to present
another at the shrine of St. Edward. On the following Monday, the 30th,
the queen came to him and brought with her the infant prince, for whom
nearly twelve months before she had in vain endeavoured to bespeak his
notice. What occurred at that touching interview we know from a letter
of Edmund Clere to John Paston, and it would be impossible to wish it
recorded in other words. ‘And then he asked what the Prince’s name was,
and the queen told him “Edward”; and then he held up his hands and
thanked God thereof. And he said he never knew till that time, nor wist
what was said to him, nor wist not where he had been whilst he hath been
sick, till now. And he asked who was godfathers, and the queen told him;
and he was well apaid. And she told him that the cardinal (Kemp) was
dead; and he said he knew never thereof till that time; and he said one
of the wisest lords in this land was dead.’[157-1]

    [Footnote 157-1: No. 270.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1455.] On the 7th of January, Bishop Waynflete and the
Prior of St. John’s were admitted to speak with him, and finding his
discourse as clear and coherent as they had ever known it, on coming out
of the audience chamber they wept for joy.[157-2]

    [Footnote 157-2: _Ibid._]

Joy was doubtless the prevailing sentiment among all ranks and classes
of people; but there was one to whom the news of the king’s recovery
must have afforded a delight and satisfaction beyond what any one
else--unless it were Queen Margaret--could possibly derive from it. The
Duke of Somerset had now lain in prison more than a year. The day
appointed for his trial had passed away and nothing had been done. It
certainly casts some suspicion upon the even-handed justice of the Duke
of York, that his adversary was thus denied a hearing; but the fault may
have been due, after all, to weakness more than malice. In cases of
treason, when once a trial was instituted against a leading nobleman,
a conviction was, in those days, an absolutely invariable result; but
this made it a thing all the more dangerous to attempt when it was
hopeless to expect the positive sanction of the king. The real cause,
however, why Somerset was not brought to trial can only be a matter of
conjecture. His continued confinement, however harsh, was, according to
the practice of those days, legal; nor was it till six weeks after the
king’s recovery that he was restored to liberty. A new day, meanwhile,
and not a very early one, was fixed for the hearing of charges against
him. On the morrow of All Souls--the 3rd of November following--he was
to appear before the Council. This was determined on the 5th of
February. Four lords undertook to give surety in their own proper
persons that he would make his appearance on the day named; and orders
were immediately issued to release him from confinement.[158-1]

    [Footnote 158-1: Rymer, xi. 361.]

On the 4th day of March, he presented himself at a Council held before
the king in his palace at Greenwich. The Duke of York was present, with
ten bishops and twenty temporal peers, among whom were the Protector’s
friend, the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Worcester,
Treasurer of England, and the king’s half-brother, the Earl of Pembroke.
His accuser, the Duke of Norfolk, was absent, probably not without a
reason. In presence of the assembled lords, Somerset then declared that
he had been imprisoned without a cause and confined in the Tower of
London one whole year and more than ten weeks over, and had only been
liberated on bail on the 7th of February. So, as he declared there was
no charge made against him for which he deserved to be confined, he
besought the king that his sureties might be discharged; offering, if
any one would accuse him of anything contrary to his allegiance, that he
would be ready at all times to answer according to law and like a true
knight. [Sidenote: Somerset released.] His protestations of loyalty were
at once accepted by the king, who thereupon declared that he knew the
duke to be his true and faithful liegeman, and wished it to be
understood that he so reputed him. After this, the mouths of all
adversaries were of course sealed up. The duke’s bail were discharged.
His character was cleared from every insinuation of disloyalty; and
whatever questions might remain between him and the Duke of York were
referred to the arbitration of eight other lords, whose judgment both
parties were bound over in recognisances of 20,000 marks, that they
would abide.[158-2]

    [Footnote 158-2: _Ibid._ 362, 363.]

The significance of all this could not be doubtful. The king’s recovery
had put an end to the Duke of York’s power as Protector, and he was
determined to be guided once more by the counsels of the queen and
Somerset. On the 6th March, York was deprived of the government of
Calais which he had undertaken by indenture for seven years.[159-1] On
the 7th, the Great Seal was taken from the Earl of Salisbury and given
to Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury. These changes, or at
least the former, promised little good to the country; and in the
beginning of May we not only find that Calais stood again in imminent
danger of siege,[159-2] but that considerable fears were entertained of
an invasion of England.[159-3] But to the Duke of York they gave cause
for personal apprehension. Notwithstanding the specious appointment of a
tribunal to settle the controversy between him and Somerset, it was
utterly impossible for him to expect anything like an equitable
adjustment. A Council was called at Westminster in the old exclusive
spirit, neither York nor any of his friends being summoned to attend it.
A Great Council was then arranged to meet at Leicester long before the
day on which judgment was to be given by the arbitrators; and it was
feared both by York and his friends, the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick,
that if they ventured to appear there they would find themselves
entrapped. The ostensible ground of the calling of that council was to
provide for the surety of the king’s person; from which it was fairly to
be conjectured that a suspicion of treason was to be insinuated against
persons who were too deservedly popular to be arrested in London with
safety to the Government.[159-4]

    [Footnote 159-1: Rymer, xi. 363.]

    [Footnote 159-2: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 234-8.]

    [Footnote 159-3: On the _Patent Roll_, 33. Hen. VI. p. 19 _d._, is
    a commission dated 5th May, for keeping watch on the coast of Kent
    against invasion.]

    [Footnote 159-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 280-1.]

[Sidenote: York and his friends take arms.] York had by this time
retired into the north, and uniting with Salisbury and Warwick, it was
determined by all three that the cause assigned for the calling of the
Council justified them in seeking the king’s presence with a strong body
of followers. On the 20th May they arrived at Royston, and from thence
addressed a letter to Archbishop Bourchier, as Chancellor, in which they
not only repudiated all intention of disloyalty, but declared that, as
the Council was summoned for the surety of the king’s person, they had
brought with them a company of armed followers expressly for his
protection. If any real danger was to be apprehended they were come to
do him service; but if their own personal enemies were abusing their
influence with the king to inspire him with causeless distrust, they
were determined to remove unjust suspicions, and relied on their armed
companies for protection to themselves. Meanwhile they requested the
archbishop’s intercession to explain to Henry the true motives of their
conduct.[160-1]

    [Footnote 160-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 280-1.]

Next day they marched on to Ware, and there penned an address to the
king himself, of which copies seem to have been diffused, either at the
time or very shortly afterwards, in justification of their proceedings.
One of these came to the hands of John Paston, and the reader may
consequently peruse the memorial for himself in Volume III.[160-2] In
it, as will be seen, York and his friends again made most urgent protest
of their good intent, and complained grievously of the unfair
proceedings of their enemies in excluding them from the royal presence
and poisoning the king’s mind with doubts of their allegiance. They
declared that they had no other intent in seeking the king’s presence
than to prove themselves his true liegemen by doing him all the service
in their power; and they referred him further to a copy of their letter
to the archbishop, which they thought it well to forward along with
their memorial, as they had not been informed that he had shown its
contents to the king.

    [Footnote 160-2: No. 282.]

In point of fact, neither the letter to the archbishop nor the memorial
to the king himself was allowed to come to Henry’s hands. The
archbishop, indeed, had done his duty, and on receipt of the letter to
himself had sent it on, with all haste, to Kilburn, where his messenger
overtook the king on his way northwards from London. But the man was not
admitted into the royal presence; for the Duke of Somerset and his
friends were determined the Yorkists should not be heard, that their
advance might wear as much as possible the aspect of a rebellion. York
and his allies accordingly marched on from Ware to St. Albans, where
they arrived at an early hour on the morning of the 22nd. Meanwhile the
king, who had left London the day before, accompanied by the Dukes of
Buckingham and Somerset, his half-brother, Jasper Tudor, Earl of
Pembroke, the Earls of Northumberland, Devonshire, Stafford, Dorset, and
Wiltshire, and a number of other lords, knights, and gentlemen,
amounting in all to upwards of 2000, arrived at the very same place just
before them, having rested at Watford the previous night. Anticipating
the approach of the Duke of York, the king and his friends occupied the
suburb of St. Peter’s, which lay on that side of the town by which the
duke must necessarily come. The duke accordingly, and the Earls of
Salisbury and Warwick, drew up their forces in the Keyfield, outside the
barriers of the town. From seven in the morning till near ten o’clock
the two hosts remained facing each other without a blow being struck;
during which time the duke and the two earls, still endeavouring to
obtain a peaceful interview with the king, petitioned to have an answer
to their memorial of the preceding day. They were told in reply that it
had not been received by the king, on which they made new and more
urgent representations. At first, it would seem, they demanded access to
the royal presence to declare and justify their true intentions; but
when this could not be obtained, they made a still more obnoxious
request. They insisted that certain persons whom they would accuse of
treason should be delivered into their hands, reminding the king, as
respectfully as the fact could be alluded to, that past experience would
not permit them to trust to a mere promise on his part that a traitor
should be kept in confinement.[161-1]

    [Footnote 161-1: No. 283. _Rolls of Parl._ v. 281-2.]

For the answer made to this demand, and for the details of the battle
which ensued, we may as well refer the reader to the very curious paper
(No. 283) from which we have already derived most of the above
particulars. We are not here writing the history of the times, and it
may be sufficient for us to say that York and his friends were
completely victorious. The action lasted only half an hour. [Sidenote:
Battle of St. Albans.] The Duke of Somerset was slain, and with him the
Earl of Northumberland, Lords Clifford and Clinton, with about 400
persons of inferior rank, as the numbers were at first reported. This,
however, seems to have been an over-estimate.[162-1] The king himself
was wounded by an arrow in the neck, and, after the engagement, was
taken prisoner; while the Earl of Wiltshire, and the Duke of York’s old
enemy, Thorpe, fled disgracefully. When all was over, the duke with the
two earls came humbly and knelt before the king, beseeching his
forgiveness for what they had done in his presence, and requesting him
to acknowledge them as his true liegemen, seeing that they had never
intended to do him personal injury. To this Henry at once agreed, and
took them once more into favour.[162-2]

    [Footnote 162-1: John Crane, writing from Lambeth on Whitsunday,
    three days after the battle, says, ‘at most six score.’ No. 285.
    Another authority says, ‘60 persons of gentlemen and other.’
    _English Chronicle_, ed. Davies, p. 72.]

    [Footnote 162-2: Nos. 283, 284, 285.]

Thus again was effected ‘a change of ministry’--by sharper and more
violent means than had formerly been employed, but certainly by the only
means which had now become at all practicable. The government of
Somerset was distinctly unconstitutional. The deliberate and systematic
exclusion from the king’s councils of a leading peer of the realm--of
one who, by mere hereditary right, quite apart from natural capacity and
fitness, was entitled at any time to give his advice to royalty, was a
crime that could not be justified. For conduct very similar the two
Spencers had been banished by Parliament in the days of Edward II.; and
if it had been suffered now to remain unpunished, there would not have
existed the smallest check upon arbitrary government and intolerable
maladministration.

Such, we may be well assured, was the feeling of the city of London,
which on the day following the battle received the victors in triumph
with a general procession.[162-3] The Duke of York conducted the king to
the Bishop of London’s palace, and a council being assembled, writs were
sent out for a Parliament to meet on the 9th of July following.[162-4]
Meanwhile the duke was made Constable of England, and Lord Bourchier,
Treasurer. The defence of Calais was committed to the Earl of
Warwick.[162-5] There was, however, no entire and sweeping change made
in the officers of state. The Great Seal was allowed to continue in the
hands of Archbishop Bourchier.

    [Footnote 162-3: No. 284.]

    [Footnote 162-4: No. 283.]

    [Footnote 162-5: No. 285.]

It remained, however, for Parliament to ratify what had been done.
However justifiable in a moral point of view, the conduct of York and
his allies wore an aspect of violence towards the sovereign, which made
it necessary that its legality should be investigated by the highest
court in the realm. Inquiry was made both in Parliament and by the
king’s Council which of the lords about the king had been responsible
for provoking the collision. Angry and unpleasant feelings, as might be
expected, burst out in consequence. The Earl of Warwick accused Lord
Cromwell to the king, and when the latter attempted to vindicate
himself, swore that what he stated was untrue. So greatly was Lord
Cromwell intimidated, that the Earl of Shrewsbury, at his request, took
up his lodging at St. James’s, beside the Mews, for his protection. The
retainers of York, Warwick, and Salisbury went about fully armed, and
kept their lords’ barges on the river amply furnished with weapons.
Proclamations, however, were presently issued against bearing arms. The
Parliament, at last, laid the whole blame of the encounter upon the
deceased Duke of Somerset, and the courtiers Thorpe and Joseph; and by
an Act which received the royal assent, it was declared that the Duke of
York and his friends had acted the part of good and faithful subjects.
‘To the which bill,’ said Henry Windsor in a letter to his friends
Bocking and Worcester, ‘many a man grudged full sore now it is past’;
but he requested them to burn a communication full of such uncomfortable
matter to comment upon as the quarrels and heartburnings of
lords.[163-1]

    [Footnote 163-1: No. 299.]

[Sidenote: The Parliamentary elections.] But with whatever grudge it may
have been that Parliament condoned the acts of the Yorkists, it seems
not to have been without some degree of pressure that the duke and his
allies obtained a Parliament so much after their own minds. Here, for
instance, we have the Duchess of Norfolk writing to John Paston, just
before the election, that it was thought necessary ‘that my lord have at
this time in the Parliament such persons as long unto him and be of his
menial servants (!)’; on which account she requests his vote and
influence in favour of John Howard and Sir Roger Chamberlain.[164-1] The
application could scarcely have been agreeable to the person to whom it
was addressed; for it seems that John Paston himself had on this
occasion some thought of coming forward as a candidate for Norfolk.
Exception was taken to John Howard, one of the duke’s nominees (who,
about eight-and-twenty years later, was created Duke of Norfolk himself,
and was the ancestor of the present ducal family), on the ground that he
possessed no lands within the county;[164-2] and at the nomination the
names of Berney, Grey, and Paston were received with great
favour.[164-3] John Jenney thought it ‘an evil precedent for the shire
that a strange man should be chosen, and no worship to my lord of York
nor to my lord of Norfolk to write for him; for if the gentlemen of the
shire will suffer such inconvenience, in good faith the shire shall not
be called of such worship as it hath been.’ So unpopular, in fact, was
Howard’s candidature that the Duke of Norfolk was half persuaded to give
him up, declaring, that since his return was objected to he would write
to the under-sheriff that the shire should have free election, provided
they did not choose Sir Thomas Tuddenham or any of the old adherents of
the Duke of Suffolk. And so, for a time it seemed as if free election
would be allowed. The under-sheriff even ventured to write to John
Paston that he meant to return his name and that of Master Grey;
‘nevertheless,’ he added significantly, ‘I have a master.’ Howard
appeared to be savage with disappointment. He was ‘as wode’ (_i.e._
mad), wrote John Jenney, ‘as a wild bullock.’ But in the end it appeared
he had no need to be exasperated, for when the poll came to be taken, he
and the other nominee of the Duke of Norfolk were found to have gained
the day.[164-4]

    [Footnote 164-1: No. 288.]

    [Footnote 164-2: Nos. 294, 295.]

    [Footnote 164-3: No. 291.]

    [Footnote 164-4: No. 295.]

Besides the act of indemnity for the Duke of York and his partisans, and
a new oath of allegiance being sworn to by the Lords, little was done at
this meeting of the Parliament. On the 31st July it was prorogued, to
meet again upon the 12th November. But in the interval another
complication had arisen. The king, who seems to have suffered in health
from the severe shock that he must have received by the battle of St.
Albans,[165-1] had felt the necessity of retirement to recover his
composure, and had withdrawn before the meeting of Parliament to
Hertford; at which time the Duke of York, in order to be near him, took
up his quarters at the Friars at Ware.[165-2] He was well, or at all
events well enough to open Parliament in person on the 9th July; but
shortly afterwards he retired to Hertford again, where according to the
dates of his Privy Seals, I find that he remained during August and
September. [Sidenote: The king again ill.] In the month of October
following he was still there, and it was reported that he had fallen
sick of his old infirmity;--which proved to be too true.[165-3]

    [Footnote 165-1: _See_ Rymer, xi. 366.]

    [Footnote 165-2: No. 287.]

    [Footnote 165-3: No. 303.]

Altogether matters looked gloomy enough. Change of ministry by force of
arms, whatever might be said for it, was not a thing to win the
confidence either of king or people. There were prophecies bruited about
that another battle would take place before St. Andrew’s Day--the
greatest that had been since the battle of Shrewsbury in the days of
Henry IV. One Dr. Green ventured to predict it in detail. The scene of
the conflict was to be between the Bishop of Salisbury’s Inn and
Westminster Bars, and three bishops and four temporal lords were to be
among the slain. The Londoners were spared this excitement; but from the
country there came news of a party outrage committed by the eldest son
of the Earl of Devonshire, on a dependant of the Lord Bonvile,
[Sidenote: Disturbances in the West.] and the West of England seems to
have been disturbed for some time afterwards.[165-4] From a local MS.
chronicle cited by Holinshed, it appears that a regular pitched battle
took place between the two noblemen on Clist Heath, about two miles from
Exeter, in which Lord Bonvile having gained the victory, entered
triumphantly into the city. A modern historian of Exeter, however, seems
to have read the MS. differently, and tells us that Lord Bonvile was
driven into the city by defeat.[165-5] However this may be, the Earl of
Devonshire did not allow the matter to rest. Accompanied by a large body
of retainers--no less, it is stated, than 800 horse and 4000 foot--he
attacked the Dean and Canons of Exeter, made several of the latter
prisoners, and robbed the cathedral.[166-1]

    [Footnote 165-4: No. 303. _See_ also a brief account of the same
    affair in W. Worcester’s _Itinerary_, p. 114.]

    [Footnote 165-5: Jenkins’s _History of Exeter_, p. 78.]

    [Footnote 166-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285. It may be observed that
    the bishopric was at this time vacant, and the dean, whose name
    was John Hals, had received a papal provision to be the new
    bishop, but was forced to relinquish it in favour of George
    Nevill, son of the Earl of Salisbury, a young man of only
    three-and-twenty years of age. Godwin _de Præsulibus_. Le Neve’s
    _Fasti_. Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 265.]

That one out of the number of those great lords who had been attached to
the government of the queen and the Duke of Somerset should thus have
abused his local influence, was pretty much what might have been
expected at such a juncture. But the effect was only to strengthen the
hands of York when Parliament met again in November. The situation was
now once more what it had been in the beginning of the previous year.
The day before Parliament met, the Duke of York obtained a commission to
act as the king’s lieutenant on its assembling.[166-2] The warrant for
the issuing of this commission was signed by no less than thirty-nine
Lords of the Council. The Houses then met under the presidency of the
duke.[166-3] The Commons sent a deputation to the Upper House, to
petition the Lords that they would ‘be good means to the King’s
Highness’ for the appointment of some person to undertake the defence of
the realm and the repressing of disorders. But for some days this
request remained unanswered. The appeal was renewed by the Commons a
second time, and again a third time, with an intimation that no other
business would be attended to till it was answered. [Sidenote: York
again Protector.] On the second occasion the Lords named the Duke of
York Protector, but he desired that they would excuse him, and elect
some other. The Lords, however, declined to alter their choice, and the
duke at last agreed to accept the office, on certain specific conditions
which experience had taught him to make still more definite for his own
protection than those on which he had before insisted. Among other
things it was now agreed that the Protectorship should not again be
terminated by the mere fact of the king’s recovery; but that when the
king should be in a position to exercise his functions, the Protector
should be discharged of his office in Parliament by the advice of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal.[167-1]

    [Footnote 166-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285.]

    [Footnote 166-3: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 262.]

    [Footnote 167-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285-7.]

On the 19th of November, accordingly, York was formally appointed
Protector for the second time. Three days afterwards, at Westminster,
the king, whose infirmity on this occasion could scarcely have amounted
to absolute loss of his faculties, committed the entire government of
the kingdom to his Council, merely desiring that they would inform him
of anything they might think fit to determine touching the honour and
surety of his person.[167-2] The business of the nation was again placed
on something like a stable and satisfactory footing; and Parliament,
after sitting till the 13th December, was prorogued to the 14th January,
in order that the Duke of York might go down into the west for the
repressing of those disorders of which we have already spoken.[167-3]

    [Footnote 167-2: _Ibid._ v. 288-90.]

    [Footnote 167-3: _Ibid._ 321.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1456.] Unluckily, things did not remain long in a
condition so hopeful for the restoration of order. Early in the
following year the king recovered his health, and notwithstanding the
support of which he had been assured in Parliament, York knew that his
authority as Protector would be taken from him. On the 9th of February,
as we learn from a letter of John Bocking, it had been anticipated that
he would have received his discharge in Parliament; but he was allowed
to retain office for a fortnight longer. On that day he and Warwick
thought fit to come to the Parliament with a company of 300 armed men,
alleging that they stood in danger of being waylaid upon the road. The
pretence does not seem to have been generally credited; and the
practical result of this demonstration was simply to prevent any other
lords from going to the Parliament at all.[167-4]

    [Footnote 167-4: No. 322.]

The real question, however, which had to be considered was the kind of
government that should prevail when York was no more Protector. The
queen was again making anxious efforts to get the management of affairs
into her own hands; but the battle of St. Albans had deprived her of her
great ally the Duke of Somerset, and there was no one now to fill his
place. It is true he had left a son who was now Duke of Somerset in his
stead, and quite as much attached to her interests. There were,
moreover, the Duke of Buckingham and others who were by no means
friendly to the Duke of York. But no man possessed anything like the
degree of power, experience, and political ability to enable the king to
dispense entirely with the services of his present Protector. The king
himself, it was said, desired that he should be named his Chief
Councillor and Lieutenant, and that powers should be conferred upon him
by patent inferior only to those given him by the Parliament. But this
was not thought a likely settlement, and no one really knew what was to
be the new _régime_. The attention of the Lords was occupied with ‘a
great gleaming star’ which had just made its appearance, and which
really offered as much help to the solution of the enigma as any
appearances purely mundane and political.[168-1]

    [Footnote 168-1: No. 322.]

At length on the 25th of February the Lords exonerated York from his
duties as Protector; soon after which, if not on the same day,
Parliament must have been dissolved.[168-2] [Sidenote: Again
discharged.] An Act of Resumption, rendered necessary by the state of
the revenue, was the principal fruit of its deliberations.[168-3] The
finances of the kingdom were placed, if not in a sound, at least in a
more hopeful condition than before; and Parliament and the Protector
were both dismissed, without, apparently, the slightest provision being
made for the future conduct of affairs. Government, in fact, seems
almost to have fallen into abeyance. There is a most striking blank in
the records of the Privy Council from the end of January 1456 to the end
of November 1457. That some councils were held during this period we
know from other evidences;[168-4] but with the exception of one single
occasion, when it was necessary to issue a commission for the trial of
insurgents in Kent,[169-1] there is not a single record left to tell us
what was done at them.

    [Footnote 168-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 321.]

    [Footnote 168-3: _Ibid._ 300. A more sweeping bill for this
    purpose, which was rejected by the Lords, states that the revenue
    was so encumbered ‘that the charge of every sheriff in substance
    exceedeth so far the receipt of the revenues thereof due and
    leviable to you (_i.e._ the king), that no person of goodwill dare
    take upon him to be sheriff in any shire, for the most party, in
    this land.’ _Ibid._ 328. Additional illustrations of this fact
    will be found in Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 263-4,
    272-3, and Preface lxxv-vi.]

    [Footnote 168-4: Nos. 334, 345, 348.]

    [Footnote 169-1: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 287.]

Yet the machine of state still moved, no one could tell exactly how.
Acts were done in the king’s name if not really and truly by the king,
and by the sheer necessity of the case York appears to have had the
ordering of all things. But his authority hung by a thread. His acts
were without the slightest legal validity except in so far as they might
be considered as having the sanction of the king; and in whatever way
that sanction may or may not have been expressed, there was no security
that it would not afterwards be withdrawn and disavowed.

And so indeed it happened at this time in a matter that concerned deeply
the honour of the whole country. The outbreak of civil war had provoked
the interference of an enemy of whom Englishmen were always peculiarly
intolerant. The Duke of Somerset slain at St. Albans was uncle to James
II., the reigning king of Scotland, who is said to have resented his
death on the ground of consanguinity. [Sidenote: The King of Scots.] In
less than six weeks after the battle, ‘the King of Scots with the red
face,’ as he is called in a contemporary chronicle, laid siege to
Berwick both by water and land. But the Bishop of Durham, the Earl of
Northumberland, and other Lords of the Marches, took prompt measures for
the relief of the town, and soon assembled such a force as to compel
James not only to quit the siege but to leave all his ordnance and
victuals behind him.[169-2] How matters stood between the two countries
during the next ten months we have no precise information; but it is
clear that England, although the injured party, could not have been
anxious to turn the occasion into one of open rupture. Peace still
continued to be preserved till, on the 10th of May 1456, James wrote to
the King of England by Lyon herald, declaring that the truce of 1453 was
injurious to his kingdom, and that unless more favourable conditions
were conceded to him he would have recourse to arms.[169-3] A message
more calculated to fire the spirit of the English nation it would have
been impossible for James to write; nevertheless, owing either to
Henry’s love of peace, or to his lack of advisers after his own mind, it
was not till the 26th of July that any answer was returned to it. On
that day the Duke of York obtained, or took, the liberty of replying in
Henry’s name. To the insolence of the King of Scots, he opposed all the
haughtiness that might have been expected from the most warlike of
Henry’s ancestors. Insisting to the fullest extent on those claims of
feudal superiority which England never had abandoned and Scotland never
had acknowledged, he told James that his conduct was mere insolence and
treason in a vassal against his lord; that it inspired not the slightest
dread but only contempt on the part of England; and that measures would
be speedily taken to punish his presumption.[170-1]

    [Footnote 169-2: _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 70 (edited
    by me for the Camden Society): _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi.
    248-9.]

    [Footnote 169-3: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 146 b.]

    [Footnote 170-1: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 147. Rymer, xi. 383.]

A month later the Duke of York addressed a letter to James in his own
name, declaring that as he understood the Scotch king had entered
England, he purposed to go and meet him. He at the same time reproached
James with conduct unworthy of one who was ‘called a mighty Prince and a
courageous knight,’ in making daily forays and suddenly retiring
again.[170-2] The end of this expedition we do not know; but we know
that not long afterwards Henry changed his policy. The letter written by
the Duke of York in the king’s name was regularly enrolled on the Scotch
Roll among the records of Chancery; but to it was prefixed a note on the
king’s behalf, disclaiming responsibility for its tenor, and attributing
to the duke the usurpation of authority, and the disturbance of all
government since the time of Jack Cade’s insurrection.[170-3]

    [Footnote 170-2: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 148. This letter is dated
    24th August 1456.]

    [Footnote 170-3: Rymer, xi. 383.]

The glimpses of light which we have on the political situation during
this period are far from satisfactory. Repeated notice, however, is
taken in these letters of a fact which seems significant of general
distrust and mutual suspicion among the leading persons in the land. The
king, queen, and lords were all separated and kept carefully at a
distance from each other. Thus, while the king was at Sheen, the queen
and her infant prince were staying at Tutbury, the Duke of York at
Sandal, and the Earl of Warwick at Warwick.[171-1] Afterwards we find
the queen removed to Chester, while the Duke of Buckingham was at
Writtle, near Chelmsford in Essex. The only lord with the king at Sheen
was his half-brother the Earl of Pembroke. His other brother, the Earl
of Richmond, who died in the course of this year, was in Wales making
war upon some chieftain of the country whose name seems rather
ambiguous. ‘My Lord [of] York,’ it is said, ‘is at Sendall still, and
waiteth on the queen, and she on him.’[171-2] The state of matters was
evidently such that it was apprehended serious outrages might break out;
and reports were even spread abroad of a battle in which Lord Beaumont
had been slain and the Earl of Warwick severely wounded.[171-3]

    [Footnote 171-1: Nos. 330, 331.]

    [Footnote 171-2: No. 334.]

    [Footnote 171-3: No. 331.]

  [[Earl of Warwick severely wounded.[171-3]
  _text has superfluous close quote_]]

[Sidenote: The king and queen.] The separation of the king and queen is
especially remarkable. During May and June they were more than a hundred
miles apart; and in the latter month the queen had increased the
distance by removing from Tutbury in Staffordshire to Chester. It was
then that she was said to be waiting on my Lord of York and he on her.
The exact interpretation of the position must be partly matter of
conjecture, but I take it to be as follows. The Duke of York, as we find
stated only a few months later, was in very good favour with the king
but not with the queen;[171-4] and we know from Fabyan that the latter
was at this time doing all she could to put an end to his authority. It
appears to me that by her influence the duke must have been ordered to
withdraw from the Court, and that to prevent his again seeking access to
the king’s presence, she pursued him into the north. At Tutbury[171-5]
she would block his way from Sandal up to London; and though for some
reason or other she removed further off to Chester, she still kept an
anxious watch upon the duke, and he did the same on her. Very probably
her removal did give him the opportunity she dreaded of moving
southwards; for he must have been with the king at Windsor on the 26th
of July when he wrote in Henry’s name that answer to the King of Scots
of which we have already spoken.

    [Footnote 171-4: No. 348.]

    [Footnote 171-5: Tutbury was one of the possessions given to her
    for her dower. _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 118.]

However this may be, Margaret soon after had recourse to other means to
effect her object. In consequence of the Duke of York’s popularity in
London, it was expedient to remove the king some distance from the
capital.[172-1] He appears to have been staying at Windsor during July
and the beginning of August. In the middle of the latter month he took
his departure northwards. By the dates of his Privy Seals we find him to
have been at Wycombe on the 18th, at Kenilworth on the 24th, and at
Lichfield on the 29th. In September he moved about between Lichfield,
Coventry, and Leicester; but by the beginning of October the Court seems
to have settled itself at Coventry, where a council was assembled on the
7th.[172-2] To this council the Duke of York and his friends were
regularly summoned, as well as the lords whom the queen intended to
honour; but even before it met, changes had begun to be made in the
principal officers of state. On the 5th, Viscount Bourchier, the brother
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was dismissed from his office of Lord
Treasurer, and the Earl of Shrewsbury was appointed in his room. On the
11th, the archbishop himself was called upon to surrender the Great
Seal, and Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester, was made Chancellor in his
stead. Laurence Booth, afterwards Bishop of Durham, was made Lord Privy
Seal.

    [Footnote 172-1: Fabyan.]

    [Footnote 172-2: No. 345.]

The new appointments seem to have been on their own merits
unexceptionable,--that of Waynflete more especially. Whether the
superiority of the new men was such as to make it advisable to supersede
the old is another question, on which we would not attempt to pronounce
an opinion, either one way or other. One thing, however, we may believe
on the evidence of James Gresham, whose letters frequently give us very
interesting political intelligence: the changes created dissatisfaction
in some of the queen’s own friends, particularly in the Duke of
Buckingham, who was half-brother to two of the discharged functionaries,
the Archbishop of Canterbury and Viscount Bourchier. Either from this
cause or from a mere English love of fair-play, it would appear that
Buckingham now supported the Duke of York, who, it is said, though at
this time he had some interviews with the king and found Henry still as
friendly as he could desire, would certainly have been troubled at his
departure if Buckingham had not befriended him. About the Court there
was a general atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. On the 11th October,
the very day on which Waynflete was appointed Chancellor, an encounter
took place between the Duke of Somerset’s men and the watchmen of the
city of Coventry, in which two or three of the citizens were killed. And
probably it would have gone hard with the duke’s retainers, had not
Buckingham used his good offices here too as peacemaker; for the
alarm-bell rang and the citizens rose in arms. But by the interposition
of Buckingham the tumult was appeased.[173-1]

    [Footnote 173-1: No. 348.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1457.] For about a twelvemonth from this time we find
that the Court continued generally at Coventry,[173-2] occasionally
moving about to Stafford, Coleshill, Chester, Shrewsbury, Kenilworth,
Hereford, and Leicester.[173-3] The queen evidently feared all the while
to bring her husband nearer London, lest he should fall once more under
the power of the Duke of York. Meanwhile the want of a vigorous ruler
became every day more apparent. Not only was Calais again in danger of
siege,[173-4] but the coast of Kent was attacked by enemies, and within
the kingdom a dangerous spirit of disaffection had shown itself in
various places. On the Patent Rolls we meet with numerous commissions
for keeping watch upon the coasts,[173-5] for arraying the country
against invasion,[173-6] and for assembling the _posse comitatus_ in
various counties, against treasonable attempts to stir up the
people.[173-7] During April the Court had removed to Hereford,[174-1]
apparently in consequence of some disturbances which had taken place in
Wales under Sir William Herbert. Its sojourn upon the Welsh borders had
an excellent effect, the burgesses and gentlemen about Hereford all
declaring themselves ready to take the king’s part unless a peace were
made. On the 1st of May it was reported in London that Herbert had
offered, on being granted his life and goods, to return to his
allegiance and appear before the king and lords at Leicester; so we may
conclude the insurrection did not last long after.[174-2]

    [Footnote 173-2: Accounts of the pageants shown before Queen
    Margaret at Coventry are noticed as contained in the earliest Leet
    Book of the City. See _Historical MSS. Commission Report I._,
    100.]

    [Footnote 173-3: Privy Seals in Public Record Office.]

    [Footnote 173-4: No. 356.]

    [Footnote 173-5: _Patent Roll_, 35 Hen. VI. p. 1 m. 16 _d._ (26
    Nov.); m. 7 _d._ (19 May).]

    [Footnote 173-6: _Ibid._ p. 2 m. 5 _d._ (29 Aug.).]

    [Footnote 173-7: _Ibid._ (18 July).]

    [Footnote 174-1: No. 356. There are Privy Seals dated at Hereford
    between the 1st and the 23rd of April.]

    [Footnote 174-2: No. 356. By the 4th of May the king had left
    Hereford and gone to Worcester, from which he proceeded to
    Winchcombe on the 10th and Kenilworth on the 13th. (Privy Seal
    dates.)]

But though the personal influence of the king was doubtless great and
beneficial within his own immediate vicinity, it could do little for the
good order and protection of the country generally. Distrust,
exclusiveness, and a bankrupt exchequer were not likely to obtain for
the king willing and hearty service. Notwithstanding the commissions
issued to keep watch upon the coasts, the French managed to surprise and
plunder Sandwich. [Sidenote: The French attack Sandwich.] On Sunday, the
28th August, a large force under the command of Pierre de Brézé,
seneschal of Normandy, landed not far from the town, which they took and
kept possession of during the entire day. A number of the inhabitants,
on the first alarm, retreated on board some ships lying in the harbour,
from whence they began presently to shoot at the enemy. But de Brézé
having warned them that if they continued he would burn their ships,
they found it prudent to leave off. Having killed the bailiffs and
principal officers, the Frenchmen carried off a number of wealthy
persons as prisoners, and returned to their ships in the evening, laden
with valuable spoils from the town and neighbourhood.[174-3]

    [Footnote 174-3: _English Chronicle_ (Davies), 74. _Three
    Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 70, 71, 152-3. _Contin. of
    Monstrelet_, 70, 71.]

The disaster must have been keenly felt; but if Englishmen had known the
whole truth, it would have been felt more keenly still. Our own old
historians were not aware of the fact, but an early French chronicler
who lived at the time assures us that the attack had been purposely
invited by Margaret of Anjou out of hatred to the Duke of York, in order
to make a diversion, while the Scots should ravage England![175-1] It
was well for her that the truth was not suspected.

    [Footnote 175-1: De Coussy, 209.]


_Reconciliation and Civil War_

At length, it would seem, the Court found it no longer possible to
remain at a distance from the metropolis. In October the king had
removed to Chertsey,[175-2] and soon after we find him presiding at a
Great Council, which had been summoned to meet in his palace at
Westminster in consequence of the urgent state of affairs. Though
attended not only by the Duke of York, but by a large number of the
principal lords on both sides, the meeting does not appear to have led
to any very satisfactory results. All that we know of its proceedings is
that some of them, at least, were of a stormy character,--one point on
which all parties were agreed being the exclusion from the council
chamber of Pecock, [Sidenote: Bishop Pecock.] Bishop of Chichester, an
ardent and honest-minded prelate, who, having laboured hard to reconcile
the Lollards to the authority of the Church by arguments of common sense
instead of persecution, was at this time stigmatised as a heretic and
sedition-monger, and very soon after was deprived of his bishopric. It
augured little good for that union of parties which was now felt to be
necessary for the public weal, that the first act on which men generally
could be got to agree was the persecution of sense and reason. There
were other matters before the council on which they were unable to come
to a conclusion, and they broke up on the 29th November, with a
resolution to meet again on the 27th January; for which meeting
summonses were at once sent out, notifying that on that day not one of
the lords would be excused attendance.[175-3]

    [Footnote 175-2: Privy Seal dates.]

    [Footnote 175-3: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 290-1.]

It was, indeed, particularly important that this meeting should be a
full one, and that every lord should be compelled to take his share of
the responsibility for its decisions. The principal aim was expressly
stated to be a general reconciliation and adjustment of private
controversies[176-1]--an object to which it was impossible to offer
direct opposition. But whether it was really distasteful to a number of
the peers, or obstacles started up in individual cases, there were
certainly several who had not arrived in town by the day appointed for
the meeting. [Sidenote: A.D. 1458.] The Earl of Salisbury’s excuse,
dated at Sheriff Hutton on the 24th of January,[176-2] does not refer to
this, for it appears certainly to be of a different year. Fabyan says
that he had already arrived in London on the 15th January. He made his
appearance there at the head of 400 horse, with eighty knights and
squires in his company. The Duke of York also came, though he arrived
only on the 26th, ‘with his own household only, to the number of 140
horse.’ But the Duke of Somerset only arrived on the last day of the
month with 200 horse; the Duke of Exeter delayed his coming till the
first week of February; and the Earl of Warwick, who had to come from
Calais, was detained by contrary winds. Thus, although the king had come
up to Westminster by the time prefixed, a full Council could not be had
for at least some days after; and even on the 14th of February there was
one absentee, the Earl of Arundel, who had to be written to by letters
of Privy Seal.[176-3]

    [Footnote 176-1: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 293.]

    [Footnote 176-2: No. 361.]

    [Footnote 176-3: No. 364. _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 293.]

[Sidenote: A Great Council in London.] But by the 14th Warwick had
arrived in London with a body of 600 men, ‘all apparelled in red
jackets, with white ragged staves.’[176-4] The town was now full of the
retinues of the different noblemen, and the mayor and sheriffs trembled
for the peace of the city. A very special watch was instituted. ‘The
mayor,’ says Fabyan, ‘for so long as the king and the lords lay thus in
the city, had daily in harness 5000 citizens, and rode daily about the
city and suburbs of the same, to see that the king’s peace were kept;
and nightly he provided for 3000 men in harness to give attendance upon
three aldermen, and they to keep the night-watch till 7 of the clock
upon the morrow, till the day-watch were assembled.’ If peace was to be
the result of all this concourse, the settlement evidently could not
bear to be protracted. The Duke of York and the Earls of Salisbury and
Warwick had taken up their quarters within the city itself; but the
young lords whose fathers had been slain at St. Albans--the Duke of
Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland and his brother, Lord Egremont, and
the Lord Clifford--were believed to be bent upon revenge, and the civic
authorities refused them entrance within their bounds.[177-1] Thus the
lords within the town and those without belonged to the two opposite
parties respectively; and in consequence of their mutual jealousies,
conferences had to be arranged between them in the morning at the Black
Friars, and in the afternoon at the White Friars, in Fleet
Street.[177-2] The king, for his part, having opened the proceedings
with some very earnest exhortations addressed to both parties, withdrew
himself and retired to Berkhampstead.[177-3] The Duke of Somerset and
others went to and fro to consult with him during the deliberations.
Meanwhile the necessity of some practical arrangement for government
must have been felt more urgent every day. Sixty sail of Frenchmen were
seen off the coast of Sussex; and though Lord Falconbridge was at
Southampton in command of some vessels (probably on his own
responsibility), there was a general feeling of insecurity among the
merchants and among dwellers by the sea-coast. Botoner had heard
privately from Calais that the French meditated a descent upon Norfolk
at Cromer and Blakeney.[177-4] And the news shortly afterwards received
from the district showed that his information was not far wrong.[177-5]

    [Footnote 176-4: _Chronicle_ in MS. Cott., Vitell. A. xvi.]

    [Footnote 177-1: _English Chronicle_ (ed. Davies), p. 77. Hall.]

    [Footnote 177-2: Letter 366.]

    [Footnote 177-3: Whethamstede, 417-18. Letter 365.]

    [Footnote 177-4: Letter 365.]

    [Footnote 177-5: Letter 366.]

[Sidenote: Terms of agreement.] At last it was agreed on both sides that
old animosities should be laid aside, and that some reparation should be
made by the Yorkists to the sons and widows of the lords who had fallen
on the king’s side at St. Albans. The exact amount of this reparation
was left to the award of Henry, who decided that it should consist of an
endowment of £45 a year to the Monastery of St. Albans, to be employed
in masses for the slain, and of certain money payments, or assignments
out of moneys due to them by the Crown, to be made by York, Warwick, and
Salisbury, to Eleanor, Duchess Dowager of Somerset and to her son, Duke
Henry, to Lord Clifford, and others, in lieu of all claims and actions
which the latter parties might have against the former.[178-1] With what
cordiality this arrangement was accepted on either side we do not
presume to say. Historians universally speak of it as a hollow concord,
unreal from the first. But it at least preserved the kingdom in
something like peace for about a twelvemonth. It was celebrated by a
great procession to St. Paul’s on Lady Day, which must have been an
imposing spectacle. The king marched in royal habit with the crown upon
his head, York and the queen followed, arm in arm, and the principal
rivals led the way, walking hand in hand.[178-2]

    [Footnote 178-1: Whethamstede, 422 _sq._ _Engl. Chron._ (Davies),
    77, 78.]

    [Footnote 178-2: Hall.]

[Sidenote: A sea fight.] The keeping of the sea was now intrusted to the
Earl of Warwick, and it was not long before he distinguished himself by
an action which probably relieved the English coasts for some time from
any immediate danger of being attacked by the enemy. On the morning of
Trinity Sunday word was brought to him at Calais of a fleet of 28
Spaniards, of which 16 were described as ‘great ships of forecastle.’
Immediately he manned such vessels as he had in readiness, and went out
to seek the enemy. The force at his command was only five ships of
forecastle, three carvels, and four pinnaces; but with these he did not
hesitate to come to an engagement. At four o’clock on Monday morning the
battle began, and it continued till ten, when the English obtained a
hard-won victory. ‘As men say,’ wrote one of the combatants, ‘there was
not so great a battle upon the sea this forty winter; and forsooth, we
were well and truly beat.’ Nevertheless, six of the enemy’s ships were
taken, and the rest were put to flight, not without very considerable
slaughter on either side.[178-3]

    [Footnote 178-3: Letter 369. Compare Fabyan. Whethamstede, who
    writes with some confusion in this part of his narrative, speaks
    of a great naval victory won by Warwick on St. Alban’s Day, the
    22nd June 1459, over a fleet of Genoese and Spanish vessels, in
    which booty was taken to the value of £10,000, and upwards of a
    thousand prisoners, for whom it was difficult to find room in all
    the prisons of Calais. It is not impossible that this may have
    been a different action, which took place on the very day, month,
    and year to which Whethamstede refers it; but the silence of other
    authorities about a second naval victory would lead us to suppose
    he is simply wrong in the matter of date. It must be observed that
    Whethamstede immediately goes on to speak of the Legate Coppini’s
    arrival in England, which took place in June 1460, as having
    happened _circa idem tempus_, and as if it had been in the same
    month of June, only a few days earlier. This shows great
    inaccuracy.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1459.] In the year following, the fire that had for some
time smouldered, burst once more into a flame. About Candlemas,
according to Fabyan--but an older authority says specifically on the 9th
November preceding[179-1]--a fray occurred between one of the king’s
servants and one of the Earl of Warwick’s, as the earl, who had been
attending the Council at Westminster, was proceeding to his barge. The
king’s servant being wounded, the other made his escape; but a host of
retainers attached to the royal household rushed out upon the earl and
his attendants, and wounded several of them before they could embark.
With hard rowing they got beyond the power of their assailants and made
their way into the city; but the queen and her friends insisted on
imputing the outrage to the earl himself, and demanded his arrest. The
earl found it politic to retire to Warwick, and afterwards to his former
post at Calais. On this the queen and her council turned their
machinations against his father, the Earl of Salisbury, whom Lord Audley
was commissioned to arrest and bring prisoner to London. Audley
accordingly took with him a large body of men, and hearing that the earl
was on his way from Middleham in Yorkshire, journeying either towards
Salisbury or London, he hastened to intercept him. [Sidenote: Civil war
renewed.] The earl, however, had received notice of what was intended,
and having gathered about him a sufficient band of followers, defeated
Lord Audley in a regular pitched battle at Bloreheath in Staffordshire,
where he attempted to stop his way, on Sunday the 23rd of
September.[179-2]

    [Footnote 179-1: _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 78.]

    [Footnote 179-2: Fabyan, _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 80. _Parl.
    Rolls_, v. 348.]

The old elements of confusion were now again let loose. Commissions to
raise men were issued in the king’s name, and the Duke of York and all
his friends were denounced as a confederacy of traitors. They, for their
parts, gathered together the men of the Marches in self-defence. At
Ludlow, the duke was joined by the Earl of Salisbury, and also by the
Earl of Warwick, who had come over again from Calais. [Sidenote: The
king takes the field.] On the other hand, the king himself entered into
the strife in a way he had not done hitherto. He not only took the field
in person against the rebellious lords, but exhibited a spirit in the
endurance of fatigue and discomfort which seems to have commanded
general admiration. Even at the time of Lord Audley’s overthrow, it
would appear that he was leading forward a reserve. For about a month he
kept continually camping out, never resting at night, except on Sundays,
in the same place he had occupied the night before, and sometimes, in
spite of cold, rough weather, bivouacking for two nights successively on
the bare field. After the battle of Bloreheath, he could only regard
Salisbury as an overt enemy of his crown. At the same time he despatched
heralds to the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick, with proclamations
of free and perfect pardon to themselves and all but a few of the
leaders at Bloreheath, on condition of their submitting to him within
six days.[180-1]

    [Footnote 180-1: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 348.]

To Garter King of Arms, one of the messengers by whom these offers were
conveyed, the confederate lords made answer, and also delivered a
written reply to be conveyed to the king, declaring the perfect loyalty
of their intentions, which they would have been glad to prove in the
king’s presence if it had been only possible for them to go to him with
safety. They had already endeavoured to testify their unshaken fidelity
to Henry by an indenture drawn up and signed by them in Worcester
Cathedral. This instrument they had forwarded to the king by a
deputation of churchmen, headed by the prior of that cathedral, and
including among others Dr. William Lynwoode,[180-2] who administered to
them the sacrament on the occasion. Again, after Garter left, they wrote
from Ludlow on the 10th of October, protesting that their actions had
been misconstrued, and their tenants subjected to wrong and violence,
while they themselves lay under unjust suspicion. Their enemies, they
said, thirsted for the possession of their lands, and hoped to obtain
them by their influence with the king. For their own part they had
hitherto avoided a conflict, not from any fear of the power of their
enemies, but only for dread of God and of his Highness, and they meant
to persevere in this peaceful course, until driven by necessity to
self-defence.[181-1]

    [Footnote 180-2: Not, as Stow supposes, the author of the book on
    the Constitutions of the Church of England, but probably a nephew
    or other relation of his. The William Lynwoode who wrote upon the
    Church Constitutions was Bishop of St. David’s, and died in 1446.]

    [Footnote 181-1: _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 81, 82.]

These earnest, solemn, and repeated expressions of loyalty have
scarcely, I think, received from historians the attention to which they
are entitled.[181-2] Of their sincerity, of course, men may form
different opinions; but it is right to note that the confederate lords
had done all that was in their power by three several and distinct
protests to induce the king to think more favourably of their
intentions. It is, moreover, to be observed that they remained at this
time in an attitude strictly defensive. But the king and his forces
still approaching, they drew themselves up in battle array at Ludford,
in the immediate vicinity of the town of Ludlow. Here, as they were
posted on Friday the 12th October, it would almost seem that the lords
were not without apprehension of the defection of some of their
followers. A report was spread through the camp that the king was
suddenly deceased, witnesses were brought in who swore to the fact, and
mass was said for the repose of his soul. But that very evening, Henry,
at the head of his army, arrived within half a mile of their position.
The state of the country, flooded by recent rains, had alone prevented
him from coming upon them sooner. Before nightfall a few volleys of
artillery were discharged against the royal army, and a regular
engagement was expected next day. But, meanwhile, the royal proclamation
of pardon seems to have had its effect. One Andrew Trollope, who had
come over with the Earl of Warwick from Calais, withdrew at dead of
night and carried over a considerable body of men to the service of the
king, to whom he communicated the secrets of the camp. The blow was
absolutely fatal. [Sidenote: The Yorkists disperse.] The lords at once
abandoned all thought of further resistance. Leaving their banners in
the field, they withdrew at midnight. York and his second son, Edmund,
Earl of Rutland, fled into Wales, from whence they sailed into Ireland.
His eldest, Edward, Earl of March, accompanied by the two other earls,
Warwick and Salisbury, and by Sir John Wenlock, made his way into
Devonshire. There by the friendly aid of one John Dynham, afterwards
Lord Dynham, and Lord High Treasurer to Henry VII., they bought a ship
at Exmouth and sailed to Guernsey. At last, on Friday the 2nd of
November, they landed at Calais, where they met with a most cordial
reception from the inhabitants.[182-1]

    [Footnote 181-2: The Act of Attainder against the Yorkists most
    untruly says, ‘they took no consideration’ of Garter’s message.
    See _Rolls of Parliament_ above cited.]

    [Footnote 182-1: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 348-9. Whethamstede,
    459-62; Fabyan.]

  [[a most cordial reception from the inhabitants.[182-1]
  _footnote tag missing: supplied from 1st edition_]

[Sidenote: They are attainted.] Then followed in November the Parliament
of Coventry, and the attainder of the Duke of York and all his party.
The queen and her friends at last had it all their own way, at least in
England. It was otherwise doubtless in Ireland, where the Duke of York
remained for nearly a twelvemonth after his flight from Ludlow. It was
otherwise too at Calais, where Warwick was all-powerful, and whither
discontented Yorkists began to flock from England. It was otherwise,
moreover, at sea, where the same Warwick still retained the command of
the fleet, and could not be dispossessed, except on parchment. On
parchment, however, he was presently superseded in both of his important
offices. The Duke of Exeter was intrusted with the keeping of the sea,
which even at the time of the great reconciliation of parties he had
been displeased that Warwick was allowed to retain.[182-2] The young
Duke of Somerset was appointed Captain of Calais, but was unable to take
possession of his post. Accompanied by Lord Roos and Lord Audley, and
fortified by the king’s letters-patent, he crossed the sea, but was
refused admittance into the town. Apparently he had put off too long
before going over,[183-1] and he found the three earls in possession of
the place before him; so that he was obliged to land at a place called
Scales’ Cliff and go to Guisnes.[183-2] But a worse humiliation still
awaited him on landing; for of the very sailors that had brought him
over, a number conveyed their ships into Calais harbour, offered their
services to the Earl of Warwick, and placed in his hands as prisoners
certain persons who had taken part against him. They were shortly after
beheaded in Calais.[183-3]

    [Footnote 182-2: W. Worc., 479.]

    [Footnote 183-1: He received his appointment on the 9th October,
    three days before the dispersion of the Yorkists at Ludlow (Rymer,
    xi. 436), and, according to one authority (_Engl. Chron._, ed.
    Davies, 84), he went over in the same month; but as all agree that
    Warwick was there before him, it was more probably in the
    beginning of November.]

    [Footnote 183-2: _Chronicle_ in MS. Cott., Vitell. A. xvi.]

    [Footnote 183-3: Fabyan.]

It would seem, in short, that ever since his great naval victory in
1458, Warwick was so highly popular with all the sailors of England,
that it was quite as hopeless for the Duke of Exeter to contest his
supremacy at sea as for Somerset to think of winning Calais out of his
hands. Friends still came flocking over from England to join the three
earls at Calais; [Sidenote: A.D. 1460.] and though in London in the
February following nine men were hanged, drawn, and beheaded for
attempting to do so,[183-4] the cause of the Yorkists remained as
popular as ever. In vain were letters written to foreign parts, ‘that no
relief be ministered to the traitor who kept Calais.’[183-5] In vain the
Duke of Somerset at Guisnes endeavoured to contest his right to the
government of that important town. All that Somerset could do was to
waste his strength in fruitless skirmishes, until on St. George’s Day he
suffered such a severe defeat and loss of men at Newnham Bridge, that he
was at length forced to abandon all idea of dispossessing the Earl of
Warwick.[183-6]

    [Footnote 183-4: W. Worc., 478; _Three Fifteenth Century
    Chronicles_, 73. One of them was named Roger Nevile, a lawyer of
    the Temple, and probably a relation of the Earl of Warwick.]

    [Footnote 183-5: Speed.]

    [Footnote 183-6: W. Worc.]

Not only were the three earls secure in their position at Calais, but
there was every reason to believe that they had a large amount of
sympathy in Kent, and would meet with a very cordial reception whenever
they crossed the sea. To avert the danger of any such attempt, and also,
it would appear, with some design of reinforcing the Duke of Somerset at
Guisnes, Lord Rivers and his son Sir Anthony Wydevile were sent to
Sandwich about the beginning of the year, with a body of 400 men.
Besides the command of the town, they were commissioned to take
possession of certain ships which belonged to the Earl of Warwick, and
lay quietly at anchor in the harbour.[184-1] [Sidenote: Lord Rivers at
Sandwich.] But the issue of their exploit was such as to provoke
universal ridicule. ‘As to tidings here,’ wrote Botoner from London to
John Berney at Caister, ‘I send some offhand, written to you and others,
how the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his son, and others _have won Calais_
by a feeble assault at Sandwich made by John Denham, Esq., with the
number of 800 men, on Tuesday between four and five o’clock in the
morning.’[184-2]

    [Footnote 184-1: _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 84, 85; _Three Fifteenth
    Century Chronicles_, 72.]

    [Footnote 184-2: Letter 399.]

The exact mode in which Rivers and his son ‘won Calais’ seems to have
been described in a separate paper. The truth was that a small force
under the command of John Denham (or Dynham) was despatched across the
sea by Warwick, and landing at Sandwich during the night, contrived not
only to seize the ships in the harbour, but even to surprise the earl
and his son in their beds, and bring them over as prisoners to the other
side of the Channel.[184-3] The victors did not fail to turn the
incident to account by exhibiting as much contempt as possible for their
unfortunate prisoners. ‘My Lord Rivers,’ writes William Paston, ‘was
brought to Calais, and before the lords with eight score torches, and
there my lord of Salisbury rated him, calling him knave’s son, that he
should be so rude to call him and those other lords traitors; for they
should be found the king’s true liegemen when he should be found a
traitor. And my Lord of Warwick rated him and said that his father was
but a squire, and brought up with King Henry V., and since made himself
by marriage, and also made a lord; and that it was not his part to have
such language of lords, being of the king’s blood. And my Lord of March
rated him in like wise. And Sir Anthony was rated for his language of
all the three lords in like wise.’[185-1] It must have been a curious
reflection to the Earl of March when in after years, as King Edward IV.,
he married the daughter of this same Lord Rivers, that he had taken part
in this vituperation of his future father-in-law!

    [Footnote 184-3: W. Worc. _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 85.]

    [Footnote 185-1: Letter 400.]

By and by it became sufficiently evident that unless he was considerably
reinforced, the Duke of Somerset could do no good at Guisnes. Instead of
attempting to maintain a footing beside Calais, the queen’s Government
would have enough to do to keep the rebels out of England. The capture
of Rivers had excited the most serious alarm, and the landing of Warwick
himself upon the eastern coast was looked upon as not improbable.[185-2]
A new force of 500 men was accordingly sent to Sandwich under the
command of one Osbert Mountford or Mundeford,[185-3] an old officer of
Calais. His instructions were to go from Sandwich to Guisnes, either in
aid of the Duke of Somerset, as intimated in Worcester’s _Annals_, or,
according to another contemporary authority,[185-4] to bring him over to
England. But while he waited for a wind to sail, John Dynham again
crossed the sea, attacked the force under the command of Mundeford, and
after a little skirmishing, in which he himself was wounded, succeeded
in carrying him off to Calais, as he had before done Lord Rivers.
Mundeford’s treatment, however, was not so lenient as that of the more
noble captive. On the 25th of June he was beheaded at the Tower of
Rysebank, which stood near the town, on the opposite side of the
harbour.[185-5]

    [Footnote 185-2: _See_ Appendix to Introduction.]

    [Footnote 185-3: The writer of Letter 378. He was a connection of
    the Paston family, having married Elizabeth, daughter of John
    Berney, Esq., another of whose daughters, Margaret, was the mother
    of Margaret Paston (Blomefield, ii. 182). He had been much engaged
    in the king’s service in France, and had been treasurer of
    Normandy before it was lost--a fact which may account for his
    writing French in preference to English. _See_ Stevenson’s _Wars
    of the English in France_, index.]

    [Footnote 185-4: _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 85.]

    [Footnote 185-5: W. Worc., 479; Fabyan; Stow, 406-7.]

Meanwhile the Earl of Warwick did not remain at Calais. He scoured the
seas with his fleet and sailed into Ireland. Sir Baldwin Fulford,
a knight of Devonshire, promised the king, on pain of losing his head,
to destroy Warwick’s fleet; but having exhausted the sum of 1000 marks
which was allowed him for his expenses, he returned home without having
attained his object.[186-1] On the 16th of March, Warwick having met
with the Duke of York in Ireland, the two noblemen entered the harbour
of Waterford with a fleet of six-and-twenty ships well manned; and on
the following day, being St. Patrick’s Day, they landed and were
ceremoniously received by the mayor and burgesses.[186-2] Warwick seems
to have remained in Ireland more than two months, concerting with the
Duke of York plans for future action. About Whitsunday, which in this
year fell on the 1st of June, his fleet was observed by the Duke of
Exeter off the coast of Cornwall, on its return to Calais. Exeter’s
squadron was superior in strength, and an engagement might have been
expected; but the duke was not sure that he could trust his own sailors,
and he allowed the earl to pass unmolested.[186-3]

    [Footnote 186-1: _English Chron._ (Davies), 85.]

    [Footnote 186-2: Lambeth MS. 632, f. 255.]

    [Footnote 186-3: _Chron._ (Davies), 85; W. Worc.]

  [[allowed the earl to pass unmolested.[186-3]
  _footnote tag missing: supplied from 1st edition_]]

[Sidenote: The Legate Coppini.] About this time there arrived at
Calais a papal nuncio, by name Francesco Coppini, Bishop of Terni,
returning from England to Rome. He had been sent by the new pope, Pius
II., the ablest that had for a long time filled the pontifical chair,
to urge Henry to send an ambassador to a congress at Mantua, in which
measures were to be concerted for the union and defence of Christendom
against the Turks. This was in the beginning of the preceding
year,[186-4] and, as he himself states, he remained nearly a year and
a half in England.[186-5] But the incapacity of the king, and the
dissensions that prevailed among the lords, rendered his mission a total
failure. Henry, indeed, who was never wanting in reverence for the Holy
See, named a certain number of bishops and lords to go upon this
mission, but they one and all refused. He accordingly sent two priests
of little name, with an informal commission to excuse a greater embassy.
England was thus discredited at the papal court, and the nuncio, finding
his mission fruitless, at last crossed the sea to return home. At
Calais, however, he was persuaded by Warwick to remain. The earl himself
was about to return to England, and if the legate would come back in his
company he might use the influence of his sacred office to heal the
wounds of a divided kingdom.[187-1]

    [Footnote 186-4: His commission from the Pope is dated 7th January
    1458[9]--Rymer, xi. 419.]

    [Footnote 186-5: Brown’s _Venetian Calendar_, i. p. 91.]

    [Footnote 187-1: Gobellinus, 161.]

The nuncio had doubtless seen enough of the deplorable condition of
England to be convinced that peace was impossible, so long as the lords
most fit to govern were banished and proclaimed rebels by the queen and
her favourites.[187-2] He was, moreover, furnished with powers, by
which--the main object of his mission being the union of Christendom--he
was authorised to make some efforts to compose the dissensions of
England.[187-3] But he certainly overstrained them, and allowed himself
to become a partisan. Flattered by the attentions shown him by Warwick,
he acceded to his suggestion, and when, on the 26th of June,[187-4] the
day after Mundeford was beheaded at Calais, the confederate lords
crossed the Channel, the nuncio was in their company, bearing the
standard of the Church. Archbishop Bourchier, too, met them at Sandwich,
where they landed, with a great multitude of people; and with his cross
borne before him, the Primate of England conducted the three earls and
their followers, who increased in number as they went along, until they
reached the capital. After a very brief opposition on the part of some
of the citizens, the city opened its gates to them. They entered London
on the 2nd of July.[187-5]

    [Footnote 187-2: The Yorkists apparently were not sparing of
    insinuations against the queen. It had been rumoured, according to
    Fabyan, that the Prince of Wales was not really the king’s son;
    but the worst that was insinuated was that he was a changeling.
    But Warwick himself, according to Gobellinus, described the
    situation to the nuncio as follows:--‘Rex noster stupidus est, et
    mente captus; regitur, non regit; apud uxorem et qui regis
    thalamum fœdant, imperium est.’]

    [Footnote 187-3: _See_ the Pope’s letter to him in Theiner,
    423-4.]

    [Footnote 187-4: ‘The lords crossed the sea on Thursday,’ writes
    Coppini from London on the 4th July.--Brown’s _Venetian Calendar_,
    i. 90.]

    [Footnote 187-5: _Engl. Chron._ (Davies), 94.]

[Sidenote: The Earls of March, Warwick, and Salisbury.] Before they
crossed the sea, the three earls had sent over a set of articles
addressed to the archbishop and the commons of England in the name of
themselves and the Duke of York, declaring how they had sued in vain to
be admitted to the king’s presence to set forth certain matters that
concerned the common weal of all the land. Foremost among these was the
oppression of the Church, a charge based, seemingly, on facts with which
we are unacquainted, and which, if known, might shed a clearer light
upon the conduct of the legate and Archbishop Bourchier. Secondly, they
complained of the crying evil that the king had given away to favourites
all the revenues of his crown, so that his household was supported by
acts of rapine and extortion on the part of his purveyors. Thirdly, the
laws were administered with great partiality, and justice was not to be
obtained. Grievous taxes, moreover, were levied upon the commons, while
the destroyers of the land were living upon the patrimony of the crown.
And now a heavier charge than ever was imposed upon the inhabitants; for
the king, borrowing an idea from the new system of military service in
France, had commanded every township to furnish at its own cost a
certain number of men for the royal army; ‘which imposition and
talliage,’ wrote the lords in this manifesto, ‘if it be continued to
their heirs and successors, will be the heaviest charge and worst
example that ever grew in England, and the foresaid subjects and the
said heirs and successors in such bondage as their ancestors were never
charged with.’[188-1]

    [Footnote 188-1: It appears by Letter 377 that privy seals were
    issued in 1459 addressed on the back to certain persons, requiring
    them to be with the king at Leicester on the 10th of May, each
    with a body of men sufficiently armed, and with provision for
    their own expenses for two months. One of these privy seals,
    signed by the king himself, was addressed specially to John
    Paston’s eldest son, John, who at this time could not have been
    more than nineteen years of age. On its arrival, his mother
    consulted with neighbours whether it was indispensable to obey
    such an injunction, and on their opinion that it was, wrote to her
    husband for instructions.]

Besides these evils, the infatuated policy into which the king had been
led by his ill-advisers, threatened to lose Ireland and Calais to the
crown, as France had been lost already; for in the former country
letters had been sent under the Privy Seal to the chieftains who had
hitherto resisted the king’s authority, actually encouraging them to
attempt the conquest of the land, while in regard to Calais the king had
been induced to write letters to his enemies not to show that town any
favour, and thus had given them the greatest possible inducement to
attempt its capture. Meanwhile the Earls of Shrewsbury and Wiltshire and
Viscount Beaumont, who directed everything, kept the king himself, in
some things, from the exercise of his own free will, and had caused him
to assemble the Parliament of Coventry for the express purpose of
ruining the Duke of York and his friends, whose domains they had
everywhere pillaged and taken to their own use.[189-1]

    [Footnote 189-1: The articles will be found in Holinshed, iii.
    652-3; and in Davies’s _Chronicle_, 86-90.]

It was impossible, in the nature of things, that evils such as these
could be allowed to continue long, and the day of reckoning was now at
hand. Of the great events that followed, it will be sufficient here to
note the sequence in the briefest possible words. [Sidenote: The battle
of Northampton.] On the 10th July the king was taken prisoner at the
battle of Northampton, and was brought to London by the confederate
lords. The government, of course, came thus entirely into their hands.
Young George Nevill, Bishop of Exeter, was made Chancellor of England,
Lord Bourchier was appointed Lord Treasurer, and a Parliament was
summoned to meet at Westminster for the purpose of reversing the
attainders passed in the Parliament of Coventry. Of the elections for
this Parliament we have some interesting notices in Letter 415, from
which we may see how the new turn in affairs had affected the politics
of the county of Norfolk. From the first it was feared that after the
three earls had got the king into their hands, the old intriguers,
Tuddenham and Heydon, would be busy to secure favour, or at all events
indulgence, from the party now in the ascendant. But letters-missive
were obtained from the three earls, directed to all mayors and other
officers in Norfolk, commanding in the king’s name that no one should do
them injury, and intimating that the earls did not mean to show them any
favour if any person proposed to sue them at law.[189-2] Heydon,
however, did not choose to remain in Norfolk. He was presently heard of
from Berkshire, for which county he had found interest to get himself
returned in the new Parliament.

    [Footnote 189-2: No. 410.]

[Sidenote: John Paston in Parliament.] John Paston also was returned to
this Parliament as one of the representatives of his own county of
Norfolk. His sympathies were entirely with the new state of things. And
his friend and correspondent, Friar Brackley, who felt with him that the
wellbeing of the whole land depended entirely on the Earl of Warwick,
sent him exhortations out of Scripture to encourage him in the
performance of his political duties.[190-1] But what would be the effect
of the coming over from Ireland of the Duke of York, who had by this
time landed at Chester, and would now take the chief direction of
affairs?[190-2] Perhaps the chief fear was that he would be too
indulgent to political antagonists. Moreover, the Dowager Duchess of
Suffolk had contrived to marry her son to one of York’s daughters, and
it was apprehended her influence would be considerable. ‘The Lady of
Suffolk,’ wrote Friar Brackley to Paston, ‘hath sent up her son and his
wife to my Lord of York to ask grace for a sheriff the next year,
Stapleton, Boleyn, or Tyrell, _qui absit!_ God send you Poynings, W.
Paston, W. Rokewood, or Arblaster. Ye have much to do, Jesus speed you!
Ye have many good prayers, what of the convent, city, and
country.’[190-3]

    [Footnote 190-1: Letter 415.]

    [Footnote 190-2: Letter 419.]

    [Footnote 190-3: Letter 415.]

Such was the state of hope, fear, and expectation which the new turn of
affairs awakened in some, and particularly in the friends of John
Paston. The next great move in the political game perhaps exceeded the
anticipations even of Friar Brackley. [Sidenote: York challenges the
Crown.] Yet though the step was undoubtedly a bold one, never, perhaps,
was a high course of action more strongly suggested by the results of
past experience. After ten miserable years of fluctuating policy, the
attainted Yorkists were now for the fourth time in possession of power;
but who could tell that they would not be a fourth time set aside and
proclaimed as traitors? For yet a fourth time since the fall of Suffolk,
England might be subjected to the odious rule of favourites under a
well-intentioned king, whose word was not to be relied on. To the
commonweal the prospect was serious enough; to the Duke of York and his
friends it was absolute and hopeless ruin. But York had now determined
what to do. On the 10th of October, the third day of the Parliament, he
came to Westminster with a body of 500 armed men, and took up quarters
for himself within the royal palace. On the 16th he entered the House of
Lords, and having sat down in the king’s throne, he delivered to the
Lord Chancellor a writing in which he distinctly claimed that he, and
not Henry, was by inheritance rightful king of England.[191-1]

    [Footnote 191-1: W. Worc., 483; Fabyan; _Rolls of Parl._ v. 375.]

The reader is of course aware of the fact on which this claim was based,
namely, that York, through the female line, was descended from Lionel,
Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., while King Henry, his
father, and his grandfather had all derived their rights from John of
Gaunt, who was Lionel’s younger brother. Henry IV. indeed was an
undoubted usurper; but to set aside his family after they had been in
possession of the throne for three generations must have seemed a very
questionable proceeding. Very few of the lords at first appeared to
regard it with favour. The greater number stayed away from the
House.[191-2] But the duke’s counsel insisting upon an answer, the House
represented the matter to the king, desiring to know what he could
allege in opposition to the claim of York. The king, however, left the
lords to inquire into it themselves; and as it was one of the gravest
questions of law, the lords consulted the justices. But the justices
declined the responsibility of advising in a matter of so high a nature.
They were the king’s justices, and could not be of counsel where the
king himself was a party. The king’s serjeants and attorney were then
applied to, but were equally unwilling to commit themselves; so that the
lords themselves brought forward and discussed of their own accord a
number of objections to the Duke of York’s claim. At length it was
declared as the opinion of the whole body of the peers that his title
could not be defeated, but a compromise was suggested and mutually
agreed to that the king should be allowed to retain his crown for life,
the succession reverting to the duke and his heirs immediately after
Henry’s death.[191-3]

    [Footnote 191-2: W. Worc., 484.]

    [Footnote 191-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 375-9.]

So the matter was settled by a great and solemn act of state. But even a
parliamentary settlement, produced by a display of armed force, will
scarcely command the respect that it ought to do if there is armed force
to overthrow it. The king himself, it is true, appears to have been
treated with respect, and with no more abridgment of personal liberty
than was natural to the situation.[192-1] Nor could it be said that the
peers were insensible of the responsibility they incurred in a grave
constitutional crisis. But respect for constitutional safeguards had
been severely shaken, and no securities now could bridle the spirit of
faction: suspicion also of itself produced new dangers. The Duke of
York, after all the willingness he had shown in Parliament to accept a
compromise, seems to have been accused of violating the settlement as
soon as it was made; for on that very night on which it was arranged
(31st October), we are told by a contemporary writer that ‘the king
removed unto London against his will to the bishop’s palace, and the
Duke of York came unto him that same night by torchlight and took upon
him as king, and said in many places that “This is ours by
right.”’[192-2] Perhaps the facts looked worse than they were really;
for it had been agreed in Parliament, though not formally expressed in
the Accord, that the duke should be once more Protector and have the
actual government.[192-3] But it is not surprising that Margaret and her
friends would recognise nothing of what had been done in Parliament.
Since the battle of Northampton she had been separated from her husband.
She fled with her son first into Cheshire, afterwards into Wales, to
Harlech Castle, and then to Denbigh, which Jasper Tudor, Earl of
Pembroke, had just won for the House of Lancaster.[192-4] Her flight had
been attended with difficulties, especially near Malpas, where she was
robbed by a servant of her own, who met her and put her in fear of the
lives of herself and her child.[192-5] In Wales she was joined by the
Duke of Exeter, who was with her in October.[192-6] From thence she
sailed to Scotland, where the enemies of the Duke of York were specially
welcome. For James II., profiting, as might be expected, by the
dissensions of England, a month after the battle of Northampton, had
laid siege to Roxburgh, where he was killed by the bursting of a cannon.
Margaret, with her son, arrived at Dumfries in January 1461, and met his
widow, Mary of Gueldres, at Lincluden Abbey.[193-1] Meanwhile her
adherents in the North of England held a council at York, and the Earl
of Northumberland, with Lords Clifford, Dacres, and Nevill, ravaged the
lands of the duke and of the Earl of Salisbury. The duke on this
dissolved Parliament after obtaining from it powers to put down the
rebellion,[193-2] and marched northwards with the Earl of Salisbury. A
few days before Christmas they reached the duke’s castle of Sandal,
where they kept the festival, the enemy being not far off at
Pomfret.[193-3] On the 30th December was fought the disastrous battle of
Wakefield, [Sidenote: The battle of Wakefield.] when the Yorkists were
defeated, the duke and the Earl of Salisbury being slain in the field,
and the duke’s son, the Earl of Rutland, ruthlessly murdered by Lord
Clifford after the battle.

    [Footnote 192-1: Though he was taken prisoner at the battle of
    Northampton, and had ever since been in the power of the victors,
    he does not appear to have been placed under any kind of
    restraint. In October, before the Parliament met, he was spending
    the time in hunting at Greenwich and Eltham.--No. 419.]

    [Footnote 192-2: _Collections of a London Citizen_, 208 (Camden
    Society).]

    [Footnote 192-3: _English Chronicle_ (Davies), 106; Fabyan; Hall,
    249.]

    [Footnote 192-4: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 303.]

    [Footnote 192-5: _Collections of a London Citizen_, 209.]

    [Footnote 192-6: No. 419.]

    [Footnote 193-1: _Auchinleck Chronicle_, 21. _Exchequer Rolls of
    Scotland_, vii. 8, 39, 157.]

    [Footnote 193-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 382.]

    [Footnote 193-3: W. Worc., 484.]

The story of poor young Rutland’s butchery is graphically described by
an historian of the succeeding age who, though perhaps with some
inaccuracies of detail as to fact, is a witness to the strong impression
left by this beginning of barbarities. The account of it given by Hall,
the chronicler, is as follows:--

  ‘While this battle was in fighting, a priest called Sir Robert
  Aspall, chaplain and schoolmaster to the young Earl of Rutland,
  second son to the above-named Duke of York, scarce of the age of
  twelve years [he was really in his eighteenth year], a fair
  gentleman and a maiden-like person, perceiving that flight was more
  safeguard than tarrying, both for him and his master, secretly
  conveyed the Earl out of the field by the Lord Clifford’s band
  towards the town. But or he could enter into a house, he was by the
  said Lord Clifford espied, followed, and taken, and, by reason of
  his apparel, demanded what he was. The young gentleman, dismayed,
  had not a word to speak, but kneeled on his knees, imploring mercy
  and desiring grace, both with holding up his hands and making
  dolorous countenance, for his speech was gone for fear. “Save him,”
  said his chaplain, “for he is a prince’s son, and peradventure may
  do you good hereafter.” With that word, the Lord Clifford marked him
  and said--“By God’s blood, thy father slew mine; and so will I do
  thee and all thy kin”; and with that word stack the Earl to the
  heart with his dagger, and bade his chaplain bear the Earl’s mother
  word what he had done and said.’

Another illustration which the chronicler goes on to give of Clifford’s
bloodthirsty spirit may be true in fact, but is certainly wrong as
regards time. For he represents Queen Margaret as ‘not far from the
field’ when the battle had been fought, and says that Clifford having
caused the duke’s head to be cut off and crowned in derision with a
paper crown, presented the ghastly object to her upon a pole with the
words:--‘Madam, your war is done; here is your king’s ransom.’ Margaret,
as we have seen, was really in Scotland at the time, where she
negotiated an alliance with the Scots, to whom she agreed to deliver up
Berwick for aid to her husband’s cause. But soon afterwards she came to
York, where, at a council of war, she and her adherents determined to
march on London. So it may have been a fact that Clifford presented to
her the head of York upon a pole with the words recorded. But never was
prophecy more unhappy; for instead of the war being ended, or the king
being ransomed, there cannot be a doubt these deeds of wickedness
imparted a new ferocity to the strife and hastened on the termination of
Henry’s imbecile, unhappy reign. Within little more than two months
after the battle of Wakefield the son of the murdered Duke of York was
proclaimed king in London, by the title of Edward IV., and at the end of
the third month the bloody victory of Towton almost destroyed, for a
long time, the hopes of the House of Lancaster. From that day Henry led
a wretched existence, now as an exile, now as a prisoner, for eleven
unhappy years, saving only a few months’ interval, during which he was
made king again by the Earl of Warwick, without the reality of power,
and finally fell a victim, as was generally believed, to political
assassination. As for Margaret, she survived her husband, but she also
survived her son, and the cause for which she had fought with so much
pertinacity was lost to her for ever.

And now we must halt in our political survey. Henceforth, though public
affairs must still require attention, we shall scarcely require to
follow them with quite so great minuteness. We here take leave, for the
most part, of matters, both public and private, contained in the Letters
during the reign of Henry VI. But one event which affected greatly the
domestic history of the Pastons in the succeeding reign, must be
mentioned before we go further. It was not long after the commencement
of those later troubles--more precisely, it was on the 5th November
1459, six weeks after the battle of Bloreheath, and little more than
three after the dispersion of the Yorkists at Ludlow--that the aged Sir
John Fastolf breathed his last, within the walls of that castle which it
had been his pride to rear and to occupy in the place of his birth.
[Sidenote: Death of Sir John Fastolf.] By his will, of which, as will be
seen, no less than three different instruments were drawn up, he
bequeathed to John Paston and his chaplain, Sir Thomas Howes, all his
lands in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, for the purpose of
founding that college or religious community at Caister, on the erection
of which he had bestowed latterly so much thought. The manner in which
this bequest affected the fortunes of the Paston family has now to be
considered.


_Fastolf’s Lands_

Under the feudal system, as is well known, on the death of any tenant
_in capite_ of the crown, his lands were seized in the king’s name by an
officer called the escheator, until it was ascertained by a jury of the
county who was the next heir that should succeed to the property, and
whether the king had any right of wardship by reason of his being under
age. [Sidenote: A.D. 1459.] But when Sir John Fastolf died, he left no
heir, nor was he, strictly speaking, at his death a tenant _in capite_
of the crown. [Sidenote: The lands of Sir John Fastolf.] He had at
different times handed over all his landed property to trustees, who
were to hold it to his use so long as he lived, and to apply it after
his death to the purposes mentioned in his will. For the greater part of
his lands in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Surrey, he had
appointed one body of trustees as early as the year 1449, ten years
before his death.[196-1] This body consisted of five bishops, including
the two primates, three lords, two justices of the King’s Bench, two
knights, and ten other persons. But of these original trustees a good
number were already dead, when, in the year 1457, a new trust was
created, and the greater part of the Norfolk and Suffolk property was
vested in the names of Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury,
William Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester, William Yelverton, Justice of
the King’s Bench, John Paston, Esq., Henry Fylongley, Esq., Thomas
Howes, clerk, and William Paston. In the preceding year he had already
created these same persons, with the addition of William Jenney, his
trustees for the manor of Titchwell, in Norfolk, and the same again,
with Jenney, but without Bishop Waynflete, for the manor of Beighton.
The trust-deed for the former manor was dated 1st April 34 Henry VI.,
and that for the latter 26th March 34 Henry VI.[196-2]

    [Footnote 196-1: The deed is dated 7 July 27 Hen. VI., and
    inrolled on the _Close Roll_, 29 Hen. VI. m., 39, _in dorso_.]

    [Footnote 196-2: _Inquisition post mortem_, 38 and 39 Henry VI.,
    No. 48.]

Thus it appears that as early as the month of March 1456, about a year
and a half after Sir John Fastolf had taken up his abode in Norfolk,
John Paston and his brother William were already named by him as
trustees for some of his property. [Sidenote: John and William Paston,
trustees.] From that time the influence of John Paston with the old
knight continued to increase till, as it was evident that the latter
drew near his end, it became a subject of jealousy and suspicion. Of
course, these feelings were not diminished when it was found after
Fastolf’s death that, subject only to the obligation of founding his
college at Caister, and paying 4000 marks to his other executors, he had
in effect bequeathed to John Paston the whole of his lands in the
counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Yet it does not appear that in
Fastolf’s latter days John Paston was about him more than usual. He was
just as frequently away in London as he had been in any previous
year.[197-1] But even when absent, he had a very staunch and hearty
friend in Friar Brackley, who frequently visited the sick chamber, and
took every opportunity to preserve and augment the high esteem that
Fastolf entertained for him. At the last Brackley wrote to urge him to
come down to Norfolk, as the patient evidently could not live much
longer. ‘It is high time; he draweth fast homeward, and is right low
brought, and sore weakened and feebled.’ Paston must bring with him a
draft petition to the king about the foundation of the college at
Caister, and an arrangement with the monks of St. Benet’s, for the dying
man’s satisfaction. ‘Every day this five days he saith, “God send me
soon my good cousin Paston, for I hold him a faithful man, and ever one
man.” _Cui ego_: “That is sooth,” &c. _Et ille_: “Show me not the meat,
show me the man.”’ Such is the curious report written by Dr. Brackley to
Paston himself of the anxiety with which the old knight expected him
shortly before his death.[197-2]

    [Footnote 197-1: _See_ Nos. 376, 377, 379, 380, 383.]

    [Footnote 197-2: No. 383.]

[Sidenote: William Worcester.] On the other hand, William Worcester, who
had so long acted as Fastolf’s private secretary, was perhaps a little
jealous at the closer intimacy and greater influence of Paston with his
master. At least, if this was not his feeling before Sir John Fastolf’s
death, he expressed it plainly shortly afterwards. It was, he
considered, owing to himself that John Paston had stood so high in
Fastolf’s favour;[197-3] and it seemed scarcely reasonable that Paston
should have the principal share in the administration of the property
while he, who had been so long in Fastolf’s service, so devoted to his
interests, and yet so ill rewarded during his master’s life, found no
kind of provision made for him in the will. It was, indeed, perfectly
true that Fastolf had named him one of his executors. But this
executorship, as it turned out, was not a thing likely to yield him
either profit or importance. For by the last will, made immediately
before the testator’s death, a body of ten executors was constituted, of
whom two were to have the sole and absolute administration, the others
having nothing whatever to do except when those two thought fit to ask
for their advice. The two acting executors were to be John Paston and
Thomas Howes. William Worcester was one of the other eight.[198-1]

    [Footnote 197-3: No. 401.]

    [Footnote 198-1: No. 387.]

Yet, at first, he refrained from expressing dissatisfaction, and showed
himself ready to co-operate with John Paston. Within a week after
Fastolf’s death, he accompanied William Paston up to London, and joined
him in an interview with Bishop Waynflete, at that time Lord Chancellor,
who was one of the other executors. In accordance with Bishop
Waynflete’s advice, he and William Paston proceeded to collect and
sequester the goods of the deceased in different parts of London until
the time that John Paston could have an interview with the bishop. They
managed to have goods out of the Abbey of Bermondsey that no one knew
about, except William Paston and Worcester themselves, and another man
named Plomer. In short, William Worcester acted at this time as a most
confidential and trusty friend to John Paston’s interests, being either
entirely ignorant how little provision was made for his own, or trusting
to Paston’s benevolence and sense of justice for that reward which was
not expressly ‘nominated in the bond.’ And William Paston felt his
claims so strongly that he could not help insinuating to his brother
that he was bound in honour to make him a provision for life. ‘I
understand by him,’ wrote William Paston, ‘he will never have other
master but his old master; and to my conceit it were pity but if he
should stand in such case by my master he should never need service,
considering how my master trusted him, and the long years that he hath
been with him in and many shrewd journeys for his sake.’[198-2]

    [Footnote 198-2: Nos. 391, 393.]

But very shortly afterwards the manner in which Worcester spoke of
Paston revealed a bitter sense of disappointment and injustice. He
asserted that Fastolf had actually granted him a portion of land to live
upon, and that Sir Thomas Howes, Fastolf’s confessor, who was his wife’s
uncle, had been present in the chapel at Caister when this gift was
conceded. Worcester’s wife had in fact asked Sir Thomas to choose the
land. Nevertheless, when he came to demand of Paston that to which he
considered he had a lawful claim, the latter was displeased with him;
nor did the two come to a good understanding again during Paston’s
life.[199-1]

    [Footnote 199-1: No. 401. It appears by a document inrolled in the
    _Close Roll_ of 39 Henry VI., m. 13, _in dorso_, that Worcester on
    the 28th August 1460 executed a deed making over all his goods and
    chattels (_bona mea et catalla mobilia et immobilia, viva et
    mortua, ubicumque et in quorumcumque manibus_), and all debts due
    to him from whatever persons, to Henry Everyngham, Esq., Hugh
    Fenne, gentleman, Henry Wyndesore, gentleman, Robert Toppes, jun.,
    gentleman, and John Bokkyng, gentleman; which deed he acknowledged
    in Chancery on the 1st September following (_see_ Appendix to this
    Introduction). Apparently the object of this was to give others an
    interest in vindicating what he supposed to be his rights.]

It was but nine days after Sir John Fastolf’s death, and three days
after his first interview with the chancellor, Bishop Waynflete, that
William Paston, in writing to his brother, expressed his intention of
going to the bishop again for writs of _diem clausit extremum_. These
writs were the ordinary authority under which the escheators of the
different counties wherein the deceased had held lands would proceed to
inquire what the manors were, and to whom they ought to descend.
[Sidenote: Claimants of Fastolf’s property.] That many pretenders would
lay claim to the different portions of those rich domains, John Paston
and his brother knew full well. The Duke of Exeter had already set up a
claim to Fastolf’s place in Southwark, on what grounds it is impossible
to say. Others, who had no hope of proving title to any part of the
property themselves, expected to win favour at court by offering to
establish the rights of the crown in all the goods and chattels. William
Paston accordingly endeavoured to secure the friendship of the Lord
Treasurer, James, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond; but though the earl gave
him fair words, William Paston was advised to put no trust in
him.[199-2] In point of fact, soon after Christmas, the earl entered Sir
John’s mansion in Southwark, and occupied it for a time as if it had
been his own dwelling-house.[199-3]

    [Footnote 199-2: No. 391.]

    [Footnote 199-3: W. Worcester’s _Annals_.]

The escheator of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk was Richard
Southwell, a friend of John Paston’s, and if the writs of _diem clausit
extremum_ had been issued at once, the latter doubtless hoped that the
rights of Fastolf’s trustees would have been immediately acknowledged by
two different juries, the one in Norfolk and the other in Suffolk. But
the efforts of William Paston were not crowned with such speedy success
as he and his brother could have wished. Already, on the 10th November,
writs of _diem clausit extremum_ had issued without his applying for
them, but they were only for the counties of Surrey and Essex, in which
John Paston was not interested. Special commissions to the same effect
for the counties of Wilts and Yorkshire were procured from the king at
Coventry eighteen days later. [Sidenote: A.D. 1460.] But for Norfolk and
Suffolk the writs were not issued till the 13th May in the following
year.[200-1] The delay was most probably owing to representations on the
part of Paston’s enemies; and to the same cause we may attribute the
fact that even after the writ was issued it was not acted on for five
months longer, so that nearly a whole year had elapsed since Sir John
Fastolf’s death before the Norfolk and Suffolk inquisitions were held.
But at length the opposition was overcome. ‘A great day’ was holden at
Acle before the under-sheriff and the under-escheator, in presence of
some of the most substantial gentlemen of Norfolk; ‘and the matter,’
wrote Margaret Paston to her husband, ‘is well sped after your
intent.’[200-2]

    [Footnote 200-1: _Inquis. post mortem_, 38 and 39 Henry VI., No.
    48.]

    [Footnote 200-2: No. 423.]

Already John Paston’s increased importance in his native county had come
to be acknowledged. He was at this time knight of the shire for Norfolk.
His wife was living at Hellesdon, on the Fastolf estates, two miles out
of Norwich; and the mayor and mayoress paid her the compliment of
sending thither their dinners and inviting themselves out to dine with
her. The mills at Hellesdon and the lands at Caister were let by his
agents, and apparently, in spite of his opponents, whoever they may have
been, he had succeeded in obtaining quiet possession of all Fastolf’s
lands in Norfolk.[200-3] Equally little resistance seems to have been
made to his claims in the county of Suffolk, where an inquisition was
taken at Bungay nine days after that which had been taken at Acle. In
each county the jury limited themselves to declaring the names of the
trustees in whose hands the property remained at Fastolf’s death, and
nothing was said about the will. A will, in itself, could convey no
title to lands, and the juries had nothing to do with it. But in both
counties John Paston, either as executor or as one of the trustees, was
allowed to assume at this time the entire control of the property.

    [Footnote 200-3: _Ibid._]

But now came the renewal of civil war--the battle of Wakefield, soon
avenged by the proclamation of Edward IV. as king, and the bloody
victory of Towton. [Sidenote: A.D. 1461.] The kingdom was convulsed from
end to end, and there was little chance for doubtful titles and disputed
claims, except when supported by the strong arm of power. Long before
the time at which we have now arrived, [Sidenote: The Duke of Norfolk.]
the Duke of Norfolk had set covetous eyes upon Sir John Fastolf’s
magnificent new castle of Caister, and he had spread a report in the
country that the owner had given it to him.[201-1] But it would seem
that Sir John himself had never entertained such an idea, and if ever in
conversation with the duke he had let fall something that might have
encouraged the hope, he had taken special care before his death to show
that it was unfounded. For the duke had visited Sir John in September
before he died, and had proposed to purchase of him the reversion of the
manor; but Sir John distinctly told him he had given it to Paston for
the purpose of founding a college.[201-2] Indeed, it is perfectly clear
that for years he had intended it to be turned into an abode of priests,
and not made a residence for any such powerful nobleman. And this
intention, which is apparent enough in several of the letters written
during his lifetime, was expressed in the most unambiguous language in
the document which John Paston declared to have been his last
will.[201-3] Indeed, if we believe John Paston’s testimony, interested
though it no doubt may be, it was chiefly from a fear that his executors
might sell the place, not, indeed, to the duke, of whom he seems at that
time to have ceased to entertain any apprehension, but to the Viscount
Beaumont, the Duke of Somerset, or the Earl of Warwick, that the old
knight determined to make Paston his principal executor.[201-4] So, ‘to
avoid that no lord, nor great estate, should inhabit in time coming
within the great mansion,’ he made a covenant with Paston by which the
latter was to have in fee-simple all his lands in the counties of
Norfolk and Suffolk, subject only to the payment of a sum of 4000 marks
and the duty of establishing in Caister Castle ‘a college of seven
religious men, monks, or secular priests, and seven poor folk, to pray
for his soul and the souls of his wife, his father, and mother, and
other that he was behold to, in perpetuity.’ And if in endeavouring to
carry out this object John Paston was interfered with by any one
attempting to obtain possession of the place by force, he was enjoined
to ‘pull down the said mansion, and every stone and stick thereof, and
do found three of the said seven priests or monks at St. Benet’s, and
one at Yarmouth, one at Attleborough, and one at St. Olave’s Church at
Southwark.’[202-1]

    [Footnote 201-1: No. 222 (in vol. ii.).]

    [Footnote 201-2: No. 543.]

    [Footnote 201-3: No. 385.]

    [Footnote 201-4: No. 390.]

    [Footnote 202-1: No. 386.]

Yet, notwithstanding all this, the Duke of Norfolk, within three months
after the accession of Edward IV., and little more than a year and a
half after Sir John Fastolf’s death,[202-2] had certainly taken
possession of the great mansion of Caister. The confusion of the time
undoubtedly favoured the act, and redress might well have been a
troublesome matter, as the Duke of Norfolk was a nobleman whom perhaps
even the king would not care to displease. But Edward was a king who,
with many faults, was most honourably anxious from the first to do
justice even to the meanest of his subjects.[202-3] Paston repaired to
the royal presence, and obtained letters from the king to the duke,
which his servant, Richard Calle, conveyed to Framlingham. They were
delivered to his lordship at the lodge of his demesne, but the messenger
was not admitted to his presence. The duke, however, wrote an answer to
the king, promising shortly to repair to Court, when he offered to prove
that some of the statements in Paston’s letters were erroneous, and that
he himself was the person who had the best claim to the manor. It
appears there was one other claimant besides, viz. Thomas Fastolf of
Cowhaw; but he, not expecting to make his title good against Paston
himself, and having need of a powerful friend in some other matters,
gave up his claim to the duke, and brought documents to justify the
latter in taking possession by the right derived from him.[203-1]

    [Footnote 202-2: He had probably done so before by authority of
    Henry VI., for in the beginning of 1460 Friar Brackley writes: ‘A
    man of my Lord Norfolk told me here he came from London, and there
    he had commonly voiced that the Duke of Norfolk should, by the
    king’s commandment, keep his Easter at Caister for safeguard of
    the country against Warwick and other such of the king’s
    enemies.’--Vol. iii. p. 212.]

  [[iii. 212 = second-to-last paragraph of letter 403]]

    [Footnote 202-3: Edward’s reply to another suit preferred by John
    Paston this same year is an excellent example of this spirit of
    impartiality. John Paston’s eldest son writes to his father as
    follows, touching an interview he had had with the Lord Treasurer,
    the Earl of Essex: ‘And now of late I, remembering him of the same
    matter, inquired if he had moved the king’s highness therein. And
    he answered me that he had felt and moved the king therein,
    rehearsing the king’s answer therein: how that when he had moved
    the king in the said manor of Dedham, beseeching him to be your
    good lord therein, considering the service and true part that ye
    have done and ought to him, and in especial the right that ye have
    thereto, he said he would be your good lord therein, as he would
    to the poorest man in England. He would hold with you in your
    right; and as for favour, he will not be understood that he shall
    show favour more to one man than to another, not to one in
    England.’]

    [Footnote 203-1: Nos. 458, 465.]

In the end, however, Paston’s appeal to the king must have been
successful. Caister was certainly restored to him, and in all
probability it was restored within a month or two before the Duke of
Norfolk’s death, which occurred that same year, in the beginning of
November.[203-2]

    [Footnote 203-2: This perhaps may be a reason for supposing Letter
    630 to have been written in the year 1461, notwithstanding the
    difficulty mentioned in the preliminary note.]


_The Beginning of Edward IV.’s Reign_

But notwithstanding the even-handed justice of the king, the times were
wild and unsettled. The revolution by which Henry was deposed was not a
thing calculated to bring sudden peace and quiet. [Sidenote: Troubled
times.] On the Patent Rolls of this year we have innumerable evidences
of the state of alarm, confusion, and tumult which prevailed
continuously for at least a twelvemonth over the whole
kingdom. Commissions of array,[203-3] commissions to put down
insurrections,[203-4] and to punish outrages,[203-5] to arrest
seditious persons,[203-6] to resist the king’s enemies at sea,[203-7]
or to prepare beacons on the coast to give warning of apprehended
invasion,[204-1] are continually met with. Our Letters also tell the
same tale. Margaret Paston writes at one time about ‘Will. Lynys that
was with Master Fastolf, and such other as he is with him,’ who went
about the country accusing men of being Scots, and only letting them go
on payment of considerable bribes. ‘He took last week the parson of
Freton, and but for my cousin Jerningham the younger, there would have
led him forth with him; and he told them plainly, if they made any such
doings there, unless they had the letter to show for them, they should
have laid on[204-2] on their bodies.’[204-3] A still more flagrant
instance of lawlessness had occurred just before, of which our old
acquaintance Thomas Denys was the victim. [Sidenote: Thomas Denys.] He
was at this time coroner of Norfolk. If not in Edward IV.’s service
before he was king, he became a member of the royal household
immediately afterwards, and accompanied the new king to York before his
coronation. It appears that he had some complaints to make to the king
of one Twyer, in Norfolk, and also of Sir John Howard, the sheriff of
the county, a relation of the Duke of Norfolk, of whom we have already
spoken,[204-4] and shall have more to say presently. But scarcely had he
returned home when he was pulled out of his house by the parson of
Snoring, a friend of Twyer’s, who accused him of having procured
indictments against Twyer and himself, and carried him off, we are not
told whither.[204-5] All we know is that in the beginning of July Thomas
Denys was murdered, and that there were various reports as to who had
instigated the crime. William Lomner believed that some men of the Duke
of Norfolk’s council were implicated. Sir Miles Stapleton factiously
endeavoured to lay the blame on John Berney of Witchingham. The parson
of Snoring was put in the stocks, with four of his associates, but what
further punishment they underwent does not appear. John Paston was
entreated to use his influence to get them tried by a special
commission.[204-6] The most precise account of the crime is found in the
records of the King’s Bench, which give us the date and place where it
occurred. One Robert Grey of Warham, labourer, was indicted for having,
along with others, attacked Denys on Thursday the 2nd July, and dragged
him from his house at Gately to Egmere, not far from Walsingham, where
they killed him on the Saturday following.

    [Footnote 203-3: _Patent Roll_, 1 Edward IV. p. 1, m. 18 _d._,
    dated March 16; and m. 19 _d._, dated May 10; p. 4, m. 22 _d._,
    February 24 and March 1 (1462); also p. 2, m. 12 _d._ (against the
    Scots), Nov. 13.]

    [Footnote 203-4: _Ib._ p. 1, m. 27 _d._, March 28, and p. 3, m. 3
    _d._, July 8.]

    [Footnote 203-5: _Ib._ p. 2, m. 10 _d._, Aug. 17.]

    [Footnote 203-6: _Ib._ p. 2, m. 12 _d._, Nov. 4; and p. 4, m. 22
    _d._, Feb. 28 (1462).]

    [Footnote 203-7: _Ib._ p. 3, m. 3 _d._, July 12.]

    [Footnote 204-1: _Ib._ p. 3, m. 3 _d._ and 27 _d._, Aug. 6 and 12;
    also m. 8 _d._, Jan. 29.]

    [Footnote 204-2: Such, I think, must be the meaning intended. The
    expression in the original is, ‘they shuld aley (_qu._ should a’
    laid?) on her bodyys.’]

    [Footnote 204-3: No. 469.]

    [Footnote 204-4: _See_ p. 164.]

    [Footnote 204-5: Nos. 455, 463.]

    [Footnote 204-6: No. 472.]

Elizabeth Poynings, too, John Paston’s sister, has some experience of
the bitterness of the times. She has by this time become a widow, having
lost her husband at the second battle of St. Albans, and her lands are
occupied by the Countess of Northumberland and Robert Fenys, in
disregard of her rights.[205-1] In times of revolution and tumult the
weak must go to the wall.

    [Footnote 205-1: No. 461.]

Besides these illustrations of the social condition of the times, our
Letters still abound with information not to be found elsewhere as to
the chief political events. [Sidenote: Political events.] Here we have
the record of the battle of Towton, of those who fell, and of those who
were wounded;[205-2] after which we find Henry VI. shut up in Yorkshire,
in a place the name of which is doubtful.[205-3] Then we hear of the
beheading of the Earl of Wiltshire, and of his head being placed on
London Bridge.[205-4] Then come matters relating to the coronation of
Edward IV., which was delayed on account of the siege of
Carlisle.[205-5] On this occasion, it seems, John Paston was to have
received the honour of knighthood,[205-6] which he doubtless declined,
having already compounded with Henry VI. not to be made a knight.[205-7]
Two years later, however, his eldest son was made one, very probably as
a substitute for himself, apparently just at the time when he attained
the age of twenty-one.[205-8] To the father such an honour would
evidently have been a burden rather than a satisfaction.

    [Footnote 205-2: No. 450.]

    [Footnote 205-3: No. 451.]

    [Footnote 205-4: Nos. 451, 452.]

    [Footnote 205-5: No. 457.]

    [Footnote 205-6: Nos. 457, 460.]

    [Footnote 205-7: No. 373.]

    [Footnote 205-8: Sir John Paston must have been born in 1442. At
    the inquisition taken in October 1466, after his father’s death,
    he was found to be twenty-four years old and more.]

But on the whole John Paston stood well with his countrymen, and the
change of kings was an event from which he had no reason to anticipate
bad consequences to himself. Since the death of Sir John Fastolf he had
become a man of much greater importance, and he had been returned to
Parliament in the last year of Henry VI. as a supporter of the Duke of
York. He was now, in the first year of Edward IV., returned to
Parliament again. [Sidenote: John Paston returned to Parliament.] He was
apparently in good favour with the king, and had been since the
accession of Edward for a short time resident in his household.[206-1]
The king also obtained from him the redelivery of the jewels pawned by
his father, the Duke of York, to Sir John Fastolf,[206-2] in
consideration of which he granted John Paston an assignment of 700
marks[206-3] on the fee-farm of the city of Norwich, and on the issues
of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. But his election as knight of
the shire for Norfolk did not pass altogether without question. Paston’s
wife’s cousin, John Berney of Witchingham, whom Sir Miles Stapleton
accused of being implicated in the murder of Denys, had taken a leading
part in the proceedings, and Stapleton alleged that he was meditating
further outrages. The people had appeared ‘jacked and saletted’ at the
shire house, the under-sheriff was put in suspicion of Berney, and the
sheriff, Sir John Howard, conceived it would be necessary to have a new
election. To this neither Berney nor Paston very much objected. Berney
was willing to give every assurance that he would do the under-sheriff
no bodily hurt, but he considered his conduct that at the election had
not been creditable, and he desired that he would either intimate to the
people that the election should stand, or procure a new writ, and
publicly announce the day on which another election should be holden. As
for Paston, he was perfectly satisfied, provided that he were not put to
further expense, as he believed it was the general desire of the people
to ratify what they had done; he only wished that it might be on a
holiday, so as not to interfere with the people’s work. The matter was
discussed before the king himself, John Paston and the under-sheriff
being present, each to answer for his part in the affair, and a writ was
finally granted for a new election on St. Laurence’s Day. But from what
he had seen of the conduct of the under-sheriff, Paston seems to have
been afraid the day might yet be changed, to his prejudice; so, in a
personal interview with that functionary, he got him to place the writ
in his hands, and sent it down to his wife to keep until the new day of
election came round, charging her to see that the under-sheriff had it
again that day.[207-1]

    [Footnote 206-1: No. 459.]

    [Footnote 206-2: No. 473. Compare No. 223. It is striking that,
    notwithstanding his large possessions in land, the Duke of York
    should have been unable for eight years to redeem these jewels.]

    [Footnote 206-3: This was less than the sum (£487) for which the
    jewels were pledged, and yet it was the whole compensation granted
    both for the jewels and for a bond of 100 marks given by the Duke
    of York to Fastolf, which Paston also surrendered.]

    [Footnote 207-1: Nos. 466-8, 471, 475.]

  [[but he considered his conduct that at the election
  _text unchanged: 1st edition has same word order_]]

His suspicions of unfair dealing were probably too well founded. At all
events, the new election did not pass over peacefully any more than the
previous one, perhaps not so much so. We do not, indeed, hear any more
of John Berney and Sir Miles Stapleton; [Sidenote: John Paston and Sir
John Howard.] but the sheriff, Sir John Howard, had a violent
altercation with Paston himself in the shire house, and one of Howard’s
men struck Paston twice with a dagger, so that he would have been
severely wounded but for the protection of a good doublet that he wore
on the occasion.[207-2]

    [Footnote 207-2: Nos. 477, 478.]

The occurrence was an awkward one. The feuds in the county of Norfolk
had already occupied the king’s attention once, and that which it was
supposed would have been a settlement had proved no settlement at all.
Perhaps Edward had been too lenient towards old offenders; for Sir Miles
Stapleton was but an ally of Sir Thomas Tuddenham and John Heydon, of
whom we have heard so much in the days of Henry VI., and these two
personages were almost as influential as ever. Some time before the
king’s coronation, they had received a royal pardon, on the strength of
which, as we learn by a letter at that time, they intended going up to
London with the Duchess of Suffolk to be present at the ceremony.[207-3]
And very soon afterwards we have a renewal of the old complaints that
‘the world was right wild, and had been sithence Heydon’s safeguard was
proclaimed at Walsingham.’[207-4] But whoever was in fault, it was a
serious thing for John Paston--who by this time hoped that he was in
favour with the king, and had actually got his eldest son introduced
into the king’s household[208-1]--that royal influence itself could not
still the angry feelings that had arisen about his election. The dispute
must now once more come before the king, and his adversary, in
consequence of his relation to the Duke of Norfolk, was doubtless a man
of considerable influence. Paston himself, it is true, was in the
position of the injured party, but he forbore to complain. The subject,
however, was brought by others under the notice of the king, who
commanded both Paston and Howard to appear before him, and was even
incensed at the former for delaying to obey his summons. On the 11th of
October the king said to one of John Paston’s friends: ‘We have sent two
privy seals to Paston by two yeomen of our chamber, and he disobeyeth
them; but we will send him another to-morrow, and, by God’s mercy, if he
come not then, he shall die for it. We will make all other men beware by
him how they shall disobey our writing. A servant of ours hath made a
complaint of him. I cannot think that he hath informed us all truly. Yet
not for that we will not suffer him to disobey our writing; but sithence
he disobeyeth our writing, we may believe the better his guiding is as
we be informed.’[208-2]

    [Footnote 207-3: No. 458.]

    [Footnote 207-4: No. 465.]

    [Footnote 208-1: Nos. 477, 478.]

    [Footnote 208-2: No. 484.]

  [[Footnote 208-1: Nos. 477, 478.
  _text reads “No.”_]]

These terrible words were reported to John Paston by his brother
Clement, then in London, who urged him to come up from Norfolk in all
possible haste, and to be sure that he had some very weighty excuse for
having neglected the previous messages. But besides great despatch in
coming, and a very weighty excuse, one thing more was very necessary to
be attended to, and this further admonition was added: ‘Also, if ye do
well, come right strong; for Howard’s wife made her boast that if any of
her husband’s men might come to you, there should go no penny for your
life, and Howard hath with the king a great fellowship.’[208-3]

    [Footnote 208-3: _Ibid._]

It was clear this advice was not to be neglected. Paston seems to have
been detained in Norfolk by a dispute he had with his co-executors Judge
Yelverton[209-1] and William Jenney, who refused to acknowledge his
claims as chief administrator of Fastolf’s will, and had entered on the
possession of some of Sir John’s manors in Suffolk, near the borders of
Norfolk.[209-2] But his absence from London had done great mischief. Not
only Howard, but the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk were endeavouring to
put him out of the king’s favour; and it was said that Caister would be
given to the king’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester.[209-3] Worst
of all, however, was the fact that the king, who had evidently had a
good opinion of Paston hitherto, was beginning to alter his tone so
seriously. [Sidenote: John Paston imprisoned.] No time, therefore, was
to be lost in going up to London, and no marvel though, when he got
there, he was immediately committed to the Fleet.[209-4]

    [Footnote 209-1: I have already indicated my belief that Judge
    Yelverton was the real person nicknamed Colinus Gallicus in Friar
    Brackley’s letters. It is quite clear by No. 404 (one of the
    letters found after the text of Mr. Arber’s edition had passed
    through the press) that Colinus Gallicus not only could not have
    been Worcester, but that he was a man of some social standing on
    familiar terms with the Earl of Wiltshire. This, and the fact that
    he was one of Fastolf’s executors, seem to prove his identity. It
    is a satisfaction to find that, though Brackley did not love
    William Worcester, the bitter words in No. 383 were not levelled
    at him. Thus he wrote while Sir John Fastolf was on his deathbed:
    ‘Colinus Gallicus says in Yarmouth and other places that he is an
    executor. He said also yesterday before several persons, if once
    he were in London, he wishes never to see Norfolk. He says also,
    whereas the executors think they will have keys, after the death
    others will have keys as well as they. He is a very deceitful man
    (_falsissimus_). . . . That same Gallicus intensely hates the
    rector (Howes), and would like to supplant him.’]

    [Footnote 209-2: No. 481.]

    [Footnote 209-3: Nos. 482, 484.]

    [Footnote 209-4: No. 488.]

John Paston’s enemies, acting in several ways, had now done their worst.
While the news of his dispute with Howard was reported to the king in
the most unfavourable terms, Judge Yelverton (he had been made Sir
William Yelverton at the coronation)[209-5] and William Jenney entered
Sir John Fastolf’s manor of Cotton in Suffolk, [Sidenote: Manor of
Cotton.] and distrained upon the tenants for rent. John Paston’s
faithful servant, Richard Calle, at first interrupted their proceedings,
and when Jenney went to hold a court at Cotton, entered the place before
he came, along with Paston’s eldest son. By Calle’s activity and
watchfulness the court was holden in Paston’s name, although it had been
summoned in Jenney’s; and young John Paston next day, to requite the
enemy for the trouble they had occasioned, took with him thirty men, and
rode to Jenney’s place, where he carried off thirty-six head of neat,
and brought them into Norfolk. This was a bold exploit, for the enemy
had threatened to drag him and Calle out of the place by violence; but
Calle still remained, and twelve men with him, and kept possession for
five whole days, during which time he visited the farmers and tenants of
the manor, and ascertained that they were all well disposed towards
Paston, and would pay no money to any one else. But, unfortunately, just
at this point came the summons to Paston which he did not dare to
disobey; and his opponents knew how to profit by his absence and
imprisonment in London. Yelverton and Jenney did not re-enter the manor
themselves; but Jenney sold his interest in it to one Gilbert Debenham,
who intended to give it to his son, Sir Gilbert, for a dwelling-house.
Accordingly, by the encouragement of Jenney and Debenham, a body of
unknown men took possession of the place, and garrisoned it against all
comers as strongly as they could. They broke down the drawbridge over
the moat, so that no one could enter the place except by means of a
ladder. They melted lead, and damaged the property in various ways,
while John Paston was a prisoner in the Fleet. At the same time
Yelverton and Jenney took proceedings against Richard Calle. They
succeeded in getting him imprisoned upon an indictment for felony in
Norfolk; and, fearing lest he should be acquitted upon that charge, they
‘certified insurrections’ against him in the King’s Bench, and sent the
sheriff a writ to bring him up to London in the beginning of
November.[210-1]

    [Footnote 209-5: No. 457.]

    [Footnote 210-1: Nos. 485-487.]

[Sidenote: John Paston released from prison.] But before the day that
Richard Calle was to appear in the King’s Bench John Paston was
delivered from the Fleet, and his adversary Howard was sent to prison in
his place. The whole circumstances of the controversy had been laid
before the king, and Paston was released after about a fortnight’s
imprisonment. The news that he had got into trouble had excited much
sympathy in Norwich, for he was highly popular, and Howard’s attempt to
set aside his election met with very little approbation. Margaret
Paston, especially, was sad and downcast at home, and though her husband
had sent her comfortable messages and letters showing that his case was
not so bad as it appeared to be, ‘yet I could not be merry,’ she wrote
to him, ‘till this day that the Mayor sent to me, and sent me word that
he had knowledge for very truth that ye were delivered out of the
Fleet.’[211-1]

    [Footnote 211-1: No. 488.]

The king was much interested in the dispute, and was laudably determined
to insist upon justice and fair dealing. He appointed Sir Thomas
Montgomery, one of the knights of his own household, in whom he had
special confidence, sheriff of Norfolk for the ensuing year. And when
Sir Thomas went down into Norfolk, he sent Sir William Yelverton along
with him, who, though not very favourably disposed towards Paston, was
still one of the justices, and bound to be impartial. Edward gave them
both a very explicit message from his own mouth to declare to the people
in the shire house, and Yelverton was made the spokesman. [Sidenote:
Message from the king to the people of Norfolk.] He said the king had
been greatly displeased to hear that there had been ‘a riotous
fellowship’ in the county, but that he understood it was not owing to
disaffection on the part of the people generally--that it had been
stirred up only by two or three evil-disposed persons--that he and the
sheriff were there by the king’s command, ready to receive complaints
from any man against any one whomsoever--and that if they could not
prevail upon the wrongdoer to make restitution, the bills should be sent
to the king; moreover, that if any man was afraid to set forth his
grievances, he should have full protection. At this point Yelverton
asked the sheriff if he remembered anything more in the king’s message,
and requested him in that case to declare it himself. The sheriff said
Sir William had set forth everything, except that the king had made
special reference to two persons, Sir Thomas Tuddenham and Heydon. ‘Ah,
that is truth,’ said Yelverton; and he explained that any one who wished
to complain of them should be protected also. The sheriff then added a
few words for his part, in which he promised faithfully before all the
people, ‘and swore by great oaths,’ that neither by fear nor by favour
would he be restrained from communicating to the king the truth as he
found it to be.[212-1]

    [Footnote 212-1: Nos. 497, 500.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1462.] All this was reassuring; but yet it was remarked
that John Paston did not come home again into Norfolk, and neither did
his colleague in the representation of the county, John Berney of
Witchingham. This alone caused Margaret Paston still to entertain
apprehensions for her husband’s safety, and her suspicions were shared
by many, who feared that they and Paston alike were involved in some new
charges of sedition. Busybodies, it was thought, had been insinuating to
the king that a very rebellious spirit prevailed in Norfolk, and report
said that the Dukes of Clarence and Suffolk would come down with certain
judges commissioned to try such persons as were ‘noised riotous.’ The
rumour scarcely tended to pacify discontent. If it were true, people
said they might as well go up to the king in a body to complain of those
who had done them wrong, and not wait quietly to be hanged at their own
doors. The Duke of Suffolk and his mother were the maintainers of those
who oppressed the country most, and nothing but severity could be
expected from a commission of which the duke was a member, unless his
influence were counteracted by that of more popular persons.[212-2]
These misgivings, however, were happily soon after set at rest. The
election of John Paston was confirmed, and no such dreaded commission
appears to have been sent into Norfolk. ‘The people of that country,’
wrote Margaret Paston to her husband, ‘be right glad that the day went
with you on Monday as it did. You were never so welcome into Norfolk as
ye shall be when ye come home, I trow.’[212-3] Paston, in fact, appears
to have gained a complete triumph over his adversaries, and it was said
that Howard was likely to lose his head.[212-4]

    [Footnote 212-2: No. 504.]

    [Footnote 212-3: No. 505.]

    [Footnote 212-4: No. 510.]

But the dispute with Yelverton and Jenney was still unsettled. Writs
were sent down into Norfolk to attach John Paston’s eldest son and
Richard Calle upon indictments of trespass, and Debenham threatened to
hold a court at Calcot in defiance of Paston’s agents.[212-5] It is
evident, too, that he made good his word, and John Paston in consequence
got his tenants to bring actions against him.[213-1] Cross pleas between
the parties occupied the courts at Westminster for a year or more,
during which time we find it suggested to John Paston that he would
never get leave to live in peace, unless he could by some means obtain
‘the good lordship’ of the Duke of Suffolk.[213-2] Appeals to law and
justice were all very well, and no one fought his battle in the courts
with more unflinching energy than Paston; but unless he wished to be
always fighting, the best way for him was to obtain the favour of the
great.

    [Footnote 212-5: No. 538.]

    [Footnote 213-1: No. 540.]

    [Footnote 213-2: No. 544.]

It is a question, indeed, whether in this eternal turmoil of litigation
at Westminster, and watch to keep out intruders in his Suffolk manors,
John Paston had not to some extent neglected his duty to his children at
home. Such, at least, was the world’s opinion, and there were candid
friends who did not hesitate to tell him so. [Sidenote: Sir John
Paston.] His eldest son now attained the age of twenty-one, and received
the dignity of knighthood--probably, as we have before suggested, as a
substitute for himself. [Sidenote: A.D. 1463.] The young man had been
summoned four years before to attend and do military service to King
Henry VI.[213-3] He had since been for some little time a member of King
Edward’s household, travelling about with the court from place to
place.[213-4] But he had scarcely seen the usual amount of service, and
though now of full age, and known as Sir John Paston, knight, he was
living again under his father’s roof, wasting his time, as it was
considered, in inglorious ease. ‘At reverence of God, take heed,’ wrote
some one to his father, ‘for I hear much talking thereof. . . . Some say
that he and ye stand both out of the king’s good grace, and some say
that ye keep him at home for niggardship, and will nothing spend upon
him; and so each man says his advice as it pleases him to talk. And I
have inquired and said the most cause is in party for cause ye are so
much out, that he is rather at home for the safeguard of the
coasts.’[213-5]

    [Footnote 213-3: No. 377.]

    [Footnote 213-4: Nos. 477, 478, 511.]

    [Footnote 213-5: No. 550.]

The protection of the coast, especially about Yarmouth, might well be an
object in which John Paston was specially concerned, for close to
Yarmouth lay Caister Castle. And he had actually procured a commission
for his son to be captain of a ship in the king’s service, called the
_Barge of Yarmouth_. But here again he was brought into collision with
Gilbert Debenham, who had already procured a commission to the same
effect for himself, and this field of usefulness seems to have been cut
off.[214-1] Confinement at home, to superintend his father’s servants,
did not suit the young man’s tastes. Once before he had displeased his
father, probably by seeking too much liberty.[214-2] He now not only
sought it, but took it without leave. [Sidenote: He leaves home.]
Without signifying his intention to any one, he stole away from Caister,
apparently with the view of joining himself again to the king’s
household. In passing by Lynn, he wrote a penitent letter to his mother,
expressing his fear that he had done wrong, and given her uneasiness.
And, in truth, she was by no means pleased; for hitherto in their little
disagreements she had stood between him and his father, and now her own
past efforts at conciliation caused his father to suspect that she had
been privy to his escape. If on any occasion Margaret Paston ever
deceived her husband, it must have been for the sake of shielding one of
her sons; but we are not warranted in believing even this. The
imputation in this instance was certainly untrue; but so great was the
offence taken by the father, that she durst not even let him know that
she had received a letter from her son since his departure. She,
however, wrote to the runaway, and charged him, as he valued her
blessing, to do all in his power to recover his father’s goodwill. He
must write to his offended parent again and again in the most humble
terms he could think of, giving him all the news from court, and taking
far more pains than he had done at home to avoid incurring
expenses.[214-3]

    [Footnote 214-1: Nos. 521-3.]

    [Footnote 214-2: Nos. 375, 377.]

    [Footnote 214-3: No. 552.]

[Sidenote: John Paston the youngest.] For his second son John’s setting
out in life, the father had made better provision than for his eldest.
He had succeeded in getting him placed in the household of the new Duke
of Norfolk, the last of the Mowbrays, who succeeded his father towards
the close of the year 1461, the first year of King Edward’s reign. It
was the preceding duke who had occupied Caister just before the
coronation; but he died on the 6th November following, at the beginning
of Edward’s first Parliament, when his son and heir had just attained
the age of seventeen.[215-1] John Paston the father evidently hoped to
have the young duke for his friend, and so to maintain himself in
undisturbed possession of the lands which he claimed under Sir John
Fastolf’s will. His son must have been as nearly as possible of the same
age as the young nobleman, in whose service he was placed, and he was
soon made familiar with the stir and bustle of life. At first he went
down with the duke to his castle of Holt, in Wales, where he expected to
keep his Christmas. The young duke, who was already married, being
desired by the king to repair thither for the quiet of the country, had
left his wife behind him, but after a while proposed to send for her to
keep Christmas in Wales along with him. This intention, however, he was
compelled to abandon. At that very time Queen Margaret had come out of
France, and had won the castle of Bamborough: [Sidenote: Bamborough
Castle taken by Margaret of Anjou.] and though Warwick was sent to the
north as the king’s lieutenant, and the king himself was following with
an army of his own, it was shortly afterwards determined that the Duke
of Norfolk also should repair into Northumberland. [Sidenote: A.D. 1462.
Oct.] The castles of Alnwick, Dunstanborough, and Bamborough were
invested by the royal forces; but it was fully expected the Scots would
make a strong attempt to rescue them. The Earl of Warwick’s headquarters
were at Warkworth, three miles out of Alnwick, but he rode daily to each
of the three castles to superintend the siege operations at each. The
Duke of Norfolk had the task assigned him to conduct the victuals and
ordnance from Newcastle. The king himself lay at Durham; and young John
Paston had an opportunity of making acquaintance with a number of
influential persons, including the Lord Hastings and Lord Dacres, who
had continual access to the presence of their sovereign. Altogether,
John Paston the youngest had certainly begun the world well.[215-2]

    [Footnote 215-1: Fabyan. _Inquisition p. m._, 1 Edward IV., No.
    46.]

    [Footnote 215-2: Nos. 532, 533.]

Of the other children of John and Margaret Paston it is unnecessary to
say anything at present. At the time of which we now treat there was
hardly one of them far advanced beyond childhood; nor do they, in fact,
occupy very much attention even in later years, although we shall meet
with casual notices of one or two of them.


_Troubles of John Paston_

On the whole, though the conduct of one of them had not given him entire
satisfaction, the two eldest sons of John Paston had probably both been
of some service to their father in maintaining his influence at court.
And this must have been a matter of no small consequence in the
continued struggle that he was obliged to maintain with adversaries like
Yelverton and Jenney. The dispute with them had now assumed another
form. [Sidenote: A.D. 1464.] [Sidenote: Litigation touching Fastolf’s
will.] Sir William Yelverton, in conjunction with our old friend William
Worcester, was contesting in the spiritual court of Canterbury the claim
put forward by Paston to be the chief executor under Sir John Fastolf’s
will; while at the same time William Jenney, and one William Hogan, by
Jenney’s procurement, took actions for trespass against him in the
Suffolk county court. Paston trusted to his influence with the king to
deliver him from these vexatious suits. He neglected to put in an
appearance at four several county courts, and allowed himself to be put
in exigent, while he followed the king to Marlborough, and obtained from
him a licence for the erection of the college at Caister provided for in
Fastolf’s will. Along with this the king covenanted to give him a free
pardon when required for all offences against the peace, to save him
harmless against Yelverton and Jenney; but undertook at the same time to
cause inquiry to be made into the substance of their accusations, and if
these proved to be unfounded, to compel them to make Paston
compensation.[216-1]

    [Footnote 216-1: Nos. 568-9, 571-2.]

Paston had partly trusted to the friendship of William Calthorpe, who
was at this time Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, to protect him against
outlawry. His servant Richard Calle offered surety that Paston would
save the sheriff harmless, either by making an appearance at a later
date or by producing a _supersedeas_; and he requested that upon this
assurance the sheriff would return that his master had appeared the
first day. Calthorpe had every wish to do Paston a kindness; though he
confessed that Jenney had been his good friend and legal adviser for two
years past, Paston was still more his friend than Jenney, and he
promised to do all that was required.[217-1] But this promise he failed
to fulfil. Paston’s non-appearance was proclaimed at four successive
county courts at Ipswich; and a writ of exigent was granted against him.
Paston obtained a _supersedeas_ from the king at Fotheringay on the 3rd
August; [Sidenote: John Paston outlawed.] but in the end judgment was
given against him in Suffolk on the 10th September, and he was
proclaimed an outlaw. On the 3rd November following he was committed to
the Fleet prison.[217-2]

    [Footnote 217-1: No. 572.]

    [Footnote 217-2: No. 572. Itin. W. Worc., 366. Those who are
    interested in the subject may be referred to the Year Books of
    Mich. and Hil. 4 Edw. iv. for pleadings as to the validity of the
    outlawry and _supersedeas_. These, however, are purely technical
    and of no interest to the general reader.]

  [[Mich. and Hil. 4 Edw. iv.
  _typography unchanged: expected form “Edw. IV.”_]]

This was his second experience of captivity since the death of Sir John
Fastolf. We do not know that he ever suffered it before that time; but
he was now paying the penalty of increased importance. His detention on
this occasion does not seem to have been of long duration; but if we are
right in the interpretation of a sarcastic anonymous letter[217-3] found
among his correspondence, his fellow-prisoners threw out surmises when
he left that the Fleet would see him yet a third time within its walls.
At least, this may or may not have been the purport of what is certainly
an ironical and ambiguous epistle addressed to him, we cannot tell by
whom. If it was so, the prediction was verified before another
twelvemonth had passed away.

    [Footnote 217-3: No. 574.]

How matters went during the winter we have very little indication,
except that Paston’s friend John Wykes, an officer of the king’s
household, [Sidenote: A.D. 1465. Feb. 7.] writes to Margaret Paston on
the 7th February from London, ‘that my master your husband, my mistress
your mother, my master Sir John, Mr. William, Mr. Clement, and all their
men, were in good health when this letter was written, thanked be Jesu;
and also their matters be in a good way, for my Lord Chancellor is their
singular good lord.’ The crisis in the affairs of the family was
certainly very serious, when old Agnes Paston, the judge’s widow (for I
have never found any other lady spoken of as Margaret Paston’s
‘mother’), took the trouble to go up to London to see them settled. It
appears that there was a little family council on the occasion, and John
Paston’s two brothers, William and Clement, together with his son Sir
John, were also present.[218-1] What kind of arrangement they all
succeeded in making we have no means of ascertaining; but the next
occasion of trouble to John Paston was not given by Yelverton and
Jenney.

    [Footnote 218-1: No. 576.]

[Sidenote: The Duke of Suffolk lays claim to Drayton.] The first
indications of it appear in a letter of Margaret Paston to her husband,
written on the 8th April 1465, by which we find that the Duke of Suffolk
had now set up a claim to Sir John Fastolf’s manor of Drayton, about
four miles north-west of Norwich. Margaret had also heard that he had
bought up the rights of a person named Brytyeff or Bryghtylhed, who laid
claim to the neighbouring manor of Hellesdon, a little nearer the city,
and that he intended to take possession after Easter.[218-2] The claim
appears to have been very ill founded, and the tenants, all but one or
two, were favourable to Paston.[218-3] Nevertheless Philip Lipyate, the
duke’s bailiff, began taking distresses, and carried off the horses of
one Dorlet as he was about to yoke them to his plough. But Margaret
Paston, who had been staying at Caister, after waiting till her son Sir
John could come to her, and leaving him to keep the castle, went over to
Hellesdon to collect the rents for her husband, and put a stop, if
possible, to the proceedings of the duke’s officers. She soon began to
feel that there was more need of a captain like her son Sir John at
Hellesdon than at Caister. One single tenant named Piers Warin gave her
servants a little trouble, and they took from him two mares as security
for the rent. Warin made his complaint to Philip Lipyate and the duke’s
bailiff of Cossey, who came with a body of eightscore men in armour, and
took away the plough-horses of the parson and another tenant, intimating
that the beasts should not be restored unless their owners would appear
and give answer to certain matters at Drayton on the Tuesday following.
The duke’s men further threatened that if Paston’s servants ventured to
take any further distresses in Drayton, even if it were but of the value
of a hen, they would take the value of an ox in Hellesdon.[219-1]

    [Footnote 218-2: No. 578.]

    [Footnote 218-3: Nos. 579, 584.]

    [Footnote 219-1: Nos. 579, 581.]

John Paston, though not at this time in confinement, seems to have been
unable to leave London. But it was impossible that he could
underestimate the danger in which his property stood from the
pretensions of such a formidable neighbour as the Duke of Suffolk. The
letters written to him at this period by his wife are annotated all down
the margin with very brief rough jottings in his own handwriting, for
the most part only calling attention to the subjects touched upon in the
letter, but occasionally indicating what he was about to say in his
reply. He expressed, indeed, no great respect for the big threats of
Suffolk’s officers about taking the value of an ox for that of a hen,
which he characterised in the margin by the simple monosyllable ‘crack’;
but he noted, in the brief words ‘Periculum Heylesdon,’ the fact that
there was real cause for anxiety lest the duke, who had already occupied
Drayton, should drive him out of Hellesdon as well.[219-2]

    [Footnote 219-2: No. 581.]

The Bishop of Norwich had been appealed to, as chief justice of the
peace for the county, to use his influence with the Duke of Suffolk’s
officers, and especially with Philip Lipyate, who was a priest, and
subject to his jurisdiction, to bring the dispute to a peaceful
settlement. But John Paston probably trusted more to the fact that he
had men of his own ready to repel force by force. The parishes of
Hellesdon and Drayton are situated on the northern bank of the river
Wensum, partly on a low ridge which slopes downward towards the stream.
Opposite to Drayton, on the other side of the river, lay the Duke of
Suffolk’s mansion of Cossey,[219-3] from which, at any time that was
thought advisable, an armed band could be sent along with a distraining
officer to assert the duke’s alleged rights over the tenants. It was
really a case of two hostile camps keeping watch upon each other, and
each of them ready to take advantage of the other’s weakness. Not that
either of them pretended to be above the law, but the duke and Paston
each claimed to be lawful owner of the lordships of Hellesdon and
Drayton, and, until any legal settlement could be come to, each was well
aware of the importance of maintaining his claim by corresponding acts.
If the duke could levy a distress, so could Paston. His officers made an
inroad, undeterred by the menaces of the duke’s men, into Drayton, took
77 neat, and brought them home to Hellesdon. The tenants followed,
petitioning to have their cattle back again, but Margaret Paston told
them they must first pay such duties as they owed to her husband, or
find security to pay at such a day as she could agree to. An officer of
the duke named Harleston was at Norwich, and told them that if they
either paid or gave such surety they should be put out of their
holdings. Harleston had a conference with Margaret Paston in the
evening, but she refused to redeliver the distress on any other terms
than those she had already intimated. This was on a Saturday evening. On
Monday following a replevin was served upon her in the name of
Harleston, who was under-steward of the duchy of Lancaster, on the
ground that the cattle had been taken within the fee of the duchy.
Margaret refused to deliver them until she had ascertained whether this
was actually the case, and on inquiry she found that it was not so. The
beasts were accordingly still detained in Hellesdon pin-fold, and
Pynchemore, the officer who had brought the replevin, was obliged to
return to his master. But in the afternoon he came again with a replevin
under the seal of the sheriff of Norfolk, which it was impossible
lawfully to disobey. So the beasts were at last taken out of the
pin-fold and redelivered to the tenants.[220-1]

    [Footnote 219-3: Now commonly spelt Costessey, but pronounced, as
    it is usually spelt in the Paston Letters, Cossey.]

    [Footnote 220-1: No. 583.]

This sort of quasi-legal warfare continued for weeks and for months.
At one time there would be a lull; but again it was reported that the
duke’s men were busier. The duke himself was coming to Cossey, and his
servants boasted openly that he would have Drayton in peace and then
Hellesdon.[221-1] And not very long after the duke did come to Norfolk,
raising people on his way both in Norfolk and Suffolk,--for an attack,
as every one knew, on Paston’s stronghold at Hellesdon, which was now
placed in the keeping of his son Sir John.[221-2]

    [Footnote 221-1: No. 585.]

    [Footnote 221-2: No. 592.]

[Sidenote: Attempt of the duke’s men on Hellesdon.] On Monday the 8th
July, Philip Lipyate and the bailiff of Cossey, with about 300 men, came
before Hellesdon, but, finding Sir John Paston quite prepared for them,
professed they had no intention of attempting to force an entry. For Sir
John had a garrison of 60 men within the place, and such a quantity of
guns and ordnance that the assailants would certainly have had the worst
of it. Lipyate and the bailiff, however, informed Sir John that they had
a warrant to attach John Daubeney, Wykes, Richard Calle, and some
others. Sir John replied that they were not within, and if they had been
he would not have delivered them. Afterwards it was mutually agreed that
the Duke of Suffolk should dismiss his men and Sir John Paston should do
the same. But this only transferred the scene of action to Norwich,
where Richard Calle was attacked by twelve men in the streets and only
rescued by the sheriff; nor did he escape without the pleasant assurance
that if he were caught another time he would be put to death, so that he
did not dare ride out without an escort. Daubeney and Wykes were in a
similar state of apprehension, and to crown all, it was said that there
was to be a special commission to inquire of riots, in which the Duke of
Suffolk and Yelverton would be commissioners. If so, every man that had
taken Paston’s part was pretty sure of being hanged.[221-3]

    [Footnote 221-3: No. 593.]

Sir John Paston, however, acquired great credit for having withstood
so numerous a force as Lipyate and the bailiff of Cossey had brought
against him. It will be readily understood that his position must have
been a strong one. He and his mother were then living at a mansion in
Hellesdon, which probably stood on comparatively low ground near the
river.[222-1] But on the brow of the hill, nearer Drayton, stood a
quadrangular fortress of which the ruins still exist, known at this day
by the name of Drayton Lodge. This lodge lay within what was then called
Hellesdon Warren, and commanded the entrance to the property. From its
elevated position it must have been peculiarly difficult to attack. The
country around was open heath, and the approach of an enemy could be
descried distinctly in the distance. From the mansion below, where he
had quartered his garrison of 60 men, he could doubtless bring up with
ease at any time as many as seemed necessary for the defence of the
lodge;[222-2] while from the battlements of the lodge a heavy fire could
be opened on the advancing foe.[222-3]

    [Footnote 222-1: At Hellesdon North Hall, the property of Mr.
    J. H. Gurney, old foundations have been recently discovered, which
    are in all probability those of John Paston’s house. The place is
    about 400 yards from Hellesdon Church.]

    [Footnote 222-2: One day in the beginning of May as many as sixty
    men were placed in the lodge itself, and kept there all day. At
    that time an attack was continually expected, but not more than
    sixteen or twenty persons could sleep in the building. _See_ No.
    581, at p. 139 (vol. iv.).]

    [Footnote 222-3: ‘The ruined Lodge at Drayton’ is the subject of
    an interesting paper by the late Mr. Henry Harrod in the _Norfolk
    Archæology_, vol. ii. p. 363. There are no remains of battlements
    now, but most probably they once existed.]

Living within a house that was threatened with siege, Margaret Paston,
at this juncture, seems to have taken an active part along with her son
in the preparations for defence. Her husband in London writes to her as
a commander-in-chief might do to the governor of a besieged fort:--‘In
good faith ye acquit you right well and discreetly, and heartily to your
worship and mine, and to the shame of your adversaries: and I am well
content that ye avowed that ye kept possession at Drayton and so would
do.’ But the task imposed upon her had impaired her health; and John
Paston, though for some potent reasons he was not able even now to come
to her aid, was anxious to give her every comfort and encouragement in
his power. ‘Take what may do your ease and spare not,’ he says in the
same letter; ‘and in any wise take no thought nor too much labour for
these matters, nor set it not so to your heart that ye fare the worse
for it. And as for the matter, so they overcome you not with force or
boasting, I shall have the manor surelier to me and mine than the duke
shall have Cossey, doubt ye not.’ In fact, if it were a question of law,
John Paston’s title seems to have been greatly superior to any that
could possibly have been advanced by the duke: in proof of which he
points out a few facts which he tells his wife she may if she think
proper lay before the Bishop of Norwich. The manor of Drayton had
belonged to a merchant of London called John Hellesdon, long before any
of the De la Poles held land in Norfolk or Suffolk. It had descended to
his daughter Alice, and John Paston was able to show his title to her
property. On the other hand he traced the pedigree of the Duke of
Suffolk from ‘one William Poole of Hull, which was a worshipful man
grown by fortune of the world,’ and whose son Michael, the first Earl of
Suffolk, had been so created by King Richard II. since Paston’s father
was born; and if any of their lineage held the manor of Drayton he would
lose £100, if the duke would be bound in as much to prove the contrary.
But the duke must not expect him to show his title to one who tried to
oust him by violence. On this point John Paston was resolute. ‘Let my
lord of Norwich wit that it is not profitable, nor the common weal of
gentlemen, that any gentleman should be compelled by an entry of a lord
to show his evidence or title to his land, nor I will not begin that
example ne thraldom, of gentlemen nor of other. It is good a lord take
sad counsel ere he begin any such matter.’[223-1]

    [Footnote 223-1: No. 595.]

It might have been supposed that after the duke’s attempt on Hellesdon,
nothing but impediments of the most serious kind would have prevented
John Paston from going down to Norfolk to take charge of his own
interests and relieve his wife’s anxiety. But it appears that he hardly
expected to be able to leave London, and in the same letter from which
we have just been quoting he desires that if he be not home within three
weeks his wife will come to him. In that case she is, before leaving, to
put everything under proper rule both at Caister and Hellesdon, ‘if the
war hold.’ The state of matters between him and Suffolk was such as
could only be spoken of as a state of war, even by plain matter-of-fact
John Paston. And if the enemy offered peace his wife was to send him
word.

What could have been the obstacle that prevented John Paston leaving
London? It appears for one thing that he was at this time called upon to
undergo an examination before the spiritual court of Canterbury, in
defence of his claim to be Sir John Fastolf’s executor. This alone was,
perhaps, sufficient to detain him, for it was a thing on which his most
important interests depended. But there is no doubt that additional
obstacles were raised up for him expressly by the malice of his enemies;
[Sidenote: John Paston imprisoned a third time.] for it could not have
been many weeks after his first examination that John Paston again found
himself a prisoner in the Fleet, and within the walls of that prison his
further depositions were taken.[224-1]

    [Footnote 224-1: No. 606.]

It was the malicious ingenuity of Judge Yelverton that had devised the
means to inflict upon him this new incarceration. And the means employed
were such as to make captivity doubly painful and humiliating. The
king’s clandestine marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had taken place in
May of the preceding year. At Michaelmas it was openly avowed; and if it
displeased, as no doubt it did, Warwick and the old nobility, even from
the first, it informed a whole world of time-servers and place-hunters
that there was a new avenue to fortune in securing the favour of the
Woodvilles. Already Rivers had been created Lord Treasurer and advanced
to the dignity of an earldom. Already marriages had been made for the
queen’s brothers and sisters, which were evidently provocative of envy,
jealousy, and indignation.[224-2] The king’s liberality towards his new
relations was unbounded, and sycophants were not wanting to suggest to
him how he might gratify their cupidity, sometimes at the expense of
others than himself. Sir William Yelverton, accordingly, contrived to
whisper in the royal ear that the king might fairly dispose of some fine
property in Norfolk and Suffolk; for John Paston, who claimed to be the
owner, was come of servile blood, and was really the king’s
bondman.[225-1]

    [Footnote 224-2: W. Worc. _Annales_, 501, 506.]

    [Footnote 225-1: _Itin._ Will. de Worc., 323.]

The reader will remember the curious paper[225-2] in which it is set
forth that the grandfather and father of John Paston had held lands in
the village of Paston, by servile tenures, and that John Paston himself,
without having any manor place, was endeavouring to ‘make himself a
lordship there,’ to the prejudice of the duchy of Lancaster. There can
be little doubt that this statement was drawn up in the year 1465 and
that its author was Judge Yelverton. He had been at this time
endeavouring to ingratiate himself with Anthony Woodville, Lord Scales,
the queen’s brother, and it was in the interest of that nobleman that he
made this attempt to asperse the lineage of the Pastons. [Sidenote: Lord
Scales seeks to obtain Caister.] For Lord Scales had begun to cast
covetous eyes on the magnificent castle at Caister; and if it were but
satisfactorily shown that John Paston was disqualified from possessing
it, no doubt the king, his brother-in-law, would be only too willing to
grant it to himself. The case was already prejudged; Caister and the
lordship of Cotton as well were his by anticipation, and some time
before Paston was committed to prison it was known that Lord Scales
meant to ride down into Norfolk and oust him from his property.[225-3]

    [Footnote 225-2: _See_ pp. 28, 29.]

  [[pp. 28-29 = letter headed “A remembrance of the worshipful kin
  and ancestry of Paston”]]

    [Footnote 225-3: No. 598. It appears by the city records of
    Norwich, an extract from which, kindly communicated to me by the
    Rev. William Hudson, will be found in the Appendix to this
    Introduction, that Lord Scales arrived in the city ‘a second time’
    towards the close of the year 1465--apparently just before
    Christmas day, for the date was within eighteen days of a document
    dated 10th January, 5 Edward IV.--for the express purpose of
    taking possession of all the goods and chattels of John Paston,
    whom the king had seized as his ‘native.’ This raised an awkward
    question about the privileges of the city, in which John Paston
    possessed a house. But the civic authorities found a way out of
    the difficulty, and agreed that Lord Scales should be allowed to
    enter by the act of John Paston’s feoffees; for it was understood
    that certain aldermen and common council men were co-feoffees
    along with him, of the messuage which he held. Thus the city’s
    liberty was theoretically preserved without offence to the higher
    powers.]

Although John Paston was thus unable to go home, as he wished to do,
neither was Margaret Paston able for some time to go up and see him in
London, as he had desired her. Wykes, who had promised to keep
possession of the place at Hellesdon in her absence, did not go down
into Norfolk so soon as he had intended, but remained in London taking
care of Paston’s interests in another fashion in conferences with
Nevill, Archbishop of York, at that time Lord Chancellor. Perhaps
already the influence of Archbishop Nevill, like that of his brother the
Earl of Warwick, had begun to decline, and Wykes was really wasting his
labour in complaining to his lordship of the riotous attempt made by the
Duke of Suffolk’s men at Hellesdon. There was but one pretext on which
the outrage could be justified,--a matter concerning the payment of 100
marks, but the money had been paid long ago. His lordship, however,
durst swear the Duchess of Suffolk had no knowledge of it; and with that
he left town, promising an answer when he came back next Tuesday.[226-1]

    [Footnote 226-1: No. 598.]

But Margaret Paston, though she could not yet come up to London, did not
spend the time at home unprofitably. The judges had come down to Norwich
on their circuit, when Margaret endeavoured to secure the advantage she
had already gained in keeping possession at Drayton by getting a manor
court held there in her husband’s name. But to do this she required the
services of one or more faithful dependants who did not mind incurring a
little personal risk in the interest of John Paston. Not many,
certainly, were disposed to undertake the task. John Paston had written
to his wife to have a body of men to escort the officer that would keep
the court for him. But upon consultation it was thought better to keep
all the men they could in reserve, as the duke’s officers had no less
than 500 men ready to take advantage of the opportunity to force an
entry into Hellesdon.

[Sidenote: Attempt of Margaret Paston to hold a court at Drayton.]
Thomas Bond and an attached and confidential priest named Sir James
Gloys were adventurous enough to go to Drayton alone for the purpose of
holding a court on Lammas Day. They found, as might have been expected,
that officers of the Duke of Suffolk were there before them. Harleston,
along with Philip Lipyate, the parson of Salle, and William Yelverton,
a grandson of the judge, who was to sit as steward, were in the courtyard
of the manor, prepared to hold the court in the Duke of Suffolk’s name.
They were accompanied by about sixty persons or more, besides the
tenants of Drayton, some having rusty poleaxes and bills to enforce
respect for the duke’s authority. In the face of this array, however,
Bond and Gloys announced that they came to keep the court in the name of
John Paston; on which the former was immediately delivered into the
custody of William Ducket, a new bailiff of Drayton appointed by the
duke, and was carried off to Cossey, his arms bound behind him with
whipcord like a thief. But Margaret Paston spoke with the judges next
morning before they went to the shirehouse, in presence of the bailiff
of Cossey and the whole of the duke’s council; and the judges calling
the bailiff before them, gave him a severe reproof, and sent the sheriff
to see what company had been mustered at Drayton. The sheriff rode first
to Hellesdon, and expressed himself satisfied with the demeanour of
Paston’s men there. When he came to Drayton, the bands of Suffolk’s
retainers had disappeared. He demanded that Thomas Bond should be
delivered to him, and was told that he had been sent to the Duke of
Suffolk; but he was afterwards delivered to him at Norwich, with a
request that he should not be set at liberty without a fine, as he had
troubled the king’s leet. The judges, however, on being informed of the
real state of the case, commanded him to be set at liberty, and
pronounced a very strong censure on the conduct of Suffolk’s
officers.[227-1]

    [Footnote 227-1: No. 599.]

As for the manors of Caister and Cotton, it does not appear that Lord
Scales ever carried out his intention so far as the latter was
concerned; nor had he taken possession even of the former some time
after John Paston was committed to the Fleet. That occurrence must have
taken place about the middle of the month of August,[227-2] and towards
the end of September we have evidence that Sir John Paston was in
Caister Castle keeping possession for his father.[227-3] But the Paston
family had been warned of the danger, and we may be well assured that
they did not neglect the warning in either case. Indeed, the question
how to make matters secure at Caister seems to have been the principal
difficulty that caused Margaret to delay her journey up to London. As to
Cotton, we shall see ere long that very effectual means were taken to
secure possession there.

    [Footnote 227-2: On the 18th August Margaret Paston was still
    hoping that her husband would find it possible to come home
    himself, and save her the necessity of going up to London to see
    him. _See_ No. 604. But we know that he was imprisoned before the
    28th of the month. No. 606.]

    [Footnote 227-3: No. 610 (vol. iv. p. 192).]

[Sidenote: Margaret Paston visits her husband in prison.] It would
appear that when Margaret knew her husband was in prison she determined
to delay no longer, but to visit him in London at all costs. Early in
September she had already gone to him, and her son, John Paston the
youngest, wrote to her from Norwich on the 14th, advising her, among
other things, to visit the Rood of North-door (a cross beside St. Paul’s
Cathedral), and St. Saviour’s at Bermondsey, during her stay in the
capital. ‘And let my sister Margery,’ he suggests, ‘go with you, to pray
to them that she may have a good husband or she come home again.’ It is
difficult to tell whether this means devotion or sightseeing, jest or
earnest. The young man had already seen a good deal of life, and was
familiar with the principal attractions of the great city, to which in
all probability his mother was as great a stranger as his young sister.
Even the dame who had the care of his father’s apartments in the prison
was not unknown apparently to John Paston the youngest. ‘And the Holy
Trinity,’ he writes, ‘have you in keeping, and my fair Mistress of the
Fleet.’

John Paston the father does not seem to have been very uncomfortable in
prison. He made friends in the place of his confinement, and among other
persons became acquainted with Henry, Lord Percy, son of the attainted
Earl of Northumberland, who was afterwards restored by King Edward to
his father’s earldom. His spirits, indeed, if we may judge from his
correspondence, were at this time particularly buoyant; for after his
wife had taken leave of him to return homeward he wrote her a letter the
latter half of which was composed of doggerel rhyme, jesting about
having robbed her portmanteau, and referring her for redress to Richard
Calle, whose ears he bade her nail to the post if he did not pay her the
value. In none of his previous correspondence does he indulge in verse
or betray anything of this rollicking humour. The only subject on which
he even insinuates a complaint is the weather, which seems to have been
unnaturally cold for September. He speaks of it satirically as ‘this
cold winter,’ and wishes his wife to send him some worsted for doublets
in which to protect himself from the severity of the season. But even in
this we can tell that he is jesting, for he explains himself that he
wishes to have a doublet entirely composed of the wool manufactured at
Worsted, for the credit of his native county. And so far is he from
wishing it for the sake of warmth, that he particularly desires to
procure a fine quality of worsted ‘almost like silk,’ of which William
Paston’s tippet was composed.[229-1]

    [Footnote 229-1: No. 609.]

[Sidenote: Margaret Paston enters Cotton.] On her way back to Norfolk,
Margaret Paston entered the manor of Cotton and remained in it for three
days. She had sent a message to her son John Paston the youngest at
Hellesdon to come and meet her there,[229-2] and he came along with
Wykes and twelve others, whom she had left at her departure to keep
possession and collect the rents. It was within a week of Michaelmas
Day, when rents fell due. As yet Lord Scales had made no attempt to
seize upon this property. Sir Gilbert Debenham had occupied the manor
for some years undisturbed, and he was doubtless considerably taken by
surprise when he found that a lady on her way home from London had
entered and taken possession in the name of John Paston. But when he
heard that young John Paston was gathering money of the tenants, he
raised a body of 300 men to expel the intruder. Young John Paston was
expecting reinforcements to his little band from Caister or elsewhere,
but they did not come; so that his position would have been a critical
one had not some one been his friend in the household of the Duke of
Norfolk. Sir Gilbert was the duke’s steward, and John Paston the
youngest was still in the duke’s service. A yeoman of his lordship’s
chamber represented to that nobleman that there was imminent risk of a
quarrel between two of his men, which would be a great ‘disworship’ to
his grace. The duke sent for the two immediately to attend upon him at
Framlingham Castle, and proposed to them terms of compromise until the
matter could be thoroughly investigated. He desired that neither party
should muster men, that the court should be ‘continued’--that is to say,
adjourned--till he himself should have had an opportunity of speaking
both with John Paston the father and on the other side with Yelverton
and Jenney, who had conveyed to Debenham the title on which he founded
his claim to the manor. Meanwhile he proposed that the place should be
kept by some indifferent person to be chosen by both parties.

    [Footnote 229-2: _See_ No. 613. The heading of this letter is
    unfortunately wrong. Deceived by the facsimile to which Fenn
    refers as showing the character of the signature, I attributed the
    letter to Sir John Paston. But Margaret Paston expressly says it
    was John Paston the younger whom she left at Cotton (No. 610), and
    this letter must therefore have been written by him. Besides, the
    writer himself mentions that the dispute with Debenham was
    referred to the Duke of Norfolk to avoid the scandal of a quarrel
    _between two of his men_. It was not Sir John Paston, but his
    brother, that was in the Duke of Norfolk’s service.]

To these terms John Paston the youngest would not assent without
consulting his mother, who had again come over from Norwich, or perhaps
from Caister, to see how matters went. But after a conference, they sent
an answer to the duke, declaring that they could not give up possession
of the place, but out of their anxiety for peace, and to satisfy his
lordship, they were willing to desist meanwhile from collecting rents,
if the opposite party would engage not to distrain or keep courts there
either. To this compromise Sir Gilbert said that he agreed, provided it
met with the approval of Yelverton and Jenney; and the Duke of Norfolk,
who was going up to London in anticipation of his birthday when he
attained his majority, left all the sooner in the hope of bringing this
matter to a favourable settlement.[230-1]

    [Footnote 230-1: Nos. 613, 614.]

Thus far, at least, the entry into Cotton had been a distinct success.
The compromise was greatly in favour of the Pastons, for an appeal to
force would almost certainly have gone against them, and, though they
engaged for the time to abstain from taking more money of the tenants,
they had already succeeded in collecting almost all that they expected
to receive for Michaelmas term.[230-2] So Margaret Paston on her return
to Norfolk, and her son, when he was summoned to London shortly
afterwards, to attend the duke on his coming of age,[231-1] may each
have left Cotton with feelings akin to triumph. But scarcely had the
former returned to Norwich when she discovered to her dismay that her
clever manœuvre in Suffolk had left the family interests insufficiently
protected elsewhere. The Duke of Suffolk had not only a great number of
men at Cossey, but he had a powerful friend within the city of Norwich.
Thomas Elys, the new mayor, was so flagrantly partial, that he had said
at Drayton he would supply my lord of Suffolk with a hundred men
whenever he should require them, and if any men of the city went to
Paston he would lay them fast in prison.[231-2] Hellesdon,
unfortunately, lay midway between Cossey and the city of Norwich, and as
it was not now assize time there was practically no control over such
magnates as the Duke of Suffolk and the mayor. So, on the morning of
Tuesday the 15th of October, one Bottisforth, who was bailiff for the
duke at Eye, came to Hellesdon, arrested four of John Paston’s servants,
and carried them off to Cossey without a warrant from any justice of the
peace. His intention, he said, was to convey them to Eye prison along
with as many more of Paston’s adherents as he could lay his hands on.
That same day the duke came to Norwich with a retinue of 500 men. He
sent for the mayor and aldermen with the sheriffs, and desired them in
the king’s name to make inquiry of the constables in every ward of the
city what men had taken part with Paston in recent gatherings. Any such
persons he requested that they would arrest and punish, and send their
names to him by eight o’clock on the following day. On this the mayor
arrested one Robert Lovegold, brasier, and threatened him that he should
be hanged, though he had only been with Margaret Paston at Lammas, when
she was menaced by the companies of Harleston and the bailiff of
Cossey.[231-3]

    [Footnote 230-2: No. 613.]

    [Footnote 231-1: No. 614.]

    [Footnote 231-2: No. 581.]

    [Footnote 231-3: No. 616.]

[Sidenote: Attack on Hellesdon.] Scarcely one of Paston’s servants now
durst openly show himself abroad, and, the duke having the city at his
command, his followers made, that same Tuesday, a regular assault on the
place at Hellesdon. The slender garrison knew that it was madness to
resist, and no opposition was offered. The duke’s men took possession,
and set John Paston’s own tenants to work, very much against their
wills, to destroy the mansion and break down the walls of the lodge,
while they themselves ransacked the church, turned out the parson, and
spoiled the images. They also pillaged very completely every house in
the village. As for John Paston’s own place, they stripped it completely
bare; and whatever there was of lead, brass, pewter, iron, doors, or
gates, or other things that they could not conveniently carry off, they
hacked and hewed them to pieces. The duke rode through Hellesdon to
Drayton the following day, while his men were still busy completing the
work of destruction by the demolition of the lodge. The wreck of the
building, with the rents they made in its walls, is visible even
now.[232-1]

    [Footnote 232-1: Nos. 616, 617.]

This was carrying things with the high hand; but it did not improve the
Duke of Suffolk’s popularity at Norwich, and it created no small
sympathy with Paston and his tenants. ‘There cometh much people daily,’
wrote Margaret Paston to her husband, ‘to wonder thereupon, both of
Norwich and of other places, and they speak shamefully thereof. The duke
had been better than a thousand pound that it had never been done; and
ye have the more good will of the people that it is so foully done.’
Margaret was anxious that the effects of the outrage should be seen
before winter came on by some one specially sent from the king to view
and report upon the ruin. But no redress was obtained while her husband
lived, and even some years after his death his sons petitioned for it in
vain.


_John Paston’s Latter Days_

The chagrin and mortification inflicted upon John Paston by an injury
like this may not unlikely have contributed to shorten his days. The
correspondence is scanty from the end of October 1465 till some time
after his death, which occurred in London in May of the following year.
We know nothing of the nature of the illness which carried him off; but
three imprisonments in the course of five years, accompanied with a
great deal of anxiety about his newly acquired property, the intrigues
of lawyers and the enmity of great men, must have exercised a depressing
influence even on the stoutest heart. He appears to have been released
from prison some time before his death, [Sidenote: A.D. 1466.] and was
so far well in February that he had a conference in Westminster Hall
with William Jenney, who desired at last to come to some agreement with
him. But the great lawsuit about Fastolf’s will remained still
undecided, and he left to his son Sir John an inheritance troubled by a
disputed claim. He died on the 21st or 22nd May[233-1] 1466. His remains
were carried down into Norfolk and buried with great magnificence in
Bromholm Abbey.[233-2]

    [Footnote 233-1: No. 648. I do not know Fenn’s authority for
    saying it was on the 26th May. Perhaps it is only a misprint.]

    [Footnote 233-2: No. 637.]

Of his character we see fewer indications than might have been expected
in a correspondence extending over more than twenty years, and perhaps
we are in danger of judging him too much from the negative point of
view. A man of business habits and of little humour, but apparently of
elastic spirits and thorough knowledge of the world, he was not easily
conquered by any difficulties or overwhelmed by misfortunes. His early
experience in that dispute with Lord Molynes about Gresham must have
taught him, if he needed teaching, the crookedness of the times in which
he lived, and the hopelessness of trusting to mere abstract right and
justice for the protection of his own interests. But by unwearied
energy, by constant watchfulness, by cultivating the friendship of Sir
John Fastolf and the goodwill of the world in general, he succeeded in
asserting for himself a position of some importance in his native
county. That he was, at the same time, grasping and selfish to some
extent, is no more than what we might be prepared to expect; and it
would seem there were complaints to this effect even among the members
of his own family.[233-3] As a parent he appears to have been somewhat
unamiable and cold-hearted. Yet it is mainly to his self-seeking,
businesslike character that we owe the preservation of so valuable a
correspondence. He knew well the importance of letters and of documents
when rights came to be contested, and he was far more anxious about
their security than about all the rest of his goods and chattels.[234-1]

    [Footnote 233-3: Nos. 644, 645.]

    [Footnote 234-1: No. 649.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Fastolf’s will.] Such being the nature of the man,
and his personal history being as we have seen, what are we to say of
the dark suspicion thrown upon his conduct in one important matter by
his personal enemy Sir William Yelverton, and even by his quondam friend
William Worcester? If their contention was true, the great addition made
to the fortunes of the Paston family on the death of Sir John Fastolf
was only due to a successful forgery. The will on which John Paston
founded his claim to Caister, as well as to the manors of Drayton and
Hellesdon, Cotton, Calcotes, and the whole of Fastolf’s lands in the
counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, was denounced by them as a fabrication
and not the genuine will of Sir John Fastolf. And we must own that there
are many things which seem to make the imputation credible. We have,
unfortunately, only a portion of the depositions taken in the lawsuit,
and these are entirely those of the adverse party, with the exception of
two separate and individual testimonies given in Paston’s favour.[234-2]
We ought, therefore, undoubtedly to be on our guard against attaching
undue weight to the many allegations of perjury and corruption against
Paston’s witnesses, as it is certainly quite conceivable that the
interested testimony was on the other side, and it is truly shown in
John Paston’s own comments upon the evidence that the proofs given were
insufficient. But, on the other hand, it is a very suspicious
circumstance that a will drawn up by Fastolf on the 14th June before his
death, was altered on the 3rd November so as to confer special powers in
the administration to John Paston and Thomas Howes, and to give a large
beneficiary interest to the former.[234-3] It is also singular that
there should be three separate instruments of this latter date, each
professing to be Fastolf’s will.[234-4] And it by no means tends to
allay suspicion when we find that two years after John Paston’s death,
and very shortly before his own, the parson Thomas Howes, a Grey Friar,
and partner with him in the principal charge of the administration of
the alleged last will, made a declaration ‘for the discharge of his
conscience’ that the document was a fabrication.[235-1]

    [Footnote 234-2: Nos. 541, 543.]

    [Footnote 234-3: No. 385.]

    [Footnote 234-4: Nos. 385-387.]

    [Footnote 235-1: No. 689.]

This evidence might seem at first sight decisive and extremely damaging
to the character of John Paston. But even here we must not be too
precipitate in our conclusion. It is, for one thing, fairly open to
remark that if this subsequent declaration of Sir Thomas Howes was an
impeachment of Paston’s honesty, it was no less so of his own; so that
it becomes a question whether he was more honest at the time he was
acting in concurrence with Paston or at the time of his professed
repentance when he made this declaration. But on the whole we may admit
that the latter alternative is more probable, and we frankly own it as
our belief that Sir Thomas Howes, in his latter days, felt scruples of
conscience with regard to the part he had taken in defending for his
master Paston the validity of what, after all, he considered to be a
questionable document. Yet what are we to say, in this case, to the
testimony of another Grey Friar, our old friend Dr. Brackley, who had
drawn up the final agreement between Fastolf and Paston relative to the
college, got it engrossed on indented parchment, read it to Sir John,
and saw him put his seal to it?[235-2] It was Brackley’s dying
testimony, when he was shriven by Friar Mowth, and informed that there
were serious imputations on his conduct in reference to this matter,
that as he would answer before God, in whose presence he was soon to
appear, the will which John Paston produced in court was the genuine
will of Sir John Fastolf. This testimony, too, he repeated unsolicited
when, after seeming to rally for a day or two, he sank again, and saw
himself once more in the presence of death.[235-3] Truly, if it seem
hard to doubt the declaration of Sir Thomas Howes, it is harder still to
cast suspicion on Brackley’s dying evidence.

    [Footnote 235-2: No. 606 (vol. iv. pp. 183-4).]

    [Footnote 235-3: No. 666.]

The true explanation of these discrepancies may, however, involve less
serious charges against the character either of Paston, Brackley, or
Howes than would at first sight appear inevitable. The question was not
really one about the authenticity of a document, but about the exact
nature of a dying man’s will. The document avowedly had not Fastolf’s
signature attached; it seems that he was too ill to write. For some
years before his death I do not find Fastolf’s own signature attached to
any of his letters. The point in dispute was whether it really
represented Fastolf’s latest intentions as to the disposal of his
property. True, it bore Fastolf’s seal of arms, which Yelverton and
Worcester at first endeavoured to prove must have been affixed to it
after his death. But Paston seems to have shown most successfully that
this was impossible, as Fastolf’s seal of arms was at his death
contained in a purse sealed with his signet, and the signet itself was
at that time taken off his finger, and sealed up in a chest under the
seals of several of the executors.[236-1] Moreover, Paston’s statements
went to show that the terms of the will were settled in various
conferences with Sir John during the months of September, October, and
the beginning of November, and that corrections had been made in it by
his express desire. With all this, however, it may have been a delicate
question whether the latest corrections were truly in accordance with
Fastolf’s mind, and doubts may have been fairly entertained on the
subject by Sir Thomas Howes; especially when we consider that on the day
the will was dated Fastolf was utterly unable to speak articulately, so
that no one could hear him without putting his ear close to the mouth of
the dying man.[236-2] With regard to John Paston’s part in the matter,
he was not present when Fastolf’s seal was put to the document, so that
the validity of that act rested entirely upon the testimony of others,
particularly Dr. Brackley. And as to the charge of his ‘fabricating’ the
will, it was never denied that he drew it up, or took a considerable
part in doing so; the only question is how far he did so in accordance
with Sir John Fastolf’s own instructions.

    [Footnote 236-1: No. 606 (vol. iv. p. 183).]

    [Footnote 236-2: No. 565 (vol. iv. p. 104); No. 639 (vol. iv. p.
    240).]

Some important matters of fact, indeed, were asserted by Paston in
support of his case, and contested by the opposite side. Among other
things, it was contended that in the autumn of the year 1457, two years
before his death, Sir John Fastolf had actually made estate to John
Paston of the manor of Caister and other lands in Norfolk, and thereupon
given him livery of seisin with a view to the foundation of the
college:[237-1] also that the will made in 1459 was an imperfect
document, in which no executors were named, and to which no seal was
attached.[237-2] If these allegations were true, there was, after all,
no great alteration in Sir John’s intentions during the last two years
of his life. On the other hand, Sir Thomas Howes, in his later
declaration, asserts that only a year before Fastolf’s death he had, at
Paston’s desire, urged Sir John to allow Paston to buy three of his
manors and live in his college; at which proposition the old knight
started with indignation, and declared with a great oath, ‘An I knew
that Paston would buy any of my lands or my goods, he should never be my
feoffee, nor mine executor.’ But even Howes acknowledges that he was
willing to allow Paston a lodging for term of his life within the manor
of Caister.[237-3]

    [Footnote 237-1: Vol. iii. No. 386; vol. iv. Nos. 541, 606 (p.
    183), 639 (p. 237).]

    [Footnote 237-2: No. 606, p. 182 (vol. iv.).]

    [Footnote 237-3: No. 689.]

The whole controversy affords certainly an admirable illustration of the
inconvenient state of the law before the passing of the Statute of Uses
in the days of Henry VIII. The hearing of all causes touching the wills
of dead men belonged to the spiritual courts of the Church, which did
not own the king’s jurisdiction. The king’s courts, on the other hand,
had cognisance of everything affecting real property. No lands or
tenements could be bequeathed by will, because the courts of common law
would not give effect to such an instrument. But legal ingenuity had
found the means to enable wealthy persons to bequeath their lands as
well as their goods to whomsoever they pleased. A man had only to
execute a conveyance of his lands to a body of trustees, who thereupon
became in law the owners, express provision being made at the same time
that they were to hold it for his use so long as he lived, and after his
death for the use of certain other persons named in his will, or for
such purposes as might therein be indicated. By this indirect means a
title in lands was very effectually conveyed to a legatee without any
abatement of the original owner’s control over his own property so long
as he lived. But the practice gave rise to a multitude of
inconveniences. Private bargains, legal quibbles and subtleties, crafty
influences brought to bear upon dying men, great uncertainty as to the
destination of certain properties, were among its frequent results. At
the very last moment, when the dying man, perhaps, was in imperfect
possession of his faculties, mere words, or even a nod or sign, might
affect the title to very large estates. And almost by the very nature of
the case, wherever a trust was instituted like that of Sir John Fastolf,
all the pettifogging devices of legal chicanery were necessarily brought
into play, either to establish a title or to contest it.[238-1]

    [Footnote 238-1: See the preamble to the Statute of Uses, 27 Henry
    VIII. c. 10.]


_Sir John Paston_

Sir John Paston now stepped into his father’s place, as heir to Caister
and to Fastolf’s other possessions in Norfolk and Suffolk. But before he
could vindicate his rights in any part of them it was necessary that he
should wipe out that stain upon his pedigree which had been devised by
calumny in bar of the claims made by his father. The case came before
the king himself in council. An array of court rolls and other ancient
records was produced by the family, to show that they had been lords of
the soil in Paston from a very remote period. Some of their title-deeds
went back as far as the reign of Henry III., and it was shown that their
ancestors had given lands to religious houses in that reign. Indeed, so
little truth was there in the imputation that John Paston the father was
a bondman, that his ancestors, certainly by the mother’s side if not by
the father’s also, had been the owners of bondmen. The evidences were
considered satisfactory, and the family were declared by the king’s
council to be fully cleared of the imputation. The lands, of which Lord
Scales had taken possession for about half a year,[239-1] were restored
to Sir John Paston by a warrant under the king’s signet, dated on the
26th July, little more than two months after the death of John Paston
the father.[239-2]

    [Footnote 239-1: _Itin._ W. Worc., 323, where it is said that Lord
    Scales ‘custodivit hospicium in Castre per spacium dimidii . . .’
    The blank must surely be supplied by the word _anni_.]

    [Footnote 239-2: Nos. 641, 643.]

[Sidenote: Tournament at Eltham.] After this Sir John Paston was much at
court, and Lord Scales became his special friend. Even as early as the
following April we find Sir John taking part in a tournament at Eltham,
in which the king, Lord Scales, and himself were upon one side.[239-3]
But the favour with which he was regarded at court both by the king and
the Lord Scales appeared more evidently one year later, [Sidenote: A.D.
1468.] when the king’s sister Margaret went over to the Low Countries to
be married to Charles, Duke of Burgundy. [Sidenote: Marriage of
Margaret, sister of Edward IV., to Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy.]
This match had been more than a year in contemplation, and was highly
popular in cementing the friendship of England and Burgundy in
opposition to France. On the 1st May 1467 a curious bargain or wager was
made by Sir John Paston as to the probability of its taking effect
within two years.[239-4] But on the 18th April 1468 he received a
summons from the king to be prepared to give his attendance on the
princess by the 1st June following, and to accompany her into
Flanders.[239-5] Not only he, but his brother John Paston the younger,
crossed the sea in the Lady Margaret’s train; and we are indebted to the
latter for an interesting account of the marriage and of the tournaments
which followed in honour of it. Young John Paston was greatly struck
with the splendour of the Burgundian court. He had never heard of
anything like it, he said, except the court of King Arthur.[239-6] But
his brother seems to have found another attraction abroad which
fascinated him quite as much as all the pageants and the tournaments in
honour of the Lady Margaret.

    [Footnote 239-3: No. 665.]

    [Footnote 239-4: No. 667.]

    [Footnote 239-5: No. 683.]

    [Footnote 239-6: No. 684.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Paston and Anne Haute.] There lived, probably in the
town of Calais, a certain Mrs. Anne Haute, a lady of English extraction
and related to Lord Scales, whom Sir John Paston seems on this occasion
to have met for the first time. Having been perhaps all her life abroad,
she appears to have had an imperfect command of the English language; at
least Sir John, in proposing to open a correspondence, wrote to her,
‘Mistress Annes, I am proud that ye can read English.’ For the rest we
must not attempt to portray the lady, of whose appearance and qualities
of mind or body we have no account whatever. But perhaps we may take it
for granted that she was really beautiful; for though Sir John was a
susceptible person, and had once been smitten before, his friend Daverse
declared him to be the best chooser of a gentlewoman that he
knew.[240-1] It is a pity that with this qualification his suit was not
more successful. It went on for several years, but was in the end broken
off, and Sir John Paston lived and died a bachelor.

    [Footnote 240-1: No. 660.]

[Sidenote: A troubled inheritance.] But Sir John was heir to the
troubles of a lawsuit, and his property was continually threatened by
various claimants both at Hellesdon and at Caister. His mother writes to
him on one occasion that Blickling of Hellesdon had come from London,
‘and maketh his boast that within this fortnight at Hellesdon should be
both new lords and new officers. And also this day Rysing of Fretton
should have heard said in divers places, there as he was in Suffolk,
that Fastolf of Cowhaw maketh all the strength that he may, and
proposeth him to assault Caister and to enter there if he may, insomuch
that it is said that he hath a five-score men ready, and sendeth daily
espies to understand what fellowship keep the place.’ For which reason
Margaret Paston urges her son to send home either his brothers or
Daubeney to command the garrison, for, as he well knew, she had been
‘affrayed’[240-2] there before this time, and she could not ‘well guide
nor rule soldiers.’[240-3] Another time it is intimated to Sir John that
the Duchess of Suffolk means to enter into Cotton suddenly at some time
when few men should know what she is going to do.[240-4] And this
intention she seems to have fully accomplished, for in the beginning of
the year 1469 the Earl of Oxford sends Sir John a friendly warning that
she means to hold a court there next Monday with a view to proving that
the manor of Cotton Hemnales is holden of her by knight’s
service.[241-1] So that altogether Sir John Paston’s inheritance was
held by a very precarious tenure, and his mother, like a prudent woman,
advises him ‘not to be too hasty to be married till ye were more sure of
your livelode.’[241-2]

    [Footnote 240-2: That is to say, menaced, if not attacked, an
    ‘affray’ being made upon her. It is curious to meet here our
    familiar word ‘afraid’ in its original form and signification.]

    [Footnote 240-3: No. 671.]

    [Footnote 240-4: No. 690.]

    [Footnote 241-1: No. 696.]

    [Footnote 241-2: No. 704.]

The old dispute with the executors, however, was compromised in the
court of audience: and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Waynflete,
and Lord Beauchamp granted to Sir John full right in the manor of
Caister, and a number of other lands both in Norfolk and Suffolk.[241-3]
Sir John soon afterwards conveyed a portion of the Suffolk property
called Hemnales in Cotton and the manor of Haynford to the Duke of
Norfolk and others.[241-4] William Worcester became friends with John
Paston’s widow, imputed his old misunderstanding with her husband to the
interference of others between them, and expressed himself well pleased
that Caister was to be at her command. ‘A rich jewel it is at need,’
writes Worcester, ‘for all the country in time of war; and my master
Fastolf would rather he had never builded it than it should be in the
governance of any sovereign that would oppress the country.’ At the same
time it seemed very doubtful whether Fastolf’s intention of founding the
college there could be carried out, and Worcester had some conferences
with Sir John Paston about establishing it at Cambridge. Bishop
Waynflete had already proposed doing so at Oxford; but Cambridge was
nearer to the county of Norfolk, and by buying a few advowsons of
wealthy parsonages an additional foundation might be established there
at considerably less cost than by the purchase of manors. In this
opinion Sir John Paston and William Worcester coincided, and the former
promised to urge it upon Bishop Waynflete.[241-5]

    [Footnote 241-3: No. 675. The deed, perhaps, was found to be
    irregular afterwards, for its general effect was confirmed about
    five months later by another instrument. No. 680.]

    [Footnote 241-4: No. 677.]

    [Footnote 241-5: No. 681.]

Sir John Paston had now some reason to expect that with the settlement
of this controversy he would have been left for life in peaceful
possession of Caister. That which his father had not been able to attain
was now apparently conceded to him: and even if Sir William Yelverton
was still dissatisfied, the other executors had formally recognised his
rights in the court of audience. But before many months had passed it
appeared that Yelverton could still be troublesome, and he found an ally
in one who had hitherto been his opponent. [Sidenote: Sir Thomas Howes
unites with Yelverton,] Sir Thomas Howes was probably failing in
health--for he seems to have died about the end of the year
1468[242-1]--when he made that declaration ‘for the discharge of his
conscience’ to which we have already alluded. Scruples seem to have
arisen in his mind as to the part he had taken with Sir John Paston’s
father in reference to the administration of Fastolf’s will, and he now
maintained that the will nuncupative which he himself had propounded
along with John Paston in opposition to an earlier will propounded by
Yelverton and Worcester, was a fabrication which did not truly express
the mind of the deceased. We may observe, though the subject is
exceedingly obscure, that of the three wills[242-2] printed in Volume
III., each of which professes to be the will of Sir John Fastolf, the
third, which is in Latin, is clearly a will nuncupative declaring the
testator’s mind in the third person, and defining the powers of the
executors in regard to his goods and chattels.[242-3]

    [Footnote 242-1: _See_ preliminary note to No. 703.]

    [Footnote 242-2: Nos. 385-7.]

    [Footnote 242-3: The other two have relation to his lands, and are
    not inconsistent with each other; but the first is drawn up in the
    name of the testator himself, while the second speaks of him in
    the third person. The second is, in fact, a note of various
    instructions given by the testator in reference to his property on
    the 2nd and 3rd days of November before he died, and its contents
    may have been fully embodied in the first, when the will was
    regularly drawn up; but the first is printed from a draft which is
    probably imperfect.]

  [[Sidenote: Sir Thomas Howes unites with Yelverton,
  _not an error: sentence continues below_]]

It was apparently this nuncupative will that Howes declared to be
spurious. The validity of the others touching his lands depended upon
the genuineness of a previous bargain made by Fastolf with John Paston,
which was also disputed. But it was the nuncupative will that appointed
ten executors and yet gave John Paston and Thomas Howes sole powers of
administration, except in cases where those two thought fit to ask their
assistance. This will seems to have been drawn up mainly by the
instrumentality of one Master John Smyth, whom Howes afterwards
denounced as ‘none wholesome counsellor.’[243-1] Howes now combined with
Yelverton in declaring it to be spurious.[243-2]

    [Footnote 243-1: No. 681.]

    [Footnote 243-2: Nos. 688-9.]

[Sidenote: and they sell Caister to the Duke of Norfolk.] The result of
this allegation was that Yelverton and Howes took it upon them, as
executors of Sir John Fastolf, to recommend to Archbishop Bourchier that
the Duke of Norfolk should be allowed to purchase the manor of Caister
and certain other lands in Norfolk, and that the money received for it
should be spent in charitable deeds for the good of Fastolf’s soul. The
transaction was not yet completed,[243-3] but the duke immediately
proceeded to act upon it just as if it were. He did not, indeed, at once
take possession of the place, but he warned the tenants of the manor to
pay no money to Sir John, and his agents even spoke as if they had the
king’s authority. On the other hand, Sir John had the support of
powerful men in the king’s council--no less persons than the great Earl
of Warwick and his brother, the Archbishop of York, who had lately been
Lord Chancellor, and was hoping to be so again. The Earl of Warwick had
spoken about the matter to the duke even in the king’s chamber, and the
archbishop had said, ‘rather than the land should go so, he would come
and dwell there himself.’ [Sidenote: Archbishop Nevill.] ‘Ye would
marvel,’ adds the correspondent who communicates the news to Sir John
Paston, ‘ye would marvel what hearts my lord hath gotten and how this
language put people in comfort.’ It had its effect upon the Duke of
Norfolk, who saw that he must not be too precipitate. He was urged on,
it seems, by the duchess his wife, but he would go and speak to her and
entreat her.[243-4]

    [Footnote 243-3: ‘The bargain is not yet made,’ says an anonymous
    writer on the 28th October. _See_ No. 690. Nevertheless an
    ostensible title had been conveyed to the duke by a formal
    document on the 1st October. _See_ No. 764.]

    [Footnote 243-4: Nos. 688, 690.]

On the other hand, Yelverton and Howes seem to have been pretty
confident that my Lord of York would not be chancellor again unless
their bargain with the duke was ratified. The Nevills were no longer
regarded with favour at court. The coolness which had existed between
the king and Warwick ever since the marriage with Elizabeth Woodville
had last year come to an open rupture, and the Archbishop of York had
been at the same time dismissed from the office of chancellor. Soon
after the new year a reconciliation was effected through the medium of
private friends, and the archbishop conducted his brother the Earl of
Warwick to the king at Coventry.[244-1] But real confidence was not
restored, and party spirit was anxious that it never should be. Nor
could the public at large, perhaps, imagine the deep grounds of distrust
that Warwick had already given to his sovereign.

    [Footnote 244-1: W. Worc., 512-13.]

Sir John Paston, nevertheless, was advised to put his trust chiefly in
the friendship of the Nevills and in the probable reinstatement of the
archbishop as Lord Chancellor. Another means, however, was not to be
neglected. Sir Thomas Howes might be gammoned, or bullied, or got over
in some way. He and Yelverton did not agree so well that it need be a
very hard matter to separate them. Sir John’s friends hoped to secure
for him the good offices of the Bishop of Ely and a certain Master
Tresham, who, it was thought, could put it nicely to Sir Thomas Howes
half in jest and half in earnest, putting him ‘in hope of the moon shone
in the water,’ and telling him that such efforts were made ‘that either
he should be a pope, or else in despair to be deprived _de omni
beneficio ecclesiastico_ for simony, lechery, perjury, and double
variable peevishness, and for administering without authority.’ Such
were a few of the humours of the controversy.[244-2]

    [Footnote 244-2: No. 690.]

[Sidenote: Sir John ‘wages’ men. A.D. 1469.] Better, however, than the
friendship of the great, was the security to be derived from keeping
Caister well guarded; and Sir John Paston immediately set about ‘waging’
men to add to the little garrison.[244-3] With this he seems to have
been much occupied from November till January following, when by
repeated letters from the king he was commanded to desist from making
any assembly of the lieges, and to appear personally before the council
at Westminster.[244-4] The matter, apparently, was hung up for a time
without any decision being come to by the council. The friendship of
Archbishop Nevill could have done little to recommend the cause of Sir
John Paston to the king. On the other hand, if favour had anything to do
with the result, his cause was warmly advocated by Lord Scales, the
king’s own brother-in-law, on account of Sir John’s intended marriage
with his kinswoman, Anne Haute.[245-1] And it is certain that Judge
Yelverton had conferences with Lord Scales in the hope of coming to some
kind of understanding. But King Edward, as we have already said, had a
real desire to be impartial in the disputes and quarrels of his
subjects; and doubtless it was from a feeling of this that Sir John
Paston and his mother rejoiced to hear that it was the king’s intention
to visit Norwich in the course of the ensuing summer. The rumour of this
intention, it was believed, had a powerful influence in inducing the
Duchess of Suffolk to remain at her family seat at Ewelme, in
Oxfordshire, that she might be out of the way if sent for by the king,
and plead age or sickness as her excuse.[245-2] The attempt made by her
son to dispossess Sir John Paston at Hellesdon could best be judged of
on the spot. And in Norfolk, too, the king would learn what was thought
of the Duke of Norfolk’s claim to Caister.

    [Footnote 244-3: No. 691.]

    [Footnote 244-4: No. 698.]

    [Footnote 245-1: Nos. 704, 706, 707.]

    [Footnote 245-2: No. 704.]

So it was hoped that the king’s presence in the county would tell most
favourably on Sir John Paston’s interests. And there was one
circumstance in particular of which advantage might be taken. As Edward
was to go from Norwich on pilgrimage to Walsingham, his way would of
necessity lie through Hellesdon and Drayton. The lodge whose walls the
Duke of Suffolk had caused to be broken down could hardly fail, from its
conspicuous position, to meet his eye, and perhaps some friend in the
king’s suite could be got to call his attention to it and tell him the
story of the outrage. This Thomas Wingfield engaged to do, and promised
to get the king’s own brother, the Duke of Gloucester, to join him in
pointing out the ruin. Promises were also obtained from Earl Rivers, the
queen’s father, and from her brother Lord Scales and Sir John Woodville,
that they would urge the king to command the Dukes of Norfolk and
Suffolk to forbear claiming title to the lands of Sir John Fastolf. And
by the time the king took his departure from Norwich the Pastons were
encouraged to believe that steps had already been taken to end their
controversy with one if not with both dukes. Unfortunately the belief,
or at least the hope that it gave rise to, proved to be utterly
unfounded.[246-1]

    [Footnote 246-1: No. 716.]

[Sidenote: The ruined lodge is shown to the king.] The king rode through
Hellesdon Warren on his way, as it had been expected that he would do.
The ruined lodge was pointed out to him by William Paston, Sir John’s
uncle; but his answer was altogether at variance with what the
Woodvilles had led them to expect. The king said the building might have
fallen by itself, and if it had been pulled down, as alleged, the
Pastons might have put in bills at the session of _Oyer and Terminer_
held by the judges when he was at Norwich. William Paston replied that
his nephew had been induced to hope the king himself would have procured
an amicable settlement with both the dukes, and therefore had forborne
to vindicate his rights by law. But the king said he would neither treat
nor speak for Sir John, but let the law take its course.[246-2]

    [Footnote 246-2: _Ibid._]


_Civil War--Public and Private_

Possibly on the eve of his departure from Norwich, the king had heard
news which took away all disposition he might once have entertained to
hear personally complaints against such noblemen as the Dukes of Norfolk
and Suffolk. [Sidenote: Robin of Redesdale’s rebellion.] It was just
about the time of the insurrection of Robin of Redesdale in Yorkshire--a
movement got up under fictitious names and really promoted by the
discontented Earl of Warwick. From the day that Edward IV. had announced
himself a married man, and disconcerted the subtle promoters of an
alliance with France through the medium of the French king’s
sister-in-law, Bona of Savoy,[246-3] the Earl of Warwick had not only
lost his old ascendency in the king’s councils, but had seen his policy
altogether thwarted and his own selfish interests continually set aside.
He had been from the first in favour of an amicable compromise of the
dispute with France, while the young king owed not a little of his
popularity to the belief that he would maintain the old pretensions of
England, and vindicate them if necessary upon the field of battle.
Disappointed of one mode of promoting a French alliance, he had been
disappointed still further in 1467, when the king, to humour his
inclinations for a while, sent him over to France on embassy. The result
was that he was magnificently entertained by Louis XI., captivated by
the bland familiarity of the French monarch, and became for ever after
his most ready and convenient tool. If he had anything to learn before
in the arts of diplomacy and statecraft, he came back from France a
most accomplished scholar. Edward, however, pursued a course of his own,
treated the French ambassadors in England with rudeness, and cultivated
instead a close alliance with Burgundy, the formidable rival and lately
the enemy of Louis. He contracted his sister Margaret to the Duke of
Burgundy’s eldest son, Charles, Count of Charolois, who became duke
himself in the following year, when the marriage was solemnised at
Bruges with a splendour no court in Europe could have rivalled. To crown
all, he announced in Parliament just before the marriage an intention to
invade France in person.[247-1]

    [Footnote 246-3: The story that the Earl of Warwick had gone to
    France to negotiate the marriage of Edward with Bona of Savoy,
    when Edward frustrated his diplomacy by marrying Elizabeth
    Woodville, is certainly not in accordance with facts. But the
    doubts of some modern historians that the project of such a match
    was ever entertained are quite set at rest by the evidence of two
    letters which have been recently printed in some of the
    publications of the Société de l’Histoire de France, to which
    attention is called by Mr. Kirk in his _History of Charles the
    Bold_ (vol. i. p. 415 note, and ii. p. 15 note). It appears that
    although the earl had not actually gone to France, he was expected
    there just at the time the secret of the king’s marriage was
    revealed. Nor can there be a reasonable doubt--indeed there is
    something like positive evidence to prove--that the first cause of
    the Earl of Warwick’s alienation from the king arose out of this
    matter. I ought to add that the merit of placing before us for the
    first time a clear view of the consequences of Edward IV.’s
    marriage, in its bearing alike on the domestic history of England
    and on Edward’s relations with France and Burgundy, is due to Mr.
    Kirk.]

    [Footnote 247-1: W. Worc., 513-14.]

The Earl of Warwick dissembled. Charles of Burgundy was the man he hated
most,[247-2] but he conducted the Princess Margaret to the coast on her
way to Flanders. A number of personal wrongs and disappointments also
rankled in his breast, and gave birth to sinister projects for
gratifying a wounded ambition, and taking revenge upon an ungrateful
king, who owed it in no small degree to himself that he was king at all.
As yet Edward was without an heir-male. He had two daughters;[248-1] but
in the succession a brother might perhaps be preferred to a female.
Warwick could marry his eldest daughter to George, Duke of Clarence, and
encourage that vain prince in his expectation of the crown. The earl was
governor of Calais. At midsummer in the year 1469 the Duke of Clarence
stole across the sea without the leave of his brother, and landed in a
territory where Warwick was like an independent king. There the wedding
was celebrated by the Archbishop of York, the Earl of Warwick’s brother.
Soon after it was over, the duke, the earl, and the archbishop returned
to England.

    [Footnote 247-2: _Contin. of Croyland Chronicle_, p. 551.]

    [Footnote 248-1: The two eldest daughters of Edward IV. were born
    in the years 1465 and 1466; the third, Cecily, in the latter end
    of 1469. _See_ Green’s _Princesses_, vol. iii.; also an article by
    Sir Frederic Madden, in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1831 (vol.
    ci. pt. i., p. 24).]

And now it was that the king, after leaving Norwich and visiting the
famous shrine at Walsingham, found himself compelled to turn his steps
northwards and face the insurrection that had been secretly stirred up
by Warwick and his own brother. It appears by the Privy Seal dates that
he had reached Lynn on the 26th June.[248-2] He passed on through
Wisbeach with a company of two hundred horse to Crowland Abbey, where he
stayed a night, and sailed from thence through the fenny country up the
Nen to his father’s castle of Fotheringay, one of his own favourite
residences.[248-3] From thence, when a number of troops had flocked to
his standard from all parts of the kingdom, he marched northwards to
Nottingham; where, apparently, he learned, to his no little
mortification, that his brother Clarence was in alliance with the Earl
of Warwick and Archbishop Nevill, and that it was questionable whether
they had not too good an understanding with the rebels in the North.
That such was the actual fact we know to a certainty. The insurgents
disseminated papers complaining that the kingdom was misgoverned, in
consequence of the undue influence of the queen’s relations and one or
two other councillors, who had impoverished the crown by procuring large
grants of crown lands to themselves, and who had caused the king to
tamper with the currency and impose inordinate taxes. Worst of all, they
had estranged the true lords of the king’s blood from his secret
council, and thereby prevented any check being placed on their rapacity
and misconduct.[249-1]

    [Footnote 248-2: He seems to have left Norwich on the 21st. There
    are Privy Seals dated on that day, some at Norwich and some at
    Walsingham.]

    [Footnote 248-3: _Contin. Chron. Croyl._ p. 542.]

    [Footnote 249-1: _See_ the petition printed by Halliwell in his
    notes to _Warkworth’s Chronicle_, pp. 47-51.]

The Duke of Clarence, with Warwick and the archbishop, had no sooner
landed from Calais, than copies of these manifestoes were laid before
them, which they took it upon them to regard in the light of a petition
calling upon the lords of England generally, and themselves in
particular, to redress the evils of the state. They declared the
petition just and reasonable, promised to lay it before the king, and by
a proclamation under their signets, dated the 12th day of July, called
upon all who loved the common weal to meet them at Canterbury on Sunday
following, armed and arrayed to the best of their power.[249-2] Three
days before the date of this proclamation, the king at Nottingham had
addressed letters to the duke, earl, and archbishop separately, desiring
credence for Sir Thomas Montgomery and Maurice Berkeley, and expressing
a hope that the current rumour as to their intentions was
erroneous.[249-3] A hope altogether vain. The king was surrounded with
enemies, and no plan of action could be arranged among his friends.
Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, whom he had summoned from Wales, met at
Banbury with Humphrey, Lord Strafford of Southwick, lately created Earl
of Devonshire,[249-4] who came out of Devonshire to do battle with the
rebels. But the two leaders had a dispute about quarters; the Earl of
Devonshire withdrew eight or ten miles back; and Sir William Conyers,
the rebel captain, who had adopted the name Robin of Redesdale,
[Sidenote: Battle of Hedgecote, 26th July.] came down upon the Earl of
Pembroke and defeated him with great slaughter. The earl himself and his
brother Sir Richard Herbert were taken prisoners, and were shortly
afterwards put to death at Coventry, along with Lord Rivers and his son
Sir John Woodville, who were about the same time captured in the Forest
of Dean in Gloucestershire. They had parted from the king in alarm
before he came to Nottingham, and fled for safety towards Wales; but
their flight was to no purpose. [Sidenote: The king taken prisoner.]
Before their execution--apparently some time during the month of
August--the king himself was taken prisoner near Coventry by the
confederate lords, and led to Warwick Castle; from which place he was,
soon after his committal, transferred to Middleham, another castle of
the Earl of Warwick, in Yorkshire.[250-1]

    [Footnote 249-2: _See_ the proclamation immediately preceding the
    above petition in the notes to _Warkworth’s Chronicle_, pp. 46-7.]

    [Footnote 249-3: No. 719.]

    [Footnote 249-4: No. 714.]

    [Footnote 250-1: _Contin. Chron. Croyl._ pp. 542, 551. There are
    Privy Seals dated on the 2nd August at Coventry; on the 9th, 12th,
    and 13th at Warwick; and on the 25th and 28th at Middleham.]

He was shortly afterwards released, and arrived in London in the
beginning of October. It was not easy to say what to do with such a
prisoner, and Warwick thought it best to let him go. He had done enough
for the present to show his power and wreak his revenge upon the
Woodvilles; and Edward, even when he was set at liberty, saw clearly
that prudence required him to forget the affront and not show himself in
any way offended.[250-2]

    [Footnote 250-2: No. 736.]

But what kind of order could have prevailed throughout the kingdom at a
time when the king was a captive in the hands of his own subjects? For
the most part we know nothing of the facts, but perhaps we may judge to
some extent from what took place in a small corner of the county of
Norfolk. [Sidenote: Siege of Caister, A.D. 1469, Aug.] On Monday the
21st August,[250-3] the Duke of Norfolk began to lay a regular siege to
Caister Castle. Sir John Paston was at the time in London, and his
brother John kept the place as his lieutenant. At first the duke sent
Sir John Heveningham, a kinsman of Sir John Fastolf, to demand peaceable
entry, on the ground that he had bought the manor from Fastolf’s
executor Yelverton; but on being refused admittance, he surrounded the
castle with a body of 3000 men.[251-1] Those within were not wholly
unprepared. They had rather more than a month’s supply of victuals and
gunpowder, but they were only a handful of men. Sir John Heveningham,
who was appointed by the duke one of the captains of the besieging
force, had hitherto been friendly to the Paston family. He came and
visited old Agnes Paston at Norwich, and Margaret Paston thought he
might be induced to show a little favour to messengers coming from
herself or her son Sir John. But this he steadily refused to do, and
made a very suspicious suggestion for the settlement of the controversy,
which he requested Margaret to write to her son Sir John in London.
Could not the duke be allowed to enter peaceably on giving surety to Sir
John to recompense all wrongs, if the law should afterwards declare the
right to be in him? ‘Be ye advised,’ wrote Margaret, ‘what answer ye
will give.’[251-2]

    [Footnote 250-3: At least William Worcester, in his _Itinerary_,
    p. 321, seems to indicate in very bad Latin that the siege began
    on the Monday before St. Bartholomew’s Day, which in 1469 would be
    the 21st August. Yet a very bewildering sentence just before would
    imply that the siege began either on the Feast of the Assumption
    of the Virgin (15th August) or on St. Bartholomew’s Day itself
    (24th August), and that it lasted five weeks and three days. But
    we know that the castle surrendered on the 26th September, so that
    if the duration of the siege was five weeks and three days it must
    have begun on the 19th August, a different date still. William
    Worcester’s habit of continually jotting down memoranda in his
    commonplace books has been of very great service to the historian
    of this disordered epoch; but his memoranda reflect the character
    of the times in their confusion, inconsistency, and
    contradictions.]

    [Footnote 251-1: _Itin._ W. de Worc., 325.]

    [Footnote 251-2: No. 720.]

Other proposals were shortly afterwards made on the duke’s behalf,
nearly the same in character but with somewhat greater show of fairness.
The place, it was suggested, might be put in the keeping of indifferent
parties, who would receive the profits for the benefit of whoever should
prove to be the true claimant until the right could be determined, the
duke and Paston both giving security not to disturb these occupants in
the meanwhile. But who could be relied upon as indifferent, or what
power existed in the kingdom to secure impartiality at a time when the
king himself was a prisoner in the hands of his enemies? Margaret Paston
could but forward these suggestions to her son, with a warning to lose
no time in making up his mind about them. ‘Send word how ye will be
demeaned by as good advice as ye can get, and make no longer delay, for
they must needs have hasty succour that be in the place; for they be
sore hurt and have none help. And if they have hasty help, it shall be
the greatest worship that ever ye had. And if they be not holpen it
shall be to you a great disworship; and look never to have favour of
your neighbours and friends but if this speed well.’[252-1]

    [Footnote 252-1: No. 720.]

Unfortunately the only relief which Sir John Paston had it easily in his
power to obtain for the garrison was not in the shape of succours. Sir
John was in London, and did not know for certain how long they had the
power to hold out. But he addressed his complaints to the Duke of
Clarence and Archbishop Nevill, who now ruled in the name of the captive
king, and one Writtill, a servant of the former, was sent down to
procure a suspension of hostilities, preparatory, if possible, to a
settlement of the controversy. Terms were agreed upon by the lords in
London which it was thought might be honourably offered to both parties.
Apparently it was proposed that the Earl of Oxford, as a neutral person,
should be allowed to keep the place until a final decision had been come
to by a competent tribunal. But the Duke of Norfolk, after agreeing to
the suspension of hostilities, which only diminished by so many days’
allowance the scanty provisions of the garrison, utterly rejected the
conditions which some of his own relations in the king’s council had
given it as their opinion that he ought not to refuse. On the other
hand, Sir John Paston in London, fondly believing that the store of
victuals within the place would last a much longer period, caught at an
eager hope of obtaining a message from the king which would compel
Norfolk to withdraw his forces, and in this idle expectation he was
foolish enough to urge Writtill to get the truce prolonged a few days
further. Shortly afterwards he received a letter from his mother which
ought to have opened his eyes. Victuals, she informed him, were failing
in the garrison; his brother and the little band within stood in great
danger; Daubeney and Berney, two of their captains, were dead, and
several others were wounded; the walls were severely battered, and the
supply of gunpowder and arrows would very soon be exhausted. Since
Writtill’s attempt at negotiation the Duke of Norfolk had been more
determined than ever to win the place, and with a view to a grand
assault, whenever the truce should expire, he had sent for all his
tenants to be there on Holy Rood day, the 14th September. If Sir John
Paston had it in his power to relieve the garrison, let him do it at
once. If not, let him obtain letters from the Duke of Clarence or the
lords in London addressed to the Duke of Norfolk, to allow them to quit
the place with their lives and goods.[253-1]

    [Footnote 253-1: Nos. 722-6.]

Sir John Paston still would not believe that the case was desperate. He
had repeatedly declared that his desire to preserve the stronghold was
exceeded only by his anxiety for the lives of his brother and those
within. But what evidence was there to justify his mother’s
apprehensions? Daubeney and Berney had been alive the Saturday before,
and since that day no one could have got leave to pass outside. Truce
had been prolonged till Monday following, and he expected it to be
renewed for another week. He had heard far worse tidings before than his
mother told him now. As for means of relief to the besieged, the Duke of
Clarence and Archbishop Nevill were no longer in London, but he was
expecting an answer from the king in Yorkshire, which ought to arrive by
Wednesday at farthest, and his mother might rest assured there could not
possibly be any fear of victuals or gunpowder running short. When all
else failed, a rescue he would certainly procure, if all the lands he
held in England and all the friends he had would enable him to obtain
it. But this was the very last remedy that could be thought of. It would
not agree with the attempt to get the king or lords to interfere. It
would besides cost fully a thousand crowns, and how to raise the money
he was not sure. How much could his mother herself raise by mortgage,
and what friends could she obtain to give their aid?[253-2]

    [Footnote 253-2: No. 725.]

[Sidenote: Caister surrenders.] Unluckily, while Sir John Paston was
devising means how, after another week or fortnight’s truce, effectual
relief might at last be conveyed to the besieged, they were reduced to
such extremities as to be compelled to capitulate. Owing to the
representations that had been made in their behalf by Cardinal Bourchier
and the Duke of Clarence, Norfolk allowed them to pass out in freedom,
with bag and baggage, horses and harness, leaving only behind them their
guns, crossbows and ‘quarrels.’[254-1] Thus, after some weeks’ suspense
and the loss of one valuable soldier (Margaret Paston was misinformed
about Berney being dead as well as Daubeney), the great castle in which
Fastolf intended the Pastons to reside and to found a college, and which
he was anxious that no great lord should occupy, fell into the hands of
the most powerful nobleman of Eastern England.[254-2]

    [Footnote 254-1: Square pyramids of iron which were shot out of
    crossbows. The word is of French origin and was originally
    _quarreaux_.]

    [Footnote 254-2: Nos. 730, 731.]

Sir John Paston had now lost the fairest gem of his inheritance--or, as
he and his contemporaries called it, of his ‘livelode.’[254-3] Hence it
was become all the more important that he should see to the remainder.
Just before the surrender of Caister, in answer to his appeal to see
what money she could raise, his mother by a great effort obtained for
him £10 on sureties, but it was all spent immediately in paying the
discharged garrison and some other matters. Ways and means must be found
to obtain money, for even his mother’s rents did not come in as they
ought to have done, and she expected to be reduced to borrowing, or
breaking up her household. On consideration, he determined to part with
the manor of East Beckham, and to ascertain what was likely to be
realised by selling a quantity of wood at Sporle. The sale of East
Beckham--with all Paston’s lands both in East and West Beckham, Bodham,
Sherringham, Beeston-near-the-Sea, Runton, Shipden, Felbrigg, Aylmerton,
Sustead and Gresham, places which lie a few miles to the west and south
of Cromer--was at length completed for the sum of 100 marks.[254-4]

    [Footnote 254-3: The modern confusion of this word with
    _livelihood_--a word which properly means a lively condition--is
    one of the things that would be unpardonable did not usage pardon
    everything in language.]

    [Footnote 254-4: Nos. 733, 737, 738.]

It was unfortunate for Sir John Paston’s interests that at such a time
as this he happened to have a misunderstanding with his most faithful
bailiff and general manager of his property, Richard Calle. The
title-deeds of Beckham were in Calle’s hands, but he at once gave up,
when required, both these and every one of the documents in his
possession relating to Paston’s lands, and made a clear account of
everything to John Paston the younger.[255-1] The coolness had arisen
some months before the siege; the cause was a very old, old story.
Richard Calle had presumed to fall in love with Sir John Paston’s sister
Margery. [Sidenote: Richard Calle and Margery Paston.] Margery Paston
had not disdained to return his affection. She at once fell into
disgrace with the whole family. Her eldest brother, Sir John, was in
London when he heard of it, and it was insinuated to him that the matter
was quite well known to his brother John and met with his approval. John
the younger hastened to disavow the imputation. A little diplomacy had
been used by Calle, who got a friend to inquire of him whether the
engagement was a settled thing, intimating that if it were not he knew
of a good marriage for the lady. But young John saw through the
artifice, and gave the mediator an answer designed to set the question
at rest for ever. ‘I answered him,’ writes young John himself to his
brother, ‘that an my father (whom God assoil) were alive, and had
consented thereto, and my mother and ye both, he should never have my
goodwill for to make my sister to sell candle and mustard in
Framlingham.’ If such a prospect did not disgust Margery herself, it was
clear she must have a very strong will of her own.[255-2]

    [Footnote 255-1: No. 737.]

    [Footnote 255-2: No. 710.]

The anger of her relations was painful to bear in the extreme. For some
time Margery found it difficult to avow that she had fairly plighted her
troth to one who was deemed such an unequal match. For what was plighted
troth in the eye of God but matrimony itself? Even the Church
acknowledged it as no less binding. Once that was avowed, the question
was at an end, and no human hands could untie the knot. To interfere
with it was deadly sin. Hence Richard Calle implored the woman of his
love to emancipate both herself and him from an intolerable position by
one act of boldness. ‘I suppose, an ye tell them sadly the truth, they
would not damn their souls for us.’[255-3] But it required much courage
to take the step which when taken must be decisive. The avowal was at
last made, and though the family would fain have suppressed it or got
the poor girl to deny what she said, her lover appealed to the Bishop of
Norwich to inquire into the matter, and free the point from any
ambiguity. The bishop could not refuse. He sent for Margery Paston and
for Richard Calle, and examined them both apart. He told the former that
he was informed she loved one of whom her friends did not approve,
reminded her of the great disadvantage and shame she would incur if she
were not guided by their advice, and said he must inquire into the words
that had passed between her and her lover, whether they amounted to
matrimony or not. On this she told him what she had said to Calle, and
added that if those words did not make it sure she would make it surer
before she left the bishop’s presence, for she thought herself in
conscience bound to Calle, whatever the words were. Then Calle himself
was examined, and his statements agreed with hers as to the nature of
the pledges given and the time and place when it was done. The bishop
then said that in case other impediments were found he would delay
giving sentence till the Wednesday or Thursday after Michaelmas.[256-1]

    [Footnote 255-3: No. 713.]

    [Footnote 256-1: No. 721.]

When Margery Paston returned from her examination her mother’s door was
shut against her, and the bishop was forced to find a lodging for her
until the day that he was to give sentence. Before that day came
occurred the loss of Caister. The fortunes of the Paston family were
diminished, and Sir John began to feel that he at least could ill afford
to lose the services of one who had been such a faithful and attached
dependant. In writing to his mother he expressed a wish merely that the
marriage might be put off till Christmas. Calle, meanwhile, unmarried,
was staying at Blackborough Nunnery near Lynn, where his bride had found
a temporary asylum. He was still willing to give his services to Sir
John Paston, and promised not to offer them to any other unless Sir John
declined them. They appear to have been accepted, for we find Calle one
or two years later still in the service of the family. But he never
seems to have been recognised as one of its members.[256-2]

    [Footnote 256-2: Nos. 721, 736, 737.]

The siege of Caister was one of those strong and high-handed
acts which could only have been possible when there was really no
sovereign authority in the land to repress and punish violence. Acts of
very much the same character had been seen before--the reader will not
have forgotten the forcible ejection of John Paston’s wife from Gresham.
But they had been due more especially to the weak and incompetent rule
of Henry VI., and not even then do we hear of a place being taken from
one of the king’s subjects after a five weeks’ siege by a rival
claimant. It was evident that the rebellion of Robin of Redesdale had
destroyed King Edward’s power. The king had been actually made a
prisoner, and the ascendency of the Woodvilles had been abolished. The
Duchess of Bedford, wife of the late Earl of Rivers, had even during the
commotions been accused of witchcraft.[257-1] The Earl of Warwick
enjoyed his revenge in the disorganisation of the whole kingdom. He had
now made it almost impossible for Edward to recover his authority
without getting rid of him; nor did many months pass away before he
stirred up another rebellion in Lincolnshire.[257-2] When that movement
failed, he and Clarence escaped abroad; but it was not many months
before they reappeared in England and drove out the king. [Sidenote:
Warwick the Kingmaker. A.D. 1470.] Henry VI. was proclaimed anew, and
for the space of a short half-year Warwick the Kingmaker governed in the
name of that sovereign in whose deposition ten years before he had been
one of the principal agents.

    [Footnote 257-1: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 232.]

    [Footnote 257-2: _See_ Nos. 742, 743.]

[Sidenote: Appeal of two widows.] We have but a word or two to say as to
matters affecting the family history of the Pastons during this brief
interval. At the siege of Caister two men of the Duke of Norfolk’s were
killed by the fire of the garrison. The duke’s council, not satisfied
with having turned the Pastons out, now prompted the widows of these two
men to sue an ‘appeal’[257-3] against John Paston and those who acted
with him. A true bill was also found against them for felony at the
Norwich session of June 1470, in which Sir John Paston was included as
an accessory; but the indictment was held to be void by some of Paston’s
friends on the ground that two of the jury would not agree to it. This
objection I presume must have been held sufficient to quash the
proceedings in this form, of which we hear no more.[258-1] The ‘appeal,’
however, remained to be disposed of, as we shall see by and by.

    [Footnote 257-3: An appeal of murder was a criminal prosecution
    instituted by the nearest relation of the murdered person, and a
    pardon from the king could not be pleaded in bar of this process.]

    [Footnote 258-1: Nos. 740, 746, 747.]

[Sidenote: Compromise touching Fastolf’s will.] With respect to the
title claimed by Sir John Paston in Caister and the performance of
Fastolf’s will, a compromise was arranged with Bishop Waynflete, who was
now recognised as sole executor. It was agreed that as the whole of
Fastolf’s lands in Essex, Surrey, Norfolk, and Suffolk had been much
wasted by the disputes between the executors, the manors should be
divided between Sir John Paston and the bishop, the former promising to
surrender the title-deeds of all except the manor of Caister. The
project of a college in that place was given up, and a foundation of
seven priests and seven poor scholars in Magdalen College, Oxford, was
agreed to in its place.[258-2] Soon afterwards the Duke of Norfolk
executed a release to the bishop of the manor of Caister and all the
lands conveyed to him by Yelverton and Howes as executors of Sir John
Fastolf, acknowledging that the bargain made with them was contrary to
Fastolf’s will, and receiving from the bishop the sum of 500 marks for
the reconveyance. The duke accordingly sent notice to his servants and
tenants to depart out of the manor as soon as they could conveniently
remove such goods and furniture as he and they had placed in it.[258-3]

    [Footnote 258-2: Nos. 750, 755, 767.]

    [Footnote 258-3: Nos. 763, 764.]

Thus by the mediation of Bishop Waynflete the long-standing disputes
were nearly settled during the period of Henry VI.’s brief restoration.
But, probably in consequence of the disturbed state of the country and
the return of Edward IV., the duke’s orders for the evacuation of
Caister were not immediately obeyed, and, as we shall see hereafter, the
place remained in Norfolk’s possession for the space of three whole
years.

[Sidenote: Elizabeth Poynings remarries.] About this time, or rather,
perhaps, two years later, Sir John Paston’s aunt, Elizabeth Poynings,
terminated her widowhood by marrying Sir George Browne of Betchworth
Castle in Surrey. We have already seen how she was dispossessed of her
lands soon after her first husband’s death by the Countess of
Northumberland. They were afterwards seized by the Crown as forfeited,
and granted by patent to Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent, but without any
title having been duly found for the king. The Earl of Kent after a time
gave up possession of them to the Earl of Essex, but this did not make
things pleasanter for Elizabeth Poynings; while other of her lands were
occupied by Sir Robert Fenys in violation, as she alleged, of her
husband’s will.[259-1] The date of her second marriage was probably
about the end of the year 1471.[259-2]

    [Footnote 259-1: Nos. 461, 627, 692, 693.]

    [Footnote 259-2: On the 18th November 1471, Edmund Paston speaks
    of her as ‘my Aunt Ponynges.’ Before the 8th January 1472 she had
    married Sir George Browne. Nos. 789, 795.]

These matters we are bound to mention as incidents in the history of the
family. Of Elizabeth Paston, however, and her second husband we do not
hear much henceforward; in the Letters after this period the domestic
interest centres chiefly round the two John Pastons, Sir John and his
brother.


_Changes and Counter-changes_

[Sidenote: Reckless government of Edward IV.] Within the space of ten
brief years Edward IV. had almost succeeded in convincing the world that
he was no more capable of governing England than the rival whom he had
deposed. Never did gambler throw away a fortune with more recklessness
than Edward threw away the advantages which it had cost him and his
friends so much hard fighting to secure. Just when he had reached the
summit of his prosperity, he alienated the men to whom it was mainly
due, and took no care to protect himself against the consequences of
their concealed displeasure. The Earl of Warwick took him prisoner, then
released him, then stirred up a new rebellion with impunity, and
finally, returning to England once more, surprised and drove him out,
notwithstanding the warnings of his brother-in-law, the Duke of
Burgundy. Henry VI. was proclaimed anew, and the cause of the House of
York seemed to be lost for ever.

It was not so, however, in fact. Adversity quickened Edward’s energies
in a manner almost miraculous, and in a few months he recovered his
kingdom as suddenly as he had lost it. But it was not easy to believe,
even after his most formidable enemy had been slain at Barnet, that a
king who had shown himself so careless could maintain himself again upon
the throne. Besides, men who desired a steady government had rested all
their hopes in the restoration of Henry VI., and had found the new state
of matters very promising, just before Edward reappeared. The king, it
might have been hoped, would be governed this time by the Earl of
Warwick, and not by Queen Margaret. [Sidenote: The Pastons favour Henry
VI.] The Pastons, in particular, had very special reasons to rejoice in
Henry’s restoration. They had a powerful friend in the Earl of Oxford,
whose influence with Henry and the Earl of Warwick stood very high.
Owing partly, perhaps, to Oxford’s intercession, the Duke of Norfolk had
been obliged to quit his hold of Caister, and Sir John Paston had been
reinstated in possession.[260-1] The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk sued to
Oxford as humbly as the Pastons had been accustomed to sue to them, and
the earl, from the very first, had been as careful of the interests of
this family as if they had been his own. Even in the first days of the
revolution--probably before Edward was yet driven out--he had sent a
messenger to the Duchess of Norfolk from Colchester when John Paston was
in London on a matter which concerned him alone. The family, indeed,
seem at first to have built rather extravagant expectations upon the new
turn of affairs, which John Paston felt it necessary to repress in
writing to his mother. ‘As for the offices that ye wrote to my brother
for and to me, they be for no poor men, but I trust we shall speed of
other offices meetly for us, for my master the Earl of Oxford biddeth me
ask and have. I trow my brother Sir John shall have the constableship of
Norwich Castle, with £20 of fee. All the lords be agreed to it.’[260-2]

    [Footnote 260-1: _See_ preliminary note to Letter No. 879.]

    [Footnote 260-2: No. 759.]

Certainly, when they remembered the loss of Caister, which they had now
regained--when they recalled his inability to protect them against armed
aggression, and the disappointment of their expectations of redress
against the Duke of Suffolk for the attack on the lodge at
Hellesdon--the Pastons had little cause to pray for the return of Edward
IV. They were completely committed to the cause of Henry; and Sir John
Paston and his brother fought, no doubt in the Earl of Oxford’s company,
against King Edward at Barnet. [Sidenote: Sir John Paston and his
brother in the battle of Barnet. A.D. 1471.] Both the brothers came out
of the battle alive, but John Paston was wounded with an arrow in the
right arm, beneath the elbow.[261-1] His wound, however, was not of a
very serious character, and in little more than a fortnight he was able
to write a letter with his own hand.[261-2] A more serious consideration
was, how far the family prospects were injured by the part they had
taken against what seemed now to be the winning side. Perhaps they might
be effectually befriended by their cousin Lomner, who seems to have
adhered to Edward, and who had promised them his good offices, if
required. But on the whole the Pastons did not look despondingly upon
the situation, and rather advised their cousin Lomner not to commit
himself too much to the other side, as times might change. ‘I beseech
you,’ writes Sir John Paston to his mother, ‘on my behalf to advise him
to be well aware of his dealing or language as yet; for the world,
I ensure you, is right queasy, as ye shall know within this month. The
people here feareth it sore. God hath showed Himself marvellously like
Him that made all, and can undo again when Him list, and I can think
that by all likelihood He shall show Himself as marvellous again, and
that in short time.’[261-3]

    [Footnote 261-1: No. 774.]

    [Footnote 261-2: No. 776.]

    [Footnote 261-3: No. 774.]

In point of fact, Sir John Paston, when he wrote these words, had
already heard of the landing of Queen Margaret and her son in the west,
so that another conflict was certainly impending. His brother John,
recovering from his wounds, but smarting severely in pocket from the
cost of his surgery, looked forward to it with a sanguine hope that
Edward would be defeated. ‘With God’s grace,’ he writes, ‘it shall not
be long ere my wrongs and other men’s shall be redressed, for the world
was never so like to be ours as it is now. Wherefore I pray you let
Lomner not be too busy yet.’[262-1] The issue, however, did not agree
with his expectations. [Sidenote: The battle of Tewkesbury.] Four days
later was fought the battle of Tewkesbury,[262-2] at which Margaret was
defeated, and her son, though taken alive, put to death upon the field.
Shortly afterwards she herself surrendered as a prisoner, while her
chief captain, Somerset, was beheaded by the conqueror. The Lancastrian
party was completely crushed; and before three weeks were over, King
Henry himself had ended his days--no doubt he was murdered--within the
Tower. Edward, instead of being driven out again, was now seated on the
throne more firmly than he had ever been before; and the Paston brothers
had to sue for the king’s pardon for the part they had taken in opposing
him.

    [Footnote 262-1: No. 776.]

    [Footnote 262-2: In connection with this battle, we have in No.
    777 lists of the principal persons killed and beheaded after the
    fight, and of the knights made by King Edward upon the field. This
    document has never been published before.]

[Sidenote: Caister retaken by the Duke of Norfolk.] Under these
circumstances, it was only natural that the Duke of Norfolk, who had
been forced to relinquish his claim to Caister under the government of
Henry VI., should endeavour to reassert it against one who was in the
eye of the law a rebel. On this occasion, however, the duke had recourse
to stratagem, and one of his servants suddenly obtained possession of
the place on Sunday, the 23rd June.[262-3] It is remarkable that we have
no direct reference in the letters either to this event, or to the
previous reinstatement of Sir John Paston during the restoration of
Henry VI.; but a statement in the itinerary of William Worcester and Sir
John Paston’s petition to the king in 1475[262-4] leave no doubt about
the facts. After about six months of possession the Pastons were again
driven out of Caister.[262-5]

    [Footnote 262-3: W. Worc. _Itin._, 368.]

    [Footnote 262-4: No. 879.]

    [Footnote 262-5: Although the fact of this expulsion could not be
    gathered from the letters of this date, some allusion to it will
    be found in Letter 778, by which it seems that a horse of John
    Paston’s had been left at Caister, which the family endeavoured to
    reclaim by pretending that it was his brother Edmund’s. John
    Paston, however, seems to have preferred that the duke’s men
    should keep the animal, in the hope that they would make other
    concessions of greater value.]

The Pastons had need of friends, and offers of friendship were made to
them by Earl Rivers, formerly Lord Scales. [Sidenote: Earl Rivers offers
his friendship.] The engagement of Sir John Paston to Rivers’s
kinswoman, Anne Haute,[263-1] still held; and though there was some talk
of breaking it off, the earl was willing to do what lay in his power in
behalf both of Sir John and of his brother. The latter was not very
grateful for his offer, considering, apparently, that the earl’s
influence with the king was not what it had been. ‘Lord Scales,’ he
said, for so he continued to call him, ‘may do least with the great
master. But he would depart over the sea as hastily as he may; and
because he weeneth that I would go with him, as I had promised him ever,
if he had kept forth his journey at that time, this is the cause that he
will be my good lord, and help to get my pardon. The king is not best
pleased with him, for that he desireth to depart; insomuch that the king
hath said of him that whenever he hath most to do, then the Lord Scales
will soonest ask leave to depart, and weeneth that it is most because of
cowardice.’[263-2]

    [Footnote 263-1: A transcript of an old pedigree with which I was
    favoured by Mr. J. R. Scott during the publication of these
    letters long ago, confirmed my conjecture that Anne Haute was the
    daughter of William Haute, whose marriage with Joan, daughter of
    Sir Richard Woodville, is referred to in the _Excerpta Historica_,
    p. 249. She was, therefore, the niece of Richard, Earl Rivers, and
    cousin-german to Edward IV.’s queen. It appears also that she had
    a sister named Alice, who was married to Sir John Fogge of
    Ashford, Treasurer of the Household to Edward IV. This Sir John
    Fogge was the man whom Richard III., having previously regarded
    him as a deadly enemy, sent for out of sanctuary, and took
    publicly by the hand at his accession, in token that he had
    forgotten all old grudges.]

    [Footnote 263-2: No. 778.]

Earl Rivers, in fact, was at this time meditating a voyage to Portugal,
where he meant to go in an expedition against the Saracens, and he
actually embarked on Christmas Eve following.[263-3] His friendship,
perhaps, may have been unduly depreciated by the younger brother; for
within twelve days John Paston actually obtained the king’s signature to
a warrant for his pardon. This, it is true, may have been procured
without his mediation; but in any case the family were not in the
position of persons for whom no one would intercede. They had still so
much influence in the world that within three months after he had been a
second time dispossessed of Caister, Sir John made a serious effort to
ascertain whether the Duke of Norfolk might not be induced to let him
have it back again. [Sidenote: Sir J. Paston petitions the Duke of
Norfolk to give back Caister.] This he did, as was only natural, through
the medium of his brother John, whose former services in the duke’s
household gave him a claim to be heard in a matter touching the personal
interests of the family. John Paston, however, wisely addressed himself,
on this subject, rather to the duchess than to the duke; and though he
received but a slender amount of encouragement, it was enough, for a few
months, just to keep his hopes alive. ‘I cannot yet,’ he writes, ‘make
my peace with my lord of Norfolk by no means, yet every man telleth me
that my lady sayeth passing well of me always notwithstanding.’ This was
written in the beginning of the year 1472, just seven months after Sir
John’s second expulsion from Caister. But the Pastons continued their
suit for four years more, and only recovered possession of the place on
the Duke of Norfolk’s death, as we shall see hereafter.[264-1]

    [Footnote 263-3: Nos. 793, 795.]

    [Footnote 264-1: Nos. 781, 796, 802.]


_The Paston Brothers_

[Sidenote: Royal pardon to John Paston.] John Paston obtained a ‘bill of
pardon’ signed by the king, on Wednesday the 17th July. This, however,
was not in itself a pardon, but only a warrant to the Chancellor to give
him one under the Great Seal. The pardon with the Great Seal attached he
hoped to obtain from the Chancellor on the following Friday. Meanwhile
he wrote home to his mother to let no one know of it but Lady Calthorpe,
who, for some reason not explained, seems to have been a confidante in
this particular matter.[264-2] Perhaps this was as well, for as a matter
of fact the pardon was not sealed that Friday, nor for many a long week,
and even for some months after. It seems to have been promised, but it
did not come. At Norwich some one called John Paston traitor and sought
to pick quarrels with him; and how far he could rely upon the protection
of the law was a question not free from anxiety. His brother, Sir John,
urged him to take steps to have the pardon made sure without delay; but
it was only passed at length upon the 7th of February following, nearly
seven months after the king had signed the bill for it. His brother, Sir
John, obtained one on the 21st December.[265-1]

    [Footnote 264-2: No. 780.]

    [Footnote 265-1: Nos. 780, 781, 795.]

[Sidenote: The appeal of the widows.] But John Paston stood in another
danger, from which even a royal pardon could not by law protect him. The
‘appeal’[265-2] of the two widows still lay against him. The blood of
their husbands cried for vengeance on the men who had defended Caister,
and especially upon the captain of the garrison. Their appeal, however,
was suspected to proceed from the instigation of others who would fain
have encouraged them to keep it up longer than they cared to do
themselves. Sir John Paston had information from some quarter which led
him to believe that they had both found husbands again, and he
recommended his brother to make inquiry, as in that case the appeals
were abated. With regard to one of them, the intelligence turned out to
be correct. A friend whom John Paston asked to go and converse with this
woman, the widow of a fuller of South Walsham, reported that she was now
married to one Tom Steward, dwelling in the parish of St. Giles in
Norwich. She confessed to him that she never sued the appeal of her own
accord, ‘but that she was by subtle craft brought to the New Inn at
Norwich. And there was Master Southwell; and he entreated her to be my
lord’s widow[265-3] by the space of an whole year next following; and
thereto he made her to be bound in an obligation. And when that year was
past he desired her to be my lord’s widow another year. And then she
said that she had liever lose that that she had done than to lose that
and more; and therefore she said plainly that she would no more of that
matter; and so she took her an husband, which is the said Tom Steward.
And she saith that it was full sore against her will that ever the
matter went so far forth, for she had never none avail thereof, but it
was sued to her great labor and loss, for she had never of my lord’s
council but barely her costs to London.’[265-4]

    [Footnote 265-2: _See_ p. 257, note 3.]

    [Footnote 265-3: The widow of a lord’s vassal was called the
    lord’s widow, and could only marry again by his leave.]

    [Footnote 265-4: Nos. 782, 783.]

The other widow, however, had not married again as Sir John had
imagined. With her the right of appeal still remained, and she was
induced to exercise it. In this she seems to have been encouraged by the
Duke of Norfolk, simply for the sake of giving trouble to Sir John
Paston; for though it was his brother and the men with him who were the
most direct cause of her husband’s death, the appeal was not prosecuted
against them, but against him only. In the following January the widow
went up to London, and 100 shillings were given her to sue with. What
came of the affair then we have no further record. Sir John Paston was
warned of his danger both by his mother and by his brother; so perhaps
he found the means to induce her to forbear proceeding further. An
argument that has often enough stopped the course of justice would
doubtless have been efficacious to put an end to such a purely vexatious
prosecution. But it may be that the case was actually heard, and Sir
John Paston acquitted.[266-1]

    [Footnote 266-1: Nos. 796, 797.]

[Sidenote: Great mortality.] In a social point of view the year of
Edward IV.’s restoration was not one of gladness. The internal peace of
the kingdom was secured by the two sharp battles of Barnet and
Tewkesbury, and by the execution of the Bastard Falconbridge after his
attempt on London, but the land was visited with pestilence and the
mortality was severe. Hosts of pilgrims travelled through the country,
eager to escape the prevailing infection or to return thanks for their
recovery from illness. The king and queen went on pilgrimage to
Canterbury; and never, it was said, had there been so many pilgrims at a
time.[266-2] ‘It is the most universal death that ever I wist in
England,’ says Sir John Paston; ‘for by my trouth I cannot hear by
pilgrims that pass the country that any borough town in England is free
from that sickness. God cease it when it pleaseth Him! Wherefore, for
God’s sake let my mother take heed to my young brethren, that they be in
none place where that sickness is reigning, nor that they disport not
with none other young people which resorteth where any sickness is; and
if there be any of that sickness dead or infect in Norwich, for God’s
sake let her send them to some friends of hers into the country, and do
ye the same by mine advice. Let my mother rather remove her household
into the country.’[267-1]

    [Footnote 266-2: No. 782.]

    [Footnote 267-1: No. 781.]

The plague continued on till the beginning of winter. Margaret Paston
does not seem to have removed into the country, but in writing to her
son John in the beginning of November she notes the progress of the
enemy. ‘Your cousin Berney of Witchingham is passed to God, whom God
assoyle! Veyl’s wife, and London’s wife, and Picard the baker of
Tombland, be gone also. All this household and this parish is as ye left
it, blessed be God! We live in fear, but we wot not whither to flee for
to be better than we be here.’[267-2] In the same letter Margaret Paston
speaks of other troubles. [Sidenote: Money matters.] She had been
obliged to borrow money for her son Sir John, and it was redemanded. The
fortunes of the family were at a low ebb, and she knew not what to do
without selling her woods--a thing which would seriously impair the
value of Sir John’s succession to her estates, as there were so many
wood sales then in Norfolk that no man was likely to give much more than
within a hundred marks of their real value. She therefore urged Sir John
in his own interest to consider what he could do to meet the difficulty.
Already she had done much for him, and was not a little ashamed that it
was known she had not reserved the means of paying the debts she had
incurred for him. Sir John, however, returned for answer that he was
utterly unable to make any shift for the money, and Margaret saw nothing
for it but the humiliation of selling wood or land, or even furniture,
to meet the emergency. ‘It is a death to me to think upon it,’ she
wrote. She felt strongly that her son had not the art of managing with
economy--that he spent double the money on his affairs that his father
had done in matters of the same character, and, what grieved her even
more, that duties which filial pride ought to have piously discharged
long ago had been neglected owing to his extravagance. ‘At the reverence
of God,’ she writes to his younger brother John, ‘advise him yet to
beware of his expenses and guiding, that it be no shame to us all. It is
a shame and a thing that is much spoken of in this country that your
father’s gravestone is not made. [Sidenote: John Paston’s gravestone.]
For God’s love, let it be remembered and purveyed in haste. There hath
been much more spent in waste than should have made that.’ Apparently
direct remonstrances had failed to tell upon Sir John otherwise than to
make him peevish and crusty. She therefore wrote to his younger brother
instead. ‘Me thinketh by your brother that he is weary to write to me,
and therefore I will not accumber him with writing to him. Ye may tell
him as I write to you.’[268-1]

    [Footnote 267-2: No. 787.]

    [Footnote 268-1: Nos. 787, 791. In justice to Sir John Paston it
    should be mentioned that he had been making inquiries two months
    before as to the dimensions of the space over his father’s grave
    at Bromholm available for a monument.--_See_ No. 782. More than
    five years, however, had elapsed since his father’s death, and
    even two years after this the tomb was not attended to, as we find
    by repeated comments on the subject.--_See_ Nos. 843 and 878. This
    last letter has been accidentally misplaced, and is really of the
    year 1472, as will be shown hereafter.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Paston and Anne Haute.] Thriftless, extravagant, and
irresolute, Sir John Paston was not the man to succeed, either in money
matters or in anything else. No wonder, then, that his engagement with
Anne Haute became unsatisfactory, apparently to both parties alike. The
manner in which he speaks of it at this time is indeed ambiguous; but
there can be no doubt that in the end both parties desired to be
released, and were for a long time only restrained by the cost of a
dispensation, which was necessary to dissolve even such a contract as
theirs. It would not have been surprising, indeed, if on the restoration
of Edward IV. Lord Rivers and the queen’s relations had shown themselves
unfavourable to a match between their kinswoman and one who had fought
against the king at Barnet. But whether this was the case or not we have
no positive evidence to show. Only we know that in the course of this
year the issue of the matter was regarded as uncertain. In September Sir
John Paston writes that he had almost spoken with Mrs. Anne Haute, but
had not done so. ‘Nevertheless,’ he says, ‘this next term I hope to take
one way with her or other. She is agreed to speak with me and she hopeth
to do me ease, as she saith.’[268-2]

    [Footnote 268-2: No. 781.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1471, Oct.] Six weeks later, in the end of October, the
state of matters is reported, not by Sir John Paston but by his brother.
‘As for Mrs. A. Haulte, the matter is moved by divers of the queen’s
council, and of fear by R. Haulte; but he would it should be first of
our motion, and we would it should come of them first--our matter should
be the better.’[269-1] [Sidenote: A.D. 1472, Feb.] In February following
Sir John was admitted to another interview with the lady, but was unable
to bring the matter to a decisive issue. ‘I have spoken,’ he says, ‘with
Mrs. Anne Haulte at a pretty leisure, and, blessed be God, we be as far
forth as we were tofore, and so I hope we shall continue. And I promised
her that at the next leisure that I could find thereto, that I would
come again and see her, which will take a leisure, as I deem now. Since
this observance is overdone, I purpose not to tempt God no more
so.’[269-2]

    [Footnote 269-1: No. 784.]

    [Footnote 269-2: No. 798.]

A year later, in April 1473, he says that if he had six days more
leisure, he ‘would have hoped to have been delivered of Mrs. Anne
Haulte. Her friends, the queen, and Atcliff,’ he writes, ‘agreed to
common and conclude with me, if I can find the mean to discharge her
conscience, which I trust to God to do.’[269-3] But the discharge of her
conscience required an application to the Court of Rome, and this
involved a very unsentimental question of fees. ‘I have answer again
from Rome,’ he writes in November following, ‘that there is the well of
grace and salve sufficient for such a sore, and that I may be dispensed
with; nevertheless my proctor there asketh a thousand ducats, as he
deemeth. But Master Lacy, another Rome runner here, which knoweth my
said proctor there, as he saith, as well as Bernard knew his shield,
sayeth that he meaneth but an hundred ducats, or two hundred ducats at
the most; wherefore after this cometh more. He wrote to me also _quod
Papa hoc facit hodiernis diebus multociens_ (that the Pope does this
nowadays very frequently).’[269-4]

    [Footnote 269-3: No. 831.]

    [Footnote 269-4: No. 842.]

Here we lose for a while nearly all further trace of the matter. Nothing
more seems to have been done in it for a long time; for about fourteen
months later we find Sir John Paston’s mother still wishing he were
‘delivered of Mrs. Anne Haulte,’[270-1] and this is all we hear about it
until after an interval of two years more, when, in February 1477, Sir
John reports that the matter between him and Mrs. Anne Haulte had been
‘sore broken’ to Cardinal Bourchier, the Lord Chamberlain (Hastings),
and himself, and that he was ‘in good hope.’[270-2] Finally, in August
following, he expects that it ‘shall, with God’s grace, this term be at
a perfect end.’[270-3] After this we hear nothing more of it. The
pre-contract between Sir John and Anne Haulte seems therefore to have
been at last annulled; and what is more remarkable, after it had been
so, he was reported to be so influential at Court that another marriage
was offered him ‘right nigh of the Queen’s blood.’[270-4] His mother,
who writes to him on the subject in May 1478, had not been informed who
the lady was, and neither can we tell the reader. We only know for
certain that such a marriage never took effect.

    [Footnote 270-1: No. 863. Some months before the time when he
    himself expressed that hope of being delivered from his
    engagement, I meet with a passage of rather doubtful meaning in a
    letter to Sir John Paston from his brother. There is a lady in the
    case, but the lady is not named. John Paston has delivered to her
    a ring which he had much difficulty in inducing her to take. But
    he promises that Sir John shall be her true knight, and she in
    return promises to be more at his commandment than at any knight’s
    in England, ‘my lord’ excepted. ‘And that ye shall well
    understand’ (so John Paston reports the message) ‘if ye have aught
    to do wherein she may be an helper; for there was never knight did
    so much cost on her as ye have done.’ (No. 817.) Is this anonymous
    lady Anne Haulte once more? Was the ring an engagement ring
    returned? And did they thus break off relations with each other,
    retaining mutual esteem? Let us hope this is the explanation,
    which indeed I should even think probable, but that the lady must
    have been at this time residing in the county of Norfolk, and I
    have no notice of Anne Haulte having been there at any time.]

    [Footnote 270-2: No. 900.]

    [Footnote 270-3: No. 916.]

    [Footnote 270-4: No. 933.]

[Sidenote: John Paston’s love affairs.] John Paston, too, had his love
affairs as well as his brother, but was more fortunate in not being
bound helplessly to one lady for a long series of years. In the summer
of 1471, he seems to have been endeavouring to win the hand of a certain
Lady Elizabeth Bourchier; but here he did not prosper, for she was
married a few months later to Lord Thomas Howard--the nobleman who more
than forty years after was created Duke of Norfolk by King Henry VIII.
for his victory over the Scots at Flodden.[270-5] As to his further
proceedings in search of a wife, we shall have occasion to speak of them
hereafter.

    [Footnote 270-5: Nos. 781, 800.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1472.] Property was at all times a matter of more
importance than love to that selfish generation; it was plainly,
avowedly regarded by every one as the principal point in marrying.
[Sidenote: The Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester.] In the royal family at
this very time, the design of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to marry the
widow of Edward, Prince of Wales, awoke the jealousy of his brother
Clarence. For the lady was a younger sister of Clarence’s own wife, and
co-heir to her father, Warwick the Kingmaker; and since the death of
that great earl at Barnet, Clarence seems to have pounced on the whole
of his immense domains without the slightest regard even to the rights
of his widow, who, indeed, was now in disgrace, and was living in
sanctuary at Beaulieu. The idea of being compelled to share the property
with his brother was a thing that had never occurred to him, and he
could not endure the thought. He endeavoured to prevent the proposed
marriage by concealing the lady in London.[271-1] Disputes arose between
the two brothers in consequence, and though they went to Sheen together
to pardon, it was truly suspected to be ‘not all in charity.’ The king
endeavoured to act as mediator, and entreated Clarence to show a fair
amount of consideration to his brother; but his efforts met with very
little success. ‘As it is said,’ writes Sir John Paston, ‘he answereth
that he may well have my lady his sister-in-law, but they shall part no
livelode,’--the elder sister was to have all the inheritance, and the
younger sister nothing! No wonder the writer adds, ‘So what will fall
can I not say.’[271-2] What did fall, however, we know partly from the
Paston Letters and partly from other sources. The Duke of Gloucester
married the lady in spite of his brother’s threats. The dispute about
the property raged violently more than two years, and almost defied the
king’s efforts to keep his two brothers in subjection. In November 1473
we find it ‘said for certain that the Duke of Clarence maketh him big in
that he can, showing as he would but deal with the Duke of Gloucester;
but the king intendeth, in eschewing all inconvenients, to be as big as
they both, and to be a styffeler atween them. And some men think that
under this there should be some other thing intended, and some treason
conspired.’ Sir John Paston again did not know what to make of it, and
was driven to reiterate his former remark, ‘So what shall fall can I not
say.’[272-1] He only hoped the two brothers would yet be brought into
agreement by the king’s award.[272-2]

    [Footnote 271-1: _Contin. Chron. of Croyland_, 557.]

    [Footnote 271-2: No. 798.]

    [Footnote 272-1: No. 841.]

    [Footnote 272-2: No. 842.]

This hope was ultimately realised. Clarence at last consented with an
ill will to let his sister-in-law have a share in her father’s lands;
and an arrangement was made by a special Act of Parliament for the
division of the property.[272-3] To satisfy the rapacity of the royal
brothers, the claims of the Countess of Warwick were deliberately set
aside, and the Act expressly treated her as if she had been a dead
woman. So the matter was finally settled in May 1474. Yet possibly the
Countess’s claims had some influence in hastening this settlement; for
about a twelvemonth before she had been removed from her sanctuary at
Beaulieu[272-4] and conveyed northwards by Sir James Tyrell. This, it
appears, was not done avowedly by the king’s command; nevertheless
rumour said that it was by his assent, and also that it was contrary to
the will of Clarence.[272-5]

    [Footnote 272-3: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 100.]

    [Footnote 272-4: ‘Beweley Seyntwarye’ in Fenn; but the reading is
    ‘_Beverley_ sanctuary’ in the right-hand version. Which is
    correct?]

    [Footnote 272-5: No. 834.]

Even so in the Paston family love affairs give place at this time to
questions about property, in which their interests were very seriously
at stake. Not only was there the great question between Sir John and the
Duke of Norfolk about Caister, but there was also a minor question about
the manor of Saxthorpe, the particulars of which are not very clear. On
the 12th July 1471, Sir John Paston made a release of Saxthorpe and
Titchwell and some other portions of the Fastolf estates, to David
Husband and William Gyfford;[272-6] but this was probably only in the
nature of a trust, for it appears that he did not intend to give up his
interest in the property. [Sidenote: A.D. 1472, Jan.] In January
following, however, William Gurney entered into Saxthorpe and
endeavoured to hold a court there for the lord of the manor. [Sidenote:
John Paston interrupts the Manor Court at Saxthorpe.] But John Paston
hearing of what was doing, went thither accompanied by one man only to
protect his brother’s interest, and charged the tenants, in the presence
of Gurney himself and a number of his friends, to proceed no further.
The protest was effective so far as to produce a momentary pause. But
when it was seen that he had only one man with him, the proceedings were
resumed; on which John Paston sat down by the steward and blotted his
book with his finger as he wrote, and then called the tenants to witness
that he had effectually interrupted the court in his brother’s
right.[273-1] Gurney, however, did not give up the game, but warned
another court to be kept on Holy Rood day (May 3rd, the Invention of the
Holy Cross), when he would have collected the half-year’s rents from the
tenants. The court was held, but before it was half over John Paston
appeared again and persuaded him to stay proceedings once more, and to
forbear gathering money until he and Sir John Paston should confer
together in London. It seems to have required some tact and courtesy to
get him to consent to this arrangement; for Henry Heydon, the son of the
old ally of Sir Thomas Tuddenham, had raised a number of men-at-arms to
give Gurney any assistance that might have been necessary, but the
gentle demeanour of John Paston left him no pretext for calling in such
aid.[273-2]

    [Footnote 272-6: No. 779.]

    [Footnote 273-1: No. 796.]

    [Footnote 273-2: No. 801.]

The real claimant of the manor against Sir John Paston was Waynflete,
Bishop of Winchester, of whom, almost immediately after this, Henry
Heydon bought both Saxthorpe and Titchwell. Sir John Paston, apparently,
had been caught napping as usual, and knew nothing of the transaction.
His mother wrote to him in dismay on the 5th June. Young Heydon had
already taken possession. ‘We beat the bushes,’ said Margaret Paston,
‘and have the loss and the disworship, and other men have the birds. My
lord hath false counsel and simple that adviseth him thereto. And, as it
is told me, Guton is like to go the same way in haste. And as for
Hellesdon and Drayton, I trow it is there it shall be. What shall fall
of the remnant God knoweth,--I trow as evil or worse.’[273-3]

    [Footnote 273-3: No. 803.]

John Paston in like manner writes on the same day that Heydon was sure
of Saxthorpe, and Lady Boleyn of Guton.[274-1] Sir John Paston was
letting the family property slip out of his fingers, while on the other
hand he was running into debt, and in his straitened circumstances he
was considering what he could sell. His mother had threatened if he
parted with any of his lands to disinherit him of double the
amount;[274-2] so he was looking out for a purchaser of his wood at
Sporle, which he was proposing to cut down.[274-3] But by far the most
serious matter of all was Caister; ‘if we lose that,’ said Margaret
Paston, ‘we lose the fairest flower of our garland.’ To her, too, it
would be peculiarly annoying, for she expected to have little comfort in
her own family mansion at Mautby, if the Duke of Norfolk had possession
of Caister only three miles off.[274-4] [Sidenote: Sir John Paston seeks
to get Caister restored to him.] On this subject, however, Sir John
Paston does not appear to have been remiss. It was the first thing that
occupied his thoughts after he had secured his pardon. In the beginning
of the year he had been with Archbishop Nevill, who, though he had been
in disgrace and committed to the Tower just after the battle of Barnet,
seems at this time again to have had some influence in the world, at his
residence called the Moor. By the archbishop’s means apparently he had
received his pardon, and had spent a merrier Christmas in consequence;
and he wrote to his mother that if he could have got any assurance of
having Caister restored to him, he would have come away at once.[274-5]
But it was not long before the archbishop again got into trouble. He was
once more conducted to the Tower, and two days afterwards at midnight he
was put on board a ship and conveyed out to sea.[274-6] Nothing more
therefore was to be hoped for from the archbishop’s friendship; but Sir
John Paston did not cease to use what means lay in his power. His
brother made incessant applications on his behalf to the Duchess of
Norfolk, and to the duke’s council at Framlingham. To be reinstated Sir
John was willing to make the duke a present of £40, an offer which the
council acknowledged was ‘more than reasonable.’ If the matter were
their own, they gave John Paston to understand, they could easily come
to an understanding with him, but my lord was intractable. The duchess
herself declined to interfere in the matter until my lord and the
council were agreed, and the latter said that when they had mooted it to
the duke ‘he gave them such an answer that none of them all would tell
it.’ They suggested, however, that the duke might be swayed by more
influential opinions, and that if Sir John could get my Lord Chamberlain
Hastings, or some other nobleman of mark, to speak to the duke in his
favour, there was great probability that he would attain his
object.[275-1]

    [Footnote 274-1: No. 804.]

    [Footnote 274-2: No. 802.]

    [Footnote 274-3: Nos. 798, 804, 819, 820.--No. 819 is a little out
    of its place, the exact date of the letter being the 9th May.]

    [Footnote 274-4: No. 803.]

    [Footnote 274-5: No. 795.]

    [Footnote 274-6: No. 800.]

    [Footnote 275-1: No. 809.]

[Sidenote: The Duchess of Norfolk.] A favourable opportunity, however,
presented itself shortly afterwards for urging a petition for justice on
the duke himself. After ten years or more of married life the Duchess of
Norfolk was at length with child. Duke and duchess received everywhere
congratulations from their friends and dependants. Among the rest Sir
John Paston offered his to my lady herself, in a vein of banter that
seems slightly to have offended her, though not perhaps so much by its
grossness, which was excessive, as by the undue familiarity exhibited in
such a tone of address.[275-2] The Duke of Norfolk was going to be with
his wife on the occasion of her lying-in, and John Paston, as an old
servant of the family, went to give his attendance at Framlingham. It
was resolved that the utmost should be made of the opportunity. John
Paston drew up a petition in behalf of his brother to present to the
duke, while Sir John Paston himself, then in London, obtained letters
from the king to both the duke and duchess, and also to their council.
The king seems to have been particularly interested in the case, and
assured Sir John that if his letters were ineffectual justice should be
done in the matter without delay. The letters were despatched by a
special messenger, ‘a man of worship’ in high favour with the king
himself. With such powerful influence engaged on his behalf, most
probably Sir John did not care to ask for letters from Lord Hastings,
which his brother was even then expecting. But he suggested, if my
lady’s lying-in should be at Norwich instead of Framlingham, that his
mother might obtain admittance to her chamber, and that her persuasions
would be of considerable use.[276-1]

    [Footnote 275-2: Nos. 812, 813.]

    [Footnote 276-1: Nos. 813, 814, 815, 817, 824. _See_ also No. 878,
    which by a strange inadvertence has been put in the year 1475
    instead of 1472. The preliminary note is correct except as to the
    year.]

[Sidenote: Birth of a daughter.] The duchess was confined at
Framlingham, and gave birth to a daughter, who received the name of
Anne. Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester, came down to christen the child,
and he, too, took an opportunity during his brief stay to say a word to
my lady about Caister and the claim of Sir John Paston to restitution.
But exhortations, royal letters, and all were thrown away upon the Duke
of Norfolk. My lady promised secretly to another person to favour Sir
John’s suit, but the fact of her giving such a promise was not to be
communicated to any one else. John Paston was made as uncomfortable as
possible by the manner in which his representations were received. ‘I
let you plainly wit,’ he wrote to his brother, ‘I am not the man I was,
for I was never so rough in my master’s conceit as I am now, and that he
told me himself before Richard Southwell, Tymperley, Sir W. Brandon, and
twenty more; so that they that lowered now laugh upon me.’[276-2]

    [Footnote 276-2: No. 823.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Paston seeks to enter Parliament.] But although all
arts were unsuccessful to bend the will of the Duke of Norfolk on this
subject, Sir John Paston seems to have enjoyed the favour and approval
of the duchess in offering himself as a candidate for the borough of
Maldon in the Parliament of 1472. His friend James Arblaster wrote a
letter to the bailiff of Maldon suggesting the great advantage it would
be to the town to have for one of their two burgesses ‘such a man of
worship and of wit as were towards my said lady,’ and advising all her
tenants to vote for Sir John Paston, who not only had this great
qualification, but also possessed the additional advantage of being in
high favour with my Lord Chamberlain Hastings.[276-3] There was,
however, some uncertainty as to the result, and his brother John
suggested in writing to him that if he missed being elected for Maldon
he might be for some other place. There were a dozen towns in England
that ought to return members to Parliament which had chosen none, and by
the influence of my Lord Chamberlain he might get returned for one of
them.[277-1]

    [Footnote 276-3: No. 808.]

    [Footnote 277-1: No. 809.]

In point of fact, I find that Sir John Paston was not returned for
Maldon to the Parliament of 1472; and whether he sat for any other
borough I am not certain, though there is an expression in the
correspondence a little later that might lead one to suppose so.[277-2]
But that he went up to London we know by a letter dated on the 4th
November;[277-3] and though he went to Calais, and even visited the
court of the Duke and Duchess of Burgundy at Ghent early in the
following year, when Parliament was no longer sitting, he had returned
to London long before it had ended its second session in April
1473.[277-4] It is also clear that he took a strong interest in its
proceedings; but this was only natural. That Parliament was summoned
avowedly to provide for the safety of the kingdom. Although the Earl of
Warwick was now dead, and Margaret of Anjou a prisoner at
Wallingford,[277-5] and the line of Henry VI. extinct, [Sidenote: Fear
of Invasion.] it was still anticipated that the Earl of Oxford and
others, supported by the power of France, would make a descent upon the
coast. Commissions of array were issued at various times for defence
against apprehended invasion.[277-6] Information was therefore laid
before Parliament of the danger in which the kingdom stood from a
confederacy of the king’s ‘ancient and mortal enemies environing the
same,’ and a message was sent to the Commons to the effect that the king
intended to equip an expedition in resistance of their malice.[277-7]
The result was that, in November 1472, the Commons agreed to a levy of
13,000 archers, and voted a tenth for their support, which was to be
levied before Candlemas following.[278-1] An income and property tax was
not a permanent institution of our ancestors, but when it came it
pressed heavily; so that a demand of two shillings in the pound was not
at all unprecedented. A higher tax had been imposed four years before,
and also in 1453 by the Parliament of Reading. Still, a sudden demand of
two shillings in the pound, to be levied within the next four months,
was an uncomfortable thing to meet; and owing either to its unpopularity
or the difficulty of arranging the machinery for its collection, it was
not put in force within the time appointed. [Sidenote: A.D. 1473.] But
in the following spring, when the Parliament had begun its second
session, collectors were named throughout the country, and it was
notified that some further demands were to be made upon the national
pocket. On the 26th March, John Paston writes that his cousin John
Blennerhasset had been appointed collector in Norfolk, and asks his
brother Sir John in London to get him excused from serving in ‘that
thankless office,’ as he had not a foot of ground in the county. At the
same time the writer expresses the sentiments of himself and his
neighbours in language quite sufficiently emphatic: ‘I pray God send you
the Holy Ghost among you in the Parliament House, and rather the Devil,
we say, than ye should grant any more taxes.’[278-2] Unfortunately,
before the Parliament ended its sittings, it granted a whole fifteenth
and tenth additional.[278-3]

    [Footnote 277-2: His name does not appear in any of the original
    returns preserved in the Record Office; but they are certainly
    very imperfect, and some of them are not very legible. The two
    burgesses returned for Maldon were William Pestell and William
    Albon. I find, however, that William Paston, probably Sir John’s
    uncle, was returned for Newcastle-under-Lyne.]

    [Footnote 277-3: No. 812.]

    [Footnote 277-4: He could scarcely have returned from Calais in
    time for the opening of that session on the 8th February, as he
    was at Calais on the 3rd, and says nothing about coming home at
    that date.--No. 826.]

    [Footnote 277-5: No. 795.]

    [Footnote 277-6: Patent, 7th March, 12 Edw. IV., p. 1, membs. 25
    and 26 _in dorso_; and 10th May, p. 1, m. 13 _in dorso_.]

    [Footnote 277-7: Even on the 1st June, four months before
    Parliament met, we find commissions issued to certain masters of
    ships to take sailors for the army going over sea.--_Patent Roll_,
    12 Edw. IV., p. 1, m. 10 _in dorso_.]

    [Footnote 278-1: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 4.]

    [Footnote 278-2: No. 829.]

    [Footnote 278-3: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 39.]

[Sidenote: Family jars.] At this time we find that there was some
further unpleasant feeling within the Paston family circle. Margaret
Paston had several times expressed her discontent with the thriftless
extravagance of her eldest son, and even the second, John, did not stand
continually in her good graces. A third brother, Edmund, was now just
coming out in life, and as a preparation for it he too had to endure
continual reproofs and remonstrances from his mother. Besides these,
there were at home three other sons and one daughter, of whom we shall
speak hereafter. The young generation apparently was a little too much
for the lone widow; and, finding her elder sons not very satisfactory
advisers, she did what lone women are very apt to do under such
circumstances--took counsel in most of the affairs of this life of a
confidential priest. In fact, she was a good and pious woman, to whom in
her advancing years this world appeared more and more in its true
character as a mere preparation for the next. She had now withdrawn from
city life at Norwich, and was dwelling on her own family estate at
Mautby. Bodily infirmities, perhaps--though we hear nothing explicitly
said of them--made it somewhat less easy for her to move about; and she
desired to obtain a licence from the Bishop of Norwich to have the
sacrament in her own chapel.[279-1] She was also thinking, we know, of
getting her fourth son Walter educated for the priesthood; and she
wished her own spiritual adviser, Sir James Gloys,[279-2] to conduct him
to Oxford, and see him put in the right way to pursue his studies
creditably. She hoped, she said, to have more joy of him than of his
elder brothers; and though she desired him to be a priest, she wished
him not to take any orders that should be binding until he had reached
the age of four-and-twenty. ‘I will love him better,’ she said, ‘to be a
good secular man than a lewd priest.’[279-3]

    [Footnote 279-1: No. 821. She repeats the request more than two
    years later, and desires that if it cannot be obtained of the
    Bishop of Norwich, John Paston should endeavour to get it of the
    Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘for that,’ she says, ‘is the most sure
    for all places.’--No. 866.]

    [Footnote 279-2: We ought, perhaps, to have explained before that
    the prefix ‘Sir’ before a priest’s name, as in Sir James Gloys and
    Sir Thomas Howes, was commonly used as equivalent to ‘Reverend,’
    though strictly speaking it was applied to one who had taken no
    higher degree than bachelor.]

    [Footnote 279-3: No. 825. Even so Erasmus says of More (Epp.
    lib. x. 30, col. 536). ‘Maluit maritus esse castus quam sacerdos
    impurus.’ The sentiment evidently was a very common one.]

  [[(Epp. lib. x. 30, col. 536).
  _text unchanged: expected final comma_]]

[Sidenote: Sir James Gloys.] But the influence of this spiritual adviser
over their mother was by no means agreeable to the two eldest sons. John
Paston speaks of him in a letter to his brother as ‘the proud, peevish,
and ill-disposed priest to us all,’ and complains grievously of his
interference in family affairs. ‘Many quarrels,’ he writes, ‘are picked
to get my brother Edmund and me out of her house. We go not to bed
unchidden lightly; all that we do is ill done, and all that Sir James
and Pecock doth is well done. Sir James and I be twain. We fell out
before my mother with “Thou proud priest,” and “Thou proud squire,” my
mother taking his part; so I have almost beshut the bolt as for my
mother’s house; yet summer shall be done or I get me any master.’[280-1]
John Paston, in fact, was obliged to put up with it for some months
longer, and though he afterwards reports that Sir James was always
‘chopping at him,’ and seeking to irritate him in his mother’s presence,
he had found out that it was not altogether the best policy to rail at
him in return. So he learned to smile a little at the most severe
speeches, and remark quietly, ‘It is good hearing of these old
tales.’[280-2] This mode of meeting the attack, if it did not soften Sir
James’s bitterness, may have made Margaret Paston less willing to take
his part against her son. At all events we hear no more of these
encounters. Sir James Gloys, however, died about twelve months
later.[280-3]

    [Footnote 280-1: No. 805.]

    [Footnote 280-2: No. 810.]

    [Footnote 280-3: No. 842.]


_Taxation, Private Affairs, and the French War_

The impatience of taxation expressed by John Paston and others may
perhaps be interpreted as showing that little was generally known, or at
all events believed, of any such serious danger to the kingdom from
outward enemies as had been represented to Parliament. Nevertheless, in
March 1473, John Paston speaks of ‘a few Frenchmen whirling on the
coasts,’ for fear of whom the fishermen did not venture to leave port
without safe conducts.[280-4] [Sidenote: Hogan’s prophecies.] A
political prophet named Hogan also foretold that some attempt would
shortly be made to invade the kingdom or to create trouble within it.
But the French ships soon returned home, and Hogan’s words were not
greatly esteemed, though he was arrested and sent up to London for
uttering them. He had, in fact, prophesied similar things before. Yet
there was an impression in some quarters that he might be right on this
occasion. He was committed to the Tower, and he desired leave to speak
to the king, but Edward declined to give him any occasion for boasting
that his warnings had been listened to. Ere long, however, his story was
to some extent justified. News came that on Saturday, the 10th April,
the Earl of Oxford had been at Dieppe with twelve ships, about to sail
for Scotland. A man was examined in London, who gave information that
large sums of money had been sent him from England, and that a hundred
gentlemen in Norfolk and Suffolk had agreed to assist him if he should
attempt a landing. On the 28th May he actually did land at St. Osith’s,
in Essex, but hearing that the Earl of Essex with the Lords Dynham and
Durasse were coming to oppose him, he returned to his ships and sailed
away. His attempt, however, saved Hogan his head, and gained him greater
esteem as a prophet; for he had foretold ‘that this trouble should begin
in May, and that the king should northwards, and that the Scots should
make us work and him battle.’ People began everywhere to buy armour,
expecting they knew not what.[281-1]

    [Footnote 280-4: No. 828.]

    [Footnote 281-1: Nos. 829, 830, 831, 833, 834.]

Sir John Paston, for his part, during his visit to the Burgundian court
in the end of January,[281-2] had already ordered a complete suit of
armour for himself, together with some horse armour, of Martin Rondelle,
the armourer of the Bastard of Burgundy.[281-3] But the demand for
armour increased as the year went on. [Sidenote: The Earl of Oxford at
St. Michael’s Mount.] The Earl of Oxford again suddenly appeared, this
time on the coast of Cornwall, and took possession of St. Michael’s
Mount on the last day of September. He was besieged there by Sir Henry
Bodrugan, but the place was so strong that, if properly victualled,
twenty men could keep it against the world. The earl’s men, however,
parleyed with Sir Henry, who by some gross negligence allowed victuals
to be conveyed into the Mount. The command of the besieging force was
taken from him by the king and given to Richard Fortescue, sheriff of
Cornwall.[281-4] At the same time the quarrel between the Dukes of
Clarence and Gloucester contributed to make people uneasy. The world, as
Sir John Paston phrased it, seemed ‘queasy.’ Every man about the king
sent for his ‘harness.’ The king himself sent for the Great Seal, which
was conveyed to him by Dr. Morton, Master of the Rolls. Some expected
that he would make a new Chancellor, some that he would keep the Seal in
his own hands as he had done during former commotions.[282-1]

    [Footnote 281-2: He was at Ghent on Thursday, 28th January.--No.
    826.]

    [Footnote 281-3: No. 838.]

    [Footnote 281-4: Warkworth’s _Chronicle_, 26-7.]

    [Footnote 282-1: No. 841.]

The Earl of Oxford was fast shut up in the Mount. But during November he
made a sally, took a gentleman prisoner, and dragged him within. Shortly
afterwards, attempting to give more trouble to the besiegers, he was
wounded in the face with an arrow.[282-2] But his gallant defence seems
to have awakened sympathy in the West Country; for on the 10th December
the king found it necessary to issue a proclamation against bearing arms
in Devonshire.[282-3] However, after keeping possession of the place for
four months and a half, he felt himself compelled to surrender, not by
lack of victuals, but for want of reliance on his own men, to whom the
king had offered pardons and rewards for deserting him. The earl himself
was constrained to sue for pardon of his own life, and yielded himself a
prisoner on the 15th February 1474.[282-4]

    [Footnote 282-2: No. 843.]

    [Footnote 282-3: _Close Roll_, 13 Edw. IV., m. 8.]

    [Footnote 282-4: No. 846. Warkworth, 27.]

[Sidenote: Projected royal expedition against France.] Meanwhile people
were looking forward to a royal expedition against France. It was for
this the 13,000 archers were to be raised, and it was agreed in
Parliament that if the expedition did not take place before Michaelmas
1474, the money collected for the purpose should be repaid. As the time
drew near, however, it was found impossible to carry out the project
quite so soon. The tenth voted in November 1472 had been assessed by the
commissioners before February 1473 over all the kingdom, except five
northern shires and one or two separate hundreds and wapentakes. But the
total amount of the assessment had only produced £31,410: 14: 1½, a sum
which to the modern reader will appear inconceivably small as the
proceeds of a ten per cent. income and property tax for nearly the whole
of England. It was in fact not sufficient for the purpose intended; even
such a tax, strange to say, could not maintain 13,000 archers; and the
Commons, as we have already said, voted one-tenth and one-fifteenth
additional. This impost, however, was not immediately levied. On the
26th March 1473 a truce was made at Brussels between England and
Burgundy on the one side, and France on the other, till the 1st April
1474.[283-1] After it expired Edward announced to his Parliament that he
intended as soon as possible to invade France in person; but as it was
not likely that he could do so before Michaelmas following, the time at
which the money was to be repaid to the taxpayers, in case of the
expedition not taking place, was prolonged to St. John Baptist’s Day
(24th June) in 1476.[283-2]

    [Footnote 283-1: No. 832. It is curious that we have no notice of
    this truce in Rymer.]

    [Footnote 283-2: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 113-14.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1474.] [Sidenote: Effects of severe taxation.] The
taxation pinched every one severely. ‘The king goeth so near us in this
country,’ wrote Margaret Paston, ‘both to poor and rich, that I wot not
how we shall live but if the world amend.’ The two taxes came so close
upon each other that they had to be paid at one and the same
time.[283-3] And to those who, like Sir John Paston, were in debt and
trying to raise money for other purposes, the hardship was extreme. So
many were selling corn and cattle that very little was to be realised in
that way. Wheat was but 2s. 4d. a comb, and malt and oats but tenpence.
During the year 1473 Sir John had applied in vain to his mother for a
loan of £100 to redeem the manor of Sporle, which he had been obliged to
mortgage. He had already been driven to sell a portion of the wood, and
had thoughts of giving a seven years’ lease of the manor to a neighbour
of the name of Cocket, on receiving six years’ rent in ready
money.[283-4] But in 1474, having received £100 from the executors of
Lyhart, Bishop of Norwich, in satisfaction of some old claim, his mother
consented to lend another sum of like amount, which would enable him,
with a very little further help from some other quarter, to meet the
demands of Townsend the mortgagee.[283-5] In the end, however, a sum of
£142: 13: 4 was advanced by his uncle William, and some other moneys by
Margaret Paston, partly on the security of her own plate, and partly on
that of Sir John Paston’s lands in the hundred of Flegg.[283-6]

    [Footnote 283-3: No. 871. ‘William Pecock shall send you a bill
    what he hath paid for you for two tasks (_taxes_) at this time.’
    Margaret Paston to Sir John, 23rd May 1475.]

    [Footnote 283-4: Nos. 828, 831, 842, 865.]

    [Footnote 283-5: No. 856.]

    [Footnote 283-6: No. 865.]

[Sidenote: Arrangement with Bishop Waynflete.] About the same time Sir
John came to an understanding with Bishop Waynflete about the lands of
Sir John Fastolf; [Sidenote: The college at Caister abandoned.] and the
bishop having obtained a dispensation from the Pope enabling him to
apply the endowments of Fastolf’s intended college at Caister to the
support of Magdalen College, Oxford, a division was made of the Norfolk
lands between him and Paston. Sir John was allowed to enjoy Caister and
the lands in Flegg, if he could recover them from the Duke of Norfolk,
with the manor of Hellesdon, Tolthorpe, and certain tenements in Norwich
and Earlham; but he gave up Drayton to the bishop. And so terminated one
long-standing controversy.[284-1]

    [Footnote 284-1: Nos. 834, 859.]

[Sidenote: Anne Paston engaged to William Yelverton.] An event in the
family now claims our notice, although the allusions to it are but
slight, and the manner in which it is referred to is quite in keeping
with that strange absence of domestic feeling which is so painfully
characteristic of the times. Anne Paston, Sir John’s sister, had come to
a marriageable age; and her mother disposed of her hand to William
Yelverton, a grandson of the judge, although she had an offer from one
of the family of Bedingfield.[284-2] The engagement had lasted at least
a year and a half, when Sir John Paston in London heard news that she
had been exceedingly unwell; on which he quietly remarks that he had
imagined she was already married. It seems scarcely possible to
attribute this ignorance to any unusual detention of letters between
Norwich and London; so that we are almost driven to conclude that his
sister’s marriage was an event of which Sir John did not expect to
receive any very special intimation. The news even of her sickness,
I suspect from the manner in which he refers to it, was conveyed to him
not by letters from home, but by Yelverton, her intended husband, who
had come up to London. Nor must it be supposed that Yelverton himself
was deeply concerned about her state of health; for it was certainly not
with a lover’s anxiety that he communicated the intelligence to Sir
John. In fact the marriage, so far from being a thing already
accomplished, as Sir John supposed, was a matter that still remained
uncertain. ‘As for Yelverton,’ writes Sir John himself, ‘he said but
late that he would have her if she had her money, and else not;
wherefore me thinketh that they be not very sure.’ Still the old song of
‘Property, property,’ like Tennyson’s ‘Northern Farmer.’ And how very
quietly this cold-hearted brother takes the news that the marriage which
he thought already accomplished might very likely never take place at
all! ‘But among all other things,’ he adds, ‘I pray you beware that the
old love of Pampyng renew not.’ What, another sister ready to marry a
servant of the family? If she could not have Yelverton, at least let her
be preserved from that at all hazards.[285-1]

    [Footnote 284-2: No. 804.]

    [Footnote 285-1: Nos. 842, 843.]

[Sidenote: Married to him.] Such was the state of matters in November
1473. And it seems by the course of events that Pampyng was not allowed
to follow the example of Richard Calle. Anne Paston remained unmarried
for about three and a half years longer, and the family, despairing of
Yelverton, sought to match her somewhere else;[285-2] but between March
and June of the year 1477, the marriage with Yelverton actually took
place.[285-3] Of the married life of this couple we have in the Paston
Letters no notices whatever; but one incident that occurred in it we
learn from another source. Yelverton brought his bride home to his own
house at Caister St. Edmund’s, three miles from Norwich. Some time after
their marriage this house was burned down by the carelessness of a
servant girl while they were away at the marriage of a daughter of Sir
William Calthorpe. The year of the occurrence is not stated, but must,
I think, have been 1480, for it happened on a Tuesday night, the 18th of
January, the eve of St. Wolstan’s Day.[285-4] Now the 18th of January
did not fall on a Tuesday during their married life in any earlier year,
and it did not so fall again till 1485, when William Worcester, in whose
itinerary the event is recorded, was certainly dead.

    [Footnote 285-2: No. 885.]

    [Footnote 285-3: Margaret Paston speaks of ‘my son Yelverton’ in
    June 1477.--No. 913. But Anne appears to have been unmarried at
    least as late as the 8th March 1477.--_See_ No. 901.]

    [Footnote 285-4: ‘Memorandum, quod manerium. . . . Yelverton
    generosi in villa de Castre Sancti Edmundi, per iii. miliaria
    de civitate Norwici, in nocte diei Martis, 18 diei Januarii,
    videlicet in vigilia Sancti Wolstani, dum modo dictus Yelverton,
    cum filia Johannis Paston senioris, uxore dicti Yelverton, fuerunt
    ad nupcias filiæ Willelmi Calthorp militis, fuit per negligenciam
    parvæ puellæ in lectisternio leti (_qu._ lecti?) per candelam igne
    consumptum.’ --W. Worc. _Itin._, 269.]

  [[per candelam igne consumptum.’
  _close quote missing_]]

[Sidenote: John Paston’s marriage prospects.] John Paston, too, was
seriously thinking of taking a wife; and, that he might not be
disappointed in an object of so much importance, he had two strings to
his bow. We must not, however, do him the injustice to suppose that he
had absolutely no preference at all for one lady over another; for he
writes his full mind upon the subject to his brother Sir John in London,
whom he commissions to negotiate for him. If Harry Eberton the draper’s
wife were disposed to ‘deal’ with him, such was the ‘fantasy’ he had for
Mistress Elizabeth Eberton, her daughter, that he requests his brother
not to conclude ‘in the other place,’ even though old Eberton should not
be disposed to give her so much dowry as he might have with the second
lady. Nevertheless Sir John is also requested to ascertain ‘how the
matter at the Black Friars doth; and that ye will see and speak with the
thing yourself, and with her father and mother or ye depart; and that it
like you to desire John Lee’s wife to send me a bill in all haste
possible, how far forth the matter is, and whether it shall be necessary
for me to come up to London hastily or not, or else to cast all at the
cock.’[286-1] The reader, we trust, is fully impressed with the
businesslike character of this diplomacy, and he ought certainly not to
be less so with the appropriateness of the language employed. ‘If Mrs.
Eberton will _deal_ with me,’ and ‘Speak with _the thing_ yourself.’ How
truly does it indicate the fact that young ladies in those days were
nothing but mere chattels!

    [Footnote 286-1: No. 850.]

It happened, however, that neither the ‘thing’ at the Black Friars, nor
the lady for whom he had the somewhat greater ‘fantasy,’ was to be
attained. Apparently the former was the daughter of one Stockton, and
was married about four months later to a man of the name of Skerne. She
herself confidentially told another woman just before her marriage that
Master Paston had once come to the place where she was with twenty men,
and endeavoured to take her away. As for Eberton’s daughter, the matter
quietly dropped, but before it was quite broken off John Paston had
engaged his brother’s services as before in a new matter with the Lady
Walgrave. Sir John Paston executed his commission here too with the
utmost zeal to promote his brother’s suit; but he received little
comfort from the lady, and could not prevail upon her to accept John
Paston’s ring. Indeed she told him plainly she meant to abide by an
answer she had already given to John Paston himself, and desired Sir
John no more to intercede for him. Sir John, however, had secured
possession of a small article belonging to her, a muskball, and told her
he meant to send it to his brother, without creating in her any feeling
of displeasure. Thus the lover was still left with some slight gleam of
hope--if, at least, he cared to indulge it further; but it does not
appear by the correspondence that he thought any more either of Lady
Walgrave or of Elizabeth Eberton.[287-1]

    [Footnote 287-1: Nos. 858, 860.]

[Sidenote: John Paston’s pilgrimage to Compostella.] We have omitted to
notice an incident characteristic of the times, which ought not to pass
altogether unrecorded. The year before these love passages took place,
John Paston took a voyage to Spain on pilgrimage to the shrine of St.
James of Compostella. He sailed, or was about to sail, from Yarmouth
early in July, for the letters only allude to the voyage when he was on
the eve of departure, and he declared his purpose of coming home again
by Calais, where his brother expected to see him within a month after he
left.[287-2] It does not appear what prompted this pious expedition,
unless it was the prevalence of sickness and epidemics in England.
Margaret Paston’s cousin, John Berney of Reedham, died in the beginning
of that year;[287-3] and the letter, which first speaks of John Paston’s
intended pilgrimage, records also the deaths of the Earl of Wiltshire
and the Lord Sudley, and mentions a false rumour of the death of Sir
William Stanley.[287-4] The death of Sir James Gloys, Margaret Paston’s
priest, occurred about four months later; and the same letter in which
that event is mentioned says also that Lady Bourchier (I presume John
Paston’s old flame, though she was now the wife of Thomas Howard) had
been nearly dead, but had recovered.[287-5] It is evident that the year
was one of great mortality, though not perhaps quite so great as that of
two years before.

    [Footnote 287-2: Nos. 833, 836.]

    [Footnote 287-3: No. 825.]

    [Footnote 287-4: No. 833.]

    [Footnote 287-5: No. 842.]

[Sidenote: Illness of Sir John Paston.] During the autumn of the year
following, Sir John Paston had an illness, which probably attacked him
in London, and induced him to remove into Norfolk. After a little
careful nursing by his mother, his appetite returned, and he felt
himself so much stronger that he went back again to London to see to his
pecuniary affairs, which required careful nursing as much as he had done
himself. His brother Edmund, too, had been ill in London about the same
time, but he found him ‘well amended’; which was, perhaps, not
altogether the case with himself, for during the winter he had a return
of fever, with pain in the eyes and in one of his legs, particularly in
the heel.[288-1] Sir John, however, was not the man to make much of a
slight indisposition. About Christmas or the New Year he had gone over
to Calais; and while his mother was solicitous about the state of his
health, he said nothing about it, but wrote that he was going into
Flanders, and hoped to get a sight of the siege of Neuss.[288-2] On
receipt of his mother’s letter, however, he wrote back that he was
perfectly well again, except that the parts affected were still
tender.[288-3]

    [Footnote 288-1: Nos. 856, 862, 863, 865.]

    [Footnote 288-2: No. 861.]

    [Footnote 288-3: No. 865.]

  [[Footnote 288-3: _missing number “3” added_]]

[Sidenote: Siege of Neuss.] This siege of Neuss--a town on the Rhine
near Düsseldorf--was an undertaking of Charles the Bold, Duke of
Burgundy, on which the eyes of the whole world were riveted, and
especially of Englishmen. A body of 3000 English took part in the
operations.[288-4] But the work was arduous, and in the end proved
ineffectual. Not only was the attempt a failure, but it caused the
breakdown of other projects besides. The duke had hoped to be master of
the place before the truce with France expired in June 1475, and
afterwards to join with Edward in an invasion of that country, in which
he was bound by treaty to co-operate. But month after month slipped
away, and the Burgundian forces were still detained before Neuss, so
that he was unable strictly to fulfil his engagement. His cunning enemy
Louis saw his advantage in the circumstance, and contrived to cool
Edward’s ardour for the war by arts peculiarly his own. He received with
the greatest possible politeness the herald sent by Edward to defy him;
asked him to a private conference; told him he was sure his master had
not entered on the expedition on his own account, but only to satisfy
the clamour of his own people and the Duke of Burgundy. He remarked that
the duke, who had not even then returned from Neuss, had lost the flower
of his army in the siege, and had occasioned the waste of so much time
that the summer was already far spent. He then suggested that the herald
might lay these and other considerations before his master to induce him
to listen to a peace; and he dismissed him with a handsome
present.[289-1]

    [Footnote 288-4: Comines, Book iv. ch. i.]

    [Footnote 289-1: Comines, Book iv. ch. v.]

[Sidenote: Edward IV. and Louis XI.] The herald did what was expected of
him, and the result told in two ways. Edward’s vanity was flattered and
his cupidity was excited. The King of France, it seemed, stood in awe of
him, and did not wish to fight. He was willing to pay handsomely for
peace. How much easier, after all, to accept a large yearly tribute in
recognition of his sovereignty over France than to vindicate it by
conquering the country! Arguments, too, were not wanting in the shape of
private pensions offered by Louis to the Lords of the English Council.
Not, of course, that English noblemen regarded these gratuities as
bribes--Lord Hastings, at least, stood upon his dignity and refused to
give a receipt for money which was but a free-will offering on the one
part, and involved no obligation on the other.[289-2] Still the money
was very acceptable, and there was no doubt a great deal of weight in
the arguments addressed by Louis to the herald. Indeed, any one worthy
to be called a statesman knew quite well that the idea of conquering
France was altogether chimerical.

    [Footnote 289-2: _Ibid._ ch. viii.]

This was true; but it would scarcely have been pleasant news to the
nation at large, which had been taxed and taxed again for the sake of
that same chimerical idea, to have been informed of what was going on
in the king’s council-chamber. For not only had a tenth been voted
one year, and a tenth and fifteenth another, but the wealthy had been
solicited to make still further contributions in a form till now unheard
of--contributions called ‘benevolences,’ [Sidenote: Benevolences.]
because they were supposed, by a cruel irony, to be offered and given
with good will.[290-1] For the nation was quite sufficiently
aware--there were many then alive who could testify it from past
experience--that it was a difficult and costly business to make any
conquests in France; and everybody had been pricked and goaded to
furnish what he could towards the equipment of the expedition out of
his own resources.

    [Footnote 290-1: _Contin. Chron. Croyl._ p. 558. The king, as is
    well known, went about soliciting contributions personally. During
    the year 1474, as appears by his Privy Seal dates, he visited
    Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Coventry, Guildford, Farnham,
    Kenilworth, Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol, and Cirencester, in
    different excursions, returning to London in November; after which
    he again set out, going this time into Suffolk. He was at Bury on
    the 5th and 7th December, and at West Thorpe, on the northern
    confines of the county, on the 8th. From this it appears (though
    the Privy Seal dates do not show it) that he must have gone on to
    Norwich. After which we find him at Coventry on the 26th, so that
    he probably spent his Christmas there. That he visited Norwich
    about that time, and solicited benevolences there, is evident from
    Letter 863.]

[Sidenote: Peace with France.] Sir John Paston’s brothers, John[290-2]
and Edmund,[290-3] and probably another named Clement, of whom we have
very little notice in the correspondence, went over in the king’s great
army to Calais. Sir John himself had been in Calais for some time
before, and his mother commended his younger brothers to his care,
urging him to give them the benefit of his advice and experience for
their safety, as some of them were but young soldiers.[290-4] Margaret
Paston need not have been so anxious if she had been in the secrets of
the Cabinet. No blood was drawn in that campaign. The army had crossed
the sea in the end of June, and peace was already made in the end of
August. Nominally, indeed, it was but a seven years’ truce, but it was
intended to be lasting. For a payment of 75,000 crowns in ready money,
a pension of 50,000 crowns a year, and an undertaking that the Dauphin
should hereafter marry Edward’s eldest daughter, and that Louis should
give her a dowry of 60,000 livres a year, the king consented to withdraw
his forces and trouble France no longer with his claims.[290-5]

    [Footnote 290-2: Nos. 868, 876.]

    [Footnote 290-3: No. 873.]

    [Footnote 290-4: No. 871.]

    [Footnote 290-5: Rymer, xii. 14-21.]

Was it a triumph or a humiliation? an easy victory of Edward over Louis,
or of Louis over Edward? The thing might be, and was, looked at from
different points of view. The English considered that they had forced
France to pay tribute; the French king chuckled at having made Edward
his pensioner. Louis, doubtless, had the best of the bargain, for he had
managed to sow division between England and Burgundy, and to ward off a
very serious danger from France. But common-place, dull-witted
Englishmen saw the thing in a different light, and Sir John Paston gave
thanks to God when he reported that the king’s ‘voyage’ was finished and
his host returned to Calais.[291-1]

    [Footnote 291-1: No. 875.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Paston ill again.] Sir John, however, was the worse
of his abode in Calais air.[291-2] He had felt himself strong and
vigorous when upon the march, but on the return of the army to Calais he
was again taken ill in eight days. We may, perhaps, suspect that it was
another outbreak of his old disease, and that he never allowed himself
sufficient rest to make a perfect recovery. But it may be that from the
general neglect of proper sanitary arrangements, pestilence was still
rife both in Calais and in England. Six weeks later his brother John at
Norwich was also much troubled with sickness.[291-3]

    [Footnote 291-2: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 291-3: No. 877.]


_Sir John Paston and Caister_

[Sidenote: William Paston.] When Sir John Paston returned to England,
the first thing that he had to consider was how to meet a debt to his
uncle William which was due at Michaelmas.[291-4] William Paston is a
member of the family of whom we totally lose sight for many years after
the very beginning of Edward’s reign; but his pecuniary relations with
his nephew about this time cause him again to be spoken of and to take
part in the correspondence.[291-5] He was, doubtless, a rich man,
although we find him pledging some of his plate to Elizabeth Clere of
Ormesby.[291-6] He was one of the trustees of Elizabeth, Countess of
Oxford, the mother of the banished earl.[291-7] He had married, probably
since the decease of his brother the eldest John Paston, the Lady Anne
Beaufort, third daughter of Edmund, Duke of Somerset, a lady of a
wealthy family; and he occupied the great mansion called Warwick’s Inn,
near Newgate, which had been the town-house of the mighty Kingmaker. His
mother, Agnes Paston, lived there along with him.[292-1] Of his family
we may mention here that the first child he had by the Lady Anne was a
daughter named Mary, born, as we know from an old register, on St.
Wolstan’s Day, the 19th January 1470. The second, more than four years
later, was also a daughter, and having been born on Tuesday the 19th
July 1474, the eve of St. Margaret’s Day,[292-2] was christened Margaret
next day at St. Sepulchre’s Church, having for her godfather the Duke of
Buckingham, and for her godmothers, Margaret, Duchess of
Somerset,[292-3] and Anne, Countess of Beaumont.[292-4] Neither of these
two daughters, however, survived him. The second, Margaret, died four
months after her birth, at a time when her father was absent from
London, and was buried before he came home.[292-5] In the end, the lands
of William Paston descended to two other daughters, for he had no sons.

    [Footnote 291-4: No. 875.]

    [Footnote 291-5: Nos. 854, 855, 856.]

    [Footnote 291-6: No. 851.]

    [Footnote 291-7: No. 845.]

    [Footnote 292-1: No. 856.]

    [Footnote 292-2: Our authority is very particular as to the time,
    and gives not only the day but the hour: ‘Inter horam post nonam
    et horam ante horam secundam, viz., fere dimidiam horam ante horam
    secundam, luna curren., et erat clara dies.’]

    [Footnote 292-3: Mother of the Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of
    Richmond, who was the mother of King Henry VII.]

    [Footnote 292-4: So according to Sandford’s Genealogy of the
    Paston family in Mr. Worship’s communication to the _Norfolk
    Archæology_. But who was Anne, Countess of Beaumont? I find no
    Earl Beaumont in the peerage, but there was a William, Viscount
    Beaumont, who succeeded his father in that title in 1459.
    According to Dugdale, he had two wives, the first of whom was
    named Elizabeth, and the second Joan. His mother, who may have
    been living at this time, was also named Elizabeth, but I can find
    no Anne.]

    [Footnote 292-5: No. 857.]

[Sidenote: Money matters.] At this time Sir John had only borrowed of
his uncle £4, a sum not quite so inconsiderable in those days as it is
now, but still a mere trifle for a man of landed property, being perhaps
equivalent to £50 or £60 at the present day. He repaid the money about
November 1474, and his uncle, being perhaps agreeably surprised,
inquired how he was going to redeem a mortgage of 400 marks held by one
Townsend on the manor of Sporle. William Paston was already aware that
Sir John had received a windfall of £100 from the executors of Walter
Lyhart, Bishop of Norwich, who died two years before, and that some one
else had offered to advance another £100, which left only 100 marks
still to be raised. He was afraid his nephew had been compelled to offer
an exorbitant rate of interest for the loan. Sir John, however, being
pressed with his questions, told him that his mother had agreed to stand
surety for the sum he had borrowed; on which William Paston, to save him
from the usurers, offered to advance the remaining 100 marks himself,
and with this view placed, apparently unsolicited, 500 marks’ worth of
his own plate in pawn. Sir John thought the plate was in safer custody
than it would have been at Warwick’s Inn, where, in his uncle’s absence,
it remained in the keeping of his aged grandmother; but he was anxious,
if possible, not to lay himself under this kind of obligation to his
uncle.[293-1]

    [Footnote 293-1: No. 856.]

The manor of Sporle was redeemed, but apparently not without his uncle
William’s assistance. Some other land was mortgaged to his uncle
instead; but the transaction was no sooner completed than Sir John
declared he felt as much anxiety about the land in his uncle’s hand as
he had before about that which was in Townsend’s. His mother, too, was
not a little afraid, both for the land and for her own securities. She
suspected William Paston was only too anxious to gain some advantage
over them. She was jealous also of the influence he exercised over his
aged mother, who had recently recovered from an illness, and she wished
the old lady were again in Norfolk instead of living with her son in
London.[293-2]

    [Footnote 293-2: Nos. 857, 862, 863.]

Sir John remained in debt to his uncle for at least a year,[293-3] and
whether he repaid him at the end of that time I cannot tell; but
certainly, if out of debt to his uncle, he was two or three years later
in debt to other men. In 1477 he was unable to meet promptly the claims
of one named Cocket, and was labouring once more to redeem the manor of
Sporle, which he had been obliged to mortgage to Townsend a second time.
His mother, annoyed by his importunity for assistance, told him flatly
she did not mean to pay his debts, and said she grieved to think what he
was likely to do with her lands after her decease, seeing that he had
wasted so shamefully what had been left him by his father.[294-1]

    [Footnote 293-3: No. 875.]

    [Footnote 294-1: Nos. 916, 917.]

[Sidenote: Sir John Paston’s claim to Caister.] But, however careless
about his other property, Sir John, as we have already remarked, always
showed himself particularly anxious for the recovery of Caister. During
the whole of the year 1475, when he was abroad at Calais and with the
army, he makes frequent reference to the matter in his letters. His
brother John and his uncle William had undertaken to urge his suit in
his absence to my lord and lady of Norfolk; but he would have come home
and brought it before the king in Parliament, had not the French king at
that time come to the confines of Picardy, and made the Council of
Calais anxious to retain the services of every available soldier on that
side of the sea.[294-2] He was impatient at the non-fulfilment of a
promise by Bishop Waynflete--‘the slow Bishop of Winchester,’ as he
called him--to entreat the duke and duchess in his favour.[294-3] But he
was consoled by news which reached him before he came home, that the
king himself had spoken to the Duke of Norfolk on the subject, and that,
though the matter was delayed till next term, the king had commanded the
duke to take good advice on the subject and be sure of the validity of
his title, for justice would certainly be done without favour to either
party.[294-4] This report, however, was rather too highly coloured. The
Duchess of Norfolk denied its accuracy to John Paston. The king, she
said, had only asked the duke at his departure from Calais how he would
deal with Caister, and my lord made him no answer. The king then asked
Sir William Brandon, one of the duke’s principal councillors, what my
lord meant to do about it. Brandon had already received the king’s
commands to speak to the duke on the subject, and he said that he had
done so; but that my lord’s answer was ‘that the king should as soon
have his life as that place.’ The king then inquired of the duke if he
had actually said so, and the duke said yes. On this the king simply
turned his back without another word, although, as my lady informed John
Paston, if he had spoken one word more, the duke would have made no
refusal. John Paston, however, informed her ladyship that he would no
longer be retained in the duke’s service.[295-1]

    [Footnote 294-2: No. 864.]

    [Footnote 294-3: No. 873.]

    [Footnote 294-4: Nos. 875, 876.]

    [Footnote 295-1: No. 877.]

[Sidenote: His petition to the king.] Sir John drew up a petition to the
king upon the subject. He showed that the duke had been originally led
to lay claim to Caister by the malice of Sir William Yelverton, William
Jenney, and Thomas Howes, who were enfeoffed of that and other lands to
his use; that upon their suggestion the duke had entered the manor by
force, and also taken from him 600 sheep and 30 neat, besides one
hundred pounds’ worth of furniture; that he had done damage to the place
itself which 200 marks would not suffice to repair, and that he had
collected the revenues of the lands for three years to the value of
£140. By the mediation of the Bishop of Winchester, the duke had
afterwards restored him to possession of the manor on payment of 500
marks, and released to him his estate and interest therein by a deed
under the seals of himself and his co-feoffees, and of the Bishop of
Winchester. Sir John, however, had remained in possession only half a
year, during which time he had laid out 100 marks in repairs, and £40
for the ‘outrents’ due for the three years preceding, when the duke
again forcibly entered the manor, and had kept possession from that time
for the space of four years and more, refusing to hear any remonstrances
on the subject, or to allow Sir John to come to his presence. Moreover,
when Sir John had applied to any of my lord’s council, requesting them
to bring the matter before his lordship, they told him that they had
mentioned his request, but that he was always so exceedingly displeased
with them that they did not dare to urge it. Thus Sir John had lost all
his cost and trouble for four years, and thrown away 500 marks to no
purpose.[295-2]

    [Footnote 295-2: No. 879.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1476, 16th Jan.] This petition was probably never
presented to the king. [Sidenote: Death of the Duke of Norfolk.] It must
have been drawn up in the end of the year 1475, and in the middle of
January 1476 the Duke of Norfolk suddenly died.[295-3] The event seems
to have occurred at his seat at Framlingham, and Sir John Paston, who
writes to notify it to his brother, must have been there at the
time,[296-1] intending perhaps to have made one last effort with the
duke’s council or himself, before applying for justice to the king. But
matters now stood on a different footing, and Sir John, after making his
intention known to the duke’s council, sent a messenger named Whetley to
Caister to assert his rights there. Considering all that had passed, the
act could not reasonably have been wondered at; but his brother John
intimated to him a few days later that it was resented by some of the
late duke’s servants, as showing great want of respect for their
master.[296-2] This imputation Sir John repudiated, pointing out most
truly that no wise man could have blamed him, even if he had anticipated
the duke’s decease, and entered Caister an hour before it took place.
Indeed, considering the justice of his claim, no one could be sorry to
see Sir John in possession, who was a real friend to the duke, and loved
the weal of his soul.[296-3]

    [Footnote 295-3: No. 881.]

    [Footnote 296-1: Sir John’s letter is distinctly dated Wednesday
    the 17th January, 15 Edward IV. (1476), and he says the event took
    place ‘this night about midnight.’ It is scarcely probable,
    however, that he wrote within an hour of the occurrence, as he
    mentions having spoken after it with the duke’s council about
    furnishing cloth of gold for the funeral. I suppose therefore that
    the death took place on the night between the 16th and the 17th,
    and that Sir John wrote on the following morning. The date given
    in the _Inquisition post mortem_ (17 Edw. IV., No. 58) is, strange
    to say, erroneous; for it was found in twelve different counties
    that the duke died on _Tuesday after Epiphany_, in the fifteenth
    year of Edward IV., which would have been the 9th January instead
    of the 16th. These inquisitions, however, were not taken till more
    than a year and a half after the event, and it is clear the date
    they give is wrong by a week; but they may, nevertheless, be taken
    as additional evidence that the duke died on a Tuesday and not on
    a Wednesday.]

    [Footnote 296-2: No. 883.]

    [Footnote 296-3: No. 884.]

It is curious to see the notions entertained in that day of the respect
due to a duke, even from those whom he had very seriously wronged.
However, Sir John Paston was not backward in yielding all that was
conventionally due; and in the very letter in which he intimated the
duke’s death to his brother, he says he had promised his council the
loan of some cloth of gold for the funeral. The article was one which it
was difficult to procure in the country, and he proposed to lend them
some that he had bought for his father’s tomb.[296-4] His mother
afterwards authorised him to sell it to them, if he could get a
sufficient price for it.[296-5]

    [Footnote 296-4: No. 881.]

    [Footnote 296-5: No. 882.]

Sir John, however, after a brief visit to Norwich, hastened up to
London. Now was the time that application must be made to the king; for
it would be found by the inquisition that the Duke of Norfolk had
actually died seised of the manor of Caister, and, unless efficient
protest were made, the title would be confirmed to his widow.[297-1] Sir
John’s chief fear seems to have been that writs of _diem clausit
extremum_ would be issued before he had an opportunity of urging reasons
for delay; in which case the inquisition would speedily be taken, and
all that he could do would be to set forth his claim to the escheator
before whom it was held. But he soon found that he need not be over
anxious on this account. The duchess herself was anxious that the writs
should not be issued too precipitately, and John Paston told his brother
that he ‘need not deal over largely with the escheators.’[297-2] The
duchess, on the other hand, was suspicious of Sir John, and was warned
to be upon her guard lest he should attempt to retake Caister by the
strong hand. A favourable opportunity might have been found for such an
attempt at that time, as the moat was frozen and could have been crossed
with ease. John Paston, however, assured the duchess that his brother
intended to make no entry without her knowledge and assent. The matter
at last was brought before the king’s council, and was decided in Sir
John Paston’s favour in May following, all the lords, judges, and
serjeants pronouncing his title good. [Sidenote: Recovery of Caister.]
Privy seals were then made out for the duchess’s officers to give up
possession, and seven years after the siege of Caister, Sir John was
once more the acknowledged master of the place.[297-3]

    [Footnote 297-1: No. 882.]

    [Footnote 297-2: No. 885.]

    [Footnote 297-3: Nos. 891, 892.]

The whole story of the duke’s claim to Caister and of his injustice
towards Sir John was finally recorded in the inquisition, which was
taken, after an unusual delay, in October of the year following. It was
shown that Yelverton, Jenney, and Howes, acting without the assent and
against the will of the other trustees of Sir John Fastolf’s lands, but
in their names, had made a charter granting to the duke and to Thomas
Hoo, Sir Richard Southwell, William Brandon, Ralph Asheton, John
Tymperley, and James Hobert, the manors of Caister in Flegg, by Great
Yarmouth, called Redham Hall, Vaux, and Bosouns. This charter, which was
not sealed, was shown to the jury, and it appeared that the said
Yelverton, Jenney, and Howes had thereby demised what had belonged to
them, that is to say, three out of eight parts of the same manors, to
the said duke and the others. Afterwards the same duke and his
co-feoffees, by the mediation of the Bishop of Winchester, seeing that
the said demise and enfeoffment was against conscience, and in
consideration of 500 marks paid by the bishop at the charge of Sir John
Paston, enfeoffed John, Bishop of Hereford, John, Bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield, and nine others, to the use of Sir John Paston. These again,
by another deed, gave up their trust to Sir John Paston, and to Guy
Fairfax and Richard Pigot, serjeants-at-law, John Paston, Esquire, and
Roger Townsend, whom they enfeoffed to the use of Sir John Paston and
his heirs for ever. Then the other trustees of Sir John Fastolf
enfeoffed the same Sir John Paston, Fairfax, and the others in the same
way; so that these last became seised to Sir John’s use of the whole
property--not merely of the three-eighths originally demised by
Yelverton, Jenney, and Howes, but also of the remaining
five-eighths--until they were violently disseised by the duke, who
enfeoffed thereof Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, William, Bishop of
Winchester, Henry, Earl of Essex, Richard Southwell, James Hobert,
Richard Darby, clerk, and John York. After this the duke died; but while
he lived, Sir John Paston had continually laid claim to the manors in
his own name and in that of the said Guy Fairfax and others, sometimes
entering the same, and sometimes going as near as he could with safety
to himself. Finally, he entered after the duke’s death, and had been
seised for a long time when the inquisition was taken. The duke,
therefore, it was found, did not die seised of the manors. It was
further found that these manors were holden of the Abbey of St. Benet’s,
Hulme.[298-1]

    [Footnote 298-1: _Inquisition post mortem_, 17 Edw. IV., No. 58.]


_Death of Charles the Bold_

The allusions to public affairs contained in the letters about this time
are of some interest. News came from Rome that a great embassy,
consisting of Earl Rivers, Lord Ormond, Lord Scrope, and other lords of
England, had been honourably received by the pope, but after their
departure had been robbed of their plate and jewels at twelve miles’
distance from Rome. On this they returned to the city to seek a remedy
for the property they had lost was worth fully a thousand marks.
[Sidenote: Defeat of the Duke of Burgundy by the Swiss.] In the same
letter mention is made of the conquest of Lorraine by the Duke of
Burgundy, and his disastrous expedition into Switzerland immediately
after. By the first of these events the prospects of Margaret of Anjou
were seriously impaired, and the French king paid less attention to her
interests. In the second, the victorious career of Charles the Bold had
been already checked by the first great defeat at Grandson. His vanguard
had been broken, his artillery captured by the Swiss, his whole army
repulsed, and booty of enormous value left in the hands of the enemy.
‘And so,’ as Sir John Paston reports the matter, ‘the rich saletts,
helmets, garters, nowches gilt, and all is gone, with tents, pavilions,
and all; and so men deem his pride is abated. Men told him that they
were froward karls, but he would not believe it. And yet men say that he
will to them again. God speed them both!’[299-1]

    [Footnote 299-1: No. 889.]

[Sidenote: His death. A.D. 1477, 5th Jan.] This expectation, as we know,
was verified, and the result was that the defeat of Charles at Grandson
was followed by another still more decisive defeat at Morat. Yet
Charles, undaunted, only transferred the scene of action to Lorraine,
where he met with his final defeat and death at Nancy. The event made a
mighty change. The duchy which he had nearly succeeded in erecting into
an independent kingdom, and which, though nominally in feudal subjection
to France, had been in his day a first-rate European power, now fell to
a female. The greatness of Burgundy had already departed, and the days
of its feudal independence were numbered. To England the state of
matters was one of deep concern, for, should France turn hostile again,
the keeping of Calais might not be so easy, unless the young Duchess
Mary could succeed in organising a strong government in the Low
Countries. A Great Council was accordingly convoked by the king, and met
on the 18th of February. The world, as Sir John Paston wrote, seemed to
be ‘all quavering.’ Disturbance was sure to break out somewhere, so that
‘young men would be cherished.’ A great comfort this, in Sir John’s
opinion, and he desires his brother John to ‘take heart’
accordingly.[300-1]

    [Footnote 300-1: No. 900.]


_Conclusion of the Family History_

[Sidenote: John Paston and Margery Brews.] His brother John, however,
found occupation of a more peaceful character. About this very time he
had met with a lady named Margery Brews, daughter of Sir Thomas Brews,
and had clearly determined in his own mind that she would be a desirable
wife for him. In the spring of the year 1476, he had heard that a
certain Mrs. Fitzwalter had a sister to marry, and thought his brother
Sir John might negotiate a match for him in that quarter;[300-2] but the
affair fell through, apparently because his brother refused to stand
surety that he would make her a jointure of 50 marks a year.[300-3] Not
many months, however, passed away, when he and Dame Elizabeth Brews were
in correspondence about his proposed marriage with her daughter. He had
promised the mother not to speak his mind to the young lady herself till
he had come to an agreement with her parents; but Margery, I suppose,
had read his purpose without an explicit declaration, or had forced it
out of him. At all events she was no coy heroine of the modern type, but
had a very decided mind upon the subject, and gave her mother no peace
with her solicitations to bring the matter to effect.[300-4]

    [Footnote 300-2: No. 890.]

    [Footnote 300-3: No. 892.]

    [Footnote 300-4: Nos. 894, 895, 896.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1477, Feb.] Her mother, for her part, was not unwilling,
and believing that pecuniary matters might be easily arranged with her
husband, wrote to John Paston in February, reminding him that Friday was
Valentine’s Day, when every bird chose him a mate. She also invited him
to visit her on Thursday night, and stay till Monday, when she hoped he
would have an opportunity of speaking to her husband. In fact, she
showed herself quite eager for the match, and alluding apparently to
some difficulty made by her husband to terms that had been already
offered, said it was but a simple oak that was cut down at the first
stroke.[301-1] Thus encouraged, John Paston persevered in his suit, and
Margery wrote him very warm and ardent letters, calling him her
well-beloved valentine, and vowing that she would accept him with half
the ‘livelode’ he actually possessed.[301-2] The question, however, was
how much the father could afford to give along with his daughter, and
what Margaret Paston and Sir John could do that they might have a
reasonable settlement. Sir John Paston’s answer was very discouraging.
He felt himself in no condition to help his brother, and after pointing
out the difficulty of acting on some of his suggestions, he added in a
surly fashion: ‘This matter is driven thus far forth without my counsel;
I pray you make an end without my counsel. If it be well, I would be
glad; if it be otherwise, it is pity. I pray you trouble me no
more.’[301-3]

    [Footnote 301-1: No. 896.]

    [Footnote 301-2: Nos. 897, 898.]

    [Footnote 301-3: Nos. 902, 909.]

Margaret Paston, however, showed a mother’s heart in the affair, and
consented to entail upon the young people her manor of Sparham, if Sir
John would consent to ratify the gift, and forgo his prospective
interest in the succession. Even to this Sir John would not quite
consent. He wished well to his brother, owned that it would be a pity
the match should be broken off, and did not wonder at what his mother
had done; but he saw reasons why he could not ‘with his honesty’ confirm
it. He did not, however, mean to raise any objection. ‘The Pope,’ he
said, ‘will suffer a thing to be used, but he will not license, nor
grant it to be used nor done, and so I.’ He would be as kind a brother
as could be, and if Sir Thomas Brews was afraid he might hereafter
disturb John Paston and his wife in the possession of the manor, he was
quite ready to give a bond that he would attempt no such thing. The
manor was not his, and he professed he did not covet it.[301-4]

    [Footnote 301-4: Nos. 910, 911.]

Sir John seems really to have desired his brother’s happiness, though
from his own bad management he knew not how to help him.[302-1] Hitherto
he had been the mediator of all such schemes for him, probably because
the younger brother believed his prospects to be mainly dependent upon
the head of the house; and I am sorry to say he had been employed in the
like duty even after John Paston had begun to carve for himself. For it
is clear that after receiving those warm letters from Margery Brews, in
which she called him her valentine, and was willing to share his lot if
it were with half his actual means, he had commissioned his brother once
more to make inquiries about a certain Mistress Barly. Sir John’s
report, however, was unfavourable. It was ‘but a bare thing.’ Her income
was insignificant, and she herself was insignificant in person; for he
had taken the pains to see her on his brother’s account. She was said to
be eighteen years of age, though she looked but thirteen; but if she was
the mere girl that she looked, she might be a woman one day.[302-2]

    [Footnote 302-1: No. 913.]

    [Footnote 302-2: No. 903.]

Perhaps, after all, like Captain Absolute, John Paston had more a mind
of his own in the matter than might be inferred from his giving so many
commissions to another to negotiate a wife for him. At all events, if he
had not made up his mind before, he seems really to have made it up now,
and he steered his way between difficulties on the one side and on the
other with a good deal of curious diplomacy, for which we may refer the
reader to the letters themselves.[302-3] In the end, though Sir John
seems to have been in vain urged by his mother to show himself more
liberal,[302-4] all other obstacles were removed, and during the autumn
of the year 1477 the marriage took effect.[302-5]

    [Footnote 302-3: Nos. 901, 904, 905, 913, 915.]

    [Footnote 302-4: No. 916.]

    [Footnote 302-5: No. 923.]

Before Christmas in that same year, it had become apparent that children
would soon follow of their union;[302-6] and after the New Year John
Paston took Margery to her father’s house to be with her friends a short
time, while yet she could go about with ease.[302-7] Their eldest child
was born in the following summer, and received the name of
Christopher.[302-8] Other children followed very soon,[303-1] and by the
time they had been seven years married, John and Margery Paston had two
lads old enough to be sent on messages,[303-2] besides, in all
probability, one or more daughters. It was, however, their second son,
William,[303-3] that continued their line, and became the ancestor of
the future Earls of Yarmouth.

    [Footnote 302-6: _Ibid._]

    [Footnote 302-7: No. 925.]

    [Footnote 302-8: No. 936.]

    [Footnote 303-1: No. 982.]

    [Footnote 303-2: No. 999.]

    [Footnote 303-3: He was a lawyer of some eminence, received the
    honour of knighthood from Henry VIII., and was Sheriff of Norfolk
    in 1517-18. He died in 1554. It was his grandson, another Sir
    William, whose name is so well known in Norfolk as the founder of
    the North Walsham Grammar School.]

[Sidenote: The Duke of Suffolk again gives trouble.] In the spring of
1478 Sir John Paston was again involved in a dispute with a powerful
nobleman. The Duke of Suffolk revived his old claim to Hellesdon and
Drayton, and ventured to sell the woods to Richard Ferror, the Mayor of
Norwich, who thereupon began to cut them down. Sir John brought the
matter into Chancery, and hastened up to London. Ferror professed great
regret, and said he had no idea but that the manor was in peaceable
possession of the duke, adding that if Sir John had sent him the
slightest warning, he would have refrained from making such a bargain.
This, however, was a mere pretence; for, as Sir John remarked to his
brother, he must certainly have spoken about the matter beforehand with
some well-informed men in Norwich, who would have set him right.[303-4]
At all events Ferror went on with what he had begun, and nearly the
whole of Drayton wood was felled by Corpus Christi Day, the 20th day of
May. Whetley, a servant of Sir John Paston, who had been sent down from
London on the business, writes on that day to his master that the duke
had made a formal entry into Hellesdon on Wednesday in Whitsun week. He
dined at the manor-house, ‘drew a stew, and took plenty of fish.’ I
suppose from what follows that he also held a court as lord of the
manor. ‘At his being there that day,’ writes Whetley, ‘there was never
no man that played Herod in Corpus Christi play better and more
agreeable to his pageant than he did. But ye shall understand that it
was afternoon, and the weather hot, and he so feeble for sickness that
his legs would not bear him, but there was two men had great pain to
keep him on his feet. And there ye were judged. Some said “Slay”; some
said “Put him in prison.” And forth come my lord, and he would meet you
with a spear, and have none other ’mends for the trouble ye have put him
to but your heart’s blood, and that will he get with his own hands; for
and ye have Hellesdon and Drayton, ye shall have his life with
it.’[304-1]

    [Footnote 303-4: Nos. 929, 930.]

    [Footnote 304-1: No. 932.]

It appears, however, that the Duke of Suffolk was not in high favour
with the king, and it was considered at this time that Sir John Paston’s
influence at court was very high. Although the affair with Anne Haute
had been broken off, it was expected that he would marry some one nearly
related to the queen’s family; and Margaret Paston thought it a strong
argument for the match, if her son could find it in his heart to love
the lady, that it would probably set at rest the question of his title
to Hellesdon and Drayton.[304-2] This ambitious hope was not destined to
be gratified. We know not even who the lady was that is thus referred
to; and as to the dispute with the Duke of Suffolk, it remained
unsettled at least a year and a half--in fact, as long as Sir John
Paston lived.[304-3]

    [Footnote 304-2: No. 933.]

    [Footnote 304-3: No. 956.]

[Sidenote: The manor of Oxnead.] Two or three months after the beginning
of this dispute, William Paston the uncle accompanied the Duke of
Buckingham into Norfolk on pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady at
Walsingham. At his coming he brought a report that there was likely also
to be trouble in the manor of Oxnead, which belonged to his mother
Agnes, the widow of the judge. The nature of this trouble is not stated;
but apparently it was either occasioned, like the other, by a claim of
the Duke of Suffolk, or it was feared the duke might attempt to profit
by it. ‘Wherefore I pray you,’ writes Sir John Paston to his brother,
‘take heed lest that the Duke of Suffolk’s council play therewith now at
the vacation of the benefice, as they did with the benefice of Drayton,
which by the help of Mr. John Salett and Donne, his men, there was a
quest made by the said Donne that found that the Duke of Suffolk was
very patron, which was false; yet they did it for an evidence.’ Whether
the duke’s council attempted the same policy on this occasion, we cannot
say; but by some means or other the Paston family were hindered from
exercising their right of presentation, so that they very nearly lost
it. A rector named Thomas, presented to the living by Agnes Paston three
years before, died in March 1478. On the 5th August following, Agnes
Paston made out letters of presentation in favour of Dr. Richard
Lincoln, but for some reason or other this presentation did not pass;
and eight days later she presented a certain Sir William Holle, who we
are told ran away. Her rights, however, were contested; and after the
benefice had remained more than a year vacant, some insisted that it had
lapsed to the bishop by the patron not having exercised her rights
within six months. She had, however, as a matter of fact, delivered Sir
William Holle his presentation within that period; and though he did not
avail himself of it, she was, after a good deal of trouble, allowed to
present again.[305-1]

    [Footnote 305-1: Nos. 934, 935, 936, 937, 943.]

[Sidenote: Walter Paston.] In the spring of 1478 Margaret Paston had a
serious illness, and, thinking that it would carry her off, she made her
will. She lived, however, six years longer, and the will she had made
was superseded by another dated on the 4th of February 1482.[305-2] For
in the interval considerable changes took place in the family, which we
shall mention presently. At this time she had five, if not six, sons and
two daughters, but the daughters were both of them married; and, as we
have already intimated, she was particularly anxious about her son
Walter, who was now at Oxford being educated for the priesthood.[305-3]
He had not yet taken orders, when his mother, finding some benefice
vacant, of which she expected to have the disposal,[305-4] thought of
conferring it upon him, and took advice upon the matter of Dr. Pykenham,
Judge of the Court of Arches. She was told, however, that her intention
was quite against the canon law for three reasons: first, because her
son had not received the tonsure, which was popularly called Benet;
secondly, he had not attained the lawful age of four-and-twenty; and
thirdly, he would require to take priest’s orders within a twelvemonth
after presentation to the benefice, unless he had a dispensation from
the Pope, which Dr. Pykenham felt sure he could never obtain.[306-1] His
progress at Oxford, however, seems to have given satisfaction to his
tutor, Edmund Alyard, who reports on the 4th March 1479 that he might
take a bachelor’s degree in art when he pleased, and afterwards proceed
to the faculty of law.[306-2] This course he intended to pursue; and he
took his degree at Midsummer accordingly,[306-3] then returned home to
Norwich for the vacation. His career, however, was arrested by sudden
illness, and he died in August. He left a will, hastily drawn up before
his death, by which it appears that he was possessed of the manor of
Cressingham, which he bequeathed to his brother John Paston, with a
proviso that if ever he came to inherit the lands of his father it
should go to his other brother Edmund. He also possessed a flock of
sheep at Mautby, which he desired might be divided between his sister
Anne Yelverton and his sister-in-law Margery, John Paston’s wife.[306-4]

    [Footnote 305-2: Nos. 932, 978.]

    [Footnote 305-3: No. 931.]

    [Footnote 305-4: Oxnead, which was certainly vacant at the date
    which I have supposed to be that of Margaret Paston’s application
    to Dr. Pykenham, was in her mother-in-law Agnes Paston’s gift; but
    it is not at all unlikely that this was the living in question, as
    she may reasonably have expected to be able to prevail upon the
    old lady to give it to her grandson.]

    [Footnote 306-1: No. 941.]

    [Footnote 306-2: No. 949.]

    [Footnote 306-3: Nos. 945, 946.]

    [Footnote 306-4: No. 950.]

[Sidenote: Clement.] Of Margaret Paston’s other sons one named Clement
is mentioned in Fenn’s pedigree of the family; but he is nowhere spoken
of in the correspondence. I presume that Fenn was not without authority
for inserting his name in the family tree, and I have surmised that he
was one of the ‘young soldiers,’ about whom Margaret Paston was
solicitous, who went over to Calais in 1475. He may perhaps have died
soon after. The absence of his name, especially in his mother’s will, is
at least strong presumptive evidence that he was not alive in 1482.
[Sidenote: Edmund and William.] Edmund Paston, another brother, was
probably of about the same age as Walter, perhaps a year or two older;
and the youngest of the family was William, who in the beginning of the
year 1479 was learning to make Latin verses at Eton.[306-5] He must have
been at this time barely nineteen years of age;[306-6] but he had
precociously fallen in love with a certain Margaret Alborow. He writes
to his brother John Paston how he first became acquainted with her at
the marriage of her elder sister,--that she was not more than eighteen
or nineteen (which was just about his own age); that she was to have a
portion in money and plate whenever she was married, but he was afraid
no ‘livelode’ or lands till after her mother’s decease. His brother
John, however, could find out that by inquiry.[307-1] As might have been
expected, this calf-love came to nothing. I do not know if William
Paston ever married at all. At a more advanced age his brother Edmund
writes to him offering to visit on his behalf a widow, who had just
‘fallen’ at Worsted, whose deceased husband had been worth £1000, and
had left her 100 marks in money, with plate of the same value, and £10 a
year in land.[307-2]

    [Footnote 306-5: No. 942. _See_ a previous letter of his, No. 939,
    and also a notice of his schooling as early as August 1477, when
    Margaret Paston writes to Sir John to pay for his board and
    school-hire, gowns, and other necessaries (No. 917).]

    [Footnote 306-6: No. 842.]

    [Footnote 307-1: No. 942.]

    [Footnote 307-2: No. 974.]

For Edmund Paston himself the same kind of office had been performed in
1478 by his brother John, who, having heard while in London of ‘a goodly
young woman to marry,’ spoke with some of her friends, and got their
consent to her marrying his brother. She was a mercer’s daughter, and
was to have a portion of £200 in ready money, and 20 marks a year in
land after the decease of a stepmother, who was close upon fifty. This
match, however, did not take effect, and about three years later Edmund
Paston married Catherine, the widow of William Clippesby.[307-3]

    [Footnote 307-3: No. 975. There is an oversight in the preliminary
    note to this letter. The date is certainly 1481, and no later, as
    Margaret Paston in her will makes bequests not only to Edmund and
    his wife Catherine, but to their son Robert, who must therefore
    have been born before February 1482.]

[Sidenote: Death of Agnes Paston;] The year 1479 was, like several of
the years preceding, one of great mortality, and it was marked by
several deaths in the Paston family. The grave had not yet closed over
Walter Paston, when news came to Norwich of the death of his
grandmother, old Agnes Paston, the widow of the judge. At the same time
John Paston’s wife, Margery, gave birth, in her husband’s absence, to a
child that died immediately after it was born.[307-4] This perhaps was a
mere accidental coincidence. Two months later Sir John Paston found it
necessary to go up to London on business, partly, it would seem, about
his dispute with the Duke of Suffolk, and partly, perhaps, to keep watch
on the proceedings of his uncle William with regard to the lands of his
grandmother; for it appears that his uncle, who immediately on his
mother’s death laid claim to the manor of Marlingford,[308-1] had been
making certain applications to the escheator on the subject, which were
naturally viewed with jealousy. On his arrival in town, Sir John found
his chamber ill ventilated, and his ‘stuff not so clean’ as he had
expected. He felt uneasy for fear of the prevailing sickness,
and some disappointments in money matters added sensibly to his
discomfort.[308-2] [Sidenote: and of Sir John Paston.] He fell ill, and
died in November. John Paston was on the point of riding up to London to
have brought down his body with that of his grandmother, who had been
kept unburied nearly three months, to lay them both in Bromholm Priory,
beside his father. But he was met by a messenger, who told him that his
brother had already been buried at the White Friars, in London.[308-3]

    [Footnote 307-4: No. 952.]

    [Footnote 308-1: No. 953.]

    [Footnote 308-2: No. 956.]

    [Footnote 308-3: No. 962.]

  [[Sidenote: Death of Agnes Paston;
  _not an error: sentence continues later_]]

We cannot close the record of Sir John Paston’s life without a certain
feeling of regret. The very defects of his character give an interest to
it which we do not feel in that of his father or of his brother John. He
is a careless soldier, who loves adventure, has some influence at court,
mortgages his lands, wastes his property, and is always in difficulties.
Unsuccessful in love himself, he yet does a good deal of wooing and
courting disinterestedly in behalf of a younger brother. He receives
sprightly letters from his friends, with touches of broad humour
occasionally, which are not worse than might be expected of the
unrestrained freedom of the age.[308-4] He patronises literature too,
and a transcriber copies books for him.[308-5] With his death the
domestic interest of the Paston Letters almost comes to an end, and the
quantity of the correspondence very greatly diminishes. The love-making,
the tittle-tattle, and a good deal of the humour disappear, and the few
desultory letters that remain relate, for the most part, either to
politics or to business.

    [Footnote 308-4: Nos. 906-908.]

    [Footnote 308-5: No. 695.]

[Sidenote: The title to Marlingford and Oxnead.] As soon as the news of
his death arrived in Norfolk, John Paston wrote to his mother, desiring
that his brother Edmund would ride to Marlingford, Oxnead, Paston,
Cromer, and Caister, to intimate his right of succession to the tenants
of these different manors, and to warn those of Marlingford and Oxnead
to pay no rents to the servants or officers of his uncle William.[309-1]
These two manors, the reader will remember, belonged to Agnes Paston;
and her son William, with whom she lived, had doubtless watched the old
lady’s failing health, and made preparations even before her actual
decease to vindicate his claim to them as soon as the event
occurred.[309-2] The manors, however, having been entailed under Judge
Paston’s will, properly descended to Sir John Paston, and after his
death to his brother John. In accordance, therefore, with his brother’s
instructions, Edmund Paston rode to Marlingford on Sunday before St.
Andrew’s Day, ‘and before all the tenants examined one James, keeper
there for William Paston, where he was the week next before St. Andrew;
and there he said that he was not at Marlingford from the Monday unto
the Thursday at even, and so there was no man there but your brother’s
man at the time of his decease’ (we are quoting a letter of William
Lomnour to John Paston). ‘So by that your brother died seised. And your
brother Edmund bade your man keep possession to your behoof, and warned
the tenants to pay no man till ye had spoken to them.’ In the afternoon
Edmund went on to Oxnead, where a servant named Piers kept possession
for Sir John Paston, and he found that William Paston’s agent was not
there at the time, but had ordered another man to be there in his place.
Whether that amounted to a continuance of the possession of William
Paston, was a point to be considered.[309-3]

    [Footnote 309-1: No. 962.]

    [Footnote 309-2: No. 940.]

    [Footnote 309-3: No. 963.]

As usual in such cases, farmers and tenants had everywhere a bad time of
it until uncle and nephew were agreed. John Paston’s men threatened
those of his uncle William at Harwellbury, while, on the other hand, his
uncle William’s men molested those of John Paston at Marlingford.[309-4]
During the interval between Agnes Paston’s death and that of Sir John,
the tenants at Cromer had been uncertain who was to be their lord, and
at Paston there was a similar perplexity.[309-5] Sir John’s bailiff
ordered the Paston tenants to pay no rents to Mr. William Paston; but
one Henry Warns wrote to Mr. William of the occurrence, and ordered them
to pay none to any one else. After Sir John’s death Warns still
continued to be troublesome, making tenants afraid to harrow or sow lest
they should lose their labour, pretending that John Paston had given him
power over everything he had himself in the place.[310-1] Things went on
in this unpleasant fashion for a period of at least five years.[310-2]

    [Footnote 309-4: Nos. 970, 982, 983.]

    [Footnote 309-5: No. 957.]

    [Footnote 310-1: Nos. 852 and 853, which by inadvertence I have
    assigned to the year 1474. They are undoubtedly of the year 1479,
    the former being written just before Sir John Paston’s death, and
    the latter after it.]

    [Footnote 310-2: No. 998.]

[Sidenote: Death of Margaret Paston.] Margaret Paston survived her son
Sir John five years, and died in 1484, in the reign of Richard
III.[310-3] In her very interesting will, made two years before her
decease, a number of bequests of a religious and charitable kind show
how strongly she felt the claims of the poor, the sick, and the needy,
as well as those of hospitals, friars, anchoresses, and parish churches.
From the bequests she makes to her own family, it appears that not only
John Paston, her eldest surviving son, but his brother Edmund also, was
by that time married, and had children. To Edmund she gives ‘a standing
piece white covered, with a garlick head upon the knop,’ ‘a gilt piece
covered, with a unicorn,’ a feather bed and a ‘transom,’ and some
tapestry. To his wife Catherine she leaves a purple girdle ‘harnessed
with silver and gilt,’ and some other articles; and to their son Robert,
who must have been quite an infant, all her swans marked with
‘Daubeney’s mark,’ to remain with him and his heirs for ever. Various
other articles are left to her daughter Anne, wife of William Yelverton,
to her son William, to John and Margery Paston, and to their son William
and to their daughter Elizabeth (apparently Christopher Paston, the
eldest child, was by this time dead), and also to Constance, a natural
daughter of Sir John Paston. She also left £20 to John Calle, son of her
daughter Margery, when he should come to be twenty years of age, and if
he died before that, it was to be divided between his brothers William
and Richard when they grew up. To Margery Calle herself and her husband
Richard she left nothing.[311-1]

    [Footnote 310-3: The exact date is given as the 4th November 1484
    in a calendar prefixed to an old MS. missal in the possession of
    the late Mr. C. W. Reynell.]

    [Footnote 311-1: No. 978.]


_Times of Richard III. and Henry VII._

[Sidenote: Richard III.] The personal interest of the correspondence is
not altogether exhausted, although, as we have already remarked, it is
very greatly diminished after the death of Sir John Paston. But the
political interest of the remaining letters is so great, that they are
almost more indispensable to the historian than the preceding ones. The
brief and troubled reign of Richard III. receives illustration from two
letters of the Duke of Norfolk to John Paston. The first was written in
anticipation of Buckingham’s rebellion, requiring him to make ready and
come to London immediately with ‘six tall fellows in harness,’ as the
Kentish men were up in the Weald, and meant to come and rob the
city.[311-2] Again, on the Earl of Richmond’s invasion, the duke desires
Paston to meet him at Bury with a company, to be raised at the duke’s
expense.[311-3] There is also a copy of King Richard’s proclamation
against Henry Tudor,[311-4] of which, however, the text is preserved in
other MSS.

    [Footnote 311-2: No. 994.]

    [Footnote 311-3: No. 1002.]

    [Footnote 311-4: No. 1001.]

[Sidenote: Henry VII.] The troubles of the reign of Henry VII. at first
were scarcely less in magnitude than those of the tyrant whom he
overthrew. But somehow or other the new king had the art of discovering
who was to be trusted and who was not. John Paston was soon found out to
be a man deserving of confidence. Very early, indeed, in Henry’s reign,
he must have acquired some influence at court. [Sidenote: John Paston
Sheriff of Norfolk.] Two months had not elapsed after the battle of
Bosworth when we find him Sheriff of Norfolk. The Duke of Suffolk writes
to him to issue proclamations in the king’s name against certain rebels
who were in confederacy with the Scots.[311-5] The Countess of Surrey
writes to him to intercede with my Lord Fitzwalter and the Earl of
Oxford in behalf of her imprisoned husband.[311-6] Lady Fitzhugh,
a daughter of the great Kingmaker, calls him her son, and requests his
favour for her daughter Anne, wife of the fugitive Yorkist rebel
Francis, Viscount Lovel, whose pardon she was making importunate suit to
obtain.[312-1] The king himself writes to him,[312-2] and the Earl of
Oxford addresses letters to him as his ‘right well beloved
councillor.’[312-3] The earl, of course, was his old friend, and we may
presume it was through his influence that Paston was recommended to the
king’s favour.

    [Footnote 311-5: No. 1006.]

    [Footnote 311-6: No. 1004.]

    [Footnote 312-1: No. 1008.]

    [Footnote 312-2: No. 1010.]

    [Footnote 312-3: No. 1012.]

  [[Footnote 312-2: _missing “2” added_]]

[Sidenote: Lambert Simnel’s rebellion.] So much honour, trust, and
confidence had already been bestowed on him when the rebellion of
Lambert Simnel broke out in the second year of Henry’s reign. Of that
commotion we have some interesting illustrations, by which it is clear
that the gentry of Norfolk were at first doubtful of the success of the
king’s cause, and that many were indisposed to obey his summons to
battle. Sir William Boleyn and Sir Harry Heydon had gone as far as
Thetford on their way towards Kent, when they received advice which
induced them to return. Sir Edmund Bedingfield wrote to John Paston, he
believed that they would not go if the king wanted them. But there were
similar rumours about John Paston himself, and it was even said that he
meditated mischief. It is true he had actually waited on the king, in
the train, apparently, of the Earl of Oxford, one of the two generals to
whom the military powers of the whole kingdom were at this time
intrusted; but it was suspected, perhaps owing to the application made
to him on her account, that after my lord’s departure from the king he
had been with the Viscountess Lovel, whose husband was among the rebel
leaders. ‘But wrath said never well,’ adds Bedingfield in reporting this
rumour to John Paston himself. It was evident that he had enemies, and
it was necessary to conduct himself at such a critical period with
extreme discretion.[312-4]

    [Footnote 312-4: No. 1014.]

[Sidenote: Fear of invasion on the East Coast.] At this time the rebels
had not yet landed in England. Nothing had been known of their movements
till very lately; but the Earl of Lincoln had been in Flanders with the
Lady Margaret of Burgundy, the chief organiser of the conspiracy. The
East Coast, it was supposed, was chiefly threatened; and the king had
made a progress through Suffolk and Norfolk to animate the people to
loyalty. Commissions of array had been issued for the Eastern Counties
on the 7th April. On the 15th Henry kept his Easter at Norwich; after
which he went on to Walsingham, and thence to Coventry.[313-1] News
came, however, that seemed to show the East Coast was in no immediate
danger. The rebels had left the Low Countries, but they had gone to
Ireland. The gentlemen of the Eastern Counties were informed that the
king would put them to no further charge at that time, but hoped the
country would be ready on reasonable warning.[313-2]

    [Footnote 313-1: _See_ Spedding’s Notes in Bacon’s Henry
    VII.--_Works of Bacon_, vi. 55, 56.]

    [Footnote 313-2: No. 1015.]

[Sidenote: Battle of Stoke.] The extraordinary farce enacted in
Ireland--the recognition of Lambert Simnel as the son of Clarence, his
coronation in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, and his enthusiastic and
universal reception by a people to whom political truths have been at
all times unimportant, and rebellion a mere amusement,--these were facts
that could not have been easily realised by sober-minded Englishmen. The
news, indeed, could scarcely have reached England very much in advance
of the rebel hosts themselves, which presently crossed the sea and
landed at Furness in Lancashire.[313-3] In less than a fortnight they
penetrated into the heart of England, where they were met by the king’s
forces and suffered a complete overthrow in the battle of Stoke.
[Sidenote: John Paston knighted.] In that battle John Paston was with
the king’s army, and seems to have done some distinguished service, in
recognition of which he was knighted by the king upon the field of
battle. The same honour was conferred at that time upon fifty-one
persons besides himself, while thirteen others were made knights
bannerets.[313-4]

    [Footnote 313-3: It was but on the 5th May, as Spedding has
    pointed out (_Bacon_, 56) that the principal party of the rebels
    landed in Ireland. On the 4th June they had crossed the Channel
    and landed in Lancashire. The coronation of Lambert Simnel took
    place on Ascension Day, the 24th May.--_Rolls of Parl._ vi. 397.]

    [Footnote 313-4: No. 1016 and Note at p. 187 (vol. vi.).]

  [[Sidenote: John Paston knighted.
  _sidenote printed at beginning of paragraph_]]

  [[“Note at p. 187” = text section headed “Note to No. 1016”,
  immediately before Appendix]]

[Sidenote: Deputy to the Earl of Oxford as Admiral.] Sir John Paston, as
he was now called, continued to maintain his influence with the Earl of
Oxford and the king. The earl was Lord High Admiral, and he made Sir
John his deputy; in which capacity we find letters addressed to him
about a whale taken off the coast of Norfolk,[314-1] and deputations
waiting upon him at Caister from the corporation of Yarmouth,[314-2]
besides some correspondence with the earl as Admiral.[314-3] He got his
brother William into the earl’s service; and though ultimately the earl
was obliged to dismiss him as being ‘troubled with sickness and crased
in his mind,’[314-4] William Paston certainly continued many years in
the earl’s household. He became, in fact, a means of communication
between the earl and his brother, and in one case we have an important
letter addressed to the earl by the king on the subject of the war in
Britanny, copied out by William Paston and forwarded to Sir John.[314-5]

    [Footnote 314-1: Nos. 1029, 1030.]

    [Footnote 314-2: No. 924.]

    [Footnote 314-3: Nos. 1049, 1050, 1051.]

    [Footnote 314-4: No. 940.]

    [Footnote 314-5: No. 913.]

[Sidenote: The war in Britanny.] The eager interest with which this war
in Britanny was watched by Englishmen--the anxiety to learn what had
become of English volunteers, and of the forces sent thither afterwards
by the king’s authority--is shown in several of the letters.[314-6] The
facts relating to the whole affair, and their true chronology, had been
a good deal confused and mis-stated until the late Mr. Spedding, in
editing Lord Bacon’s _History of Henry VII._, compared the testimony of
the Paston Letters with that of other original sources.[314-7] But it
would take up too much space, and involve writing a complete history of
the times, to show what important light is thrown upon this and other
subjects of interest in the reign of Henry VII. by the scattered notices
of political events contained in these letters; and we must be content,
for the remainder of the period, briefly to indicate the matters of
public interest referred to.

    [Footnote 314-6: Letters 1026, 1030, 1036. An allusion to this war
    occurs in Barclay’s _Ship of Fools_, f. 152 b.:

      ‘The battles done, perchance in small Britain,
      In France, in Flanders, or to the worldes end,
      Are told in the quere, of some, in wordes vain
      In midst of matins in stead of the Legende,
      And other gladly to hear the same intend
      Much rather than the service for to hear.’]

    [Footnote 314-7: Spedding’s _Bacon_, vi. 68, 72, 84, 97-8, 101-2.]

[Sidenote: The Earl of Northumberland.] The rising in the North, in
which the Earl of Northumberland was slain, is the subject of two
letters;[315-1] and, closely connected with this subject, if our
chronology is to be relied on, is an intended progress of the king into
Norfolk a few weeks earlier, which was abandoned for some reason not
explained. The Great Council which Henry had summoned on the affairs of
Britanny appears to have been dissolved on the 3rd March 1489. Two days
before it separated, the Earl of Northumberland was appointed to protect
the kingdom against the Scots, and entered into indentures with the king
at Sheen ‘for the keeping out of the Scots and warring on them.’ But
instead of having an outward enemy to contend with, before two months
had elapsed he found himself called upon to put down the revolt in
Yorkshire, and he was killed on the 28th April.

    [Footnote 315-1: Nos. 1037, 1039.]

[Sidenote: Intended royal visit to Norfolk.] The king, if his original
designs had been adhered to, would by this time have passed through the
Eastern Counties, kept his Easter at Norwich, and gone on to
Walsingham.[315-2] In the course of his progress he was to have visited
the Earl of Oxford at his mansion at Hedingham in Essex, where William
Paston, Sir John’s brother, was staying in the earl’s service. Sir John
himself had notice from the earl to come to him with the same number of
men ‘defensably arrayed’ as he had before granted to do the king
service;[315-3] and in anticipation of the royal visit to Norfolk,
William Paston sent orders to the Bailiff of Mautby to have his horse
Bayard well fed, whatever it cost, that the animal might look fat and
sleek when the king came.[315-4] This order, however, it must be
observed, is provisional, ‘if Bayard be unsold’; and perhaps the proviso
may point to the reason why the royal progress was abandoned. The
subsidy which caused the rising in Yorkshire was heavily felt over the
whole kingdom besides; and though at another time a royal progress might
have been very popular, the king doubtless saw that it would be
unadvisable to add to the expenses of his subjects at a time when they
were so severely taxed already.

    [Footnote 315-2: No. 1031.]

    [Footnote 315-3: No. 1032.]

    [Footnote 315-4: No. 1033.]

[Sidenote: Creation of Prince Henry as Duke of York.] In No. 1058 we
have a list of the persons who were made Knights of the Bath on the
creation of Henry, the king’s second son (afterwards Henry VIII.) as
Duke of York, in November 1494.[316-1]

    [Footnote 316-1: No. 1058.--This list agrees pretty well with the
    names given in the description of the ceremony printed by me in
    _Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII._, vol. i. p.
    390. But besides some variations in spelling and a difference in
    one place as to the Christian name, this list includes the names
    of Lords Harington and Clifford, who are not only not mentioned in
    the other as having been made Knights of the Bath on this
    occasion, but who seem to be excluded by the statement that there
    were only twenty baths and beds provided besides those of the
    prince himself.]

[Sidenote: Perkin Warbeck.] In July 1495, the corporation of Yarmouth
write to Sir John Paston about the capture of five captains of Perkin
Warbeck’s host, who landed at Deal with about 140 men, when an invasion
was attempted by the pretender. Whatever encouragement was given to
Perkin abroad, his appearance off the coast of Kent gave little
satisfaction to the inhabitants, who killed or took prisoner every man
that set foot on the land. Perkin, leaving his friends to their mercy,
sailed away, only creating a little disquietude as to where he would
next make his appearance. One of the captains taken, whose name was
Belt, said he knew he had no hope of mercy, and therefore did not mind
revealing the plans of his comrades. They meant to gain possession of
Yarmouth or to die for it.[316-2] If this was said in good faith, the
rebels must have been so discouraged by their reception at Deal, that
they changed their plans and went to Ireland. But it may of course have
been said purposely in order to mislead. It was, however, effectual in
creating some alarm about the safety of the town. The corporation
received a promise from Sir John Paston that aid should be forthcoming,
if required; but the very next day intelligence was received that the
rebel fleet had sailed westward,[316-3] and doubtless before many days
more all serious alarm was at an end.

    [Footnote 316-2: No. 1059.]

    [Footnote 316-3: No. 1060.]

[Sidenote: Edmund de la Pole.] The next political letter refers to
Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, whose first escape from England was
made in the summer of 1499. The king was then staying at Godshill, in
the Isle of Wight, where the Earl of Oxford was with him; and the latter
wrote to Sir John Paston on the 20th August to make inquiry what persons
had accompanied the fugitive, or were privy to his departure, commanding
him to take into custody every one whom he could find to have been any
way concerned in the matter, or any ‘suspect’ person who seemed to be
‘of the same affinity,’ found hovering near the sea coasts.[317-1] Writs
were issued the very same day to the sheriffs of the Eastern Counties to
prevent persons leaving the kingdom without a licence.[317-2]

    [Footnote 317-1: No. 1065.]

    [Footnote 317-2: _Letters and Papers Ric. III. and Hen. VII._,
    vol. ii. p. 377.]

[Sidenote: Coming of Catherine of Arragon to England.] The next letter
after this is a notification from the king to Sir John Paston, given on
the 20th May 1500, that Catherine of Arragon, the affianced bride of
Arthur, Prince of Wales, was expected in England in the following May.
Sir John Paston was required to be ready to give his attendance at her
reception at that date; but owing to a change of plans, she did not
arrive before October 1501.[317-3]

    [Footnote 317-3: No. 1066.]

[Sidenote: Meeting of Henry VII. and Philip of Castile.] After this
there is nothing more relating to public matters during Sir John
Paston’s life; but we must not pass over without notice the very curious
account given in No. 1078--a letter which, though among the Paston
papers, has no obvious connection with the Paston family at all--of the
meeting between Henry VII. and Philip, King of Castile, at Clewer, near
Windsor, in January 1506. It is well known how Philip, who until the
death of his mother-in-law, Isabella of Spain, was only Archduke of
Austria, had set out from Flanders to take possession of his new
dominions, when, meeting with a storm at sea, he was driven upon the
coast of England, and was for some time entertained by Henry at his
court. This letter gives a minute description of the meeting between the
two kings, and of the persons by whom they were accompanied, noting the
apparel and liveries of all present, after the fashion of court newsmen.
The scene unquestionably must have been a striking one; but we must
refer our readers for the particulars to the letter itself.


_Social Aspect of the Times_

[Sidenote: State of society.] Thus far have we followed the fortunes of
the Paston family and the history of the times in which they lived, as
illustrated by their correspondence. The reader must not, however,
imagine that we have by any means exhausted the materials before us,
either in their social or in their political bearings. Indeed, to
whatever length we should prolong these observations, we could not but
leave an ample harvest of facts to be gathered in by others, nor have we
attempted more than to bring the leading points of the story into one
connected narrative. Of the general condition of society revealed to us
by this remarkable correspondence, we have left the reader to form his
own impressions. But a few very brief remarks upon this subject may
perhaps be expected of us before we conclude.

[Sidenote: Education.] The first thing which strikes the most casual
observer on glancing over these letters, is the testimony they afford to
the state of education among the people at the period in which they were
written. From the extreme scarcity of original letters of such an early
date, we are too easily led to undervalue the culture and civilisation
of the age. But these letters show that during the century before the
Reformation the state of education was by no means so low, and its
advantages by no means so exceptionally distributed, as we might
otherwise imagine. For it is not merely that Judge Paston was a man of
superior cultivation, and took care that his family should be endowed
with all those educational advantages that he had possessed himself.
This was no doubt the case. But it must be remembered that the majority
of these letters were not written by members of the Paston family, but
were only addressed to them; and they show that friends, neighbours,
lords, commoners, and domestic servants possessed the art of writing, as
well as the Pastons themselves. No person of any rank or station in
society above mere labouring men seems to have been wholly illiterate.
All could write letters; most persons could express themselves in
writing with ease and fluency. Not perhaps that the accomplishment was
one in which it was considered an honour to excel. Hands that had been
accustomed to grasp the sword were doubtless easily fatigued with the
pen. Old Sir John Fastolf evidently feels it a trouble even to sign his
name, and in his latter years invariably allows others to sign it for
him. Men of high rank generally sign their letters, but scarcely ever
write them with their own hands. And well was it, in many cases, for
their correspondents that they did not do it oftener. Whether, like
Hamlet, they thought it ‘a baseness to write fair,’ and left such
‘yeoman’s service’ to those who had specially qualified themselves for
it; or whether, absorbed by other pursuits, they neglected an art which
they got others to practise for them, the nobility were generally the
worst writers of the day. Their handwriting and their spelling were on a
par, and were sometimes so outrageous, that it requires no small effort
of imagination to comprehend the words, even if we could be sure of the
letters.[319-1]

    [Footnote 319-1: A notable example of this is afforded by the
    letters of Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, which will be found
    printed in my _Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII._
    His successor in title, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, the
    favourite of Henry VIII., wrote quite as barbarous a hand, and
    outraged orthography in a manner equally bewildering.]

[Sidenote: Eton College.] Education, nevertheless, was making undoubted
progress, both among high and low. Eton College and King’s College,
Cambridge, had been founded by Henry VI. only a few years before old
Judge Paston died. His grandson and namesake, William Paston, as we have
seen, was sent to the former place for his education, and was learning
to construct Latin hexameters and pentameters there in 1479. His
progress, it is true, seems to have been but indifferent. What was to be
expected of a young gentleman of nineteen, whose attention, even while
at school, was distracted by the thought that he had already met with
one who might be a partner for life? Nevertheless, in that same letter
in which he writes to his brother John what he knows of Mistress
Margaret Alborow, he sends him also a specimen of his performances in
Latin versification. It is not a very brilliant production, certainly,
but the fact of his sending it to his elder brother shows that John
Paston too had gone through a regular classical training on the system
which has prevailed in all public schools down to the present day.

[Sidenote: Oxford.] It has, moreover, been remarked that the
illustrations both of Eton and of Oxford life in the fifteenth century
bear a striking resemblance to the well-known usages of modern times. It
is true Walter Paston’s expenses at Oxford were not great, even if we
take into consideration the much higher value of money in that day. For
a period of probably half a year they amounted to no more than £6: 5
_s._: 5¾ _d._[320-1] Yet when he became B.A. he gave a banquet, as
graduates have been accustomed to do since his day, for which he was
promised some venison from Lady Harcourt, but was disappointed.[320-2]
Even the expenses attending the graduation, however, do not appear to
have been very heavy. ‘It will be some cost to me, but not much,’ wrote
Walter Paston in his own case, though he had been disappointed in the
hope of passing at the same time as Lionel Woodville, the queen’s
brother, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, who apparently would have borne
a portion of the expenses of his fellow-graduates.[320-3]

    [Footnote 320-1: No. 931.]

    [Footnote 320-2: No. 946.]

    [Footnote 320-3: No. 945.]

From the letters just referred to we are reminded that it was at this
time usual for those who received a liberal education not only to take a
degree in arts but to proceed afterwards in the faculty of law. At the
universities, unfortunately, law is studied no longer, and degrees in
that faculty are now purely honorary.

[Sidenote: Mode of computing dates.] Some other points may be suggested
to us, even by the most superficial examination of the contents of these
volumes. The mode in which the letters are dated by their writers shows
clearly that our ancestors were accustomed to measure the lapse of time
by very different standards from those now in use. Whether men in
general were acquainted with the current year of the Christian era may
be doubted; that was an ecclesiastical computation rather than one for
use in common life. They seldom dated their letters by the year at all,
and when they did it was not by the year of our Lord, but by the year of
the king’s reign. Chronicles and annals of the period, which give the
year of our Lord, are almost always full of inaccuracies in the figures;
and altogether it is evident that an exact computation of years was a
thing for which there was considered to be little practical use. As to
months and days, the same remark does not apply. Letters were very
frequently dated in this respect according to what is the general usage
now. But even here, as the reader will not fail to observe, there was a
much more common use of Festivals and Saints’ days, and when a letter
was not written on a day particularly marked in the Calendar, it was
frequently dated the Monday or Wednesday, or whatever day of the week it
might happen to be, _before_ or _after_ such a celebration. Agnes Paston
even dates a letter during the week by the collect of the Sunday
preceding:--‘Written at Paston in haste, the Wednesday next after _Deus
qui errantibus_.’[321-1]

    [Footnote 321-1: No. 34.]

[Sidenote: Mode of reckoning.] Of their modes of computing other things
we have little indication in these volumes except in money accounts,
which are always kept in Roman figures. No separate columns are set
apart in MSS. of this date (although for the convenience of the reader
this has sometimes been done in print) for the different denominations
of pounds, shillings, pence, and marks, so that it would have been
impossible for the best arithmetician easily to cast up totals after the
modern fashion. The arithmeticians of that day, in fact, had a totally
different method of reckoning. They used counters, and had a
counting-board or abacus, on which they set up the totals.[321-2] An
instance of this occurs in the first volume, where John Paston, in
superintending the works at Caister Castle, or, as we now rather
suspect, at Mautby, thought it advisable to change the room in which his
coffers and his ‘countewery’ should be set. In connection with this
incident one other point is worthy of observation. On taking the measure
of the new room, John Paston’s wife reported that he would find it less
convenient than the former one. ‘There is no space,’ she wrote, ‘beside
the bed, though the bed were removed to the door, to set both your board
and your coffers there, and to have space to go and sit beside.’[321-3]
When it is considered that the room in question was a ‘draught chamber,’
that is to say, that it contained a privy in addition to the furniture
which Paston intended to introduce, want of space ought certainly to
have been a very serious objection.

    [Footnote 321-2: The modern mode of adding up columns of arabic
    numerals was called _Algorism_ or _Awgrym_. Thus Palsgrave gives
    as an example of the use of the word--‘I shall reken it syxe times
    by aulgorisme, or you can caste it ones by
    counters.’--_Promptorium Parv._ i. 18.]

    [Footnote 321-3: No. 224.]

[Sidenote: Manner of living.] The neglect of sanitary considerations in
domestic architecture--indeed, in domestic matters generally--was no
doubt a prolific source of disease and pestilence. Yet the general plan
of daily life pursued by our ancestors was, it must be owned, more
wholesome than that of the nineteenth century. It is well known that
they were early risers. Innumerable patent kinds of artificial light did
not tempt them to waste the natural hours of rest either in study or in
dissipation. Their meals too were earlier. Their dinner was at noon, if
not before; and after dinner, in the long summer days, it was customary
to take some additional repose. Thus Henry Windsor concludes a letter to
John Paston--‘Written in my sleeping time at afternoon, on
Whitsunday.’[322-1] This practice of sleeping in the daytime was so
universal that in the case of labourers it was only thought necessary to
keep it within certain limits, and to restrict it by Act of Parliament
to a quarter of the year, from the middle of May to the middle of
August.[322-2]

    [Footnote 322-1: No. 332.]

    [Footnote 322-2: Statute 6 Hen. VIII. ch. 3.]

[Sidenote: Sending dinners out.] A curious practice in relation to
dining mentioned in Letter 423 has already been incidentally alluded to.
It was the year after Sir John Fastolf’s death, and John Paston’s wife
had gone out of Norwich to reside at Hellesdon. Paston’s increased
importance in the county was shown by the Mayor and Mayoress of Norwich
one day _sending their dinners out_ to Hellesdon, and coming to dine
with Margaret Paston. Of this kind of compliment we have another
illustration in More’s _History of Richard III._ It is well known how,
when just after the death of Edward IV. the Earl of Rivers and Lord
Richard Grey were conducting the boy king Edward V. up to London, they
were overtaken by the Duke of Gloucester at Stony Stratford, and placed
under arrest. As the story is reported by More, Gloucester at first
treated his prisoners with courtesy, and at dinner sent a dish from his
own table to Lord Rivers, praying him to be of good cheer, for all
should be well enough. ‘And he thanked the duke,’ continues the
historian, ‘and prayed the messenger to bear it to his nephew the Lord
Richard with the same message for his comfort, who he thought had more
need of comfort as one to whom such adversity was strange; but himself
had been all his days in ure therewith, and therefore could bear it the
better.’

[Sidenote: Chivalry and courtesy.] The courtesies of life were certainly
not less valued in those rough unquiet days than in our own. Although
men like Caxton lamented the decline of chivalry, its civilising
influence continued, and its most important usages were still kept up.
Among the books which William Ebesham transcribed for Sir John Paston at
the rate of twopence a leaf, was one which was called _The Great Book_,
treating of ‘the Coronation and other Treatises of Knighthood,’ ‘of the
manner of making joust and tournaments,’ and the like.[323-1] His
library, or that of his brother John, contained also ‘the Death of
Arthur,’ the story of Guy of Warwick, chronicles of the English kings
from Cœur de Lion to Edward III., the legend of Guy and Colbrand, and
various other chronicles and fictions suited to knightly culture;
besides moral treatises, like Bishop Alcock’s _Abbey of the Holy Ghost_,
and poetical and imaginative books, such as the poems of Chaucer--at
least his _Troilus and Cressida_, his _Legend of Ladies_ (commonly
called _The Legend of Good Women_), his _Parliament of Birds_, the
_Belle Dame sauns Mercie_, and Lydgate’s _Temple of Glass_. Books like
these formed part of the recreations of a country gentleman. They
contained, doubtless, the fund of ideas which fathers communicated to
their children around the winter fire. And the children were the better
qualified to appreciate them by an education which was entirely founded
upon the principles of chivalry.

    [Footnote 323-1: Nos. 695, 987.]

[Sidenote: The training of the young.] It was in accordance with these
principles, and to maintain a true sense of order in society, that the
sons of knights and gentlemen were sent at an early age to serve in
other gentlemen’s houses. Thus John Paston the youngest was sent to be
brought up in the family of the Duke of Norfolk; and so common was this
practice, so necessary was it esteemed to a young gentleman’s education,
that, as we have seen, his father was reproached for keeping his elder
brother at home and unemployed. In a new household, and especially in
that of a man of rank, it was considered that a youth would learn
something of the world, and fit himself best for the place he was to
fill in it. It was the same also, to some extent, with the daughters of
a family, as we find Margaret Paston writing to her son Sir John to get
his sister placed in the household either of the Countess of Oxford or
of the Duchess of Bedford, or else ‘in some other worshipful
place.’[324-1] This we have supposed to be his sister Margery, who (no
doubt for want of being thus taken care of) shortly after married
Richard Calle, to the scandal and disgust of the whole family. His other
sister, Anne, was placed in the household of a gentleman named
Calthorpe, who, however, afterwards desired to get rid of her, alleging
that he wished to reduce his household, and suggested that she ‘waxed
high, and it were time to purvey her a marriage.’ It is curious that the
prospect of her being sent home again does not seem to have been
particularly agreeable even to her own mother. Margaret Paston wonders
why Calthorpe should have been so anxious to get rid of the young lady
without delay. Perhaps she had given him offence, or committed some
misdemeanour. Her mother therefore writes to her son John the youngest
in London to see how Cousin Clere ‘is disposed to her-ward,’ that she
may not be under the necessity of having her home again, where she would
only lose her time, and be continually trying her mother’s patience, as
her sister Margery had done before her.[324-2]

    [Footnote 324-1: No. 704.]

    [Footnote 324-2: No. 766.]

[Sidenote: Want of domestic feeling.] And was this, the reader may well
ask, the spirit of domestic life in the fifteenth century? Could two
generations of one family not ordinarily live together in comfort? Was
the feeling of older people towards children only that they ought to be
taught the ways of the world, and learn not to make themselves
disagreeable? Alas! I fear, for the most part it amounted to little more
than this. Children, and especially daughters, were a mere burden to
their parents. They must be sent away from home to learn manners, and to
be out of the way. As soon as they grew up, efforts must be made to
marry them, and get them off their parents’ hands for good. If they
could not be got rid of that way, and were still troublesome, they could
be well thrashed, like Elizabeth Paston, the aunt of the last-mentioned
young ladies, who, as will be remembered, was allowed to speak to no
one, was beaten once or twice a week, and sometimes twice in one day,
and had her head broken ‘in two or three places’ in consequence.[325-1]

    [Footnote 325-1: No. 94, and p. 155 of this Introduction.]

Such a state of matters, however repulsive to our feelings, is by no
means unaccountable. That age was certainly not singular, however much
mistaken, in its belief that a sense of what is due to the State is more
important than a sense of what is due to the family. Our ancestors
forgot the fact--as we too, in this age of enforced schooling are too
apt to leave it out of account--that the most important part of
education, good or bad, must inevitably be that which a child receives
at home. They were rewarded for their forgetfulness by a loss of natural
affection, for which their high sense of external order afforded but
imperfect compensation. Admirable as the feudal system was in
maintaining the necessary subordination of different classes, it acted
most injuriously upon the homes, where all that makes up a nation’s real
worth must be carefully tended in the first instance. [Sidenote:
Wardships.] The very foundation of domestic life was in many cases
vitiated by a system which put the wardship and marriage of heirs under
age at the disposal of their superior lords. In the case of an important
landowner who held of the Crown, it was a regular matter of bargain and
sale. The wardship and marriage were granted away to such a person as
could offer the Treasury a satisfactory sum for the privilege; and if
the heir took it upon himself to marry without licence of such person,
he incurred a heavy fine.[325-2] Thus was the most sacred of all human
relations made a matter of traffic and sale, and the best feelings of
the human heart were systematically crushed by considerations the most
sordid.

    [Footnote 325-2: We have already referred, at p. 154, to the case
    of Stephen Scrope, whose wardship was sold by his stepfather, Sir
    John Fastolf, to Judge Gascoigne, but was afterwards bought back
    again to prevent the judge marrying him to one of his own
    daughters, both the original sale and the redemption being equally
    against the will of Stephen Scrope himself, who complained that
    Fastolf had ‘bought and sold him like a beast.’ The particulars of
    these transactions are not obtained from the Paston Letters, but
    there will be found several notices of another wardship, viz. that
    of Thomas Fastolf of Cowhaw, kinsman of Sir John Fastolf, which
    was bought by Sir John of the king, and committed by patent to
    John Paston and Sir Thomas Howes, and which became the subject of
    a good deal of controversy.--_See_ Nos. 248, 263, 266, 267, 271,
    292, and 352.]

[Sidenote: Remarks of a Venetian on the English.] The absence of
domestic affection among the English people generally was, in fact,
a subject of observation to foreigners in that day. The earliest extant
report of a Venetian ambassador on the state of this country was written
in the reign of Henry VII., and in this we find some very strong
comments on the subject, showing that the cold-heartedness of parents
towards their children, the want of tenderness in husbands towards their
wives, the mercenary way in which marriages were contracted by parents
or guardians for the young people under their charge, was such as to
shock the sensibility of strangers from the warmer lands of the South.
To the Italian mind it seemed as if there was no real human nature in
Englishmen at all. There was licentiousness among them, to be sure, but
our Venetian almost doubted whether in high or low society an Englishman
was ever known to be in love. He had witnessed nothing of the sort
himself. On the contrary, he had seen young noblemen content to marry
old widows for the sake of fortunes, which they hoped to share soon with
younger partners; and he suspected that although Englishmen were very
jealous husbands, the most serious offences against married life might
be condoned for money.[326-1]

    [Footnote 326-1: _Italian Relation of England_ (Camden Soc.), pp.
    24-27.]

[Sidenote: Freedom of manners.] It is impossible to deny that these
comments, except the last, which we would fain hope was a mistake, must
have been largely justified. The Paston letters bear strong additional
testimony to the general truth of what our Italian critic saw in
England. Yet, acute as his observation was, an ambassador from the
stately Signory of Venice was perhaps not altogether in a position to
read the deepest mysteries of the English heart. To this day the warmth
of the English nature lies covered by a cold exterior; yet even in the
external manners of the people the genial Erasmus found touches which
our Venetian cared not for, and did not deign to notice. While feudalism
still kept down the natural emotions, insisting on a high respect for
order, there was a freedom in social intercourse, and in England more
than elsewhere, which has long ago been chilled among ourselves by the
severity of Puritanism. In his own amusing way Erasmus tells us how in
this delightful island ladies and gentlemen kissed each other freely
whenever they met, in the streets or in their houses. There were kisses
when you came, and kisses when you went away--delicate, fragrant kisses
that would assuredly tempt a poet from abroad to stay in England all his
days.[327-1] So the witty Dutchman informed a friend in the unrestrained
freedom of epistolary correspondence. And we may believe that in most
cases the severity of home was mitigated by a greater freedom of
communication with the world outside. Only in cases of very severe
displeasure were the daughters of a family shut up for a time, like
Elizabeth Paston, and forbidden to speak to any one. For the most part,
they received the salutations of strangers, and conversed with them
without reserve, as marriage was quite understood to be a thing which
depended entirely upon arrangements made by their parents.

    [Footnote 327-1: _Erasm. Epp._ lib. v. 10.]

[Sidenote: Urbanity.] With all this, there was an urbanity of manners,
a courtesy of address, and a general external refinement, on which more
recent times have not improved. And in these things England was
pre-eminent. Our Venetian could not help noticing that the English were
a very polite people. Another Italian of that day, Polydore Vergil, has
recorded that in this respect they resembled his own countrymen. The
hard schooling which they received at home, the after-training elsewhere
in the houses of ‘worshipful’ persons, had taught them from their early
years to consider above all things what was due to others. In every
relation of life, in the freest social intercourse, the honour due to
parents, to strangers, to noblemen, or to kings, was never for a moment
forgotten. In the most familiar letters the son asks his father’s or
mother’s blessing, and the wife addresses her husband as ‘right
worshipful.’ When people talked to each other on the street, they did so
with heads uncovered. Even kings at the mention of other potentates’
names took off their hats with reverence.[328-1]

    [Footnote 328-1: _Italian Relation_, pp. 22-32; Polydore Vergil,
    14-15. Henry VII., in conference with the Spanish ambassador, De
    Puebla, always took off his hat when the names of Ferdinand and
    Isabella were mentioned (Bergenroth’s _Spanish Calendar_, vol. i.
    p. 10). I have also seen notices of the same custom elsewhere.]

[Sidenote: Importance of maintaining authority.] An age which, with all
its many drawbacks, cultivated ideas such as these cannot be looked upon
as despicable or barbarous. We could have wished to see something more
of the element of love in families--something more of the easy rule of
natural affection occasionally superseding the hard notions of feudal or
parental discipline. But the anxiety to uphold authority, to preserve
honour for whom it was due, to maintain social and political order in
spite of influences which were conspicuously at work breaking it up
before men’s eyes, was a true and wholesome feeling, to the strength of
which we owe a debt unspeakable even in these days of progress. At no
time in England’s history was there a stronger feeling of the needful
subordination of the different parts of society to each other; but under
a king incapable of governing, this feeling bred a curse, and not a
blessing. The great lords, who should have preserved order under the
king, fell out among themselves, and in spite of the fervid loyalty of
the age, the greatest subject became a kingmaker.

[Sidenote: The Earl of Warwick’s household.] That civil war should have
broken out in a state of society like this need occasion no surprise.
The enormous retinues of feudal noblemen were in themselves sufficiently
dangerous to the peace of the kingdom, and when the sense of feudal
subjection to one sovereign was impaired, the issue could not be
doubtful. At the table of the great Earl of Warwick, Stow informs us
that the flesh of six entire oxen was sometimes consumed in a single
meal. With the profuse hospitality of the Middle Ages, he entertained
not only all his regular dependants, but all chance comers who had any
acquaintance in his household. Visitors were also allowed to carry off
joints from his table, and the taverns in the neighbourhood of Warwick’s
inn were actually full of his meat.[329-1] Such a nobleman had no
difficulty in obtaining friends to fight for him in the day of battle.
He maintained, in fact, what might be called a little standing army at
all times, and if an emergency arose, doubtless many who had dined at
his table would flock to his standard, and take his wages.[329-2]

    [Footnote 329-1: Stow’s _Chronicle_, 421.]

    [Footnote 329-2: _See_ No. 760.]

  [[Footnote 329-2: _missing “2” added_]]

[Sidenote: The Tudor policy.] The causes which had produced the wars of
the Roses were carefully watched by the Tudor sovereigns, and one by one
rooted out. Laws were passed against noblemen keeping large retinues,
and were not suffered to remain a dead letter. The nobility of England
learned to stand in awe of the Crown in a way they never did before, and
never have done since. Every branch of the royal family, except the
reigning dynasty, was on one pretext or another lopped away. Every
powerful nobleman knew that just in proportion as he was great, it was
necessary for him to be circumspect. Under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth,
birth and rank counted for very little, and the peers became submissive
instruments, anxious, and indeed eager, to carry out the sovereign’s
will. In short, the unity of a divided nation was restored under a set
of politic kings, who enforced the laws, kept down the nobility, and, in
spite of their despotism, were generally loved by the people.



APPENDIX TO PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION


I. WILL OF PETER LE NEVE.--See p. 3.

The following extracts from the will of Peter Le Neve, as contained in
the principal register at Doctors’ Commons, are curious in other
respects besides their bearing on the history of the Paston MSS.

  Item, I give and bequeath unto the Reverend Doctor Tanner,
  Chancellor of Norwich, and Mr. Thomas Martin of Palgrave, all my
  abstracts out of records, old deeds, books, petigrees, seals,
  papers, and other collections which shall only relate to the
  antiquityes and history of Norfolk and Suffolk, or one of them, upon
  condicion that they, or the survivor of them, or the executors or
  administrators of such survivor, do and shall, within twelve months
  next after my decease, procure a good and safe repository in the
  Cathedral Church of Norwich, or in some other good and publick
  building in the said city, for the preservation of the same
  collections, for the use and benefitt of such curious persons as
  shall be desirous to inspect, transcribe, or consult the same. And I
  doe hereby give full power to the said Doctor Tanner and Thomas
  Martin, and to the survivor of them, and to the executors or
  administrators of such survivor, to fix and prescribe such rules and
  orders for the custody and preservation of the said collecions as
  they shall think proper. . . .

  Item, my will and mind is, that if my said wife Frances shall at any
  time hereafter intermarry with Thomas Allen, my late clerk, then I
  will that she shall have and enjoy but the annuity or summe of forty
  pounds per annum from the time of such her intermarryage, and noe
  more shall be paid unto her by my aforesaid trustees; and I strickly
  charge and forbid her, the said Frances, to permitt the said Thomas
  Allen to come into any of my studys, or to lend or give him any of
  my books or papers, or to suffer him in any respect to intermeddle
  with my affairs. Item, I give unto my said wife Frances such goods
  and things att Bow and Wychingham as I shall mencion and sett down
  in a certain paper to be signed and left by me for that purpose.
  Item, I give unto my said wife Frances my crown, silver gilt, my
  collar, silver party, my jewell, my herald’s coat and chain. Item,
I   give unto Henrietta Beeston the summe of twelve pence per week, to
  be paid to her from the first day of August last for so long time as
  she shall continue with me at Wychingham. Item, I will that all my
  shelves, presses, drawers, and boxes now in my study att Wychingham
  shall goe along with my Norfolk and Suffolk collections to Norwich.
  . . .

  Item, the residue of my printed or manuscript books, arms, and
  things relating to antiquity, I give them unto such person and
  persons, and bodyes, politic or corporate, as I shall direct and
  appoint, in a paper to be signed and left by me for that purpose.

    _The above will was proved 7th November 1729._

  [[I. WILL OF PETER LE NEVE.--See p. 3.
  _final . missing_]]

  [[p. 3 = under sidenote “the MSS.”]]


II. JULIAN HERBERD.--See pp. 33, 34.

The following documents in the case of Julian Herberd _v._ William
Paston are preserved in the Record Office among ‘Chancery, Parliamentary
and Council Proceedings.’ The date, it will be seen, must be after
1432:--


MEMBRANE 1

  William Paston.

    S{r} Rauf, parson of Bronham, steward with my maister Cromwell.
    Austinne Bange of Norwiche.
    John Roppys with hem priour of the Abbey of Norwiche.
    Rob’t Chapelleyn of Norwiche.
    Rob’t Grygge of litel Plomstede in the cuntie of Norwiche.
    S{r} William, the vicaire of Seint Stephenes Chirche in Norwiche.


MEMBRANE 2

  Please it to youre moste hie and habundant grace to graunte un to
  youre pouere and continuel bedwoman Julian Herberd, that William
  Paston one of youre Juges of the cõe benche may come with alle his
  affinite and appere bifore youre hie and gracious presence with alle
  youre worthy and right wyse counsail, and that of youre hie
  goodnesse comaunde the seide William Paston to bringe bifore yow and
  to schewe alle the evidences and munimentes, whiche that the modere
  of youre seide pore bisechere schulde have yeve un to the seide
  William Paston state or to any man that had it bifore hym or eny man
  for here seide moder or eny of the seide blode, fro the tyme youre
  seide pore bisechere modere was borne un to this oure. For the seide
  William Paston knowleched bifore my lorde of Warewyk and youre
  Chaunceller of Inglonde, youre Tresorer, youre chef Juge of the
  Kynges benche, and afore other of yo{r} sergeantz of lawe, beynge to
  gidere, how he radde diversez evidences of xix acres londe that
  schulde longe un to youre seide pore bisechere every yere vj_s._
  viij_d._, so that sche wolde holde here plesed and content. Up on
  the whiche sche wolde nat holde here so agreed with oute youre
  gracious advis in this matere. Besechinge to youre hie and habundant
  grace, for oure right worthy and gracious Kynge youre fadere soule,
  and for oure right worthy and gracious quene youre moder soule, whos
  soules God of his grace assoille, that youre seide pore bisecher may
  have here evidences, so that here trewe right might be opinly
  knowen. For there ys twies so good behinde as the saide William
  Paston knowleched of the seide xix acres, and youre seide pore
  bisecher wol nat assent that he schulde take his otthe, laste he wol
  suere that he have nat here evidences. For it may nat be but he
  moste nedes have hem or summe of his, and that ys opinly knowen.
  That it like un to youre good Grace to considere this matere above
  wretyn, and thereuppon to graunte, that the seide William Paston
  with alle his affinite and youre seide bisecher may alle be bounden
  to yow in a simple obligacion in what somme that liketh youre hie
  wysdome, demene so that they may abide youre awarde, with the assent
  & consent of youre fulle wys and discrete councell and youre worthy
  and gracious jugement in this mater for the love of God and yn wey
  of charitee.


MEMBRANE 3

TO OURE RIGHT GRACIOUS LORDE THE KYNGE

  Please it to youre right high and gracious lordeshipe to considere
  the grete wronges that William Paston hath done to Julian Herberd,
  youre pore wydowe and continuell bedewoman, for with holdynge of
  diverses evidences and wrongefulle prisonmentes that he hath done to
  the seide Julian ayenst youre lawes, whiche been here under wretyn
  yn article wise, whiche the seide Julian bisechith un to youre moste
  hie and gracious lordeshipe oversee, and that remedie may be putte
  therynne by youre gracious hondes atte Reverence of God and in wey
  of charitee.

  These been the wronges and extorcions done to Julian Herberd
  doughter and heir of Herry Herberd of lytel Plumstede yn the Counte
  of Norff. and Margarete his wyf, doughter and heir to William
  Palmere, sometyme of the seide Plumstede, by William Paston, and of
  othere by his assent.

  Firste, there as the seide Margarete died sesid yn here demene as yn
  fee taille of a mesuage of xix. acres of londe with thappourtenance
  yn Plumstede, the whiche to the same Juliane schulde discende be
  right of heritage, as doughter and nexte heir of the seide
  Margarete. The whiche William Paston the seide Juliane of the seide
  mees and londes now be xl. wynter hath witholden, the whiche been
  yerly worth xxx_s̃._ and better, the sõme ys now owynge lx_l̃i._

  Memorandum, quod Juliana Herberd de Norwico, que fuit filia
  Margarete Palmere de Plumstede produxit Robertum Bresyngham et
  Johannem Colton, Cives Norwici, coram Willelmo Paston apud Norwicum
  in Camera sua ad recordandum coram eo et aliis circumstantibus quod
  Johannes Thornham optulit prefate Juliane pro tribus acris terre in
  campis de Plumstede predictis xl_s̃._ pro jure suo hereditario, que
  tres acre jacent in placito inter dominum Johannem Thornham,
  petentem, et Robertum Grigge tenentem. Et prefatus Robertus
  Bresyngham et Johannes inquirebant per viciñ vill’ adjac̃, qui
  dixerunt quod Margareta Palmere, mater dicte Juliane fuit recta
  heres illius terre; Et quod post decessum ejusdem Margarete
  discendere debuisset prefate Juliane ut de feodo talliato. Et postea
  dictus Willelmus in presencia Radulphi Rectoris de Brunham, Johannis
  Roppys, Henrici Pye de Brixston, Thome Marchall et aliorum ibidem
  existencium publice legebat cartas et evidencias pertinentes dicte
  Juliane, et optulit eidem Juliane pro suo jure habendo etc.,
  xij_d._, et postea xx_d._ Et eciam pro majore evidencia dicta
  Juliana produxit duodecim legales homines ville de Plumstede Magna
  et Parva coram Thoma Erpyngham milite, qui dixerunt quod prefata
  Margareta, mater dicte Juliane, fuit recta heres predictarum
  terrarum etc., et quod per totam patriam bene est cognitum quod
  prefata Juliana est recta heres ejusdem Margarete. Ac eciam alia
  vice predictus Willelmus optulit dicte Juliane pro jure suo xx_s̃._
  in presencia Ricardi Gegge, Gentilman, sibi solvendos quandocunque
  vellet, prout idem clericus omni tempore recordare voluerit.

  Also there as the seide Julian poursued ayenst the seide William
  atte a parlement holden atte Westminstre, and there the seide
  William did here arrest yn to the Countour of London, and there
  kepte here yn prisone to the seide parlement was ended thretnynge
  here to holde here there terme of here lyf, but yf sche wol relesse
  to hym here right and make acquitaunce generall.

  Also the seide Paston, be nightes tyme bituene ix. or x. of the
  belle, did do bringe the seide Julian prisoner under warde to his
  ynne in Fletestrete, and there constreined here to seale a blanke
  chartre, yn whiche he dide write a relesse atte his owne devys, and
  sent here ayene to prisone, and there kepte here iij. daies, and
  sent ayene for here to hire the relesse radde, and profred for here
  right vj. marke.

  Also the seide Paston, the Saturday nexte bifore the feste of Saint
  George, the vj. yere, etc., profred the seide Juliane in presence of
  the Chaunceller vj. marke yn playne court and iij. acres of the
  seide londe, and so moche ys the seide Juliane refused that profre,
  did arreste here newe in the seide Countoure and helde here there
  from the vij. day of Feverere, etc., and there wolde make here swere
  on a book or be bounde by obligacion never more to poursue here
  right.

  Also the seide Paston atte Counsell holden atte Redynge the seide
  Juliane poursued to the lorde of Bedford, and he comaunded to write
  his lettres to the seide Paston chargynge hym to aggre with here,
  the seide Paston havynge knowleche that sche sewed for the lettres,
  made a false sugestion to the Chaunceller, wherby sche was by a
  sergeaunt of armes committed to Flete, and there beten, fetered and
  stokked, and so there holden by an hole yere, to that entent that no
  man schulde wete where sche was by come tille sche hadde be dede in
  prison. Of whiche false prisonment S{r} Thomas Erpyngham poursued
  here deliveraunce, comaunded here to be atte the nexte Cessions to
  be justefied there, consideringe to here grete damage as well in
  here body as losse of goodes by so longe tyme continued, whiche
  prisonment the seide Julian wolde nat have hadde for xl_li._ beside
  alle other losse of goodes.

  Also the seide Paston with holdeth alle the evidences to here seide
  right longinge, and wastynge the seide mesuage and londes in that he
  may.

  Also the seide Paston kepte here iij. yere in the pitte withynne the
  Castell of Norwiche in grete meschef, in so moche that scho hadde
  nat but a pynte of mylke yn x. daies and x. nightes, and a ferthinge
  loffe, standinge under the jugement and ordenance of the Duke of
  Norffe now late passed to God.[333-1]

  Also, the seide Paston scith hadde youre seide suppliant in prisone
  in the Kynges benche, and there sche lay xij. monthes and more in
  harde payne and distresse nye dede for colde hunger and thurste.

  Item, the seide Paston dede to bringe here oute of the Roundehows yn
  to youre paleys and brought here afore youre chef Justice, and than
  the saide Paston comaunded certeines persones to bringe here to
  prisone to youre Benche, and badde atte his perille certeines
  persones to smyte the brayne oute of here hede for suynge of here
  right, and there beynge in grevouse prison durynge half yere and
  more fetered and cheined, suffringe colde, hunger, thurste, in
  pointe of deth, God and ye, gracious Kynge, helpe here to here
  right.

    (_Membranes 1 and 2 are sewn on to the face of membrane 3, one at
    the top, the other at the bottom._)

    [Footnote 333-1: John Mowbray, second Duke of Norfolk, who died
    in 1432.]

  [[II. JULIAN HERBERD.--See pp. 33, 34.
  _final . missing_]]

  [[pp. 33, 34 = under sidenote “John Wortes”]]


III. PARMINTER’S INSURRECTION.--See p. 75.

In the bundle of Privy Seals for the year 29 Henry VI. is a pardon to
James God, dated on the 4th March, and delivered to the Chancellor for
execution on the 5th. Attached to it is the following record of his
indictment:--

  ‘_Kent sc._--Jur’ dicunt quod Jacobus God nuper de Feversham in com’
  prædicto, plummer, et alii, ac quamplures alii proditores, rebelles
  et inimici illustrissimis Principis Henrici Regis Angliæ Sexti post
  Conquestum ignoti et nuper complices et de societate falsi
  proditoris Will’i Parmynter, smyth, qui se ipsum nominavit Secundum
  Capitaneum Kanciæ, eidemque adhærentes et de ejus covina et assensu
  in omnibus proditionibus suis mortem dicti Regis et destructionem
  regni sui Angliæ confœderantes, machinantes, compassentes et
  proponentes, ultimo die Augusti anno regni dicti Regis vicesimo
  nono[334-1] apud Feversham et alibi in com. Kanciæ se adinvicem
  congregaverunt ad numerum quadringentorum hominum et amplius,
  dicentes et confidentes quod ipsi essent de eorum covina et assensu
  ad eorum libitum et voluntatem xl. milia hominum armatorum et modo
  guerrino arraiatorum ad præbendum et percussiendum bellum contra
  dictum Regem seu quoscumque alios in proditionibus suis prædictis
  eis contravenientes, et falso et proditorie insurrexerunt et mortem
  dicti Regis imaginaverunt et compassi fuerunt, ac guerram adtunc et
  ibidem et alibi per vices infra dictum com. Kanc. falso et
  proditorie contra dictum Regem, supremum dominum suum, levaverunt,
  in destructionem ipsius Regis et Regni prædicti.

    BENET.’

  There is a note of the trial of Parmynter in Hilary term, 29 Hen.
  VI., on the Controlment Roll of that year, rot. 9.

    [Footnote 334-1: So in the record, but evidently an error. It
    should have been _vicesimo octavo_.]

  [[inimici illustrissimis Principis
  _text unchanged: expected form “illustrissimi”_]]

  [[p. 75 = under sidenote “Further disturbances”]]


IV. PARDON TO JOHN PAYN.--See p. 78.

On the Patent Roll 30 Henry VI., p. 1, m. 23, occurs the following
entry:--

  _De Pardonacione._--Rex omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis ad quos,
  &c., salutem. Sciatis quod cum nonnulli rebelles nostri in comitatu
  nostro Kanciæ, paucis ante diebus contra pacem nostram
  insurrectionem gravem concitantes, quasdam factiones proditorias
  contra nostram personam detestabiliter machinati fuerint,
  nonnullaque proditiones, murdra, felonias et facinora, aliasque
  transgressiones perpetraverint; quia tamen, cum nuper per civitates,
  oppida atque villas in eodem comitatu nostro ad eorum hujusmodi
  insolencias et rebelliones coercendos iter faceremus, plurimi ex
  eisdem, spiritu sanioris consilii ducti, plurimum humiliati, etiam
  usque femoralia nudi, suorum immanitates criminum coram nobis
  confitentes, veniam a nobis effusis lachrymis anxie postularunt;
  Nos, ad singulorum hujusmodi ligeorum nostrorum submissiones
  humillimas nostros misericordes oculos dirigentes, ac firmiter
  tenentes quod de cætero in nostra obedientia stabiles permanebunt,
  fidem ligeanciæ suæ erga nos inantea inviolabiliter servaturi, ad
  laudem, gloriam et honorem Omnipotentis et misericordis Dei ac
  gloriosissimæ Virginis matris Christi, de gratia nostra speciali
  pardonavimus, remisimus et relaxavimus Johanni Payn de Pecham in
  comitatu prædicto, yoman, alias dicto Johanni Payn, nuper de
  Estpekham in comitatu prædicto, smyth, qui inter cæteros se submisit
  nostræ gratiæ, quocumque nomine censeatur, sectam pacis nostræ quæ
  ad nos versus eum pertinent, seu poterit pertinere, pro quibuscumque
  proditionibus, feloniis, murdris et transgressionibus per ipsum a
  septimo die Julii anno regni nostri vicesimo octavo usque decimum
  diem Junii ultimo præteritum factis sive perpetratis; acetiam
  utlagarias, si quæ in ipsum Johannem occasionibus prædictis seu
  earum aliqua fuerint promulgatæ; necnon omnimodas forisfacturas
  terrarum, tenementorum, reddituum, possessionum, bonorum et
  catallorum, quæ idem Johannes nobis occasionibus prædictis seu earum
  aliqua forisfecit aut forisfacere debuit, et firmam pacem nostram ei
  inde concedimus: Ita tamen quod stet recto in curia nostra si quis
  versus eum loqui voluerit de præmissis seu aliquo præmissorum.
  Proviso semper quod ista nostra pardonacio, remissio sive relaxacio
  se non extendat ad aliqua malefacta supra mare et aquas aliquo modo
  facta sive perpetrata. In cujus, &c. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium
  secundo die Novembris.

    Two similar patents were granted on the same date to Richard
    Doke, yeoman, and William Souter, labourer, both of Peckham.

  [[p. 78 = under sidenote “John Payn and the rebels”]]


V. THE DUKE OF YORK AT DARTFORD.--See p. 99.

The most minute account of the encampment of the Duke of York at
Dartford is contained in the following extract from the Cottonian Roll,
ii. 23.

  At Crayfford,       myle from Dertfford.

  Primo die mensis Marcii anno regni Regis Henrici Sexti xxx{o} ther
  was my Lord of Yorkes ordynaunce iij{mill.} gownner, and hym selff
  in the middell ward with viij{mil.}, my Lord of Devynsher by the
  southe side with vj{mill.}, and my Lord Cobham with vj{mil.} at
  the water side, and vij. shippus with ther stuff. And sith that
  tyme, and sith was poyntment made and taken at Dertfford by
  embassetours, my Lord the B. of Winchester, my Lord B. of Ely, my
  Lord the Erle of Salusbury, my Lorde of Warrewik, my Lord Bewcham,
  and my Lord of Sydeley, &c., whiche poyntment was, &c. And soon
  after was Chatterley, yeman of the Crown, maymed, notwithstondyng he
  was takyn at Derby with money making and ladde to London. Then after
  the Kynges yeman of his chambur, namyd Fazakerley, with letteris was
  sent to Luddelowe to my Lord of Yorke chargyng to do forth a certeyn
  of his mayny, Arthern, squier, Sharpe, sqier, &c.; the whiche
  Fazakerley hyld in avowtry Sharpes wiff, the which Sharpe slewe
  Fitzacurley, and a baker of Ludlow roos and the Commyns, &c., the
  whych baker is at Kyllyngworth Castell, &c. After this my Lord of
  Shrousbury, &c., rode in to Kent, and set up v. peyre of galowes and
  dede execucion upon John Wylkyns, taken and brought to the towne as
  for capteyn, and with other mony mo, of the whiche xxviij. were
  honged and be heded, the whiche hedes were sent to London; and
  London said ther shuld no mo hedes be set upon there; and that tyme
  Eton was robbyd, and the Kyng beyng at Wynsor on Lowe Sonday, &c.

  [[viij{mil.},
  _comma misprinted as superscript_
  at Wynsor on Lowe Sonday, &c.
  _final . missing_]]

  [[p. 99 = shortly before sidenote “York is entrapped”]]


VI. THE DUKE OF YORK AND THE COUNCIL.--See p. 132.

The following document is enrolled on the Patent Roll, 32 Henry VI.,
membrane 20:--

  _Pro Ricardo Duce Ebor._--Rex omnibus ad quos, &c., salutem.
  Inspeximus tenorem cujusdam actus in consilio nostro apud
  Westmonasterium tento facti, venerabili patri Johanni Cardinali et
  Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, totius Angliæ primati, Cancellario
  nostro, per Thomam Kent, clericum ejusdem consilii nostri, ad
  exemplificationem tenoris prædicti sub Magno Sigillo nostro in forma
  debita fiendam nuper deliberatum et in filaciis Cancellariæ nostræ
  residentum, in hæc verba:--

  The xxj. day of Novembre, the yere of the regne of oure Souverain
  Lorde King Henry the VI{th} xxxij{ti.} at Westmynstre, in the
  Sterred Chambre, being there present the Lordes, the Cardinal
  Archebisshop of Canterbury and Chaunceller of England, th’
  Archebisshop of Yorke, the Bisshops of London, Winchestre, Ely,
  Norwich, Saint Davides, Chestre, Lincoln, and Carlisle, the Duc of
  Buckingham, th’Erles of Salisbury, Pembroke, Warrewik, Wiltshire,
  Shrovesbury, and Worcestre, Tresourer of England, the Viscount
  Bourchier, the Priour of Seint Johns, the Lordes Cromwell, Suddeley,
  Duddeley, Stourton, and Berners. The Duc of York reherced unto the
  seid Lordes that he, as the Kinges true liegman and subgit, was by
  commaundement directed unto him undre the Kinges Prive Seal, come
  hidre to the Kinges greet Counsail, and wolde with all diligence to
  his power entende to the same, and to all that that sholde or might
  be to the welfare of the King and of his subgettes; but for asmoche
  as it soo was that divers persones, suche as of longe tyme have been
  of his Counsail, have be commaunded afore this tyme, by what meanes
  he watte never, not to entende upon him, but to withdrawe thaim of
  any counsail to be yeven unto him: the which is to his greet hurte
  and causeth that he can not procede with suche matiers as he hath to
  doo in the Kinges courtes and ellus where, desired the Lordes of the
  counsail abovesaid that they wolde soo assente and agree that suche
  as have been of his counsail afore this tyme might frely, without
  any impediment, resorte unto him and withoute any charge to be leide
  unto theim, yeve him counsail from tyme to tyme in suche matiers as
  he hath or shal have to doo. To the which desire alle the Lordes
  abovesaide condescended and agreed, as to that thing that was
  thought unto them juste and resounable, and fully licenced all suche
  persones as he wolde calle to his counsail frely withoute any
  impediment to entende unto him; and commaunded this to be enacted
  amonge th’actes of the Counsaill. Actum anno, mense, die et loco ut
  supra, præsentibus dominis supradictis.

    T. Kent.

  Nos autem tenorem actus prædicti ad requisicionem carissimi
  consanguinei nostri prædicti, Ricardi Ducis Ebaracensis, duximus
  exemplificandum per præsentes. In cujus, &c. Teste Rege apud
  Westmonasterium, vj. die Decembris.

  [[p. 132 = before sidenote “Norfolk accuses Somerset”]]


VII. DEFENCE AGAINST THE EARL OF WARWICK.--See p. 185.

The following commissions are found on the Patent Roll 38 Henry VI., p.
2, m. 21. They afford remarkable evidence of the terror inspired in the
Queen’s Government by the capture of Lord Rivers at Sandwich.

  _De advocando et debellando._--Rex carissimo consanguineo suo
  Johanni Duci Norff’ ac dilecto et fideli suo Philippe Wentworth
  militi, necnon dilectis, sibi Roberto Willoughby, Johanni Hopton,
  Willelmo Tyrell, Thomæ Brewes, Gilberto Debenham, Johanni Clopton,
  Willelmo Jenney, et Reginaldo Rous, salutem. Quia satis manifestum
  est quod quidam rebelles nostri Ricardo nuper Comiti Warr’ proditori
  et inimico nostro adhærentes, villam nostram Sandewici jam tarde
  intrarunt et ibidem mala quamplurima nobis et fidelibus ligeis
  nostris fecerunt et perpetrarunt, et alia mala prioribus pejora in
  diversis partibus comitatus nostri Suff’, si eas ingredi poterint,
  facere et perpetrare proponunt, ut veraciter informamur, nisi eorum
  maliciæ citius et celerius resistatur: Nos, tam maliciæ ipsius
  inimici nostri ac complicum suorum prædictorum (_sic_), quam pro
  defensione partium ibidem providere volentes, ut tenemur,
  assignavimus vos, conjunctim et divisim, ac vobis et vestrum
  cuilibet plenam potestatem et auctoritatem damus et committimus ad
  advocandum coram vobis [omnes] et singulos ligeos nostros comitatus
  prædicti, cujuscunque status, gradus seu condicionis fuerint, de
  quibus vobis melius videbitur expedire, ad proficiscendum vobiscum
  contra præfatum inimicum nostrum ac complices suos prædictos, ac ad
  assistenciam et auxilium suum vobis seu vestrum cuilibet in eorum
  resistenciam dandum et impendendum in casu quo idem inimicus noster
  ac complices sui prædicti dictum comitatum vel partes adjacentes
  ingredi præsumant, ac ad eos et secum comitantes ut hostes et
  rebelles nostros debellandum, expugnandum, et destruendum, ac ad
  omnia alia et singula quæ juxta sanas discretiones vestras in hac
  parte in repressionem prædictorum inimicorum nostrorum ac complicum
  suorum et eorum maledicti propositi fore videritis necessaria et
  oportuna, faciendum, exercendum et exequendum. Et insuper
  assignavimus vos conjunctim et divisim ad omnes personas partem
  prædicti nuper Comitis Warr’ seu aliorum rebellium nostrorum et
  complicum suorum verbis vel operibus defendentes et tenentes, vel
  aliqua verba contra majestatem nostram regiam habentes et dicentes,
  similiter capiendum et arestandum, et in prisonis nostris in forma
  prædicta custodiendum, et custodiri faciendum. Et ideo vobis et
  vestrum cuilibet mandamus quod circa præmissa diligenter intendatis
  et ea faciatis et exequamini in forma prædicta. Damus autem
  universis et singulis vicecomitibus, majoribus, ballivis,
  constabulariis, ac aliis officiariis, ministris, fidelibus legiis et
  subditis nostris quibuscunque, tam infra libertates quam extra,
  tenore præsentium, firmiter, in mandatis, quod vobis et vestrum
  cuilibet in executione præmissorum intendentes sint, assistentes et
  auxiliantes in omnibus diligenter. In cujus, &c. Teste Rege apud
  Westmonasterium, x. die Februarii.

    Per Consilium.

  Consimiles literæ Regis patentes diriguntur carissimo consanguineo
  suo Johanni Duci Norff’ ac dilectis et fidelibus suis Thomæ Tudenham
  militi, Willelmo Chamberleyn militi, Miloni Stapulton militi, et
  Philippo Wentworth militi; necnon dilectis sibi Willelmo Calthorp,
  Johanni Heydon, Henrico Inglose, Johanni Wymondham, et Thomæ
  Claymond in comitatu Norff’. Teste ut supra.

  Consimiles literæ Regis patentes diriguntur dilectis et fidelibus
  suis majori et aldermannis ac vicecomitibus villæ suæ de Kyngeston
  super Hull, et eorum cuilibet in villa prædicta. Teste Rege apud
  Westmonasterium, xvj. die Februarii.

  [[necnon dilectis, sibi Roberto Willoughby
  _superfluous comma in original_]]

  [[p. 185 = midway between sidenotes “Lord Rivers at Sandwich”
  and “The Legate Coppini”]]


VIII. WILLIAM WORCESTER.--See p. 199.[338-1]

[Sidenote: 1460 AUG. 28]

  _De scripto irrotulato, Worcestre._--Universis et singulis Christi
  fidelibus ad quos præsens scriptum pervenerit, Willelmus Worcestre,
  alius dictus Botoner, de Castre juxta Yermouth in com’ Norff.,
  gentilman, salutem in Domino. Noveritis me, præfatum Willelmum,
  dedisse, concessisse et hoc præsenti scripto meo confirmasse Henrico
  Everyngham armigero, Hugoni Fenne gentilman, Henrico Wyndesore
  gentilman, Roberto Toppes juniori, gentilman, et Johanni Bokkyng,
  gentilman, omnia et singula bona mea et catalla, mobilia et
  immobilia, viva et mortua, ubicumque et in quorumcumque manibus, tam
  infra comitatu prædicto quam alibi infra regnum Angliæ existentia
  seu[338-2] inveniri poterint; acetiam omnia debita quæ mihi
  quacumque de causa a quibuscumque personis ubilibet debentur;
  habenda et tenenda omnia prædicta bona, catalla et debita præfatis
  Henrico, Hugoni, Henrico, Roberto et Johanni, executoribus et
  assignatis suis, ad inde faciendum, ordinandum et disponendum
  liberam suam voluntatem, ut de bonis, catallis et debitis suis
  propriis, sine contradictione, perturbatione, seu reclamatione
  aliquali imperpetuum; Ita, videlicet, quod nec ego, prædictus
  Willelmus, nec executores mei, nec aliquis alius per nos, pro nobis,
  seu nomine nostro, aliquid juris, proprietatis, seu clamei in
  prædictis bonis, catallis et debitis, nec in aliqua parcello
  eorundem, de cætero exigere, clamare seu vendicare poterimus nec
  debemus in futuro; sed ab omni actione juris, proprietatis et clamei
  inde petendi totaliter simus exclusi imperpetuum per præsentes. In
  cujus rei testimonium huic præsenti, scripto meo sigilium meum
  apposui. Datum vicesimo octavo die Augusti, anno regni Regis Henrici
  Sexti post Conquestum Angliæ tricesimo octavo.

  _Et memorandum quod prædictus Willelmus venit in Cancellariam Regis
  apud Westmonasterium primo die Septembris anno præsenti et
  recognovit scriptum prædictum et omnia contenta in eodem in forma
  prædicta._

    [Footnote 338-1: [From _Close Roll_ 39 Henry VI., m. 13 _d._]

    [Footnote 338-2: _Sic._]

  [[scripto meo sigilium meum
  _text unchanged: error for “sigillum”?_]]

  [[p. 199 = shortly before sidenote “Claimants of Fastolf’s
  property”]]


IX. JOHN PASTON CLAIMED AS THE KING’S ‘NATIVUS.’--See p. 225.[339-1]

FROM THE FIRST ASSEMBLY BOOK OF THE CITY OF NORWICH (fol. 65).

[Assembly on Friday after the Epiphany, 5 Edw. IV.]

[Sidenote: 1466 JAN. 10]

  Eodem die publicata fuit per Maiorem et Recordatorem Civitatis causa
  adventus domini de Scales ad civitatem secunda vice infra
  xviij{cim} dies; est et fuit pro bonis et catallis Johannis Paston
  quem dominus Rex pro suo nativo seisivit, ad dicta bona et catalla
  in quorumcunque manibus comperta fuerint nomine domini Regis
  seisiend’, et mesuagium[339-2] ipsius Johannis Paston infra
  Civitatem intrand’ et seisiend’ cum omnibus bonis et catallis in
  eodem inventis. Unde super et de materiis predictis per Recordatorem
  et Consilium legis peritorum Civitatis responsum fuit dicto domino
  de Scales omnibus viis modis et forma secundum eorum erudicionem
  prout poterunt (? potuerunt) pro libertate Civitatis salvand’ et
  custodiend’ illesa. Et quia materia predicta tangit libertatem
  Civitatis et privilegia, et dictus dominus de Scales per aliquod
  responsum ei factum non vult satisfieri, pro eo quod dictus dominus
  de Scales intendit omnino dictum mesuagium intrare et clausuras
  eiusdem frangere; Id circo presens communis congregacio summonita
  fuit, consilium et avisamentum communis Consilii et
  Constabulariorum[339-3] Civitatis audire et inde habere. Post vero
  diversas communicaciones communicare petierunt deliberacionem;
  matura deliberatione habita sic est deffinitum, quod introitus
  factus erit per assensum totius communis congregacionis per
  feoffatores ipsius Johannis Paston, quia bene suppositum est quod
  tam certi Aldermanni quam Cives Communarii[340-1] Civitatis sint
  cofeoffati cum ipso Johanne Paston; et sic per feoffatores dictum
  mesuagium erit apertum sine fractura vel ad minus nomine ipsorum
  feoffatorum vel feoffati unius.

    [Footnote 339-2: The house is supposed to have been in the parish
    of St. Peter Hungate, but it is not certainly known.]

    [Footnote 339-3: About this period the 24 Ward Constables were
    associated in an Assembly with the 60 Common Councillors. This is
    why they are mentioned here, not with any reference to ‘police’
    action.]

    [Footnote 340-1: Members of the Common Council.]

    [Footnote 339-1: For this extract from the Assembly books of the
    City of Norwich I am indebted to the Rev. William Hudson of
    Eastbourne, who further adds the following particulars:--

    The Mayor this year was Thomas Elys who is mentioned in the
    Paston Letters (iv. 139) as a great supporter of the Duke of
    Suffolk and opponent of Paston.

    The Recorder apparently was John Damme, I suppose the same who
    occurs so often as a friend of the Pastons.

    What with this divergence of feeling and the difficulty of
    satisfying Lord Scales as well as their own duty towards the
    City the case was a delicate one and was rather ingeniously
    dealt with.

    There is no other reference to the matter in the Norwich
    documents so far as I am aware.]

  [[p. 225 = shortly after sidenote “John Paston imprisoned
  a third time”_]]


X. A CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE.

  It is desirable here to correct an error in the text, which
  unfortunately was discovered too late. Letters 1020-1022 are out of
  their proper place. No. 1020 is certainly a letter of Elizabeth
  Woodville, Edward IV.’s queen, not of her daughter Elizabeth, who
  was Henry VII.’s. No. 1021 was placed after it as being about the
  same time, which no doubt it was; and the fact that the Earl of
  Oxford was out of favour for a considerable part of Edward IV.’s
  reign made it appear as if both letters belonged to that of Henry
  VII., to which they were accordingly relegated in previous editions.
  But this Earl of Oxford was in favour under Edward IV. till the
  restoration of Henry VI.; and No. 1022, a letter which only appeared
  in the Supplement of the last edition of this work, was written by
  John Daubeney, who was killed at the siege of Caister in 1469. The
  reference to the Queen’s confinement, moreover, which was so
  perplexing in the case of Elizabeth of York, fits exactly with the
  August of 1467, in which month Elizabeth Woodville gave birth to a
  daughter named Mary. This letter, therefore, was written on the 8th
  August, which would be the ‘Saturday before St. Laurence’ day’ in
  that year: and it must be noted that the footnotes on p. 107 are
  entirely wrong. The Archbishop of York referred to in the letter was
  George Nevill, and the Treasurer was Richard, Earl Rivers.

  No. 1021 is perhaps before A.D. 1467, as Howard and Sir Gilbert
  Debenham are believed to be intending ‘to set upon Coton,’ of which
  apparently Sir Gilbert was in possession in April 1467 (see vol. iv.
  No. 664, p. 274).



END OF VOLUME I


  Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty
  at the Edinburgh University Press





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Paston Letters, Volume I (of 6) - New Complete Library Edition" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.