Chapter XII: Letter 97: to a much earlier date than that assigned to it by the (3)

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.]