Chapter XIV: Letter 97: to a much earlier date than that assigned to it by the (5)

[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_