_To my ryght wurschipful maister, John Paston._
[Sidenote: 1462 / MAY 18]
I recomaunde me unto you. Plesith it you to witte that I have spoken
with Furbuschour and other of the matre that ye spake to me off, and
they have promysed me to be as feythefull in it as it where for hem
selfe. Also I have spoken with my modre and seide to here as ye desired
me to doo, and sche seide sche knewe the massache weele inowe before be
other persones in like wice as ye comaunded hem to sey to her; and sche
seide she wode fayne that ye dede weele what so ever ye sey and fille
forthe in other talkyng. Me semethe che is displesed that ye came not to
her or than ye roode foorthe. I schall telle you more whan that ye come
home. Thomas Denys wyff whas at me, and desired me that I schulde sende
to you and desire you that che myght have knowleche from you how ye woll
that sche schall doo with her matre; sche seithe her brother and other
of her frendes thynke that she schulde up to London and calle uppon her
matre there, but she seithe pleynly sche woll nought doo therin withoute
your advice. It whas toolde me that Bacon and Gonnor whas here to speke
with me for the matre that Bacon spake to you of, and at that tyme I
whas at Norweche and I herde no more of hem sethen. And as for my
brother William, he is not purposed to come to London tyll aftre
Pentecost; but my brother Clement is purposed to come forward on Monday
or on Twesday next comyng at the ferthest. No more at this tyme but the
blissed Trinite preserve you. Wreten the xviij. day of May.
Your MARGARET PASTON.
I prey yow that ye woll wete safe to remembre Johane Gayne matre, and
that ye woll take John Paston that he remembre you of it, for Dawbeney
and Pampyng woll sone for gete it.
[Footnote 40.1: [From Paston MSS., B.M.] This letter is evidently
not far removed in date from No. 489, in which ‘Joan Gayne’s
matter’ is also mentioned. The year, however, cannot be 1461, as
William Paston was in London that year as early as the 4th April.
It seems also from this letter that John Paston had recently left
home, which could not have been the case in 1461 if No. 453 be of
that year. We have therefore little doubt that the true date is
1462, and that the substance of the letter relates to proceedings
taken by the widow of Thomas Denys against her husband’s
murderers.]
518