[Footnote 59.4: [From Fenn, i. 272.] The sieges mentioned in this
letter took place, according to Warkworth, in December of the
_first_ year of Edward IV., _i.e._ 1461; but according to William
Worcester in 1462. The dates of the Privy Seal writs prove that
the latter is right, and that Edward IV. was at Durham in December
1462.]
[Footnote 59.5: Dunstanborough.]
[Footnote 60.1: John Mowbray, who succeeded his father in the
dukedom of Norfolk in 1461. He was at this time only eighteen
years of age.]
[Footnote 61.1: _See_ p. 57, Note 3.]
[Footnote 61.2: Agnes Paston.]
[Footnote 61.3: Elizabeth, widow of Robert Clere of Ormesby.]
[Footnote 61.4: Margaret Paston.]
534
[JOHN] PASTON TO [THE DUKE OF SUFFOLK][62.1]
[Sidenote: 1462-3]
That it please my lordis good grase to be good lord and supporter of
Paston in his right and possession of the maner till his right can be
lawfully or be trete dispreved by his adversaries, consideryng that the
said Paston is my lordis homager and was nevir ayens his lordship and
that my lord is not gretly behold to do for the seid Pastons adversaries
as he understandith.
And in case my lord woll not supporte the seid Paston in his right but
be indifferent athwyx bothe parties, that thanne it please my lorde to
have consideracion to the right of the mater as folowyth in articles and
ther upon to be remembird whedir it be resonably desired by William
Jenney or by Debenham as his waged man or for his sake that Paston shuld
leve the possession or the takyng of the profitez of the seid maner.
First to be remembird that the seid maner aswell as the maner of Nakton
were Sir John Fastolffis, and that the seid Paston of the seid maners
toke estatis at Cotton and attornement of the tenauntis viij. or ix.
yere goo, in such wise as the tenauntes can reporte, and continued there
in possession aswell in the live of the seid Sir John as sithen, and
hath take the profitez therof sith the discese of the said Fastolff,
except for the terme of Mighelmes a yere passed, whech tyme the
tenauntes were compellid by fors of distresses to pay ayens ther willes
part of the seid profitez.
And that also the title of the seid Paston to the seid maner is not all
only by the seid feffement but aswell by a graunt and bargeyn made a
thwyx the seid Fastolff and the seid Paston as by the last will of the
seid Fastolff, where by the seid Paston ought to take the hole profitez
of the seid maner, and also it is lefull to the seid Paston to kepe the
seid maner with fors, consideryng he hath be in possession iij. yere and
more; hough be it, the seid Paston intendyth to kepe the seid maner
pesibly and non otherwise. And that the pretense and cleyme of the seid
Jenney is that he schuld be infeffed with the seid Paston in the seid
maner; by whech pretense, if it were trewe, yet the seid Paston by
reason shuld not be put out of the seid maner, for who som evir had
titell therto by feffement or by executrie, Paston shuld be on that had
title; hough be it, the seid Paston cleymyth not in that forme, but by
the titell of his bargeyne and by the seid Fastolffis will.
Item, to be remembird, whech tyme as my lord had wretyn his lettirs and
sent his servauntes for the eyde and supporte of the seid Paston to take
the profitez of the seid maner of Nakton as of the maner of Cotton,
desyryng the tenauntes to the seid Paston, the seid Jenney wold have no
consideracion therto; hough be it, though he were a feffe he had no
titell to take the seid profitez, consideryng he is non executor, but
presumptuously, havyng no consideracion to my lordis lettir ner sendyng,
compellid the tenauntis by distresses to pay hym more besely thanne any
feffe or executor, and now at this same tyme hath be at Nakton and
reseyvid as moch mony as he coud gader there.
Item, where at Mighelmesse the yere passed the seid Paston sent his
sone, a servaunt of my Lordis, and also Richard Calle, servaunt to the
seid Paston put to hym by my Lordis fader,[63.1] to reseyve the profitez
of the seid maner as thei had do many yeres before, the seid Jenney ded
arest the seid Calle for a thef and as a thef caried hym to th’entent
that the tenauntes shuld be discoraged to pay the seid Paston. Whech
tyme, at the request of the said Calles kynred, it pleased my lord to
write to the seid Jenney and Debenham for the deliverauns of the seid
Calle; to which letteris they nouther toke hede nor reputation, but by
that sotilte reseyved the profitez of the seid maner, the seid Paston
havyng non help by my seid Lordis writyng nor sendyng.
Wherfore please my Lordis good lordship to supporte the seid Paston in
kepyng of his right and possession till it be dispreved or knowe
onlawfull, and the seid Paston will applye to such meanes as it pleasith
my Lord to take wherby the right of the mater may be undirstond and
determined.
And also that it like my lord to remembir that it is not behofefull for
any prinse lightly to geve trust or to applye to the desires of any
persones that have geve hym cause of mistrust.
[Footnote 62.1: [Add. MS. 34,889, f. 182.] This petition must have
been drawn up at the end of 1462 or in the beginning of 1463,
which would be considered still 1462 in the old computation. It
must have been fully three years after Fastolf’s death, which took
place on the 5th November 1459, and the imprisonment of Richard
Calle in 1461 (_see_ No. 487) is referred to as having taken place
‘at Michaelmas the year past.’ The nobleman to whom the petition
is addressed seems to be the Duke of Suffolk.]
[Footnote 63.1: William de la Pole, the unfortunate Duke of
Suffolk, murdered in 1450. It is a piece of information which we
do not meet with elsewhere, that Richard Calle entered the service
of the Pastons by this duke’s recommendation.]
535
[JOHN PASTON TO MARGARET PASTON][64.1]
[Sidenote: 1463(?) / JAN. 14]
I recomand me to yow and have reseyvid your lettir, which causith me to
write in the lettir that I send to yow, Daubeney and Richard Calle,
certeyn articles touchyng the rewle of myn hows and myn livelode, as ye
shall undirstand whanne ye see hem. Also, I send yow in the same lettir
a bille of all the malt that remaynd at Mighelmes. I suppose ye have non
such of it. Nevirthelesse it had be convenient it had be had amongis
your servauntis and yow. Also I woll that ze warne both Daubeney and
Richard Calle that thei disclose nat what malt I have, ne what I shall
selle, ne that on marchant knowe nat what an other hath, for ther is
gret spies leid her at London for ingrosers of malt to heyghne the
prise; hough be it myne is not but of myn owne growyng and my tenauntis.
Also I lete zow wete, I faile mony here and must nedys have up mony at
this tyme for sped of my maters, so that it may come up savely whanne
James Gresham and other attornes come up at the begynnyng of this terme,
with whom Richard Calle may come the same tyme. And peraventure some
trusty carier . . . at this tyme; and with hym myght some mony come
trussid in some fardell, not knowynge to the carier that it is no mony
but some other clothe or vestement of silk or thyng of charge. Wherfore
take avise of such as ye trust, and purvey that I may have up at this
tyme j. c. _li._ of gold after the old coynage and xx_li._ in grotes.
Item, if I[65.1] myght have sur cariage, I wold have heder all the gylt
plate that Richard Calle leyd up, he can tell wer and I trowe ye know
also; and ij. potell pottis and a resting iron of silver (?) lyth at the
same place, for it shuld[65.2] stand me in gret stoher if it mygth be do
closly and suerly. Item, take trew men of yowr counsel.
Wret the morwe next after Sent Hillary.
Item leve a bill indorcid what ye take awey if ye take any.
Your own, &c.
[Footnote 64.1: [Add. MS. 34,889, f. 183.] The MS. of this letter
is a rough draft in John Paston’s hand, and there can be no doubt
to whom it was addressed. As to the year in which it was written
there is no positive evidence; but Daubeney and Calle were both
with Margaret Paston in the beginning of 1463 (_see_ No. 536), and
the only thing against that date is that Margaret, writing to her
husband (then in London) on the 19th, acknowledges only a letter
of the 9th. This, however, might well be owing to the disturbed
state of the country, or it may be that the present letter, which
is only a draft, was not really despatched.]
[Footnote 65.1: ‘Item, I I,’ MS.]
[Footnote 65.2: ‘Shuld shul,’ MS.]
536