Cosyn, an noon after this was wretyn, had I knowelage of the massageris
comyng to London berar of this, and I had thought to have wretyn the
letter above wretyn newe, by cause of the foule wrytyng and
interlynyeng, but now I lakke leyser. Wherfor I pray you understond the
pyth of my seid wrytyng, and enfourme my seid maister Sir John P. of the
same, for I wold fayne do that shulde please hym, &c. And the persone
that enfourmed me dar not be a knowe of his name, ne he wold not it
shuld be understond to them that be of counsell ageyn my maister. It was
the parson of Heylesdon, &c. More over, as I have wretyn to you of late,
Palmer, undershireve of Norffolk, hath sent his letter to his depute to
acomplyssh our entent for Chyldes matier as ye and I were accordet. This
told Wykes me for verray certeyn, &c., the ij. day of Juylle.
On the back of this letter are some scribblings in another hand,
viz.:--First, a partial copy of the address; second, the name ‘John
Dode’; third, the following inscription, ‘Orate pro anima Johnnes
(_sic_) de Boys _armenger_ de Londonn.’
[Footnote 280.2: [From Paston MSS., B.M.] As this letter has
reference to the disputes between the Duke of Suffolk and the
Paston family about Drayton, it might be supposed to have been
written about the year 1464, but that the entire absence of any
mention of John Paston the father makes it probable that the true
date is after his death. It is therefore not unlikely to be of the
same year as No. 671, in which Margaret Paston mentions the
probability of Hellesdon being taken again out of their hands, and
also desires an answer to a letter that she had sent to her son,
Sir John, ‘by James Gresham’s man.’]
[Footnote 281.1: As it appears by the postscript that this letter
was hurriedly despatched, we may perhaps presume that it was
intended in the first instance for Sir John Paston, but that as
‘my cousin Damme’ required to be informed of the same particulars,
it was afterwards addressed to him, with instructions to
communicate the contents to Sir John.]
671