The Paston Letters
Chapter 38 : _Endorsed:_ Literae Fastolff, Yelverton, circa le oyrdeterminer.--Memorandum de billa a

_Endorsed:_ Literae Fastolff, Yelverton, circa le oyrdeterminer.

--Memorandum de billa actus justic' apud Walsingham.

[Footnote 179.1: [From Paston MSS., B.M.] The tone of this letter so closely resembles that of William Wayte of the 6th October 1450, especially in its warnings to Paston and John Damme, and in the information it contains as to Lord Moleyns not being in favour with the Duke of York, that it may be safely inferred to have been written about the same period.]

[Footnote 179.2: _See_ page 84, Note 2.]

[Footnote 179.3: Probably the Duke of York.]

[Footnote 180.1: Thomas Tuddenham and Heydon.]

146

JAMES GRESHAM TO JOHN PASTON[180.2]

_To my wors.h.i.+pfull Maister Paston, at Norwich, in haste, be this delyvered._

[Sidenote: 1450 / [OCT.]]

Please it yow to wete that I come to London the Wednesseday at even late next after my departyng from yow, and it was told me that my Maister Calthorp hadde writyng fro my Lord of York to awayte on hym at his comyng in to Norffolk to be oon of his men, and that no gentilman of Norffolk had writyng to awayte on hym but he; and sum folke wene that it is to th'entent that he shuld bo outhir s.h.i.+ref or knyght of the s.h.i.+re, to the fortheryng of othir folks, &c.

The Kyng is remevid from Westminster, summe men sey to Fysshwick,[181.1]

and summe sey to Bristowe. And it is seid that he hath do wretyn to alle his men that be in the chekroll[181.2] to awayte on hym atte Parlement in their best aray; why, no man can telle. Heydon[181.3] was with my Maister Yelverton,[181.4] and desired hym to see the recordes of his endytementz, and axed of hym if he were indited of felonye; and my Maister Yelverton told hym it was. And thereto H. seide 'Sir, ye wole recorde that I was never thef;' and he seid he trowed right weel that he cowde telle why he took Plumpsteds goods, and othir words whiche were long to write. And my Maister Y. seid to hym he cowde not knowe the laborer of th'endytement, and H. seid ageyn he knewe weel the laborer thereof; and my Maister Y. conceyte is H. ment yow. Wherfor he advyseth yow that in onywyse ye make Plumpsted to take apell accordyng; for if he so do, thanne is H. barred of his conspirace, and also of his damages, though that he be nonnsewed therin, or though it be afterward discontynued, &c., and ellis are ye in jopardy of a conspirace, for H.

hopeth to have the world better to his entent thanne it is nowe. For it is told me that rather thanne he shuld fayle of a s.h.i.+ref this yeer comyng for his entent, he wole spende m^{l.}_li._ [1000].

This communicacion be twene them was on Moneday last pa.s.sed, and on Tewisday last pa.s.sed H. mette with Maister Markham,[181.5] and he tolde H. his part how that he levid ungoodly in puttyng awey of his wyff, and kept an other, &c.; and therwith he turned pale colour, and seid he lyved not but as G.o.d was pleased with, ne dede no wrong to no person.

And therupon Maister Markham reherced how he demened hym a genst men of Court, and named yow and Genneye; and H. seid, as touchyng the peple that rifled yow, and the doyng thereof, he was not privy therto, for he was that tyme here at London; and as touchyng the Lord Moleyns t.i.tle, H.

enforced gretly, and seid his t.i.tle was better thanne yours.

Yisterday was my Maister Yelverton at dyner with my Maister Fastolf,[182.1] and there among other thei were avysed that my Maister F. shall write to my Lord of Norffolk that he certifie the Kyng and his Counseill how the c.u.n.tre of N. and S. [_Norfolk and Suffolk_] stonde right wildely, withowt a mene may be that justice be hadde, whiche wole not be but if a man of gret byrthe and lyflod there be s.h.i.+ref thes yer comyng, to lede the peple in most peas; and therto thei named Maister Stapilton,[182.2] if it wole happe, &c. Also that my Lord Norffolk shall certifie the Kyng and his Counseill that but if the day of the oyer and termyner stonde, it wole be full harde, by cause the peple is so wylde.

Also that alle knyghtes and escuyers of the same c.u.n.tre shuld certifie the same, for summe of H. part have boosted that all ... . at Norwich shuld not be worth an haughe. _Ideo_, &c.

Item, Prentise is now in the Mydle Inne, and Dynne ... . .

Almyghty G.o.d have yow in his kepyng. Wretyn the Thursday next after my departyng... . .

Your,

J. GRESHAM.

[Footnote 180.2: [From Fenn, iii. 94.] This letter, though it has no date except of the day of the week, must have been written about October 1450, after the Duke of York had come over from Ireland, and before the elections for the Parliament which met in November, and the appointment of sheriffs in the different counties for the ensuing year. The references to the affair of Lord Moleyns and to the indictment of Heydon cannot belong to a later year.]

[Footnote 181.1: In Lancas.h.i.+re, now in the suburbs of Preston.]

[Footnote 181.2: The check-roll is a roll or book, containing the names of such persons as are attendants, and in pay to the King, or other great men, as their household servants, &c.--F.]

[Footnote 181.3: _See_ page 166, Note 3.]

[Footnote 181.4: William Yelverton, a Justice of the King's Bench.]

[Footnote 181.5: John Markham, one of the Judges of the King's Bench, who became Chief Justice in 1461.]

[Footnote 182.1: Sir John Fastolf.]

[Footnote 182.2: Sir Miles Stapleton.]

[[he shuld bo outhir s.h.i.+ref or knyght _text unchanged: error for "be"?_]]

147

JAMES GRESHAM TO JOHN PASTON[183.1]

_To my wors.h.i.+pfull maister, John Paston, Escuyr, dwellynge att Norwich, in hast._

[Sidenote: 1450]

After that myn letter was wretyn, I spak with Maister Yelverton, and tolde hym the substance of my letter to yow. And he bad me write to yow that as touchyng the matier of my Lord of Oxeford, he shall lette the awardyng and th'entre therof als long as he may; and he demyth veryly that H. Wodehous coude never have take up on his knowelage to have called up on the matier with owt counseil and enformacion of Heydon, and it were weel do that my Lord of Oxeford knewe it.

Item, Maister Yelverton told me that the Lord Moleyns was enfourmed that he and alle his men wern endited of felonye in Norffolk, whiche caused hym and his to be right wroth toward my maister and yow. And Maister Yelverton hath tolde a man of the Kyngges Benche called Styrop, whiche is a man of the Lord Moleyns, the trouth that nothir he ner noon of his is endited, and Stirop is now in to Wilts.h.i.+re, and shall telle it to the Lord M.; for that shall squage weel his hete of wrethe. And as touchyng Germyn,[183.2] if he be s.h.i.+ref, William Genney wole undirtake for hym that he shall and wole be ruled weel inow, &c.

[Footnote 183.1: [From Paston MSS., B.M.] This letter is anonymous, but is in the handwriting of James Gresham. It must have been written in the autumn of the year 1450, while Lord Molyns was in Wilts.h.i.+re, and when the nomination of John Jermyn as Sheriff of Norfolk was expected, but had not yet been decided on, or at least not known to the writer. It was therefore certainly written after the preceding number, though the latter is probably not the letter to which it was intended to serve as a postscript.]

[Footnote 183.2: John Jermyn was actually appointed Sheriff in the end of the year 1450.]

148

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK TO JOHN PASTON[184.1]

_To oure trusti and welbelovid John Paston, Squier._

_The Duc of Norffolk._

[Sidenote: 1450(?) / OCT. 16]

Right trusti and welbelovid, we grete you well. And forasmoche as oure unkill of York and we have fully appoynted and agreed of such ij.

persones for to be knightes of s.h.i.+re of Norffolk as oure said unkill and we thinke convenient and necessarie for the welfare of the said s.h.i.+re, we therfor pray you, in oure said unkill name and oures bothe, as ye list to stonde in the favour of oure good Lords.h.i.+pp, that ye make no laboure contrarie to oure desire. And G.o.d have you in his keping.

Wreten at Bury Seynt Edmondis, the xvj. day of Octobr.

[Footnote 184.1: [Douce MS. 393, f. 92.] This letter and that which follows clearly refer to the same matter. The time of year and the part taken by the Duke of York in the election are circ.u.mstances which in themselves create a pretty strong presumption in favour of the year 1450. And this presumption almost becomes a certainty, when we observe that the date of this letter--16th October--was a Friday in that year; for the meeting of York and Norfolk is stated in the next letter to have been on a Thursday and Friday, and this letter would doubtless have been written as soon as a decision had been come to between the two Lords.]

149

THE EARL OF OXFORD TO JOHN PASTON[184.2]