Part 27

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.]