Part 28

The anger of her relations was painful to bear in the extreme. For some time Margery found it difficult to avow that she had fairly plighted her troth to one who was deemed such an unequal match. For what was plighted troth in the eye of God but matrimony itself? Even the Church acknowledged it as no less binding. Once that was avowed, the question was at an end, and no human hands could untie the knot. To interfere with it was deadly sin. Hence Richard Calle implored the woman of his love to emancipate both herself and him from an intolerable position by one act of boldness. ‘I suppose, an ye tell them sadly the truth, they would not damn their souls for us.’[255-3] But it required much courage to take the step which when taken must be decisive. The avowal was at last made, and though the family would fain have suppressed it or got the poor girl to deny what she said, her lover appealed to the Bishop of Norwich to inquire into the matter, and free the point from any ambiguity. The bishop could not refuse. He sent for Margery Paston and for Richard Calle, and examined them both apart. He told the former that he was informed she loved one of whom her friends did not approve, reminded her of the great disadvantage and shame she would incur if she were not guided by their advice, and said he must inquire into the words that had passed between her and her lover, whether they amounted to matrimony or not. On this she told him what she had said to Calle, and added that if those words did not make it sure she would make it surer before she left the bishop’s presence, for she thought herself in conscience bound to Calle, whatever the words were. Then Calle himself was examined, and his statements agreed with hers as to the nature of the pledges given and the time and place when it was done. The bishop then said that in case other impediments were found he would delay giving sentence till the Wednesday or Thursday after Michaelmas.[256-1]

[Footnote 255-3: No. 713.]

[Footnote 256-1: No. 721.]

When Margery Paston returned from her examination her mother’s door was shut against her, and the bishop was forced to find a lodging for her until the day that he was to give sentence. Before that day came occurred the loss of Caister. The fortunes of the Paston family were diminished, and Sir John began to feel that he at least could ill afford to lose the services of one who had been such a faithful and attached dependant. In writing to his mother he expressed a wish merely that the marriage might be put off till Christmas. Calle, meanwhile, unmarried, was staying at Blackborough Nunnery near Lynn, where his bride had found a temporary asylum. He was still willing to give his services to Sir John Paston, and promised not to offer them to any other unless Sir John declined them. They appear to have been accepted, for we find Calle one or two years later still in the service of the family. But he never seems to have been recognised as one of its members.[256-2]

[Footnote 256-2: Nos. 721, 736, 737.]

The siege of Caister was one of those strong and high-handed acts which could only have been possible when there was really no sovereign authority in the land to repress and punish violence. Acts of very much the same character had been seen before--the reader will not have forgotten the forcible ejection of John Paston’s wife from Gresham. But they had been due more especially to the weak and incompetent rule of Henry VI., and not even then do we hear of a place being taken from one of the king’s subjects after a five weeks’ siege by a rival claimant. It was evident that the rebellion of Robin of Redesdale had destroyed King Edward’s power. The king had been actually made a prisoner, and the ascendency of the Woodvilles had been abolished. The Duchess of Bedford, wife of the late Earl of Rivers, had even during the commotions been accused of witchcraft.[257-1] The Earl of Warwick enjoyed his revenge in the disorganisation of the whole kingdom. He had now made it almost impossible for Edward to recover his authority without getting rid of him; nor did many months pass away before he stirred up another rebellion in Lincolnshire.[257-2] When that movement failed, he and Clarence escaped abroad; but it was not many months before they reappeared in England and drove out the king. [Sidenote: Warwick the Kingmaker. A.D. 1470.] Henry VI. was proclaimed anew, and for the space of a short half-year Warwick the Kingmaker governed in the name of that sovereign in whose deposition ten years before he had been one of the principal agents.

[Footnote 257-1: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 232.]

[Footnote 257-2: _See_ Nos. 742, 743.]

[Sidenote: Appeal of two widows.] We have but a word or two to say as to matters affecting the family history of the Pastons during this brief interval. At the siege of Caister two men of the Duke of Norfolk’s were killed by the fire of the garrison. The duke’s council, not satisfied with having turned the Pastons out, now prompted the widows of these two men to sue an ‘appeal’[257-3] against John Paston and those who acted with him. A true bill was also found against them for felony at the Norwich session of June 1470, in which Sir John Paston was included as an accessory; but the indictment was held to be void by some of Paston’s friends on the ground that two of the jury would not agree to it. This objection I presume must have been held sufficient to quash the proceedings in this form, of which we hear no more.[258-1] The ‘appeal,’ however, remained to be disposed of, as we shall see by and by.

[Footnote 257-3: An appeal of murder was a criminal prosecution instituted by the nearest relation of the murdered person, and a pardon from the king could not be pleaded in bar of this process.]

[Footnote 258-1: Nos. 740, 746, 747.]

[Sidenote: Compromise touching Fastolf’s will.] With respect to the title claimed by Sir John Paston in Caister and the performance of Fastolf’s will, a compromise was arranged with Bishop Waynflete, who was now recognised as sole executor. It was agreed that as the whole of Fastolf’s lands in Essex, Surrey, Norfolk, and Suffolk had been much wasted by the disputes between the executors, the manors should be divided between Sir John Paston and the bishop, the former promising to surrender the title-deeds of all except the manor of Caister. The project of a college in that place was given up, and a foundation of seven priests and seven poor scholars in Magdalen College, Oxford, was agreed to in its place.[258-2] Soon afterwards the Duke of Norfolk executed a release to the bishop of the manor of Caister and all the lands conveyed to him by Yelverton and Howes as executors of Sir John Fastolf, acknowledging that the bargain made with them was contrary to Fastolf’s will, and receiving from the bishop the sum of 500 marks for the reconveyance. The duke accordingly sent notice to his servants and tenants to depart out of the manor as soon as they could conveniently remove such goods and furniture as he and they had placed in it.[258-3]

[Footnote 258-2: Nos. 750, 755, 767.]

[Footnote 258-3: Nos. 763, 764.]

Thus by the mediation of Bishop Waynflete the long-standing disputes were nearly settled during the period of Henry VI.’s brief restoration. But, probably in consequence of the disturbed state of the country and the return of Edward IV., the duke’s orders for the evacuation of Caister were not immediately obeyed, and, as we shall see hereafter, the place remained in Norfolk’s possession for the space of three whole years.

[Sidenote: Elizabeth Poynings remarries.] About this time, or rather, perhaps, two years later, Sir John Paston’s aunt, Elizabeth Poynings, terminated her widowhood by marrying Sir George Browne of Betchworth Castle in Surrey. We have already seen how she was dispossessed of her lands soon after her first husband’s death by the Countess of Northumberland. They were afterwards seized by the Crown as forfeited, and granted by patent to Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent, but without any title having been duly found for the king. The Earl of Kent after a time gave up possession of them to the Earl of Essex, but this did not make things pleasanter for Elizabeth Poynings; while other of her lands were occupied by Sir Robert Fenys in violation, as she alleged, of her husband’s will.[259-1] The date of her second marriage was probably about the end of the year 1471.[259-2]

[Footnote 259-1: Nos. 461, 627, 692, 693.]

[Footnote 259-2: On the 18th November 1471, Edmund Paston speaks of her as ‘my Aunt Ponynges.’ Before the 8th January 1472 she had married Sir George Browne. Nos. 789, 795.]

These matters we are bound to mention as incidents in the history of the family. Of Elizabeth Paston, however, and her second husband we do not hear much henceforward; in the Letters after this period the domestic interest centres chiefly round the two John Pastons, Sir John and his brother.

_Changes and Counter-changes_

[Sidenote: Reckless government of Edward IV.] Within the space of ten brief years Edward IV. had almost succeeded in convincing the world that he was no more capable of governing England than the rival whom he had deposed. Never did gambler throw away a fortune with more recklessness than Edward threw away the advantages which it had cost him and his friends so much hard fighting to secure. Just when he had reached the summit of his prosperity, he alienated the men to whom it was mainly due, and took no care to protect himself against the consequences of their concealed displeasure. The Earl of Warwick took him prisoner, then released him, then stirred up a new rebellion with impunity, and finally, returning to England once more, surprised and drove him out, notwithstanding the warnings of his brother-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy. Henry VI. was proclaimed anew, and the cause of the House of York seemed to be lost for ever.

It was not so, however, in fact. Adversity quickened Edward’s energies in a manner almost miraculous, and in a few months he recovered his kingdom as suddenly as he had lost it. But it was not easy to believe, even after his most formidable enemy had been slain at Barnet, that a king who had shown himself so careless could maintain himself again upon the throne. Besides, men who desired a steady government had rested all their hopes in the restoration of Henry VI., and had found the new state of matters very promising, just before Edward reappeared. The king, it might have been hoped, would be governed this time by the Earl of Warwick, and not by Queen Margaret. [Sidenote: The Pastons favour Henry VI.] The Pastons, in particular, had very special reasons to rejoice in Henry’s restoration. They had a powerful friend in the Earl of Oxford, whose influence with Henry and the Earl of Warwick stood very high. Owing partly, perhaps, to Oxford’s intercession, the Duke of Norfolk had been obliged to quit his hold of Caister, and Sir John Paston had been reinstated in possession.[260-1] The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk sued to Oxford as humbly as the Pastons had been accustomed to sue to them, and the earl, from the very first, had been as careful of the interests of this family as if they had been his own. Even in the first days of the revolution--probably before Edward was yet driven out--he had sent a messenger to the Duchess of Norfolk from Colchester when John Paston was in London on a matter which concerned him alone. The family, indeed, seem at first to have built rather extravagant expectations upon the new turn of affairs, which John Paston felt it necessary to repress in writing to his mother. ‘As for the offices that ye wrote to my brother for and to me, they be for no poor men, but I trust we shall speed of other offices meetly for us, for my master the Earl of Oxford biddeth me ask and have. I trow my brother Sir John shall have the constableship of Norwich Castle, with £20 of fee. All the lords be agreed to it.’[260-2]

[Footnote 260-1: _See_ preliminary note to Letter No. 879.]

[Footnote 260-2: No. 759.]

Certainly, when they remembered the loss of Caister, which they had now regained--when they recalled his inability to protect them against armed aggression, and the disappointment of their expectations of redress against the Duke of Suffolk for the attack on the lodge at Hellesdon--the Pastons had little cause to pray for the return of Edward IV. They were completely committed to the cause of Henry; and Sir John Paston and his brother fought, no doubt in the Earl of Oxford’s company, against King Edward at Barnet. [Sidenote: Sir John Paston and his brother in the battle of Barnet. A.D. 1471.] Both the brothers came out of the battle alive, but John Paston was wounded with an arrow in the right arm, beneath the elbow.[261-1] His wound, however, was not of a very serious character, and in little more than a fortnight he was able to write a letter with his own hand.[261-2] A more serious consideration was, how far the family prospects were injured by the part they had taken against what seemed now to be the winning side. Perhaps they might be effectually befriended by their cousin Lomner, who seems to have adhered to Edward, and who had promised them his good offices, if required. But on the whole the Pastons did not look despondingly upon the situation, and rather advised their cousin Lomner not to commit himself too much to the other side, as times might change. ‘I beseech you,’ writes Sir John Paston to his mother, ‘on my behalf to advise him to be well aware of his dealing or language as yet; for the world, I ensure you, is right queasy, as ye shall know within this month. The people here feareth it sore. God hath showed Himself marvellously like Him that made all, and can undo again when Him list, and I can think that by all likelihood He shall show Himself as marvellous again, and that in short time.’[261-3]

[Footnote 261-1: No. 774.]

[Footnote 261-2: No. 776.]

[Footnote 261-3: No. 774.]

In point of fact, Sir John Paston, when he wrote these words, had already heard of the landing of Queen Margaret and her son in the west, so that another conflict was certainly impending. His brother John, recovering from his wounds, but smarting severely in pocket from the cost of his surgery, looked forward to it with a sanguine hope that Edward would be defeated. ‘With God’s grace,’ he writes, ‘it shall not be long ere my wrongs and other men’s shall be redressed, for the world was never so like to be ours as it is now. Wherefore I pray you let Lomner not be too busy yet.’[262-1] The issue, however, did not agree with his expectations. [Sidenote: The battle of Tewkesbury.] Four days later was fought the battle of Tewkesbury,[262-2] at which Margaret was defeated, and her son, though taken alive, put to death upon the field. Shortly afterwards she herself surrendered as a prisoner, while her chief captain, Somerset, was beheaded by the conqueror. The Lancastrian party was completely crushed; and before three weeks were over, King Henry himself had ended his days--no doubt he was murdered--within the Tower. Edward, instead of being driven out again, was now seated on the throne more firmly than he had ever been before; and the Paston brothers had to sue for the king’s pardon for the part they had taken in opposing him.

[Footnote 262-1: No. 776.]

[Footnote 262-2: In connection with this battle, we have in No. 777 lists of the principal persons killed and beheaded after the fight, and of the knights made by King Edward upon the field. This document has never been published before.]

[Sidenote: Caister retaken by the Duke of Norfolk.] Under these circumstances, it was only natural that the Duke of Norfolk, who had been forced to relinquish his claim to Caister under the government of Henry VI., should endeavour to reassert it against one who was in the eye of the law a rebel. On this occasion, however, the duke had recourse to stratagem, and one of his servants suddenly obtained possession of the place on Sunday, the 23rd June.[262-3] It is remarkable that we have no direct reference in the letters either to this event, or to the previous reinstatement of Sir John Paston during the restoration of Henry VI.; but a statement in the itinerary of William Worcester and Sir John Paston’s petition to the king in 1475[262-4] leave no doubt about the facts. After about six months of possession the Pastons were again driven out of Caister.[262-5]

[Footnote 262-3: W. Worc. _Itin._, 368.]

[Footnote 262-4: No. 879.]

[Footnote 262-5: Although the fact of this expulsion could not be gathered from the letters of this date, some allusion to it will be found in Letter 778, by which it seems that a horse of John Paston’s had been left at Caister, which the family endeavoured to reclaim by pretending that it was his brother Edmund’s. John Paston, however, seems to have preferred that the duke’s men should keep the animal, in the hope that they would make other concessions of greater value.]

The Pastons had need of friends, and offers of friendship were made to them by Earl Rivers, formerly Lord Scales. [Sidenote: Earl Rivers offers his friendship.] The engagement of Sir John Paston to Rivers’s kinswoman, Anne Haute,[263-1] still held; and though there was some talk of breaking it off, the earl was willing to do what lay in his power in behalf both of Sir John and of his brother. The latter was not very grateful for his offer, considering, apparently, that the earl’s influence with the king was not what it had been. ‘Lord Scales,’ he said, for so he continued to call him, ‘may do least with the great master. But he would depart over the sea as hastily as he may; and because he weeneth that I would go with him, as I had promised him ever, if he had kept forth his journey at that time, this is the cause that he will be my good lord, and help to get my pardon. The king is not best pleased with him, for that he desireth to depart; insomuch that the king hath said of him that whenever he hath most to do, then the Lord Scales will soonest ask leave to depart, and weeneth that it is most because of cowardice.’[263-2]

[Footnote 263-1: A transcript of an old pedigree with which I was favoured by Mr. J. R. Scott during the publication of these letters long ago, confirmed my conjecture that Anne Haute was the daughter of William Haute, whose marriage with Joan, daughter of Sir Richard Woodville, is referred to in the _Excerpta Historica_, p. 249. She was, therefore, the niece of Richard, Earl Rivers, and cousin-german to Edward IV.’s queen. It appears also that she had a sister named Alice, who was married to Sir John Fogge of Ashford, Treasurer of the Household to Edward IV. This Sir John Fogge was the man whom Richard III., having previously regarded him as a deadly enemy, sent for out of sanctuary, and took publicly by the hand at his accession, in token that he had forgotten all old grudges.]

[Footnote 263-2: No. 778.]

Earl Rivers, in fact, was at this time meditating a voyage to Portugal, where he meant to go in an expedition against the Saracens, and he actually embarked on Christmas Eve following.[263-3] His friendship, perhaps, may have been unduly depreciated by the younger brother; for within twelve days John Paston actually obtained the king’s signature to a warrant for his pardon. This, it is true, may have been procured without his mediation; but in any case the family were not in the position of persons for whom no one would intercede. They had still so much influence in the world that within three months after he had been a second time dispossessed of Caister, Sir John made a serious effort to ascertain whether the Duke of Norfolk might not be induced to let him have it back again. [Sidenote: Sir J. Paston petitions the Duke of Norfolk to give back Caister.] This he did, as was only natural, through the medium of his brother John, whose former services in the duke’s household gave him a claim to be heard in a matter touching the personal interests of the family. John Paston, however, wisely addressed himself, on this subject, rather to the duchess than to the duke; and though he received but a slender amount of encouragement, it was enough, for a few months, just to keep his hopes alive. ‘I cannot yet,’ he writes, ‘make my peace with my lord of Norfolk by no means, yet every man telleth me that my lady sayeth passing well of me always notwithstanding.’ This was written in the beginning of the year 1472, just seven months after Sir John’s second expulsion from Caister. But the Pastons continued their suit for four years more, and only recovered possession of the place on the Duke of Norfolk’s death, as we shall see hereafter.[264-1]

[Footnote 263-3: Nos. 793, 795.]

[Footnote 264-1: Nos. 781, 796, 802.]

_The Paston Brothers_

[Sidenote: Royal pardon to John Paston.] John Paston obtained a ‘bill of pardon’ signed by the king, on Wednesday the 17th July. This, however, was not in itself a pardon, but only a warrant to the Chancellor to give him one under the Great Seal. The pardon with the Great Seal attached he hoped to obtain from the Chancellor on the following Friday. Meanwhile he wrote home to his mother to let no one know of it but Lady Calthorpe, who, for some reason not explained, seems to have been a confidante in this particular matter.[264-2] Perhaps this was as well, for as a matter of fact the pardon was not sealed that Friday, nor for many a long week, and even for some months after. It seems to have been promised, but it did not come. At Norwich some one called John Paston traitor and sought to pick quarrels with him; and how far he could rely upon the protection of the law was a question not free from anxiety. His brother, Sir John, urged him to take steps to have the pardon made sure without delay; but it was only passed at length upon the 7th of February following, nearly seven months after the king had signed the bill for it. His brother, Sir John, obtained one on the 21st December.[265-1]

[Footnote 264-2: No. 780.]

[Footnote 265-1: Nos. 780, 781, 795.]