Part 34

[Sidenote: Henry VII.] The troubles of the reign of Henry VII. at first were scarcely less in magnitude than those of the tyrant whom he overthrew. But somehow or other the new king had the art of discovering who was to be trusted and who was not. John Paston was soon found out to be a man deserving of confidence. Very early, indeed, in Henry’s reign, he must have acquired some influence at court. [Sidenote: John Paston Sheriff of Norfolk.] Two months had not elapsed after the battle of Bosworth when we find him Sheriff of Norfolk. The Duke of Suffolk writes to him to issue proclamations in the king’s name against certain rebels who were in confederacy with the Scots.[311-5] The Countess of Surrey writes to him to intercede with my Lord Fitzwalter and the Earl of Oxford in behalf of her imprisoned husband.[311-6] Lady Fitzhugh, a daughter of the great Kingmaker, calls him her son, and requests his favour for her daughter Anne, wife of the fugitive Yorkist rebel Francis, Viscount Lovel, whose pardon she was making importunate suit to obtain.[312-1] The king himself writes to him,[312-2] and the Earl of Oxford addresses letters to him as his ‘right well beloved councillor.’[312-3] The earl, of course, was his old friend, and we may presume it was through his influence that Paston was recommended to the king’s favour.

[Footnote 311-5: No. 1006.]

[Footnote 311-6: No. 1004.]

[Footnote 312-1: No. 1008.]

[Footnote 312-2: No. 1010.]

[Footnote 312-3: No. 1012.]

[[Footnote 312-2: _missing “2” added_]]

[Sidenote: Lambert Simnel’s rebellion.] So much honour, trust, and confidence had already been bestowed on him when the rebellion of Lambert Simnel broke out in the second year of Henry’s reign. Of that commotion we have some interesting illustrations, by which it is clear that the gentry of Norfolk were at first doubtful of the success of the king’s cause, and that many were indisposed to obey his summons to battle. Sir William Boleyn and Sir Harry Heydon had gone as far as Thetford on their way towards Kent, when they received advice which induced them to return. Sir Edmund Bedingfield wrote to John Paston, he believed that they would not go if the king wanted them. But there were similar rumours about John Paston himself, and it was even said that he meditated mischief. It is true he had actually waited on the king, in the train, apparently, of the Earl of Oxford, one of the two generals to whom the military powers of the whole kingdom were at this time intrusted; but it was suspected, perhaps owing to the application made to him on her account, that after my lord’s departure from the king he had been with the Viscountess Lovel, whose husband was among the rebel leaders. ‘But wrath said never well,’ adds Bedingfield in reporting this rumour to John Paston himself. It was evident that he had enemies, and it was necessary to conduct himself at such a critical period with extreme discretion.[312-4]

[Footnote 312-4: No. 1014.]

[Sidenote: Fear of invasion on the East Coast.] At this time the rebels had not yet landed in England. Nothing had been known of their movements till very lately; but the Earl of Lincoln had been in Flanders with the Lady Margaret of Burgundy, the chief organiser of the conspiracy. The East Coast, it was supposed, was chiefly threatened; and the king had made a progress through Suffolk and Norfolk to animate the people to loyalty. Commissions of array had been issued for the Eastern Counties on the 7th April. On the 15th Henry kept his Easter at Norwich; after which he went on to Walsingham, and thence to Coventry.[313-1] News came, however, that seemed to show the East Coast was in no immediate danger. The rebels had left the Low Countries, but they had gone to Ireland. The gentlemen of the Eastern Counties were informed that the king would put them to no further charge at that time, but hoped the country would be ready on reasonable warning.[313-2]

[Footnote 313-1: _See_ Spedding’s Notes in Bacon’s Henry VII.--_Works of Bacon_, vi. 55, 56.]

[Footnote 313-2: No. 1015.]

[Sidenote: Battle of Stoke.] The extraordinary farce enacted in Ireland--the recognition of Lambert Simnel as the son of Clarence, his coronation in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, and his enthusiastic and universal reception by a people to whom political truths have been at all times unimportant, and rebellion a mere amusement,--these were facts that could not have been easily realised by sober-minded Englishmen. The news, indeed, could scarcely have reached England very much in advance of the rebel hosts themselves, which presently crossed the sea and landed at Furness in Lancashire.[313-3] In less than a fortnight they penetrated into the heart of England, where they were met by the king’s forces and suffered a complete overthrow in the battle of Stoke. [Sidenote: John Paston knighted.] In that battle John Paston was with the king’s army, and seems to have done some distinguished service, in recognition of which he was knighted by the king upon the field of battle. The same honour was conferred at that time upon fifty-one persons besides himself, while thirteen others were made knights bannerets.[313-4]

[Footnote 313-3: It was but on the 5th May, as Spedding has pointed out (_Bacon_, 56) that the principal party of the rebels landed in Ireland. On the 4th June they had crossed the Channel and landed in Lancashire. The coronation of Lambert Simnel took place on Ascension Day, the 24th May.--_Rolls of Parl._ vi. 397.]

[Footnote 313-4: No. 1016 and Note at p. 187 (vol. vi.).]

[[Sidenote: John Paston knighted. _sidenote printed at beginning of paragraph_]]

[[“Note at p. 187” = text section headed “Note to No. 1016”, immediately before Appendix]]

[Sidenote: Deputy to the Earl of Oxford as Admiral.] Sir John Paston, as he was now called, continued to maintain his influence with the Earl of Oxford and the king. The earl was Lord High Admiral, and he made Sir John his deputy; in which capacity we find letters addressed to him about a whale taken off the coast of Norfolk,[314-1] and deputations waiting upon him at Caister from the corporation of Yarmouth,[314-2] besides some correspondence with the earl as Admiral.[314-3] He got his brother William into the earl’s service; and though ultimately the earl was obliged to dismiss him as being ‘troubled with sickness and crased in his mind,’[314-4] William Paston certainly continued many years in the earl’s household. He became, in fact, a means of communication between the earl and his brother, and in one case we have an important letter addressed to the earl by the king on the subject of the war in Britanny, copied out by William Paston and forwarded to Sir John.[314-5]

[Footnote 314-1: Nos. 1029, 1030.]

[Footnote 314-2: No. 924.]

[Footnote 314-3: Nos. 1049, 1050, 1051.]

[Footnote 314-4: No. 940.]

[Footnote 314-5: No. 913.]

[Sidenote: The war in Britanny.] The eager interest with which this war in Britanny was watched by Englishmen--the anxiety to learn what had become of English volunteers, and of the forces sent thither afterwards by the king’s authority--is shown in several of the letters.[314-6] The facts relating to the whole affair, and their true chronology, had been a good deal confused and mis-stated until the late Mr. Spedding, in editing Lord Bacon’s _History of Henry VII._, compared the testimony of the Paston Letters with that of other original sources.[314-7] But it would take up too much space, and involve writing a complete history of the times, to show what important light is thrown upon this and other subjects of interest in the reign of Henry VII. by the scattered notices of political events contained in these letters; and we must be content, for the remainder of the period, briefly to indicate the matters of public interest referred to.

[Footnote 314-6: Letters 1026, 1030, 1036. An allusion to this war occurs in Barclay’s _Ship of Fools_, f. 152 b.:

‘The battles done, perchance in small Britain, In France, in Flanders, or to the worldes end, Are told in the quere, of some, in wordes vain In midst of matins in stead of the Legende, And other gladly to hear the same intend Much rather than the service for to hear.’]

[Footnote 314-7: Spedding’s _Bacon_, vi. 68, 72, 84, 97-8, 101-2.]

[Sidenote: The Earl of Northumberland.] The rising in the North, in which the Earl of Northumberland was slain, is the subject of two letters;[315-1] and, closely connected with this subject, if our chronology is to be relied on, is an intended progress of the king into Norfolk a few weeks earlier, which was abandoned for some reason not explained. The Great Council which Henry had summoned on the affairs of Britanny appears to have been dissolved on the 3rd March 1489. Two days before it separated, the Earl of Northumberland was appointed to protect the kingdom against the Scots, and entered into indentures with the king at Sheen ‘for the keeping out of the Scots and warring on them.’ But instead of having an outward enemy to contend with, before two months had elapsed he found himself called upon to put down the revolt in Yorkshire, and he was killed on the 28th April.

[Footnote 315-1: Nos. 1037, 1039.]

[Sidenote: Intended royal visit to Norfolk.] The king, if his original designs had been adhered to, would by this time have passed through the Eastern Counties, kept his Easter at Norwich, and gone on to Walsingham.[315-2] In the course of his progress he was to have visited the Earl of Oxford at his mansion at Hedingham in Essex, where William Paston, Sir John’s brother, was staying in the earl’s service. Sir John himself had notice from the earl to come to him with the same number of men ‘defensably arrayed’ as he had before granted to do the king service;[315-3] and in anticipation of the royal visit to Norfolk, William Paston sent orders to the Bailiff of Mautby to have his horse Bayard well fed, whatever it cost, that the animal might look fat and sleek when the king came.[315-4] This order, however, it must be observed, is provisional, ‘if Bayard be unsold’; and perhaps the proviso may point to the reason why the royal progress was abandoned. The subsidy which caused the rising in Yorkshire was heavily felt over the whole kingdom besides; and though at another time a royal progress might have been very popular, the king doubtless saw that it would be unadvisable to add to the expenses of his subjects at a time when they were so severely taxed already.

[Footnote 315-2: No. 1031.]

[Footnote 315-3: No. 1032.]

[Footnote 315-4: No. 1033.]

[Sidenote: Creation of Prince Henry as Duke of York.] In No. 1058 we have a list of the persons who were made Knights of the Bath on the creation of Henry, the king’s second son (afterwards Henry VIII.) as Duke of York, in November 1494.[316-1]

[Footnote 316-1: No. 1058.--This list agrees pretty well with the names given in the description of the ceremony printed by me in _Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII._, vol. i. p. 390. But besides some variations in spelling and a difference in one place as to the Christian name, this list includes the names of Lords Harington and Clifford, who are not only not mentioned in the other as having been made Knights of the Bath on this occasion, but who seem to be excluded by the statement that there were only twenty baths and beds provided besides those of the prince himself.]

[Sidenote: Perkin Warbeck.] In July 1495, the corporation of Yarmouth write to Sir John Paston about the capture of five captains of Perkin Warbeck’s host, who landed at Deal with about 140 men, when an invasion was attempted by the pretender. Whatever encouragement was given to Perkin abroad, his appearance off the coast of Kent gave little satisfaction to the inhabitants, who killed or took prisoner every man that set foot on the land. Perkin, leaving his friends to their mercy, sailed away, only creating a little disquietude as to where he would next make his appearance. One of the captains taken, whose name was Belt, said he knew he had no hope of mercy, and therefore did not mind revealing the plans of his comrades. They meant to gain possession of Yarmouth or to die for it.[316-2] If this was said in good faith, the rebels must have been so discouraged by their reception at Deal, that they changed their plans and went to Ireland. But it may of course have been said purposely in order to mislead. It was, however, effectual in creating some alarm about the safety of the town. The corporation received a promise from Sir John Paston that aid should be forthcoming, if required; but the very next day intelligence was received that the rebel fleet had sailed westward,[316-3] and doubtless before many days more all serious alarm was at an end.

[Footnote 316-2: No. 1059.]

[Footnote 316-3: No. 1060.]

[Sidenote: Edmund de la Pole.] The next political letter refers to Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, whose first escape from England was made in the summer of 1499. The king was then staying at Godshill, in the Isle of Wight, where the Earl of Oxford was with him; and the latter wrote to Sir John Paston on the 20th August to make inquiry what persons had accompanied the fugitive, or were privy to his departure, commanding him to take into custody every one whom he could find to have been any way concerned in the matter, or any ‘suspect’ person who seemed to be ‘of the same affinity,’ found hovering near the sea coasts.[317-1] Writs were issued the very same day to the sheriffs of the Eastern Counties to prevent persons leaving the kingdom without a licence.[317-2]

[Footnote 317-1: No. 1065.]

[Footnote 317-2: _Letters and Papers Ric. III. and Hen. VII._, vol. ii. p. 377.]

[Sidenote: Coming of Catherine of Arragon to England.] The next letter after this is a notification from the king to Sir John Paston, given on the 20th May 1500, that Catherine of Arragon, the affianced bride of Arthur, Prince of Wales, was expected in England in the following May. Sir John Paston was required to be ready to give his attendance at her reception at that date; but owing to a change of plans, she did not arrive before October 1501.[317-3]

[Footnote 317-3: No. 1066.]

[Sidenote: Meeting of Henry VII. and Philip of Castile.] After this there is nothing more relating to public matters during Sir John Paston’s life; but we must not pass over without notice the very curious account given in No. 1078--a letter which, though among the Paston papers, has no obvious connection with the Paston family at all--of the meeting between Henry VII. and Philip, King of Castile, at Clewer, near Windsor, in January 1506. It is well known how Philip, who until the death of his mother-in-law, Isabella of Spain, was only Archduke of Austria, had set out from Flanders to take possession of his new dominions, when, meeting with a storm at sea, he was driven upon the coast of England, and was for some time entertained by Henry at his court. This letter gives a minute description of the meeting between the two kings, and of the persons by whom they were accompanied, noting the apparel and liveries of all present, after the fashion of court newsmen. The scene unquestionably must have been a striking one; but we must refer our readers for the particulars to the letter itself.

_Social Aspect of the Times_

[Sidenote: State of society.] Thus far have we followed the fortunes of the Paston family and the history of the times in which they lived, as illustrated by their correspondence. The reader must not, however, imagine that we have by any means exhausted the materials before us, either in their social or in their political bearings. Indeed, to whatever length we should prolong these observations, we could not but leave an ample harvest of facts to be gathered in by others, nor have we attempted more than to bring the leading points of the story into one connected narrative. Of the general condition of society revealed to us by this remarkable correspondence, we have left the reader to form his own impressions. But a few very brief remarks upon this subject may perhaps be expected of us before we conclude.

[Sidenote: Education.] The first thing which strikes the most casual observer on glancing over these letters, is the testimony they afford to the state of education among the people at the period in which they were written. From the extreme scarcity of original letters of such an early date, we are too easily led to undervalue the culture and civilisation of the age. But these letters show that during the century before the Reformation the state of education was by no means so low, and its advantages by no means so exceptionally distributed, as we might otherwise imagine. For it is not merely that Judge Paston was a man of superior cultivation, and took care that his family should be endowed with all those educational advantages that he had possessed himself. This was no doubt the case. But it must be remembered that the majority of these letters were not written by members of the Paston family, but were only addressed to them; and they show that friends, neighbours, lords, commoners, and domestic servants possessed the art of writing, as well as the Pastons themselves. No person of any rank or station in society above mere labouring men seems to have been wholly illiterate. All could write letters; most persons could express themselves in writing with ease and fluency. Not perhaps that the accomplishment was one in which it was considered an honour to excel. Hands that had been accustomed to grasp the sword were doubtless easily fatigued with the pen. Old Sir John Fastolf evidently feels it a trouble even to sign his name, and in his latter years invariably allows others to sign it for him. Men of high rank generally sign their letters, but scarcely ever write them with their own hands. And well was it, in many cases, for their correspondents that they did not do it oftener. Whether, like Hamlet, they thought it ‘a baseness to write fair,’ and left such ‘yeoman’s service’ to those who had specially qualified themselves for it; or whether, absorbed by other pursuits, they neglected an art which they got others to practise for them, the nobility were generally the worst writers of the day. Their handwriting and their spelling were on a par, and were sometimes so outrageous, that it requires no small effort of imagination to comprehend the words, even if we could be sure of the letters.[319-1]

[Footnote 319-1: A notable example of this is afforded by the letters of Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, which will be found printed in my _Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII._ His successor in title, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, the favourite of Henry VIII., wrote quite as barbarous a hand, and outraged orthography in a manner equally bewildering.]

[Sidenote: Eton College.] Education, nevertheless, was making undoubted progress, both among high and low. Eton College and King’s College, Cambridge, had been founded by Henry VI. only a few years before old Judge Paston died. His grandson and namesake, William Paston, as we have seen, was sent to the former place for his education, and was learning to construct Latin hexameters and pentameters there in 1479. His progress, it is true, seems to have been but indifferent. What was to be expected of a young gentleman of nineteen, whose attention, even while at school, was distracted by the thought that he had already met with one who might be a partner for life? Nevertheless, in that same letter in which he writes to his brother John what he knows of Mistress Margaret Alborow, he sends him also a specimen of his performances in Latin versification. It is not a very brilliant production, certainly, but the fact of his sending it to his elder brother shows that John Paston too had gone through a regular classical training on the system which has prevailed in all public schools down to the present day.

[Sidenote: Oxford.] It has, moreover, been remarked that the illustrations both of Eton and of Oxford life in the fifteenth century bear a striking resemblance to the well-known usages of modern times. It is true Walter Paston’s expenses at Oxford were not great, even if we take into consideration the much higher value of money in that day. For a period of probably half a year they amounted to no more than £6: 5 _s._: 5¾ _d._[320-1] Yet when he became B.A. he gave a banquet, as graduates have been accustomed to do since his day, for which he was promised some venison from Lady Harcourt, but was disappointed.[320-2] Even the expenses attending the graduation, however, do not appear to have been very heavy. ‘It will be some cost to me, but not much,’ wrote Walter Paston in his own case, though he had been disappointed in the hope of passing at the same time as Lionel Woodville, the queen’s brother, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, who apparently would have borne a portion of the expenses of his fellow-graduates.[320-3]

[Footnote 320-1: No. 931.]

[Footnote 320-2: No. 946.]

[Footnote 320-3: No. 945.]

From the letters just referred to we are reminded that it was at this time usual for those who received a liberal education not only to take a degree in arts but to proceed afterwards in the faculty of law. At the universities, unfortunately, law is studied no longer, and degrees in that faculty are now purely honorary.

[Sidenote: Mode of computing dates.] Some other points may be suggested to us, even by the most superficial examination of the contents of these volumes. The mode in which the letters are dated by their writers shows clearly that our ancestors were accustomed to measure the lapse of time by very different standards from those now in use. Whether men in general were acquainted with the current year of the Christian era may be doubted; that was an ecclesiastical computation rather than one for use in common life. They seldom dated their letters by the year at all, and when they did it was not by the year of our Lord, but by the year of the king’s reign. Chronicles and annals of the period, which give the year of our Lord, are almost always full of inaccuracies in the figures; and altogether it is evident that an exact computation of years was a thing for which there was considered to be little practical use. As to months and days, the same remark does not apply. Letters were very frequently dated in this respect according to what is the general usage now. But even here, as the reader will not fail to observe, there was a much more common use of Festivals and Saints’ days, and when a letter was not written on a day particularly marked in the Calendar, it was frequently dated the Monday or Wednesday, or whatever day of the week it might happen to be, _before_ or _after_ such a celebration. Agnes Paston even dates a letter during the week by the collect of the Sunday preceding:--‘Written at Paston in haste, the Wednesday next after _Deus qui errantibus_.’[321-1]

[Footnote 321-1: No. 34.]