Part 37
Eodem die publicata fuit per Maiorem et Recordatorem Civitatis causa adventus domini de Scales ad civitatem secunda vice infra xviij{cim} dies; est et fuit pro bonis et catallis Johannis Paston quem dominus Rex pro suo nativo seisivit, ad dicta bona et catalla in quorumcunque manibus comperta fuerint nomine domini Regis seisiend’, et mesuagium[339-2] ipsius Johannis Paston infra Civitatem intrand’ et seisiend’ cum omnibus bonis et catallis in eodem inventis. Unde super et de materiis predictis per Recordatorem et Consilium legis peritorum Civitatis responsum fuit dicto domino de Scales omnibus viis modis et forma secundum eorum erudicionem prout poterunt (? potuerunt) pro libertate Civitatis salvand’ et custodiend’ illesa. Et quia materia predicta tangit libertatem Civitatis et privilegia, et dictus dominus de Scales per aliquod responsum ei factum non vult satisfieri, pro eo quod dictus dominus de Scales intendit omnino dictum mesuagium intrare et clausuras eiusdem frangere; Id circo presens communis congregacio summonita fuit, consilium et avisamentum communis Consilii et Constabulariorum[339-3] Civitatis audire et inde habere. Post vero diversas communicaciones communicare petierunt deliberacionem; matura deliberatione habita sic est deffinitum, quod introitus factus erit per assensum totius communis congregacionis per feoffatores ipsius Johannis Paston, quia bene suppositum est quod tam certi Aldermanni quam Cives Communarii[340-1] Civitatis sint cofeoffati cum ipso Johanne Paston; et sic per feoffatores dictum mesuagium erit apertum sine fractura vel ad minus nomine ipsorum feoffatorum vel feoffati unius.
[Footnote 339-2: The house is supposed to have been in the parish of St. Peter Hungate, but it is not certainly known.]
[Footnote 339-3: About this period the 24 Ward Constables were associated in an Assembly with the 60 Common Councillors. This is why they are mentioned here, not with any reference to ‘police’
## action.]
[Footnote 340-1: Members of the Common Council.]
[Footnote 339-1: For this extract from the Assembly books of the City of Norwich I am indebted to the Rev. William Hudson of Eastbourne, who further adds the following particulars:--
The Mayor this year was Thomas Elys who is mentioned in the Paston Letters (iv. 139) as a great supporter of the Duke of Suffolk and opponent of Paston.
The Recorder apparently was John Damme, I suppose the same who occurs so often as a friend of the Pastons.
What with this divergence of feeling and the difficulty of satisfying Lord Scales as well as their own duty towards the City the case was a delicate one and was rather ingeniously dealt with.
There is no other reference to the matter in the Norwich documents so far as I am aware.]
[[p. 225 = shortly after sidenote “John Paston imprisoned a third time”_]]
X. A CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE.
It is desirable here to correct an error in the text, which unfortunately was discovered too late. Letters 1020-1022 are out of their proper place. No. 1020 is certainly a letter of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV.’s queen, not of her daughter Elizabeth, who was Henry VII.’s. No. 1021 was placed after it as being about the same time, which no doubt it was; and the fact that the Earl of Oxford was out of favour for a considerable part of Edward IV.’s reign made it appear as if both letters belonged to that of Henry VII., to which they were accordingly relegated in previous editions. But this Earl of Oxford was in favour under Edward IV. till the restoration of Henry VI.; and No. 1022, a letter which only appeared in the Supplement of the last edition of this work, was written by John Daubeney, who was killed at the siege of Caister in 1469. The reference to the Queen’s confinement, moreover, which was so perplexing in the case of Elizabeth of York, fits exactly with the August of 1467, in which month Elizabeth Woodville gave birth to a daughter named Mary. This letter, therefore, was written on the 8th August, which would be the ‘Saturday before St. Laurence’ day’ in that year: and it must be noted that the footnotes on p. 107 are entirely wrong. The Archbishop of York referred to in the letter was George Nevill, and the Treasurer was Richard, Earl Rivers.
No. 1021 is perhaps before A.D. 1467, as Howard and Sir Gilbert Debenham are believed to be intending ‘to set upon Coton,’ of which apparently Sir Gilbert was in possession in April 1467 (see vol. iv. No. 664, p. 274).
END OF VOLUME I
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty at the Edinburgh University Press