LETTER XXXIV.—(XXIII. vol. iii. p. 101.)

[THIS letter is from J. Damme and J. Gresham, to J. Paston, and like the last, contains merely legal details of no general interest. This

James Gresham was an eminent lawyer, and great-grandfather to Sir Thomas Gresham, founder of the Royal Exchange.]

LETTER XXXV.-(XXIV. vol. iii. p. 103.)

I have presented this letter to the reader, to show him that the forging of deeds, grants, &c., was a common offence many centuries ago; here it mentions an acquittance as being forged, and likewise an office forgery, which would affect Sir John's manor of Bradwell. At the time here mentioned, forgery was an offence at common law only, and the punishment was usually fine and imprisonment. [Sir John seems to have been an active litigator, and his accusation against the "parson of Stratford" is an interesting little picture of the manners of the times. It must not, however, be supposed that the damage of which Sir John complains was either wantonly or feloniously done; it was evidently upon some disputed claim of rights.] To my right trusty friend and servant, Sir Thomus (Howys), parson of Castlecombe, and John Bocking, at Prince's Inn, in Norwich or at Beccles.

RIGHT trusty and well-beloved servant, I greet you well; and forasmuch as I understand that on Monday next the oyer and terminer shall be holden at Beccles, and ye advise to send you a certificate for cause of the forged quittance by Sir John Sypton, which writing I send you by the bearer hereof, praying you that ye solicit to my counsel that the said Sir John Sypton be indicted thereupon, and that ye forget not Ulveston, Andrews, and the others, that forged a false office to cast my manor of Bradwell into the king's hand.

Item, I send you a copy of Sypton's plea and quittance forged, to ground your bill by it.

No more for haste, but God keep you: written at London, the 4th day of December, in the 29th year of King Henry VI.

Item, Sir John Buck, parson of Stratford, fished my stanks at Dedham, and helped to break my dam, destroyed my new mill, and was against me always at Dedham, to the damage of 201. which may be indicted also.

Item, he and John Cole hath by force this year, and other years, taken out of my waters at Dedham, to the number of twenty-four swans and cygnets, and I pray you this be not forgotten.

Loudon,

JOHN FASTOLF.

Friday, 4th of December, 1450, 29 H. VI.

LETTER XXXVI.-(XXV. vol iii. p. 107.)

This letter was written by John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, to the high sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, in consequence of his having been informed that he intended to quash certain bills against particular persons, and not suffer them to appear at the next sessions, &c. This sentence in the original letter is ambiguous from an omission of a word or two, but I think the above is the true meaning of it. [By the omission of the word to, which we have included in brackets, we think the sense is clear.] These commissions were sent out in November 1450, soon after the suppression of Cade's rebellion, to try those who were imprisoned in different parts of the kingdom for the part they had then taken. The Earl seems to express himself as friendly to the people, and wishes to be a mean of redressing their grievances. He married Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir of Sir John Howard, knight, by which marriage he became possessed of the manor of East Winch, in the county of Norfolk. He was beheaded when about 55 years of age, in 1461.

1

To my right trusty and entirely well-beloved John Jermyn, 1 Sheriff of Norfolk.

RIGHT trusty and entirely well beloved, I greet you well, and where (as) late by the king's commandment in the time of his parliament

John Jermyn, the high sheriff, was ancestor to Sir Thomas Jermyn of Rushbrooke, in Suffolk, who

holden now last at Westminster, I was in person at Norwich, holding sessions of oyer (and) determiner with Yelverton, one of the king's

was created a peer by Charles I. in 1643; but this family became extinct in 1708.

judges, by great space and great attendance, which for to have done with such diligence in the parliament time I would have been right loath, but for the public weal of all the shire.

It is not also out of your remembrance what indisposition the commons of both counties in the end of summer last passed were of, and how the king, by the whole advice of all the great council of England, to cease their rumour sent hither his said commission, and how I have done my part therein I report me to all the world; I hear a grudging, nevertheless, that through favour in your office, [to] the people that hath complained by many and great horrible bills against certain persons, should not be showed at this next sessions at Lynn,1 nor farther in the said commission; which if it so were, as God defend (forbid), might cause a latter error worse than the first.

I pray you therefore that ye would write to me your disposition how ye purpose to be demeaned, and how I shall take you for the exe

cution of the king's commission and the public weal of all the shire; and after that that ye write to me, so will I take you, letting you weet that I were loath to labour farther but if (unless) I wist that the commons should be eased, as God's law would, and if any errors grow, the default shall not be found in me.

I pray you moreover to give credence to the
bearer hereof, and the Trinity keep you.
Written at Winch, the 2nd day of January,
The EARL of Oxford.

Winch,
Saturday, 2nd of January, 1450.
29 H. VI.

Deenford

NUMBER XXXVII. (XXVI. Vol. iii. p. 109.)

That the reader may the better understand the matters here referred to, it will be necessary just to mention the leading transactions which occasioned this accusation. The parliament met at Westminster in the latter end of the year 1450, when the Duke of Somerset, returning from France, was so publicly censured for the loss of Normandy, that the Commons petitioned the king to send him to the Tower; it might he therefore at this time that the Duke of Norfolk made this speech in the House of Lords; the Duke of Somerset, however, was released as soon as the parliament broke up. But as Guienne (which stands as part of the charge against him here) was not completely lost before the year 1453, when this Duke was again committed to the Tower, and an accusation brought against him by the Commons before the Lords, it is, I think, most probable that it was then that the Duke of Norfolk stepped forwards as his accuser. The exact time, however, is immaterial, as the force and energy of the speech remain the same whenever it was spoken, and that it was spoken is evident, from that sentence in which he says, "Wherefor for to abbregge my langage, &c." Though concise, it is nervous, full to the purpose, and artfully addressed to the passions both of the noble Lords and the people in general, and in form and method would not disgrace a modern orator. Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, after the death of the Duke of Suffolk became the queen's favourite and prime minister, and was both a valiant soldier and an able statesman: he fell in the first battle of St. Alban's, where he commanded the royal army, in May 1455. John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, succeeded his father in 1435, and died in 1461. These dukes were both of them great-grandsons to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. The first by his father, the second by his mother. On the top of the paper on which this speech is written is the word cōp, meaning copy," which shows that this was copied from the original paper for the Duke's own use, as the paper and hand-writing are both of the time of Henry VI. And at the bottom is written "Einsi signe M. Norff." [It is certainly a most interesting specimen of our early and genuine parliamentary oratory, although in one particular instance the language is more plain spoken than is now allowed.]

The speech of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, against Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, in the House of Lords.

My Lords, ye know well enough the great pains, labours, and diligences, that before

1 [Showed i. e., the bills should not be exhibited; the term now used in some law proceedings-articles of the peace, for instance.]

this time I have done, to the intent that the over great dishonours and losses that be come to this full noble realm of England, by the false means of some persons that have taken on them over great authority in this realm,

LETTER XXXVIII.-(XXVII. vol. iii. p. 117.)

but enjoined (adjourned) to Walsingham, where they have greatest rule, there to be holden on Tuesday, 4th day of May.

This very curious letter gives us a true picture of the proceedings in our courts of justice at this time. We find those in the highest departments of the law openly partial; and that the suitors in the court came attended by large parties of friends in military array to drive away their opponents; from this the wisdom of our present regulation is apparent, when all soldiers are ordered to quit the town in which assizes are holden during the time of their continuance, lest it should be supposed they might befriend one and intimidate the other party in any legal process: this proceeding is now always enforced, unless when any daring offender against the laws is to be tried, and there are any apprehensions of an intended rescue. To the honour of our country it may be truly said, that our judges for ages past have been, not only thought, but always found, superior to either bribery, corruption, or partiality; and to the immortal honour of our present sovereign King George III., it ought to be ever remembered, that he, in the beginning of his reign, appointed his judges for life, who, before, held their high office only during the royal pleasure. It does not appear what the business was which caused these complaints against the proceedings. [Nor does it appear to us so clearly as to Sir John Fenn that this letter contains any proofs of the partiality of the judges, or of the overawing of the court: in fact, the last was unnecessary if the opposite party were assured of the other. It is the common complaint in all times of a defeated suitor, and from what we have seen of Sir J. Fastolf, and even of Master Paston, we should not hastily conclude that their cases were always just and right. The present was an age of forms, particularly in legal matters, and no doubt these forms were often taken advantage of to defeat right, and thus produce oppression. But these were accidents inherent to the system, and are by no means to be taken as wilful and partial on the part of the judges.] To my reverend and worshipful master, Sir John Fastolf, knight, be this letter delivered. RIGHT reverend and worshipful master, I recommend me lowly unto you; please you to weet the Sunday, next after the feast of the 'Invention of the Cross, the 9th day of May, at Caister, I received a letter from you by your clerk, W. Barker, the tenour whereof I shall do speed in all haste goodly; but for the more special cause of my writing at this time is to give you relation of the untrue demeaning this oyer (and) determiner, by the partiality of the judges of it, for when the counsel of the city of Norwich, of the town of Swaffham, yours, my master Inglos, Pastons, and many others plaintiffs, had put in and declared both by writing and by word before the judges the lawful exceptions in many wise, the judges by their wilfulness might not find in their heart to give not as much as a beck nor a twinkling of their eye toward, but took it to derision-God reform such partiality; and because Prisot thought that if the sessions of the oyer and determiner had been holden at Norwich as they begun, he supposed it should not so fast pass to the intent of Todenham, and Heydon, and their fellows, as it should do else in other place,

This knowing, my Master Yelverton,3 Jenney, and others might well conceive how the governance of the oyer and determiner should proceed, for it was the most partial place of all the shire, and thither were cleped (called) all the friends, knights, and esquires, and other gentlemen that would in no wise do otherwise than they would, and the said Todenham, Heydon, and other oppressors of their set, came down thither, as I understand, with 400 horse and more, and considering how their well-willers were there assembled at their instance, it had been right jeopardous and fearful for any of the plaintiffs to have been present, for there was not one of the plaintiffs nor complainants there, but your right faithful and trusty well-willer John Paston. And my Master Yelverton said full discreetly, and controlled the said Prisot when he said, sitting in the Guildhall of Norwich, these words to the mayor and the commonalty :

:

"A Sir Mayor and your brethren, as to

became a serjeant at law in 1440, was made a judge of the King's Bench in 1444, created a Knight of the Bath in 1460, and was alive in 1467. He married first Jane, daughter of Oliver le Gros, Esq., of Sloley, in Norfolk; secondly, Ela, daughter of Sir Robert Brewse, of Wetingham, in Suffolk, by each of whore he left issue.

LETTER XXXIX.—(XXVIII. vol. iii. p. 125.)

The former part of this letter is of little consequence; we learn from it, indeed, that misrepresentations sub versive of good neighbourhood proceeded then as now from servants and others. In the latter part we find treacle spoken of as a medicine of great efficacy and consequence. Sir Henry Inglos's will was proved on the 4th of July, 1451, by which he desired to be buried in the Presbytery of the Priory of St. Faith, at Horsham St. Faith's, in Norfolk, a priory founded by Robert de Caen, in 1105, in memory of a miraculous delivery from imprisonment by his prayers to God and St. Faith the Virgin. The removal of his body so immediately after his death seems extraordinary.

To my right worshipful husband, John Paston, be this delivered in haste.

RIGHT worshipful husband, I recommend me oyou, desiring heartily to hear of your wel

Thomas Lord Scales was a Knight of the Garter he left an only daughter and heir married to Sir Anthony Widville, who in her right was summoned to parliament as Baron Scales in 1461. 2 [Brayn, perhaps, who is mentioned in page 22.]