Volume Ii Part 13 (1/2)
51
JAMES GRESHAM TO WILLIAM PASTON[61.1]
_To my right worthy and worshepfull Lord, William Paston, Justice, in hast._
[Sidenote: 1444 / JAN. 29]
Please it your good Lords.h.i.+p to wete that the Chief Justice of the Kynggs Benche[61.2] recomaundeth hym to yow, and is right sory of the matier that is cause of your noun comyng hedir, but he wole do al that he can or may for yow. He hath hadde a cyetica [sciatica] that hath letted hym a gret while to ride, and dar not yet come on non horses bak, and ther for he hath spoke to the Lordes of the Conseill, and enformed hem of your sekenesse and his also, that he may not ride at these next a.s.sizes to Estgrynsted; and though thoe a.s.sizes discontynue _puer noun venue dez Justicez_, he hopeth to be excused and ye also. And as for the remenant of the a.s.sizes, he shall purvey to be ther by water. And Almyghty Jesu make yow heyle and strong.
Wretyn right simply the Wednesseday next to fore ye Fest of the Purificacion of Our Lady at London.
By your most symple servaunt,
JAMYS GRESHAM.
[Footnote 61.1: [From Fenn, iii. 26.] 'From a memorandum,' says Fenn, 'on the back of this letter, dated in April 1444, it is probable that it was written on the 30th of January 1443.' Did Fenn mean the 30th of January 1443-4? In the side-note immediately below the letter, he dates it in his usual exact manner, 'Wednesday, 30th of January 1443, 22 H. vi.' But unfortunately there is an error here. January in the 22d year of Henry VI., means January 1444 according to the modern computation, or 1443 in the style formerly in use, by which the year was reckoned from the 25th of March. But the 30th of January was a Wednesday in 1443, only according to the modern computation of the year,--that is to say, it was a Wednesday in the year 1442-3, not in 1443-4. I imagine, however, that the '30th of January' should have been '29th of January,' and that Fenn really meant 1443-4, corresponding with the 22nd year of Henry VI.; for the memorandum to which he refers is a draft agreement, dated on Pa.s.sion Sunday, 22 Hen. VI., A.D. 1444.]
[Footnote 61.2: The celebrated Sir John Fortescue.]
52
JOHN GYNEY TO WILLIAM PASTON[62.1]
_To the worthy and wors.h.i.+pfull Sir and good Lord and Maister, William Paston, on of the Justices of oure Sovereign Lord, of his Commone Benche at Westminster._
[Sidenote: Not later than 1444]
Right worthy and wors.h.i.+pfull Sir, and my good Lord and Maister, I recomaund me to yow. And where as ye, by your lettre direct to my Lady, your wyf, wold that my seid Lady shuld have Robert Tebald and me to geder, as sone as she myght, and the evidences which the seid Robert receyved of yow at your last beyng at Norwich, and that I shuld amende the defautes therinne, and that that doon there shuld of Baxteres Place of Honyng be taken estate to yow and to other, as your seid lettre requireth: Prey and beseche yow to witte that, on the Friday next after your departyng fro Paston, Thomas Walysh and William Burgh, in his owen persone, and the seid Thomas by William Inges and William Walsyngham, his attornies, by his lettre under his seal, where [_were_] at Honyng, and delyvred to my Lady Scarlet seson [_seisin_] in the seid place, and Colbyes and Donnynges in Walsham. And the seid Thomas Walyssh, as the seid Tebald told me, wold not enseale the seid lettre of attornie til the parson of Ingeworth come to hym therfore, and required hym to don it. Wychyngham in his owen persone in the nyght next beforn the seid Friday, as the seid Tebald infourmeth me, come to the same Tebaldes hows, and desired hym to enseale acquytaunce, as he seid, and the same Robert refused to don it.
Nertheless, whether it were acquytaunce or were not, the same Robert kan not seye, for he myght noo sight have there of. And the seid Wychyngham the same nyght rood to John w.i.l.l.yot, and desired of hym the same, and refused also to don it. What is the best to be don in this matier my seid Lady, your wyf, kan not thynke with owt your advis and counseile.
Wherfore as touchyng the takyng of th'estate to yow and other, as in your seid lettre is conteigned, is yet right nought doon.
The Holy Trinite have yow in his blissed kepyng. Wretyn at North Walsham, the Thursday next after the Purificacion of oure Lady.
My seid Lady, your wyf, preyeth yow to be remembred of here grene gynger of almondes for Lente, and of the leche of Orwelde, for here seknes encreseth dayly upon here, whereof she is sore a ferd.
By youre servunt,
JOHN GYNEY.
[Footnote 62.1: [From Fenn, iii. 28.] There is nothing to be said of the date of this letter, except that it is not later than 1444, when William Paston died.]
53
ABSTRACT[63.1]
[Sidenote: 1444 / MARCH 15]