[225.3] No. 598. It appears by the city records of Norwich, an extract from which, kindly communicated to me by the Rev. William Hudson, will be found in the Appendix to this Introduction, that Lord Scales arrived in the city ‘a second time’ towards the close of the year 1465—apparently just before Christmas day, for the date was within eighteen days of a document dated 10th January, 5 Edward IV.—for the express purpose of taking possession of all the goods and chattels of John Paston, whom the king had seized as his ‘native.’ This raised an awkward question about the privileges of the city, in which John Paston possessed a house. But the civic authorities found a way out of the difficulty, and agreed that Lord Scales should be allowed to enter by the act of John Paston’s feoffees; for it was understood that certain aldermen and common council men were co-feoffees along with him, of the messuage which he held. Thus the city’s liberty was theoretically preserved without offence to the higher powers.
[226.1] No. 598.
[227.1] No. 599.
[227.2] On the 18th August Margaret Paston was still hoping that her husband would find it possible to come home himself, and save her the necessity of going up to London to see him. See No. 604. But we know that he was imprisoned before the 28th of the month. No. 606.
[227.3] No. 610 (vol. iv. p. 192).
[229.1] No. 609.
[229.2] See No. 613. The heading of this letter is unfortunately wrong. Deceived by the facsimile to which Fenn refers as showing the character of the signature, I attributed the letter to Sir John Paston. But Margaret Paston expressly says it was John Paston the younger whom she left at Cotton (No. 610), and this letter must therefore have been written by him. Besides, the writer himself mentions that the dispute with Debenham was referred to the Duke of Norfolk to avoid the scandal of a quarrel between two of his men. It was not Sir John Paston, but his brother, that was in the Duke of Norfolk’s service.
[230.1] Nos. 613, 614.
[230.2] No. 613.
[231.1] No. 614.