[307.1] This may mean flour for household use; or it may signify his flower, his device or cognisance.—F.
[307.2] This must mean some MS. copy, for at this time there was only one printed edition of the Bible, which would have sold even then for a much greater sum than is here mentioned. I mean ‘Biblia Latina Mogunt. per J. Fust et P. Schoiffer, 1462.’—F.
[692]
ELIZABETH POYNINGS TO SIR JOHN PASTON[308.1]
To the worshipful Sir John Paston, Knyght, be thys delveryd in hast.
1468(?)
DEC. 15
Worshipfull and with all myn hert interly wilbeloved nevoue, I recomaunde me to yow, desyryng to here of your prosperite and wilefayr, which I pray All mighti God maynteyn and encres to His plesour and your herts desir, thankyng God of your amendyng and helth; furthermore, certefying yow that Sir Robert Fenys hath doon grete hurte in the lyvelode whiche perteyned to my husbond and me in the Shire of Kent, wherein William Kene and other persones arn enfeffid, and gretly troubleth hit, and receyveth the issuez and profitez of gret part of theym. And as of my seid husbonds lyvelode, aswell in the same shire as in other shirez, besyde myn jounter, my seid husbond, whan he departyd towarde the feld of Saint Albons, made and ordeyned his wille, that I shuld have the rewell of all his lyvelode, and of Edwarde his soon and myn, and to take the issuez and profitez of the seid lyvelode, to the fyndyng of his and myn seid son, to paie his dettez, and to kepe the right and title of the same lyvelode, which I myght nat accordyng occupie for Sir Edwarde Ponyngs, myn seid husbonds brother; and so sith myn seid husbonds departyng, I assigned that the seid Sir Edwarde for certeyn yereez shuld have and take the revenuez of the maners of Westwode, Estwell, Levelond, Horsmonden, Totyndon, Eccles, Staundon, and Combesdon, parcell of the seid lyvelode, which arn clerely yerely worth lxxvjli. xiijs. iiijd., to the entent that the seid Sir Edwarde shuld paye myn husbonds dettez, for he wold not suffer me to be in rest without that he myght have a rewell in the lyvelode; and after the seid assignement made, the seid Robert Fenes, contrary to trowth, and withoute cause of right, interupted me and the seid Sir Edwarde, aswell of and in the seid maners as of other maners undirwretyn; wher uppon the same Sir Edwarde suet unto the Kyngs Highnesse, and hade the Kyngez honorable lettres undir his signet, directed to the said Sir Robert Fenys, the tenour wherof I send unto yow herin inclosid; and as for residue of the lyvelode of myn seid husbonds and myn, within the same shire of Kent, wherin the said William Kene and other arn enfeffed, that is to say, the maner of Tyrlyngham, Wolverton, Halton, Newyngton, Bastram, Rokesley, and Northcray, with th’appurtenauncez, I of them, by myn seid husbonds wille, shuld have residue, and take the issuez and profitez of theym, contrarye to right and conciens, takyng away my ryght, and brekyng my said husbonds wille, the seid Robert Fenys hath doon gret wast and hurte ther, and long tym hath take upe the revenuez and profitez of the same, wher thorough I have not my ryght, and the seid wille may not be performed.
Wherfor I hertely pray yow that ze will labour unto the Kynges Highnes, at yt lyketh hym addres his honorable lettres to be directed to the seid Robert Fenys, dischargyng hym utterly of the menuraunce, occupacion, and receyt of the revenuez of the said maners of Tyrlyngham and other, accordyng to the tenour of the lettres labored by Sir Edwarde, for the maners assigned to hym from the Kyngs Highnes, directyd to the same Robert Fynes, or strayter if hit may be, and that I and myn assignez may peasseble rejoie theym; and if eny person wold attempt to do the contrarye, that a comaundement, yf it ples the Kyngs Hignes, by hym myght be yevyn to my Lorde Chaunceller to seall writtyngs sufficiaunt with his gret seall, in eydyng and assisting me and myn assignez in this same.
And as for the maners of Esthall, Faukham, Asslie, and Chelsfeld, with th’appurtenauntez in the seid schire of Kent, whereof my hysbond at his departur was seassed, and my son sethens, unto the tyme that the Erle of Kent[310.1] without eny inquission or title of right for the Kyng, by colour of the Kynges lettres patentes, entret into theym, and hym therof put owte, and now my Lorde of Essex[310.2] occupieth them in lyke maner and forme; yf eny remedy therin wilbe hade, I pray yow attempt hit.
Also, forther more, I hertely pray yow that if eny generall pardon be grauntyd, that I may have on for John Dane my servaunt, whom the said Robert Fenys of gret malice hath endyted of felonye, and that ze secretly labour this, and send me an aunswer in writtyng in as godly hast as ze may. As soon as that may ples yow to send me passels of costes and expences ze bere and pay for the said causez, I will truely content yow hit of the same, and over that rewarde yow to your plessour by the grace of Jesu, quo have yow in His blessed keping. Wrettyn in Suthwerk the xvth daie of Decembyr. Be your awnt, Elizabeth Ponyngs.
[308.1] [From Fenn, iv. 266.] Elizabeth Paston, as we have seen (No. 374), had married Robert Poynings by the beginning of January 1459. We must, however, correct a slight inaccuracy in the preliminary note to that letter, where it is said that by the year 1470 they must have been married several years. Their union, in fact, lasted little more than two years; for Robert Poynings was slain at the second battle of St. Albans on the 17th February 1461. The inquisition post mortem, taken some years afterwards (9 and 10 Edw. IV., No. 49), gives that day as the date of his death. His son and heir, Edward, named in this letter (who was afterwards Lord-Deputy of Ireland in the reign of Henry VII.), was probably born towards the close of the year 1459, for he is mentioned at the date of the inquisition (31st Jan. 49 and 1 Hen. VI., i.e. 1471) as eleven years old and over. Elizabeth Poynings must have remained a widow some years; but before 1472 she had married Sir George Browne of Betchworth, Surrey. This letter is certainly of later date than [No. 627], for the lands which she was then endeavouring to recover from the Earl of Kent were now occupied by the Earl of Essex. It may perhaps have been a year or two after 1466, but it was probably not later than 1469, as in 1470 Henry VI. was restored, and Essex, being a Yorkist, would not have been so powerful. The year 1468 must be a tolerable approximation to the true date.