[Footnote 240-2: That is to say, menaced, if not attacked, an 'affray' being made upon her. It is curious to meet here our familiar word 'afraid' in its original form and signification.]
The old dispute with the executors, however, was compromised in the court of audience: and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Waynflete, and Lord Beauchamp granted to Sir John full right in the manor of Caister, and a number of other lands both in Norfolk and Suffolk.[241-3] Sir John soon afterwards conveyed a portion of the Suffolk property called Hemnales in Cotton and the manor of Haynford to the Duke of Norfolk and others.[241-4] William Worcester became friends with John Paston's widow, imputed his old misunderstanding with her husband to the interference of others between them, and expressed himself well pleased that Caister was to be at her command. 'A rich jewel it is at need,' writes Worcester, 'for all the country in time of war; and my master Fastolf would rather he had never builded it than it should be in the governance of any sovereign that would oppress the country.' At the same time it seemed very doubtful whether Fastolf's intention of founding the college there could be carried out, and Worcester had some conferences with Sir John Paston about establishing it at Cambridge. Bishop Waynflete had already proposed doing so at Oxford; but Cambridge was nearer to the county of Norfolk, and by buying a few advowsons of wealthy parsonages an additional foundation might be established there at considerably less cost than by the purchase of manors. In this opinion Sir John Paston and William Worcester coincided, and the former promised to urge it upon Bishop Waynflete.[241-5]
[Footnote 241-3: No. 675. The deed, perhaps, was found to be irregular afterwards, for its general effect was confirmed about five months later by another instrument. No. 680.]
Sir John Paston had now some reason to expect that with the settlement of this controversy he would have been left for life in peaceful possession of Caister. That which his father had not been able to attain was now apparently conceded to him: and even if Sir William Yelverton was still dissatisfied, the other executors had formally recognised his rights in the court of audience. But before many months had passed it appeared that Yelverton could still be troublesome, and he found an ally in one who had hitherto been his opponent. [Sidenote: Sir Thomas Howes unites with Yelverton,] Sir Thomas Howes was probably failing in health--for he seems to have died about the end of the year 1468[242-1]--when he made that declaration 'for the discharge of his conscience' to which we have already alluded. Scruples seem to have arisen in his mind as to the part he had taken with Sir John Paston's father in reference to the administration of Fastolf's will, and he now maintained that the will nuncupative which he himself had propounded along with John Paston in opposition to an earlier will propounded by Yelverton and Worcester, was a fabrication which did not truly express the mind of the deceased. We may observe, though the subject is exceedingly obscure, that of the three wills[242-2] printed in Volume III., each of which professes to be the will of Sir John Fastolf, the third, which is in Latin, is clearly a will nuncupative declaring the testator's mind in the third person, and defining the powers of the executors in regard to his goods and chattels.[242-3]