Shakespeare's family
directed to Bartholomew Hales, Lord of the Manor of Snitterfield, and
Nicholas Knolles, Vicar of Alveston, to take her deposition concerning
it, in July, 1580.[111] She died in December of that year; and in 1582
John Shakespeare,[112] and his brother Henry, and Adam Palmer, with
others, were called on to give evidence in the case between Thomas
Mayowe and Robert Webbe, before Sir Fulk Grevyle, Sir Thomas Lucy,
Humphrey Peto, and William Clopton, Commissioners. Their depositions in
support of the deed of transfer seem to have been sufficient, and we
hear no more of Mayowe. The newly-married couple settled down on the
inheritance of the Ardens, and the old home of the Shakespeares.
Concerning Mary Arden's special inheritance at Asbies, there is a sadder
story to tell. Whether John Shakespeare could read or not, he was
certainly not a Latin scholar, and though not ignorant of many points of
common law, was not up to all the technicalities used at times to
confuse the truth. It is evident that there had been some verbal
agreement between him and Edmund Lambert on which he relied, but that
the written deed was all that John Lambert accepted.[113] On selling the
main portion of his wife's property at Snitterfield, John Shakespeare
seems to have walked right off with the money to Edmund Lambert, of
Barton-on-the-Heath, to redeem his mortgage, and reinstate himself as
owner of Asbies, free to grant a lease or sale on his own terms. But
through a quibble, which "was not in the bond," Edmund Lambert refused
to accept this until certain other debts were also paid. Thereby he
gained the shelter of time, which "was in the bond," and put Shakespeare
at a legal disadvantage, though it is evident from the later papers that
a verbal agreement had taken place to extend the time, seeing that the
money had been tendered. We may be sure that the property was worth more
than L40 in hard cash to either, and more, in romantic associations, to
the Shakespeares. For it was a part of Thomas Arden's original property.
How he came by it, no one is sure. French[114] suggests it might have
been given him by the Beauchamps of Bergavenny, who had intermarried
with the Ardens, and had been more than once known to have been in
friendly relations. The guardian of Robert Arden, his grandfather, had
been the Lady of Bergavenny, and Elizabeth Beauchamp was godmother to
Elizabeth Arden, daughter of Walter and sister of Thomas, whom we take
to be the Thomas of Aston Cantlow.
Edmund Lambert died in 1587, and his son John seems to have been
threatened by the Shakespeares with a law-suit for the recovery of
Asbies, and proposed as a compromise to pay a further sum of L20,
thereby securing Asbies as by purchase. To this, however, the consent,
not only of Mary, but of William, her heir, was necessary, and the poet
is supposed to have come down to Stratford on the occasion to act with
his parents. But probably there was some other hitch: the L20 may have
been held to be covered by the "other debts," which already had done
service for Edmund Lambert; or the Shakespeares weighed their desire to
have back the land, which they probably then wished, with their growing
family, to farm themselves. Nothing seems then to have been settled, and
they were too poor to risk the perils of a great law-suit. Doubtless,
with sad hearts and bitter retrospect, they regretted their unlucky
purchases in 1575, which seemed to have pinched them so, and wished at
least they had been contented with the half, with the one tenement in
Henley Street that formed part of their residence. For, had they only
spent L20 then instead of L40, they could have repaid their hard-dealing
relative not only the smaller mortgage, but the "other debts," out of
the L40 they received for Snitterfield from the more liberal Robert
Webbe.
Finding John Lambert even harder to deal with than his father, John
Shakespeare brought a Bill of Complaint against him in the Court of
Queen's Bench,[115] 1589, by John Harborne, attorney, in which his wife
and son are mentioned. Nothing seems then to have been done. On November
24, 1597, backed by their son's influence and money, John and Mary
Shakespeare, plaintiffs, without associating their son's name, made a
formal complaint to the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Egerton,[116]
stating that Edmund Lambert was to hold it only until repaid the loan,
that the money had been duly tendered to him on the agreed date, that he
had refused it, and that his son John holds the land still, and makes
secret estates of the premises, the nature of which they cannot
describe, as the papers have been withheld them; that their papers and
evidences are open to the court. They add further that "the sayde John
Lamberte ys of greate wealthe and abilitie, and well frended and allied
amongst gentlemen and freeholders of the county ... and your saide
oratores are of small wealthe and very fewe frendes and alyance in the
said countie. They pray a writ of subpoena to be directed to John
Lambert to appear in the Court of Chancery."
John Lambert, pointing out the uncertainty and insufficiency of the
plaintiff's bill, also that the bill had _already been exhibited against
him_ in the same court, and he had fully answered it, asserts that the
arrangement was a deed of sale, with the conditional proviso that if
John Shakespeare should pay L40 on the Feast of St. Michael the
Archangel, 1580, to Edmund Lambert, in Barton-on-the-Heath, the bill of
sale should be void. He did not pay the money on the day, and therefore
his father was legally seized of the estate.
To this John and Mary Shakespeare replied, and again explained that the
money was tendered at the date, and that Edmund Lambert refused to
receive it unless other moneys also were paid, of which no condition had
been fixed; that on the death of Edmund, John had stepped into
possession, and refused to hear anything from them.[117] John Lambert
had another quibble, that John Shakespeare had exhibited two bills
against him, one in his own name, and one associating his wife's. On
July 5, 1598, July 10, 1598, and May 18, 1599, further steps were taken,
but still no decision was reached. Therefore, on June 27, 1599, a
commission was appointed to examine both parties. In the Index Trin.
Term, 41 Elizabeth, there is the entry "Shackspeere contra Lambert," but
the page that contained further notice is lost.
On October 23, 1599, another entry of the case is recorded: "Yf the
defendant show no cause for stay of publicacion by this day sevenight,
then publicacion ys granted"; but nothing more has come to us. Probably
delay helped the more powerful, certainly possession proved nine-tenths
of the law, and the expenses of legal action even then were
paralyzing.[118] It is strange that the fate of Asbies as a property is
unknown. There are traces of its being in the possession of Adam Edkins
in 1668, of one John Smith after him, and of Clement Edkins in
1699,[119] but the name seems to have vanished, and with it all
remembrance of the boundary of the inheritance of the Ardens of
Wilmcote.
* * * * *
MARY ARDEN'S FAMILY.
Walter Arden, = Eleanor, 2nd dauther and coheiress
of Park Hall, 16th in descent from | of John Hampden of
the Saxon Sheriff Ailwin. See his | Great Hampden, co. Bucks.
tomb at Aston _juxta_ Birmingham. |
|----------|-----------------------|--------|-------|--------|---------|------|
| | | | | | | |
Sir John. Thomas, = wife Martin. Robert. Henry. William. Alicia. Margaret.
2nd son | unknown
Of Aston |
Cantlow; |
bought |
Snitter- |
field 1501.|
Robert Arden = 1st wife unknown
| 2nd wife, Agnes Webbe,
| widow of W. Hill
|---------------|-------------|------------|------------|----------|----------|
| | | | | | |
1st dau., 2nd dau., 3rd dau., 4th dau., 5th dau., 6th dau., 7th dau.,
Agnes Arden, Joan Arden, Katharine Margaret Joyce Alice Mary
m. 1st, John m. Edmund Arden, m. Arden, m. Arden. Arden. Arden,
Hewyns: Lambert, of Thomas 1st, m. John
| | Barton-on- Edkins, of Alexander Shake-
Thomas. the-Heath Wilmecote. Webbe, of speare.
Margaret. | | Snitterfield; |
2nd, Thomas John Lam- Thomas 2nd, |
Stringer. bert. Edkins. Edward |
| | | Cornwall |
Ellice. (had a son, |
John Stringer. Robert |
Arden Stringer. Webbe, m. |
Mary |
Perkes). |
|
|------------|----------|------------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|
| | | | | | | |
Joan, Margaret, William Gilbert, Joan, Anne, Richard, Edmund,
b. 1558; b. 1562; Shakespeare, b. 1566; b. 1569; b. 1571; b. 1573; b. 1580;
d. infant. d. infant. the poet d. 1611. d. 1646. d. 1579. d. 1612. d. 1607.
b. April 23, _s.p._ _s.p._ _s.p._
1564; d.
April 23, 1616.
FOOTNOTES:
[83] See "Survey of Birmingham," 1553, Clement Throckmorton, p. 3,
edition by Mr. W. B. Bickley.
[84] Stratford Miscellaneous Records, No. 436.
[85] _Ibid._
[86] Halliwell Phillipps mentions Elizabeth Skerlett as an eighth,
surely in error.
[87] I believe that I have found the register of her death in
association with the Ardens of Park Hall, see p. 41.
[88] This supposition is strengthened by the language of the lease which
Mrs. Arden granted her brother of a farm in Snitterfield, May 21, 1560,
of which "estate was made to me the said Agnes by my late husband in the
fourth year of the raigne of the late King Ed. VI., 1550;... now in
tenure of Richard Shakespeare, John Henley, and John Hargrave."
[89] See Records of Stratford-on-Avon.
[90] _Ibid._
[91] Worcester Wills. Consistory Court.
[92] See Sir George Nichols' "History of the English Poor Law."
[93] See "Release from Thomas Stringer of Stockton, co. Salop, to
Alexander Webbe of Snitterfield, _husbandman_, 12th Feb., 11 Eliz.,
witness John Shaxpere," confirmed after the marriage of Margaret to
Edward Cornwall, October 16, 18 Elizabeth. "A transfer from John
Shakespeare and Mary his wife" of her shares of Snitterfield, 21 Eliz.,
for L4; 15 Oct., 22 Eliz., for L40; and 23 Eliz., 6s. 8d. "Release from
Thomas Stringer and Thomas Edkins to Robert Webbe, 23rd Dec., 21 Eliz."
"A grant from Edmund Lambert and Joane his wife to Robert Webbe of their
interest in Snitterfield, 2nd May, 23 Eliz." (Stratford-on-Avon
Records).
[94] Stratford-on-Avon Miscellaneous Papers.
[95] Chamberlain's Accounts, Stratford-on-Avon.
[96] Worcester Wills.
[97] Reply of John Lambert in 1597, Chancery Proceedings.