Shakespeare of Stratford/The Biographical Facts/Fact 5
V. MENTION OF SHAKESPEARE AS HEIR OF JOHN AND MARY SHAKESPEARE IN SUIT OVER THE ESTATE OF ASBIES (1589).
From Coram Rege Roll, Public Record Office, London.
In 1579 John and Mary Shakespeare alienated to Edmund Lambert, brother-in-law of Mary, for forty pounds, the estate of Asbies, three miles from Stratford, an inheritance from Mary’s father, Robert Arden. There appears to have been an informal agreement for recovery of the estate on repayment of the sum; but Edmund and after him his son, John Lambert, refused to acknowledge this. In Michaelmas term (autumn), 1589, John Shakespeare brought suit against John Lambert, asserting that on Edmund Lambert’s death in 1587, John Lambert contracted to pay twenty pounds on condition that the Shakespeares should not bring suit against him and should confirm him in the possession of the estate. The portion of the document mentioning William Shakespeare is as follows:
Et quod dictus Johannes Shackespere et Maria uxor ejus, simul cum Willielmo Shackespere filio suo, cum inde requisiti essent, assurarent mesuagium predictum et cetera premissa, cum pertinentiis, prefato Johanni Lamberte, et deliberarent omnia scripta et evidencias premissa predicta concernentia; predictus Johannes Lamberte vicesimo sexto die Septembris anno regni dicte domine regine vicesimo nono, apud Stratford-super-Avon in comitatu predicto, in consideracione inde super se assumpsit et prefato Johanni Shackespere, adtunc et ibidem fideliter promisit quod ipse, idem Johannes Lambert, viginti libras legalis monete Anglie prefato Johanni Shackespere . . . bene et fideliter solvere et contentare vellet; et predictus Johannes Shackespere in facto dicit quod ipse hucusque non implacitavit dictum Johannem Lambert pro premissis, nec aliqua inde parcella, et insuper quod ipse, idem Johannes Shackespere et Maria uxor ejus, simul cum Willielmo Shackespere filio suo semper hactenus parati fuerunt tam ad assurandum premissa predicta quam ad deliberandum eidem Johanni Lamberte omnia scripta et evidencias eadem premissa concernentia; predictus tamen Johannes Lamberte, promissionem et assumpcionem suas predictas minime curans, sed machinans et fraudulenter intendens ipsum Johannem Shackespere de predictis viginti libris callide et subdole decipere et defraudare, easdem viginti libras prefato Johanni Shackespere juxta promissionem et assumpcionem suas hucusque non solvit. . . .[1]
Note. Nothing seems to have been effected by this suit, in which the poet was only indirectly concerned. Eight years later (Nov. 24, 1597) a chancery suit against Lambert was instituted in the name of John and Mary Shakespeare, but doubtless at the expense of the poet, who however is not mentioned. The case dragged on for several years without profit to the Shakespeares. The documents are given by Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 7th ed., ii. 14 ff.
- ↑ ‘And that the said John Shakespeare and Mary his wife, together with William Shakespeare their son, when they should be asked to do so, would confirm the aforesaid messuage and other premises with their appurtenances to the said John Lambert, and would deliver all writings and evidences concerning the aforesaid premises. The aforesaid John Lambert, on the twenty-sixth day of September in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our said lady the Queen (1587), at Stratford-on-Avon in the aforesaid county, in consideration of this took upon himself and then and there faithfully promised the said John Shakespeare that he, the same John Lambert, would well and faithfully pay and satisfy to the said John Shakespeare twenty pounds of legal money of England: and the said J. S. says in fact that he has not hitherto sued the said J. L. for the premises nor any part of them, and moreover that he the said J. S. and Mary his wife, together with William Shakespeare their son, have always been ready both to confirm [J. L.’s possession of] the aforesaid premises and to deliver to the same J. L. all writings and evidences concerning the said premises. Nevertheless the said J. L., very little regarding his promise and undertaking aforesaid, but scheming and fraudulently intending to deceive and defraud J. S. of the said twenty pounds, has not hitherto paid the twenty pounds to the said J. S. according to his promise and undertaking.’