Shakespeare of Stratford/The Biographical Facts/Fact 56
LVI. SHAKESPEARE AS WITNESS IN THE BELOTT-MOUNTJOY SUIT (1612).
(Public Record Office, London.)
Stephen Belott, an apprentice of the French Huguenot tiremaker (wigmaker), Christopher Mountjoy, was married to his master’s daughter, Mary Mountjoy, in St. Olave’s Church, Silver St., London, November 19, 1604. On January 28, 1612, Belott brought suit in the court of requests against his father-in-law, alleging that Mountjoy had not fulfilled a promise to pay ‘threescore pounds or thereabouts for a portion’ at the time of the marriage and also to leave the couple two hundred pounds more on his decease. Shakespeare, who had been living in Mountjoy’s house at the time and had taken part in the ante-matrimonial negotiations of Belott and Mountjoy, was cited as a witness in the case.
(A) Summons to Shakespeare and others, May 7, 1612.
Septimo die Maij. A compulsory to William Shakespeare gent. and others ad testificandum inter Stephanum Bellott querentem et Xpoferum [Christoferum] Mountjoy defendentem. r[eturnable] Imed[iately].
(B) List of witnesses examined:
|
Stephen Belott plaintiff |
Daniel Nicholas |
(C) Interrogatories to be ministered to witnesses to be produced on the part and behalf of Stephen Belott, Compl[ainan]t against Christopher Mountjoy, Def[endan]t.
1. Imprimis, whether do you know the parties pl[ain]t[iff] and deft. and how long have you known them and either of them?
2. Item, whether did you know the Complt. when he was servant with the said deft., how and in what sort did he behave himself in the service of the said deft., and whether did not the said deft. confess that he had got great profit and commodity by the service of the said Complt.?
3. Item, whether did not the said deft. seem to bear great good will and affection towards the said Complt. . . . and whether did not the said Deft. make a motion unto the said Complt. of marriage with the said Mary in the bill mentioned, being the said Deft’s sole child and daughter . . . and whether did not he likewise send any person or no to persuade the said Complt. to the same? Declare the truth of your knowledge herein.
4. Item, what sum or sums of money did the said Deft. promise to give the said Complt. for a portion in marriage with the said Mary his daughter, whether the sum of threescore pounds, or what other sum as you know or have heard? . . .
5. Item, what parcels of goods or household stuff did the defendt promise to give unto the compl[ainant] in marriage with his said wife? . . .
(D) The first witness examined, Joan Johnson, who had been a servant in Mountjoy’s household, testified in answer to the third interrogatory that the defendant seemed to bear great good will and affection towards the plaintiff . . . and as she remembereth the defendant did send and persuade one Mr. Shakespeare that lay in the house to persuade the plaintiff to the same marriage.
(E) Daniel Nicholas, Gent., testified as follows:
To the third interrogatory this deponent saith he heard one Wm. Shakespeare say that the defendant did bear a good opinion of the plaintiff and affected him well when he served him; and did move the plaintiff by him the said Shakespeare to have a marriage between his daughter, Mary Montjoy, and the plaintiff; and for that purpose sent him, the said Shakespeare, to the plaintiff to persuade the plaintiff to the same, as Shakespeare told him, this deponent . . . To the fourth interrogatory this deponent saith that the plaintiff did request him, this deponent, to go with his wife to Shakespeare, to understand the truth, how much and what the defendant did promise to bestow on his daughter in marriage with him the plaintiff; who did so, and asking Shakespeare thereof, he answered that he promised, if the plaintiff would marry with Mary, his the defendant’s only daughter, he the defendant would by his promise, as he remembered, give the plaintiff with her in marriage about the sum of fifty pounds in money and certain household stuff. . . .
(F) Shakespeare’s deposition:[1]
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, gentleman, of the age of forty-eight years or thereabouts, sworn and examined the day and year abovesaid [i.e. May 11, 1612], deposeth and saith:
1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith he knoweth the parties plaintiff and defendant and hath known them both, as he now remembereth, for the space of ten years or thereabouts.
2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith he did know the complainant when he was servant with the defendant, and that during the time of his the complainant’s service with the said defendant he the said complainant to this deponent’s knowledge did well and honestly behave himself, but to this deponent’s remembrance he hath not heard the defendant confess that he had got any great profit and commodity by the service of the said complainant; but this deponent saith he verily thinketh that the said complainant was a very good and industrious servant in the said service. And more he cannot depose to the said interrogatory.
3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that it did evidently appear that the said defendant did all the time of the said complainant’s service with him bear and show great good will and affection towards the said complainant, and that he hath heard the defendant and his wife divers and sundry times say and report that the said complainant was a very honest fellow. And this deponent saith that the said defendant did make a motion unto the complainant of marriage with the said Mary in the bill mentioned, being the said defendant’s sole child and daughter, and willingly offered to perform the same if the said complainant should seem to be content and well like thereof. And further this deponent saith that the said defendant’s wife did solicit and entreat this deponent to move and persuade the said complainant to effect the said marriage; and accordingly this deponent did move and persuade the complainant thereunto. And more to this interrogatory he cannot depose.
4. To the fourth interrogatory this deponent saith that the defendant promised to give the said complainant a portion[2] in marriage with Mary his daughter; but what certain portion he remembereth not, nor when to be paid, nor knoweth that the defendant promised the plaintiff two hundred pounds with his daughter Mary at the time of his decease. But saith that the plaintiff was dwelling with the defendant in his house, and they had amongst themselves many conferences about their marriage, which . . .[3] was consummated and solemnized. .And more he cannot [depose.][3]
5. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith he can say noth[ing][3] touching any part or point of the same interrogatory, for he knoweth not what implements and necessaries of household stuff the defendant gave the plaintiff in marriage with his daughter Mary.
Willm Shakper[4]
This is Shakespeare’s only deposition in the case. Other witnesses were later interrogated, several of whom mention conversations they had had with Mr. Shakespeare. It appears from the evidence that Mountjoy’s house, in which Shakespeare was living from about 1602, stood on the corner of Muggle (Monkwell) and Silver streets. The court finally adopted the strange expedient of referring the matter to the authorities of the French Church in London, who decided in favor of Belott and gave Mountjoy a very bad general moral character. The documents were discovered by Professor C. W. Wallace and printed by him in extenso in the University Studies of the University of Nebraska, 1910.
- ↑ See frontispiece for facsimile of this document. Abbreviated words have been expanded.
- ↑ There are several cancelled passages in this part of the paper.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Paper torn.
- ↑ This is the best extant signature of Shakespeare. The ‘k,’ however, has been spoiled by a blot of ink and the following ‘s’ omitted. The crossed ‘p’ at the end was a conventional symbol for ‘per.’