(1578), there was a sale by Edward Cornwell to Robert Webbe of all his
goods and chattels in Snitterfield or elsewhere, except “one young mare
of color baye, and one coaffer, parcel of the premises”--two pieces
of pewter being delivered in sign of possession. It was signed by the
mark and seal of witnesses, Anthony Osbaston, William Round, Ardenne
Stringer, and John Bronde (Birthplace Deed, 432).[4]
The next deeds concern the Shakespeare transfer, about which there is
much contentious matter. Halliwell-Phillipps says, “Outlines,” i, 29,
“Arden had reserved to his daughter Mary a portion of a large estate at
Snitterfield.” Now this is a pure supposition, unsupported by any deed
or transfer, and besides, it is an unnecessary supposition. It may be
noted that there is no allusion to Joyce and Alice, or their shares,
among the transfers. It is _probable_ that they died without heirs of
their body, and that their shares were divided among their sisters.
It is _possible_ that Alice, with whom she had been most associated,
might have _left_ her share to her sister Mary. However it happened,
Mary was empowered to sell. In “Outlines,” ii, 179, the indenture is
given _in extenso_, as drawn up on the 15th day of October 21 Eliz.
(_i.e._, 1579), between John Shackspere of Stratford-on-Avon, yeoman,
and Mary his wife, and Robert Webbe of Snitterfield, witnessing that
for the sum of “_foure pounds_” paid by Robert Webbe to John and
Mary Shakespeare they should sell him “all that their moiety, part
or partes, be it more or lesse, of and in two tenements” with the
appurtenances in Snitterfield, all reversions, remainders, grants
(the rents to the chief lord alone excepted), and all charters and
evidences concerning them; and that John and Mary should cause and
suffer to be done every device for the more perfect assurance of the
aforesaid moiety to Robert Webbe, “by his or their counsell learned in
the law.” They also agreed to deliver to Robert Webbe by the following
Easter all their “evidences.” In witness whereof the parties put their
hands and seals, John Shackspere, Mary Shackspere, in presence of
Nicholas Knooles, Vicar of Auston, William Maydes, Anthony Osbaston,
and others. This long paper, written in English, has no reference, but
hangs framed on the west wall in the Birthplace Museum. A bond was
also signed concerning this on 25th October in the same year, by the
same parties, and witnesses, that if John and Mary Shackspere fail in
the performance of their agreement, they will pay 20 marks to Robert
Webbe; but if they perform the conditions, the bond will be held void.
This bond also hangs framed on the west wall among the Birthplace
Deeds in the Museum. The final concord is found among the Feet of
Fines in the Record Office, “Warr. Pasche in quindecim dies 22 Eliz.”
(_i.e._ 1580), six months after the agreement. “Robert Webbe qu., John
Shackespere and Mary his wife def., ... of the sixth part of two parts
of two messuages,” etc., in Snitterfield; they yielding up their share
entirely to Robert Webbe, on the death of Agnes Arden, for _forty
pounds_.
This is transcribed in full by Halliwell-Phillipps, “Outlines,” ii,
176; but he says, “The indenture leading the uses of this fine has not
been discovered,” assuming that there is no connection between this
fine and the agreement of 15th October, which he takes to be a sale
by John Shakespeare alone of some property of his own, in which he
only uses his wife’s name to bar dower. Careful study will show that
these three documents all concern the same sale. The puzzle is, Why
did the English scribe write “foure” pounds, while the Latin _foot_
gives “forty.” It may in one case have been merely a scribe’s error of
“foure” for “fouretie”; it may, in another case, point to the result of
some increase of the part to be sold, possibly by the death of another
sister within the six months; it may be that Robert Webbe wished
to let John Shakespeare have enough to pay the mortgage on Asbies,
trusting to future good offices; it may be that the “learned counsel”
employed put up the price for his clients before the final concord. Or
it may be that the “foure pounds” referred to the share by division of
one sister’s property; and the other to the whole share by will. An
abstract of the fine remains, incorrectly dated, in Misc. Doc., i, 90.
Among the Fines de Banco, “Warr. 22 Eliz., pro termino Pasche,” is
the note of one due to George Digby, arm., for a licence to Robert
Webbe to agree with John Shakespeare and others for his share of the
property in Snitterfield, 6_s._ 8_d._ “Recepta per me, Johannem Cowper
Sub-Vice-comitum.”
Mrs. Arden renewed the lease she had made to her brother Alexander to
his son Robert Webbe, 5th July 1580 (Misc. Doc., i, 88). Witnesses John
Somerville, Thomas Osbardistone.
It would seem that the question of the ownership of the Snitterfield
property was perplexing enough to Robert Webbe, when a new claimant
appeared. Thomas Mayowe of Shireburne, grandson of the William Mayowe
who had granted it to John at the beginning of the century, laid claim
to it now, and having no title deeds, appealed to Sir Thomas Bromley,
Lord Chancellor. He stated that his grandfather William was lawfully
seised in one messuage with about 80 acres in Snitterfield by ancient
gift in tail made to him by Richard Mayowe his father; and that this
descended to Roger Mayowe, son and heir of William, and should have
descended to the suppliant Thomas, son and heir of Roger. But
the deeds and charters concerning the premises of right belonging to
your suppliant have casually come into the hands of Edward Cornewell,
Agnes Arden, and Robert Webbe, who, by colour thereof, daily devise
and practise to convey to themselves sundry estates in those by
inheritance to persons unknown to your suppliant, minding, through
delays, wrongfully to disinherit him.
He did not know the dates of the old deeds, nor the certain number of
them, “whether in chiste locked, or boxe sealed”; and therefore he
is without all remedies by the ordinary course of the common law. He
knows not with certainty against whom to bring the action, for “they
so covertly and secretly do use the matter that he cannot certeynely
know who is the tenant of the premises or receiver of the rents.” So
he appeals to the Chancellor to issue a writ of subpœna, that Edward
Cornewell, Agnes Arden, and Robert Webbe should appear personally
before his Honour, to give an account of their claims. This is not
dated (Misc. Doc., vii, 154). It must have fallen like a bomb into
the camp in 1580. Agnes Arden was still alive, but she was ill. A
commission was granted to Bartholomew Hales, gent., Lord of the Manor
of Snitterfield, and Nicholas Knolles, clerk, to take the deposition of
Agnes Arden, now impotent, for the use of Chancery, in answer to a bill
by Thomas Mayowe, 25th November 23 Eliz., 1580 (Misc. Doc., ii, 13).
As they lived so near, this was probably seen to at once. Agnes Arden
died shortly afterwards, and was buried at Aston Cantlow, 29th December
1580, Her death caused a re-arrangement of claims. From tenants, the
Ardens had become owners in each part. Robert Webbe, already owner of
the bulk of the estate, proceeded to purchase more. Edmund Lambert, who
had not been pressed by poverty to realize his reversion, agreed to
sell his share. On 1st May 23 Eliz. (1581), there was granted to Robert
Webbe, by Edmund Lambert of Barton in Henmarche, and his wife Joan, one
of the daughters of Robert Arden, all their moiety, part, pourpart, or
share of the property for £40 (Misc. Doc., ii, 80).
On the 2nd of May a subordinate deed was drawn up, signed by the
_marks_ and seals of Edmund and Joan Lambert, appointing their
well-beloved William Cookes and William Meades their true and
legitimate attorneys to hand over their third part to Robert Webbe, or
any attorney he may choose. This was signed in the presence of William
Cookes, Thomas Nicholson, William Maydes, John Perkes, and Edward
Cornewell (Misc. Doc., ii, 12).
On the same date, with the same witnesses, Edmund Lambert executed
a bond of £80 in favour of Robert Webbe if he should not fulfil the
conditions agreed upon (Misc. Doc., vii, 153).
A general release by Edmund Lambert to Robert Webbe of the interest
of him and his wife in the Snitterfield property was handed over on
1st June 23 Eliz. (1581), before the witnesses John Dafferne, John
Scarlett, Edward Cornewell, Henry Talbot, and John Butler. The seal has
H. T. on it, probably being that of Henry Talbot (Misc. Doc., ii, 84).
See also Birthplace Deeds, Appendix 276.
The final concord appears in the Feet of Fines, P.R.O., “Warr. Pasche,
24 Eliz.,” between “Robert Webbe, qu., et Edmund Lambert et aliis
deforc., de terre,” etc. Robert Webbe had by this time become apparent
owner of the whole of the old Mayowe property, and empowered to face
the lagging Chancery suit alone.
But another complexity had arisen, and a new set of deeds, which have
not yet been fully worked out. Robert Webbe was about to marry Mary,
the daughter of John Perkes of Snitterfield, evidently a prosperous
farmer and an affectionate father. The arrangements were extraordinary.
There is an undated deed (with pieces cut out) providing that William
Perkes should enjoy one tenement, one orchard, and all appurtenances,
etc., now in the possession of Edward Cornewell, with no claims from
the Ardens, for the sum of £20; that if William Perkes _or his assigns_
do not enjoy the same and pay for it at the rate of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ a
year, and do depart, then the said Edward Cornwell to have the same
again (Misc. Doc., ii, 7). This seems to have been some first draft.[5]
The “settlement” _in extenso_ is preserved between Robert Webbe and
Mary Perkes, 1st September 23 Eliz. (1581). In consideration of a
marriage hereafter to be held between them, and also in consideration
of £35 of lawful English money to be paid him by John Perkes, Robert
Webbe devised and let to farm two messuages with the appurtenances, and
one yard land and a half, to John Perkes from the feast of St. Michael
for six years, to have and to hold, paying to Robert Webbe or his
executors the sum of fourpence at each term. John Perkes was to repair
the premises at his own cost, and at the end of the term to yield them
to Robert Webbe. During that term Robert Webbe should have twenty sheep
kept for him during the winter months by John Perkes;
and the said John Perkes shall find and allow for the said Robert
Webbe; Mary the daughter of John Perkes, his wife; Margaret, mother to
the said Robert; and Edward Cornell, father-in-law to the said Robert,
during the term, within the dwellinghouse of the said John Perkes,
necessary, convenient, and holesome meate, drinke, chamber lodging,
and fier, at the proper cost and charge of the said John Perkes, the
said Edward Cornell paying for his bording as aforesaid, yearelie to
John Perkes, the some of three pounds of English money. And if it
haps that the said Robert Webbe and Mary his wife have any child or
children during the said term, John Perkes shall find and allow for
the same, meat, drink, chamber lodging, and fier, with free entry
in and out of the said chamber, to and for the said Robert, Mary,
Margaret, Edward, and the said children.
At the end of the term John Perkes was to yield up the land sown with
all manner of corn and grain at his own charge, so that the said Robert
and Mary should have it for their own use after the six years. In
witness whereof both parties set their hands and seals in the presence
of Thomas Nicholson, Edward Cornewell, and Thomas Pittes (Misc. Doc.,
ii, 14). On the same day, and before the same witnesses, Robert Webbe
signed a covenant, on his marriage with Mary, daughter of John Perkes,
to hold a messuage in Snitterfield to the use of himself for life, with
remainder to Mary for life, with remainder to the right heirs.
It is evident that grim economy was necessary to Robert Webbe,
after his efforts to buy up the other shares, and sit free on his
grandfathers property. This was intensified by the unknown dangers and
expenses of the Chancery suit hanging over him. John Perkes had done
what he could to help him.
Still one other purchase, at least, had Robert Webbe to make.
Halliwell-Phillipps, “Outlines,” ii, 173, says: “How Robert Arden’s
other two daughters, Elizabeth Scarlett and Mary Shakespeare, became
entitled to portions, is not known; but that this was the case can
be shown by the conveyances to Robert Webbe.” Elizabeth Scarlett is
referred to neither in Robert Arden’s will nor in the settlement of
1550. It may be she was an elder daughter who had received her portion
at her marriage. She might still share by common law in the inheritance
of sisters who died. Halliwell-Phillipps suggests that she had married
John Scarlett; but both the John Scarlett of Henry VIII and the John of
Elizabeth had wives named Joan. Halliwell-Phillipps enters Elizabeth’s
death in the Ardens’ pedigree table as in 1588, giving no authority.
But John would not have been heir to his mother in 1582 if she had
been alive. The Birthplace Deed 433 shows that
John Skarlett of Newnham in the Parish of Aston Cantlow, husbandman,
son and heir of Elizabeth Skarlett, one of the daughters and coheirs
of Robert Arden of Wilmecote, in consideration of 20 marks paid him by
Robert Webbe of Snitterfield, agreed that all his part and interest in
two messuages and their appurtenances
in Snitterfield should be delivered for ever to Robert Webbe, 18th
March 24 Eliz. (1581-2); witnesses John Dafferne, John Butler, Edward
Cornwell, and Edmund Lamberde.
On the same day was sealed a bond for 40 marks, for the completion
of the sale between Robert Webbe and John Scarlett of “all the part,
purparte, title, and interest, in two messuages in Snitterfield in the
tenure of Robert Webbe, of which John Skarlett and Joane his now wiefe,
or one of them, be lawful owners in fee simple”; the deed of release to
cover all rents due, that of the chief lord excepted. The above-named
John Scarlett and the said Joane his wife to hand over all deeds and
evidences (Misc. Doc., ii, 74).
I came on this deed first (evidently unknown to Halliwell-Phillipps),
and naturally thought the inheritance lay in Joane the wife; but in the
light of the previous deed it is clear that it came through his mother
to John, and Joane’s name was used only to bar dower. John Scarlett
received very much less than the Shakespeares did, which strengthens my
belief that Mary inherited a share of one dead sister’s portion, but
was left the whole portion of another sister by some form of will. I
find no mention of the Scarletts’ sale among the Feet of Fines.
The most painstaking research among records, wills, and registers has
given me no clue to further information; indeed, rather clouds what
we already have. It is known that the Aston Cantlow registers do not
begin early (1560). Among the burials appear Joane, “wyff of John
Scarlett,” 9th December 1580; and on 9th December 1581, John Scarlett.
The will of John Scarlett of Newnam is dated 10th December 1581;
in this he mentions his brother William, and John, the son of Adam
Scarlett. The date given is _the day after his burial_; and the deed
is drawn up three months after both. This seems to prove that it was
_another_ John Scarlett. Adam Scarlett, the richest yeoman[6] in the
parish, had a brother John, who might, by common law, as the _second_
son, have been heir to his mother, and who survived some time after
this. But no such explanation comes as to the “now wife Joan,” who
had died a year and more before the agreement was made in which she
is concerned. I have been unable, as yet, to trace the cause of the
discrepancies.
Robert Webbe had now got into his own hands all which had been owned by
his aunts and his mother. But the Chancery proceedings were dragging
their slow length along. He could, however, have little fear, further
than the waste of time and money, as he would hold among his evidences
the two early papers which I have brought forward for the first time.
A paper in Misc. Doc., i, 89, gives the list of “Witnesses to be
examined for Robert Webbe.” Among these is “Hary Shexspere.” Another
(Misc. Doc., ii, 85) is the subpœna of John Shakspere, John Wager,
Adam Palmer, and others, in the case of Mayowe _versus_ Robert Webbe,
to appear before a special commission appointed by Chancery, Sir Fulke
Greville, Sir Thomas Lucy, Humphrey Peto, and William Clopton, 24 Eliz.
No one has hitherto taken any further trouble about this Chancery suit,
but, knowing that it might lead to unexpected revelations, I made a
diligent search at the Record Office, and was rewarded to a limited
extent; that is, I found some information, but not so much as I had
hoped.
I found that a commission had been granted to hear the case of Mayowe
con. Cornwell and others, in the Quindene of Trinity, to Sir Fulke
Greville and Sir Thomas Lucy, Knights, Humphrey Peto, Esq., and
Thomas Clopton, Arm., or any two of them, to hear the witnesses on
the plaintiffs’ side; record their answers, and give the defendants a
fortnight to reply, 12th June 23 Eliz. (1581).
Thomas Mayowe claimed to be the son of Roger, and that Roger was the
son and heir of William, on whom Richard his father had entailed the
property. Apparently William had granted it to John, son and heir of
Richard. This John would be William’s brother. The interrogatories
to be put on behalf of Mayowe were necessarily long, but they may be
summarized. Do you know the tenement in question, “lying between the
house which was sometime the house of William Palmer on the one side,
and a lane called Merrel Lane on the other, and doth abut on the High
Street”; and if one John Mayowe did sometime dwell in it? Do you know
that one Richard Mayowe deceased, father of William Mayowe, likewise
deceased, was seised in this domain as of fee of inheritance, and did
entail it on the said William and the heirs of his body? Do you know
that William was grandfather of the complainant, that his son and heir
was Roger, and that Thomas was the son and heir of Roger? Chancery is
proverbially slow. The depositions were taken at Warwick 13th June, 24
Eliz. (1582), before Sir Foulk Greville, Sir Thomas Lucy, and Humfrey
Peto, Esq. (Chanc. Dep. M. VIII, 22). The question of entail is not
cleared.
Richard Welmore of Norton Curlew, of the age of 60 years or
thereabouts, did know the tenement, but could not answer the other
queries. He had heard Roger Mayowe say he was the eldest son of
William. He knew that Thomas was the son and heir of Roger.
Robert Nichols of Lillington, aged 67 years, knew the plaintiff, the
defendants, and the tenement, and “that it abuts itself against the
High Street.” He had heard by credible report that John Mayowe did
sometime dwell there. He had also heard that Richard was seised in the
demesne as of fee of inheritance; that William was the son of Richard,
that Roger was the son of William, and Thomas was son of Roger.
Thomas Lyncycome of Yardeley in the county of Worcester, tilemaker, 58
years of age, only knew that Thomas was eldest son and heir of Roger.
The depositions were signed by Fulke Greville and Humphrey Peto. Rather
an unsatisfactory plea against possession for nigh eighty years!
Doubtless the two deeds were in court--the grant of William Mayowe to
John, son of Richard; and the sale by John Mayowe to Thomas Arden.
Then follow “Interrogatories to be ministered on the part and behalf
of Edward Cornell, Robert Webbe, Edmund Lambert, and Joane his wife.”
These also must be contracted, How many tenements are there in
controversy? How many inhabited them? How long have you known them?
Whose inheritance was it accounted? Was it the inheritance of Arden?
What was the name of Arden? Have you ever known the ancestors of Mayowe
occupy the premises? How long since they did so? Do you know if Robert
Arderne of Wilmecote was seised in fee simple of said premises? Do you
know if said Robert made any conveyance, and to what uses? Do you know
if the persons to whom the grant was made peaceably succeeded on his
death? Did Agnes Arderne, wife of the said Robert, occupy the premises
or receive rent for it? The replies were clear.
1. Adam Palmer of Aston Cantlow, yeoman, of the age of 60 or
thereabout, said that he knew both plaintiff and defendant, that he has
known the messuage in controversy forty years and upwards, and that he
was one of the feoffees about thirty-six years ago. He knew one Richard
Shaxpere did occupy the same messuage as tenant to Robert Arderne als
Arden, and also Saunder Webbe and his wife, one Cornwell, and now
Robert Webbe, son to Saunder. He hath known the said messuage and land
to have been in the quiet possession of Robert Arden and his wife
Agnes, as his own inheritance, and after his decease, of Saunder Webbe,
who married the daughter of Arden, and now of Robert Webbe, who is in
possession as heir to Saunder Webbe. He never knew any of the ancestors
of the complainant dwell in the premises. Robert Arden was seised in
fee simple, and did in his lifetime make a conveyance to Joan Lambert,
Katherine Edkins, and Joyce Edkins, his daughters and coheirs by the
feoffment. The wife of Robert Arderne quietly enjoyed the premises till
of late, within this two or three years, this complainant did make some
title thereto. To his remembrance Robert Arderne died twenty-eight
years since or thereabout. He knew that Agnes, the wife of Robert
Ardern, received the rents and profits of the said messuage, 40_s._ by
the yeare, and since it hath been improved to £4 by the year, and that
she died about two years since.
2. The next witness called was John Henley of Snitterfield, husbandman,
of the age of eighty years or thereabout. He knew both complainant
and defendant, had known the messuage for about sixty-six years, that
it had been in the quiet possession of Thomas Arderne alias Arden,
father to Robert Arderne; and concerning Robert Arden, he said all that
Adam Palmer said. He knew the inheritance to be in the possession of
Thomas Arderne, and afterward of Robert Arden; he was witness to the
possession-taking, but cannot remember the time of the death of Arden.
3. Next was called John Wager of Snitterfield, husbandman, of the
age of 60 or thereabout. He knew both complainant, defendants, and
property. He knew one Rushby and one Richard Shaxpere, one Alexander
Webbe and his wife, Cornwell and his wife, and Robert Webbe, son to
Alexander, to occupy the property. He hath known it to be in the Ardens
for fifty years, and that Robert was seised in fee simple. He said the
same as Adam Palmer, though he was neither a feoffee nor was at the
delivery of seisin.
I had hoped to be able to turn the page and read details of John
Shakespeare’s age and status, and what he had to say concerning Arden’s
inheritance and his father’s tenure. But the paper abruptly ends,
without further witness, and without signatures. No decree or order has
been preserved. Either the Court considered the Ardens’ case too strong
to need further proof, or John too interested for a witness, or the
page was lost that bore his testimony, as so much is lost concerning
his family. The evidence of continued possession shows what the
decision of the Court was.
There is only one perplexing statement of Adam Palmer’s further to
note. We have the deeds, and we know that this, formerly Mayowe’s
property, when in the tenure of Richard Shakespeare was settled by
Robert Arden on his daughters Agnes Stringer, Joane Lambert, and
Katherine Edkins; while Palmer names them as Joan Lambert, Katherine
Edkins, and Joyce Edkins. It was easy at the end of thirty-six years to
forget which of the daughters had her share in this messuage, seeing
they all really treated their shares, not as the third part of one, but
as the sixth part of the two properties. Agnes Stringer had died long
before, and her family lived in Shropshire.