of interest, but sufficient to show that Mr. W. Combe was determined
to defy the Lord Chief Justice as well as the corporation, and go on
with the enclosures after Shakespeare’s death. Indeed, the details[21]
of the struggles during the next two years, as gleaned from the
corporation records, give the romantic tale how Stratford then
The little tyrant of its fields withstood.
The Combes raged at the corporation, defied their arguments, and
threatened them with dire consequences for defending the rights they
had sworn to hand down to their successors; the aldermen complained in
every Court, and went in their own persons, rather than risk sending
messengers, to throw down the fences and fill up the ditches made by
Combe’s servants, and some were wounded in the free fight which ensued.
William Combe was High Sheriff of the county for one year during the
struggle, and was Justice of the Peace during its course, though he
seemed to hold himself above law and successive legal decisions.
Finally, however, he was summoned for contumacy before the Privy
Council, and, after he was brought to his knees, was granted
“absolution” in 1618-19, So Shakespeare’s legal acumen was proved when
in 1614 he said “he thought nothing would be done”; but it took a long
time to prove it.
_“Athenæum,” 27th September 1913._
FOOTNOTES:
[19] Yet I find in the Vestry Minutes: “15th Dec. 1648 Mʳˢ Elizabeth
Nashe for Shottery Corn Tithes being yearly value £100.”
[20] “Charges of Mr. Barbor and Mr. Jeffrey” in riding to London 15th
May, 1590, “for search in the Rolles for my Lord of Essex’s patent.”
[21] I gave the story of William Combe more fully in “The
Stratford-on-Avon Herald,” 23rd August 1912. See Note XI.
XII
OTHER WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES
Among Shakespeare’s contemporaries there were a good many bearing
both of his names, and the few facts known concerning them become
interesting, even when clearly shown not to refer to the poet.
I found one curious entry in London, among the burials in the registers
of St. Clement Danes: “Jane Shackspeer, daughter of Willm., 8 Aug.
1609.” This Jane _might have been_ the daughter of some country
“William” temporarily in town--_might_ even have been a daughter of
the poet. But I think it much more likely that the father’s name was
written in error for “John.” The bitmaker of that name had settled in
the parish, and had a large family. He had baptized a daughter “Jane”
on 16th July 1608, of whom no further notice appears in the register,
if this entry does not record her death. (See my “Shakespeare’s
Family,” p. 148.)
The Warwickshire Shakespeares seem to have favoured the name of
William. Christopher Shakespeare, of Packwood, mentions in his will
(proved 15th August 1558) a son William, who may be the subject of
other later references.[22] A William priced the goods of “Robert
Shakesper, of Wroxall,” on 19th March 1565; and one of the same name
did the same duty to the goods of John Pardu, of Snitterfield, 1569.
John Shakespeare, of Wroxall, labourer, in his will, 15th December
1574, speaks of his brothers William and Nicholas. A William signed and
sealed, as one of the witnesses, a feoffment of lands in Wroxall, 27th
June 1592; and a William of Wroxall made his will on 17th November 1609
(see Ryland’s “Records of Wroxall”).
A youth, probably the son of Thomas Shakespeare, shoemaker, of Warwick,
was buried at St. Nicholas’s in that town, when the poet was fifteen
years old. The clerk thought the manner of his death worth recording:
“1579. July Sexto die huius mensis sepultus fuit Gulielmus Shaxper, qui
demersus fuit in Rivulo aquæ qui vel vocatur Avona.”[23]
Another William, of Coventry, shoemaker, made his will 18th March
1605-6.
I see no evidence that the William Shakespeare of the Worcester
Register, who applied for a marriage licence on 27th November 1582
was a different man from the poet, who, the next day, had a licence
granted to marry Anne Hathaway. I have given my reasons elsewhere for
believing them to be one and the same, and so has Mr. J. W. Gray in
his “Shakespeare’s Marriage.” I have never come upon any other Anne or
Agnes recorded as the wife of a William Shakespeare.
There was a William, however, of Hatton or Haseley, who married, 6th
January 1589, Barbara Stiffe, and who is entitled “gentleman” when, on
14th March 1596, he baptized _his daughter Susanna_! “Barbara, wife
of Mr. William Shakespeare,” was buried in February 1610. One can
hardly think this the same person who was associated with John Weale:
“John Weale granted to Job Throgmorton the cottage in which William
Shakespeare dwelt at Haseley 4th March 1597” (Hist. MSS. Com. Rep.,
App. II, Davenport MSS.).
In the Star Chamber proceedings there is the notice of a fine “inter
Willielmum Shackspeare et Georgium Shackspeare, quer., et Thomam
Spencer, arm., Christopherum Flecknoe, et Thomam Thompson, deforc., de
octo acris pasturæ cum pertinentis in Claverdon alias Claredon, 12 Jac.
I.”
Another William was in the habit of selling malt, lending money, and
sometimes borrowing it. He might have been some of these others of the
name, but he could not have been the poet, as some suppose, because his
bills, preserved at Warwick Castle, continue until 1626.
The greatest number of Shakespeare entries in general, and of those
concerning William in particular, are found in relation to Rowington.
There had been residents of the name for a long time in the parish. The
early registers are lost; but from the will of Richard Shakespeare, of
Rowington, weaver, we know that he had a son William and a son Richard
under twenty-three years of age on 15th June 1561. Another of the same
name, called “Richard Shakspere of Rowington, the elder,” mentioned
in his will, dated 6th September 1591, his sons John, Roger, Thomas,
William; and a third Richard’s will, of 13th November 1613, show that
he had four sons--William, Richard, Thomas, and John. The eldest,
William, had at the date of the will a son John; the second, Richard,
had four--Thomas, William, Richard, John; and after the registers
commence, we find on 28th April 1619, William Shakespeare, son of
John Shakespeare, was baptized; and on 13th August of the same year,
“William, son of Thomas Shakespeare.”
The name of William Shakespeare appears in the list of the trained
soldiers of Rowington taken by Sir Fulke Greville at Alcester on
23rd September 1605, probably the son of the second Richard, but
erroneously, by some, supposed to have been the poet. Collier says that
“we have intelligence regarding no other William Shakespeare at that
date.”
The mark of a William Shakespere is found on a roll of the jurors at
the Court of the Manor of Rowington in 1614, which is almost certainly
that of William, son of the third Richard.
Mr. Ryland’s “Records of Rowington” show us that a lease was granted
through feoffees to Richard Shakespeare, of Rowington, weaver, of the
“Tyinges,” which may refer either to Richard the second or the third.
The Customary rent of Rowington in 1605 mentions “Richard Shakespere,
one messuage, half a yearde land (14 acres), 14_s._; John Shakespeare
one cottage and one quarter yard land (9 acres), 6_s._ 8_d_,.; Thomas
Shakesper, one close, 2_s._; one tofte and 16 acres, 13_s._ 4_d._; one
messuage, 10_s._ 4_d._” It is not clear which “Thomas” it was. Richard
and John are those referred to in the legal proceedings which give the
story of their lives.
This Richard the third was evidently son of Richard the first, and,
as he was under twenty-three in 1561, would be about seventy-six when
he died in 1614. In consequence of his will and actions a protracted
litigation commenced. The case somewhat resembles that of Jacob and
Esau. The youngest son, in the absence of his eldest brother, prevailed
on his father to disinherit him in his favour, and the dispossessed
brother did not bear his loss with equanimity. Some of the facts were
known to Malone, “Proleg.,” ii, 15, note 8; and Mr. Cecil Monro had
included some of the references in his “Acta Cancellaria,” 1847. Mr.
Knight discovered, and Mr. Bruce published, the Star Chamber Bill and
answer in “Notes and Queries,” Third Series, xii, p. 81 (3rd August
1867); and a list of the official entries collected by Mr. Monro is
given at p. 161 of the same volume.
The Catalogue which, within the last few years, has been drawn up of
the Second Series of Chancery Proceedings has given us access to still
another paper; and as so many minor illustrative details have turned
up, it seems time to make a _résumé_ of the whole mass of material. The
story illustrates the domestic and legal life of the times.
Richard Shakespeare was of Turner’s End, or Church End, Rowington, when
he made his will on 13th November 1613. He did not trust to its being
sufficient of itself to go against the Customary of the manor, and
during his lifetime he surrendered his copyhold estate into the hands
of the steward by his attorneys, Thomas Ley and George Whome, in order
to “settle it upon himself and his wife Elizabeth for their lives, and
the longer liver of them, and after their decease, upon his youngest
son John and his heirs,” provided that John paid to his brother William
£4 a year. This deed of settlement was completed, and the fine paid
into Court, in March 1613-14. Richard died within a month, and his
wife followed him almost immediately, repenting of her share in the
arrangement. William thereupon applied to be put on the homage of the
manor, as his father’s eldest son and heir, probably at the time he
made his mark; and also contested his mother’s will at Worcester. (See
MS. Episc. Reg. Worcester, “per Wilielmus Shakespere, filium naturalem
Elizabeth Shakespere nuper de Rowenton.”)[24] But the combination
against him had been too powerful. He had no remedy but to eat
humble-pie and accept the first instalment of his yearly fee from his
brother John at Michaelmas 1614. When John had claimed his inheritance
at the Manorial Court, the steward had bidden him be cautious with that
proviso, or he would forfeit it, as it devised it to be paid in two
portions, at the two half-yearly feasts of Lady Day and Michaelmas,
between the hours of ten in the morning and two of the afternoon, in
the church porch of Rowington. At Lady Day 1615 difficulties arose.
Each said the other did not keep the appointment. William was not
paid at the time specified in the settlement, and, assuming that the
premises were thereby forfeited, made an entry into his father’s house
as his natural heir, and was forcibly resisted. He thereupon instituted
a case in Common Law. John went above him, and filed a bill in Chancery
against him. Mr. Cecil Monro collected the following entries of this
case:
1. Bill in Chancery, filed 1st May 1616, John contra William
Shakespeare.
2. 11th May 1616, L. C. Ellesmere’s order to stay proceedings of
defendant in Court Baron of Rowington until heard in Chancery. Mr.
Richard Moore to consider it (Reg. Lib. B, 1615, fol. 747).
3. 16th May, Master Moore’s report (_ibid._).
4. 8th June, a week given for plaintiff to reply (Reg. Lib. B, 1615,
f. 824).
5. 10th June, Master Moore’s supplementary report, on a petition
presented by defendant. Possession only established with plaintiff
until the hearing of the case (Trinity Term Reports, 1616).
6. 11th November, Master of the Rolls allowed defendant to amend a
clerical error in date (Lib. B, 1616, f. 146).
7. 31st January 1616-17, an order _nisi_ for publication (_ibid._, f.
140).
8. 3rd November 1617, William files a bill _against John_, but, in
respect of his poverty, is permitted to sue _in forma pauperis_ (Reg.
Lib., 1617, f. 132).
9. 18th November, Mr. Moore desired to consider the sufficiency of the
answer of the defendants (_ibid._, f. 192).
10. Master Moore’s report in favour of plaintiff, Michaelmas Term,
1617 (Monro’s “Acta Cancellaria,” p. 222).
11. 22nd November 1619, an order for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from putting plaintiff out of the possession of the premises
at Rowington, and from suing plaintiff at Common Law upon a bond of
£500, until defendant had answered plaintiff’s bill (Lib. B, 1619, f.
300).
12. 27th November 1619, an order for attachment against the defendant
for not appearing.
Mr. Monro here omits the reply of William, filed on 6th May 1616, which
should have come between 1 and 2. No. 4 refers to the reply to this,
which should have appeared between 5 and 6; but it seems to have been
lost.
Mr. Moore’s report of 16th May is favourable to John, whom he believes
_willing_ to pay, and the supposed forfeiture, if any, incurred by his
reposing trust in another brother. Plaintiff might be relieved (Monro’s
“Acta Cancellaria,” p. 221). But in his supplementary report he
explains the “relief” to be only until _decision_. From the later Star
Chamber case we know that the appointment of the commission of inquiry
in Warwick should come in between 6 and 7 (13th January 1616-17). Mr.
Moore’s report in Michaelmas Term 1617 is favourable to William, who
should have the premises, if annuity not paid; and he finds the answers
of the defendants defective (Monro’s “Acta Cancellaria,” p. 222).
In this counter case of “William contra John,” Mr. Monro omits to
mention another paper, lately found by Mr. J. W. Gray and by myself,
“The further answer of John Shakespeare, Edmund Fowler, and Thomas
Sadler, defendants, to the bill of complaint of William Shakespeare,
complainant.” It is not dated in the draft, but written across the top
is a note in another hand, “Sworn 27th Jan., 1617 Matthew Carew,”
_i.e._, 1617-18 (Chanc. Proc., Ser. II, Bundle 291, S. No. 108).
In spite of Mr. Moore’s favourable report, the case was evidently
decided against William, in Easter Term 1618, by Sir Julius Cæsar, on
the sworn evidence of Thomas Shakespeare, Fowler, and Sadler. William
filed a bill in the Star Chamber as to their perjury, 9th June 1618,
which was replied to on 11th June. The result is not preserved.
In the course of the depositions, both sides agreed as to preliminary
facts; both allowed John to have been the father’s favourite son;
they differed as to the cause of Richard’s action. John stated that
“William had for many years been undutiful and disobedient, and taken
very unnatural and wicked courses, to his father’s great grief.”
William explained that until he was forty years of age he had worked
as a labourer on his father’s farm without wages, only receiving his
meat, drink, and garments. His father had never even allowed him any
stock that he might raise up means to live on. He had done this,
believing that the farm would later be his own, as his father always
said it should. But about ten years before his father’s death he
had gone into service, with his father’s permission, that he might
earn some money, and “might be able to bestow his brothers and his
sister, and fare in personal estate the better.” It is not so stated,
but one can read between the lines, that he wanted to marry, and did
marry, a certain well-to-do Mrs. Margery. When, through service on
other people’s property, he “had gotten some money into his purse, he
lent and bestowed much on his brother Richard, and did also, in all
dutiful manner, respect and use his father and mother, and did him
many services to his good liking.” But the ageing father had doubtless
missed the strong arms of his son, all the more that they had not been
duly appreciated. While William was away, working for money, John was
at home, weaving, and not only John, but his sister Joan, whom his
father loved exceedingly. Joan preferred her younger brother, and the
two combined to obtain for him the property “by false information and
other sinister means.” John used every means in his power to keep
William away. Even when his father sent for him, John shut the door
in his face and would violently assault him, threatening William that
“if he hindered him from getting the premises, he would keep him in
prison all his life for it.” The action of John and Joan “was very
hardly spoken of among the neighbours.” Their mother had encouraged
them at the time, but on her death-bed she bitterly repented, and
“asked William to forgive her, and to pray to God to forgive her too.”
William had submitted until John had broken the proviso. John’s bill in
Chancery, 1st May 1616 (Bills and Answers, James I, Bundle S. 1457),
is an appeal to be protected against the intrusions of William, who
had injured him, and maltreated his cattle, turning them out of his
pasture. He said he had fulfilled the conditions of the deed, and at
the said Lady Day 1615 “did by himself, or some one for him, tender the
money between the hours of 10 and 2.” He had gone to the church porch
between 11 and 12, but, William not being there, he departed about
other business, leaving the money with his brother Thomas, supposing
that William would either come or send for it. Thomas waited in the
church porch, but William did not come, and he sent it to his house the
next day: but William, “being of a contentious and troublesome spirit,
and seeking and endeavouring by all means to trouble your orator
and put him to unnecessary expense, refused it.” “The said William
Shakespeare, the _6th of April last_, at a Court holden for the manor,
did make claim to the messuage as the eldest son and heir of Richard
Shakespeare,” pretending that it had been forfeited; and “except for
the Equity of Chancery, your said orator is altogether remediless.” It
may easily be seen that John’s statement as to the tender was somewhat
indefinite. William’s answer is clear (filed 6th May, not included
in Mr. Monro’s list). He had gone to the church porch of Rowington,
not, indeed, at 10 o’clock, but shortly after 12, and waited until
3 o’clock. He had “openly published the cause of his coming there,
and many took notice thereof”; but neither John, nor any one for him
came thither to pay. John, indeed, had ridden off to Warwick, four
miles away, on pleasure. William therefore, “considering how John, by
indirect and undue means, had gotten the inheritance,” and believing
that he by neglect of this proviso had forfeited it, lawfully entered
into the premises as his father’s legal heir, in a peaceable manner,
along with his wife. He _had_ turned some cattle out of the pasture,
but quite gently, and they did not belong to his brother, but to Thomas
Ley. Here something is implied, which is not expressly stated. John was
his own master, and could fix his own hours; William, still at service,
was not master of his own time. Hence he was late at the appointment,
and hence his wife, and not himself, made the later “forcible entries,”
referred to as his. He goes on to say that he had heard that his “wife
had been uncivilly beaten and buffeted about the head, and at one
time was bruised upon the breast that it wrankled,” and her nursing
child fell ill in consequence. This had been done by John, Thomas Ley
helping him, “who, in a most violent and unchristian manner, did take
the shoe from his foot” to strike her. John had falsely excused himself
that Margery had attacked his wife. William confessed that he had laid
claim to the premises at the Court held on 6th April last, and that by
all lawful means he intends to have and to hold them. He is sure that
he was not paid, and he knows nothing of John or his representative
waiting in the church porch.
The further answer of John Shakespeare and others of 27th January
1617-18, also omitted by Mr. Monro, suggests either that by some
curious but not impossible coincidence, one party went out of the
church porch just the minute before the other came in, and that more
than once, or that one or the other committed perjury. It is too long
to transcribe, and most of it is recited in the Star Chamber case. John
denied William’s statement that on Lady Day 1615, “relying on his craft
and subtilty, accompanied only by Henry Clarke, minister, he did, near
the church porch, tender the forty shillings,” and go off to Warwick
on pleasure, leaving neither money nor representative. He stated that
“about 12 of the clock he came into the church porch, and did tender
the money, but neither William nor any one for him was there to receive
it.” He had “heard it reported that the complainant had threatened to
cut off an arm or a legg,” and he therefore went home to dinner, and
afterwards went to Warwick, where he had business, as it was market
day. Before he left, he gave the money to his brother Thomas, with
direction and authority to pay it to William, or any other for him,
and to stay at the church porch until the last instant, to be able to
tender the money. Thomas Shakespeare had told him, and he thinks he
can prove it, that he did stay until after two o’clock, and at the
last instant did tender the money in presence of these two witnesses,
Edmund Fowler and Thomas Sadler, who say that Thomas entreated them
to be present with him. They met him, as they were coming to see him;
about a quarter of a mile from Rowington, and went to the church porch
about half-past one and they stayed until the last instant, or “neere
thereabout,” and saw him tender the money at 2 o’clock; but neither
William nor any for him was present. They deny that they or any of
them have “contrived any secret estates, surrenders, articles, or
agreements,” concerning this business. They are quite willing to answer
further in any point “not sufficiently answered, confessed, avoided,
and reversed or denied,” and trust this honourable Court may give them
their reasonable costs and charges wrongfully sustained. It is signed
by Ric. Weston.
The Star Chamber case six months later, 9th June 1618, transcribed in
full in “Notes and Queries,” 3rd August 1867, after reciting the bulk
of the Chancery proceedings, continues the plea. William’s complaint
shows that John at first said _he_ had stayed until 2 o’clock or near
thereabout. He acknowledges there may have been a tender between 11
and 12, but there was none afterwards. He tells us that a commission
from Chancery had been sent to John Norton, gent., Francis Collins,
gent.,[25] Thomas Warner, clerk, and John Greene, gent., to examine
the witnesses at Warwick, 13th January 1616. (This commission sat
between the dates of Mr. Cecil Monro’s entries 6 and 7.) He there
denounces “the wicked, ungodly, and corrupt subornacion of the said
John and Thomas, of Edmund Fowler, tailor, Thomas Sadler, hempdresser,
both of Coventry, who answered falsely, untruely, corruptly, and
unlawfully” that they had come and seen Thomas tender the money between
half-past 1 and 2 o’clock, and the money lay on the bench all the time
until 2 o’clock, when they went away together, Thomas Shakespeare to
Killingworth, Sadler and Fowler to Coventry. William declares their
deposition false, untrue, and corrupt, to the displeasure of Almighty
God, contrary to the laws of the “Realme,” and to the king’s peace,
crown, and dignity, and to the great prejudice of him, whose case in
Chancery was decreed against him by Sir Julius Cæsar in Easter Term
last. He says he has no hope except the equity of the Star Chamber.
On the 11th of June John and the other defendants reply, supporting
their previous assertions, saying that William was not present at 2
o’clock, and as “to all the perjuries, falsities, and corruptions, they
are not guilty.”
The decision has not been preserved, nor the initiation of a third
Chancery suit. But the two Chancery orders of 1619 referred to by Mr.
Monro belong to this later series.
It is relevant to the question to return to the records of Rowington.
The action does not seem to have prejudiced William with his
neighbours, because in 1622, only three years after the last notice
in Chancery, he was elected churchwarden. As a churchwarden had to be
a “substantial householder,” this implies that William had been left
in possession of his dearly bought inheritance. It also suggests a
great change in his prospects from the time in which he sued _in forma
pauperis_; or a desire of the neighbours to show their respect for him.
John was buried 5th May 1635; William on 20th February 1646-7.[26]