Stratford Church. and Mill. From an original drawing at the beginning of the last century. CHAPTER XI. absolutely seised of the premises, in his demesne as of fee." To this answer John and Mary Shakespeare put in a replication, reiterating the assertion of the tender and refusal of the 401. on Michaelmas-day, 1580, and praying Lord Keeper Egerton (afterwards Baron Ellesmere) to decree in their favour accordingly. We have mentioned that, in 1578, John Shakespeare | which he alleged that his father became "lawfully and and his wife, in order to relieve themselves from pecuniary embarrassment, mortgaged the small estate of the latter, called Asbyes, at Wilmecote, in the parish of Aston Cantlowe, to Edmund Lambert, for the sum of 401. As it consisted of nearly sixty acres of land, with a dwelling-house, it must have been worth, perhaps, three times the sum advanced, and, by the admission of all parties, the mortgagors were again to be put in possession, if they repaid the money borrowed on or before Michaelmas-day, 1580. According to the assertion of John and Mary Shakespeare, they tendered the 401. on the day appointed, but it was refused, unless other moneys, which they owed to the mortgagee, were repaid at the same time. Edmund Lambert died in 1586, in possession of Asbyes, and from him it descended to his eldest son, John Lambert, who continued to withhold it, in 1596, from those who claimed to be its rightful owners. In order to recover the property, John and Mary Shakespeare filed a bill in chancery, in 1597, against Lambert, in which they alleged the fact of the tender and refusal of the 401. by his father, who, wishing to keep the estate, no doubt coupled with the tender a condition not included in the deed. The advance of other moneys, the repayment of which was required by Edmund Lambert, was not denied by John and Mary Shakespeare, but they contended that they had done all the law required, to entitle them to the restoration of their estate of Asbyes: in their bill they also set forth, that John Lambert was "of great wealth and ability, and well friended and allied among gentlemen and freeholders of the country, in the county of Warwick," while, on the other hand, they were "of small wealth, and very few friends and alliance in the said county." The answer of John Lambert merely denied that the 40%. had been tendered, in consequence of If any decree were pronounced, it is singular that no trace of it should have been preserved either in the records of the court of chancery, or among the papers of Lord Ellesmere; but such is the fact, and the inference is, that the suit was settled by the parties. We can have little doubt that the bill had been filed with the concurrence, and at the instance, of our great dramatist, who at this date was rapidly acquiring wealth, although his father and mother put forward in their bill their own poverty and powerlessness, compared with the riches and influence of their opponent. William Shakespeare must have been aware, that during the last seventeen years his father and mother had been deprived of their right to Asbyes: in all probability his money was employed in order to commence and prosecute the suit in chancery; and unless we suppose them to have stated and re-stated a deliberate falsehood, respecting the tender of the 407., it is clear that they had equity on their side. We may, therefore, conclude that John Lambert, finding he had no chance of success, relinquished his claim to Asbyes, perhaps on the payment of the 401. and of the sums which his father had required from John and Mary Shakespeare in 1580, and which in 1597 they did not dispute to have been due. Among other matters set forth by John Lambert in his answer is, that the Shakespeares were anxious to regain possession of Asbyes, because the current lease was near its expiration, and they hoped to be able to obtain an improved rent. Supposing it to have been restored to their hands, the fact may be that they did not let it again, but cultivated it themselves; and we have at this period some new documentary evidence leading to the belief that our Poet was a land-owner, or at all events a land-occupier, to some extent, in the neighbourhood of Stratford-upon-Avon. Aubrey informs us, (and there is no reason for disbelieving his statement,) that William Shakespeare was "wont to go to his native country once a year." Without seeking for evidence upon the question, nothing is more natural or probable; and when, therefore, he had acquired sufficient property, he might be anxious to settle his family comfortably and independently in Stratford. We must suppose that his father and mother were mainly dependent upon him, notwithstanding the recovery of the small estate of the latter at Wilmecote; and he may have employed his brother Gilbert, who was two years and a half younger than himself, and perhaps accustomed to agricultural pursuits, to look after his farming concerns in the country, while he himself was absent superintending his profitable theatrical undertakings in London. In 1595, 1596, and 1597, our Poet must have been in the receipt of a considerable and an increasing income: he was part proprietor of the Blackfriars and the Globe theatres, both excellent speculations; he was an actor, doubtless earning a good salary, independently of the proceeds of his shares; and he was the most popular and applauded dramatic poet of the day. In the summer he might find, or make, leisure to visit his native town, and we may be tolerably sure that he was there in August, 1596, when he had the misfortune to lose his only son Hamnet, one of the twins born early in the spring of 1585: the boy completed his eleventh year in February, 1596, so that his death in August following must have been a very severe trial for his parents.1 Stow informs us that, in 1596, the price of provisions in England was so high, that the bushel of wheat was sold for six, seven, and eight shillings: the dearth continued and increased through 1597, and in August of that year the price of the bushel of wheat had risen to thirteen shillings, fell to ten shillings, and rose again, in the words of the old faithful chronicler, to "the late greatest price." Malone printed a letter from Abraham Sturley, of Stratford-upon-Avon, dated 24th January, 1597-8, stating that his "neighbours groaned with the wants they felt through the dearness of corn," and that malcontents in great numbers had gone to Sir Thomas Lucy and Sir Fulke Greville to complain of the maltsters for engrossing it. Connected with this dearth, the Shakespeare Society has been put in possession of a document of much value as regards the biography of our Poet. It is thus headed: "The noate of corne and malte, taken the 4th of February, 1597, in the 40th year of the raigne of our most gracious Soveraigne Ladie, Queen Elizabeth, &c." and in the margin opposite the title are the words "Stratforde Burroughe, Warwicke." It was evidently prepared in order to ascertain how much corn and malt there really was in the town; and it is divided into two columns, one showing the "Townsmen's corn," and the other the "Strangers' malt." The names of the Towns 1 The following is the form of the entry of the burial in the register of the church of Stratford : "1596. August 11. Hamnet filius William Shakspere." men and Strangers (when known) are all given, with the wards in which they resided, so that we are enabled by this document, among other things, to prove in what part of Stratford the family of our great Poet then dwelt it was in Chapel-street Ward, and it appears that at the date of the account William Shakespeare had ten quarters of corn in his possession. We shall have occasion hereafter again to refer to this document upon another point, but in the mean time we may remark that the name of John Shakespeare is not found in any part of it. This fact gives additional probability to the belief that the two old people, possibly with some of their children, were living in the house of their son William, for such may be the reason why we do not find John Shakespeare mentioned in the account as the owner of any corn. It may likewise in part explain how it happened that William Shakespeare was in possession of so large a quantity: in proportion to the number of his family, in time of scarcity, he would be naturally desirous to be well provided with the main article of subsistence; or it is very possible that, as a grower of grain, he might keep some in store for sale to those who were in want of it. Ten quarters does not seem much more than would be needed for his own consumption; but it affords some proof of his means and substance at this date, that only two persons in Chapel-street Ward had a larger quantity in their hands. We are led to infer from this circumstance that our great dramatist may have been a cultivator of land, and it is not unlikely that the wheat in his granary had been grown on his mother's estate of Asbyes, at Wilmecote. of which we know that no fewer than fifty, out of about sixty, acres were arable. We must now return to London and to theatrical affairs there, and in the first place advert to a passage in Rowe's Life of Shakespeare, relating to the real or supposed commencement of the connection between our great dramatist and Ben Jonson. Rowe tells us that "Shakespeare's acquaintance with Ben Jonson began with a remarkable piece of humanity and good-nature. Jonson, who was at that time altogether unknown to the world, had offered one of his plays to the players, in order to have it acted; and the persons into whose hands it was put, after having turned it carelessly and superciliously over, were just upon returning it to him with an ill-natured answer, that it would be of no service to their company, when Shakespeare, luckily, cast his eye upon it, and found something so well in it, as to engage him first to read it through, and afterwards to recommend Jonson and his writings to the public." This anecdote is disbelieved by Mr. Gifford, and he rests his incredulity upon the supposition, that Ben Jonson's earliest known production, "Every Man in his Humour," was originally acted in 1597 at a different theatre, and he produces as evidence Henslowe's Diary, which, he states, proves that the comedy came out at the Rose. The truth, however, is, that the play supposed, on the authority of Henslowe, to be Ben Jonson's comedy, is only called by Henslowe "Humours" or "Umers,' as he spells it. It is a mere speculation that this was Ben Jonson's play, for it may have been any other performance, by any other poet, in the title of which the word "Humours" occurred; and we have the indisputable and unequivocal testimony of Ben Jonson him self, in his own authorized edition of his works in 1616, that "Every Man in his Humour" was not acted until 1598: he was not satisfied with stating on the title-page, that it was "acted in the year 1598 by the then Lord Chamberlain his servants," which might have been considered sufficient; but in this instance (as in all others in the same volume) he informs at the end that 1598 was the year in which it was first acted:-"This comedy was first acted in the year 1598." Are we prepared to disbelieve Ben Jonson's positive assertions (a man of the highest and purest notions, as regarded truth and integrity) for the sake of a theory founded upon the bare assumption, that Henslowe by "Umers" not only meant Ben Jonson's "Every Man in his Humour," but could mean nothing else? Had it been brought out originally by the Lord Admiral's players at the Rose, and acted with so much success that it was repeated eleven times, as Henslowe's Diary shows was the case with "Umers," there can be no apparent reason why Ben Jonson should not have said so; and if he had afterwards withdrawn it on some pique, and carried it to the Lord Chamberlain's player's, we can hardly conceive it possible that a man of Ben Jonson's temper would not have told us why in some other part of his works. Mr. Gifford, passing over without notice the positive statement we have quoted, respecting the first acting of "Every Man in his Humour" by the Lord Chamberlain's servants in 1598, proceeds to argue that Ben Jonson could stand in need of no such assistance as Shakespeare is said to have afforded him, because he was "as well known, and perhaps better," than Shakespeare himself. Surely, with all deference for Mr. Gifford's undisputed acuteness and general accuracy, we may doubt how Ben Jonson could be better, or even as well known as Shakespeare, when the latter had been for twelve years connected with the stage as author and actor, and had written, at the lowest calculation, twelve dramas. while the former was only twenty-four years old, and had produced no known play but "Every Man in his Humour." It is also to be observed, that Henslowe had no pecuniary transactions with Ben Jonson prior to the month of August, 1598; whereas, if "Umers" had been purchased from him, we could scarcely have failed to find some memorandum of payments, anterior to the production of the comedy on the stage in May, 1597. Add to this, that nothing could be more consistent with the amiable and generous character of Shakespeare, than that he should thus have interested himself in favour of a writer who was ten years his junior, and who gave such undoubted proofs of genius as are displayed in "Every Man in his Humour." Our great dramatist, established in public favour by such comedies as the MERCHANT OF VENICE and the MIDSUMMERNIGHT'S DREAM, by such a tragedy as ROMEO AND JULIET, and by such histories as KING JOHN, RICHARD II., and RICHARD III., must have felt himself above all rivalry, and could well afford this act of "humanity and good-nature," as Rowe terms it, on behalf of a young, needy, and meritorious author. It is to be recollected also that Rowe, the original narrator of the incident, does not, as in several other cases, give it as if he at all doubted its correctness, but unhesitatingly and distinctly, as if it were a matter well known, and entirely believed, at the time he wrote. at that date the author of the comedy called " Umers," Another circumstance in confirmation of Rowe's statement has been recently discovered. In 1598 Ben Jonson, being then only twenty-four years old, had a quarrel with Gabriel Spencer, one of Henslowe's principal actors, in consequence of which they met, fought, and Spencer was killed. Henslowe, writing to Alleyn on the subject on the 26th September, uses these words:"Since you were with me, I have lost one of my company, which hurteth me greatly; that is Gabriel, for he is slain in Hoxton Fields by the hands of Benjamin Jonson, bricklayer." Now, had Ben Jonson been author. Is the summer of 1597 an event occurred which seems to have produced for a time a serious restriction upon dramatic performances. The celebrated Thomas Nash, early in the year, had written a comedy which he called "The Isle of Dogs:" that he had partners in the undertaking there is no doubt; and he tells us, in his tract called "Lenten Stuff," printed in 1599, that the players, when it was acted by the Lord Admiral's servants in the beginning of August, 1597, had taken most unwarrantable liberties with his piece, by making large additions, for which he ought not to have been responsible. The exact nature of the performance is not known, but it was certainly satirical, no doubt personal, and it must have had reference also to some of the polemical and political questions of the day. The representation of it was forbidden by authority, and Nash, with others, was arrested under an order from the privy council, and sent to the Fleet prison. Some of the offending actors had escaped for a time, and the privy council, not satisfied with what had been already done in the way of punishment, wrote from Greenwich on 15th August, 1597, to certain magistrates, requiring them strictly to examine all the parties in custody, with a view to the discovery of others not yet apprehended. From his official letter we learn, not only that Nash was the author of the "seditious and slanderous" comedy, but possibly himself an actor in it, and "the maker of part of the said play," especially pointed at, who was in custody. Before the date of this incident, the companies of various play-houses in the county of Middlesex, but particularly at the Curtain and Theatre in Shoreditch, had attracted attention, and given offence, by the licentious character of their performances; and the registers of the privy council show that the magistrates had been written to, in July, 1597, requiring that no plays should be acted during the summer, and directing, in order to put an effectual stop to such performances, because "lewd matters were handled on stages," that the two places above-named should be "plucked down." The magistrates were also enjoined to send for the owners of "any other common play-house" within their juris |