the head of some one is laid under the turf whose name he remembers as the foremost at barley-break or foot-ball.

The younger daughter of Shakspere was married on the 10th of February, 1616, to Thomas Quiney, as the register of Stratford shows:

The Guteny low Judith Shaks pow

Thomas Quiney was the son of Richard Quiney of Stratford, whom we have seen in 1598 soliciting the kind offices of his loving countryman Shakspere. Thomas, who was born in 1588, was probably a well-educated man. rate he was a great master of calligraphy, as his signature attests :

At any

1623

nas: Qurnere

The last will of Shakspere would appear to have been prepared in some degree with reference to this marriage. It is dated the 25th of March, 1616: but the word "Januarii" seems to have been first written and afterwards struck out, "Martii" having been written above it. It is not unlikely, and indeed it appears most probable, that the document was prepared before the marriage of Judith; for the elder daughter is mentioned as Susanna Hall,the younger simply as Judith. To her one hundred pounds is bequeathed, and fifty pounds conditionally. The life-interest of a further sum of one hundred and fifty pounds is also bequeathed to her, with remainder to her children ; but if she died without issue within three years after the date of the will, the hundred and fifty pounds was to be otherwise appropriated. We pass over the various legacies to relations and friends to come to the bequest of the great bulk of the property. All the real estate is devised to his daughter Susanna Hall, for and during the term of her natural life. It is then entailed upon her first son and his heirs male; and in default of such issue, to her second son and

* See the Will at the end of this Chapter.

:

his heirs male; and so on: in default of such issue, to his grand-daughter Elizabeth Hall (called in the language of the time his "niece") and in default of such issue, to his daughter Judith, and her heirs male. By this strict entailment it was manifestly the object of Shakspere to found a family. Like many other such purposes of short-sighted humanity the object was not accomplished. His elder daughter had no issue but Elizabeth, and she died childless. The heirs male of Judith died before her. The estates were scattered after the second generation; and the descendants of his sister were the only transmitters to posterity of his blood and lineage.

66

Item, I give unto my wife my second-best bed, with the furniture." This is the clause of the will upon which, for half a century, all men believed that Shakspere recollected his wife only to mark how little he esteemed her,-to "cut her off, not indeed with a shilling, but with an old bed." We had the satisfaction of first showing the utter groundlessness of this opinion; and it is pleasant to know, that the statement which we originally published, some twenty years ago, is now fully acquiesced in by all writers on Shakspere. But it was once very different. To show the universality of the former belief in such a charge, we will first exhibit it in the words of one, himself a poet, who cannot be suspected of any desire to depreciate the greatest master of his art. Mr. Moore, in his "Life of Byron," speaking of unhappy marriages with reference to the domestic misfortune of his noble friend, thus expresses himself :—

By whatever austerity of temper, or habits, the poets Dante and Milton may have drawn upon themselves such a fate, it might be expected that, at least, the 'gentle Shakspere' would have stood exempt from the common calamity of his brethren. But, among the very few facts of his life that have been transmitted to us, there is none more clearly proved than the unhappiness of his marriage. The dates of the births of his children, compared with that of his removal from Stratford, the total omission of his wife's name in the first draft of his will, and the bitter sarcasm of the bequest by which he remembers her afterwards, all prove beyond a doubt both his separation from the lady early in life, and his unfriendly feeling towards her at the close of it. In endeavouring to argue against the conclusion naturally to be deduced from this will, Boswell, with a strange ignorance of human nature, remarks,—' If he had taken offence at any part of his wife's conduct, I cannot believe he would have taken this petty mode of expressing it.'

Steevens, amongst many faults of taste, has the good sense and the good feeling to deny the inferences of Malone in this matter of the old bed." He considers this bequest"a mark of peculiar tenderness;" and he assumes that she was provided for by settlement. Steevens was a conveyancer by profession. Malone, who was also at the bar, says, "what provision was made for her by settlement does not appear." A writer in "Lardner's Cyclopædia" doubts the legal view of the matter which Steevens charitably takes :-" Had he already provided for her? If so, he would surely have alluded to the fact; and if he had left her the interest of a specific sum, or the rent of some messuage, there would, we think, have been a stipulation for the reversion of the property to his children after her decease." * See note on some points of Shakspere's Will at the end of this Chapter. + Malone.

Boswell, a third legal editor, thus writes upon the same subject:-" If we may suppose that some provision had been made for her during his lifetime, the bequest of his second-best bed was probably considered in those days neither as uncommon or reproachful." As a somewhat parallel example Boswell cites the will of Sir Thomas Lucy, in 1600, who gives his son his second-best horse, but no land, because his father-in-law had promised to provide for him. We will present our readers with a case in which the parallel is much closer. In the will of David Cecil, Esq., grandfather to the great Lord Burleigh, we find the following bequest to his wife :

Item-I will that my wife have all the plate that was hers before I married her ; and twenty kye and a bull."*

Our readers will recollect the query of the Cyclopædist," Had he already provided for her? If so, he would surely have alluded to the fact." Poor Dame Cecil, according to this interpretation, had no resource but that of milking her twenty kye, the common, and eating sour curds out of a silver bowl.

kept upon

The "forgetfulness" and the "neglect " by Shakspere of the partner of his fortunes for more than thirty years is good-naturedly imputed by Steevens to " 'the indisposed and sickly fit." Malone will not have it so :-"The various regulations and provisions of our author's will show that at the time of making it he had the entire use of his faculties." We thoroughly agree with Malone in this particular. Shakspere bequeaths to his second daughter three hundred pounds under certain conditions; to his sister money, wearing apparel, and a life interest in the house where she lives; to his nephews five pounds each; to his grand-daughter his plate; to the poor ten pounds; to various friends, money, rings, his sword. The chief bequest, that of his real property, is as follows:

Item-I give, will, bequeath, and devise, unto my daughter, Susanna Hall, for better enabling of her to perform this my will, and towards the performance thereof, all that capital messuage or tenement, with the appurtenances, in Stratford aforesaid, called the New Place, wherein I now dwell, and two messuages or tenements, with the appurtenances, situate, lying, and being in Henley Street, within the borough of Stratford aforesaid; and all my barns, stables, orchards, gardens, lands, tenements, hereditaments whatsoever, situate, lying, and being, or to be had, received, perceived, or taken, within the towns, hamlets, villages, fields, and grounds of Stratford-uponAvon, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, or in any of them, in the said county of Warwick; and also that messuage or tenement, with the appurtenances, wherein one John Robinson dwelleth, situate, lying, and being in the Blackfriars in London, near the Wardrobe; and all other my lands, tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever to have and to hold all and singular the said premises, with their appurtenances, unto the said Susanna Hall, for and during the term of her natural life; and after her decease to the first son of her body lawfully issuing," &c.

Immediately after this clause, by which all the real property is bequeathed to Susanna Hall, for her life, and then entailed upon her heirs male; and in default of such issue upon his grand-daughter, and her heirs male; and in default of such issue upon his daughter Judith and her heirs male,-comes the clause relating to his wife :

"Item-I give unto my wife my second-best bed, with the furniture."

It was the object of Shakspere by this will to perpetuate a family estate. In doing so did he neglect the duty and affection which he owed to his wife? He did not.

Shakspere knew the law of England better than his legal commentators. His estates, with the exception of a copyhold tenement, expressly mentioned in his will, were freehold. HIS WIFE WAS ENTITLED TO DOWER. She was provided for, as the wife of David Cecil was provided for, who, without doubt, was not "cut off” with her own plate and twentv kye and a bull. She was provided for amply, by the clear and undeniable operation of the English law. Of the lands, houses, and gardens which Shakspere inherited from his father, she was assured of the life-interest of a third, should she survive her husband, the instant that old John Shakspere died. Of the capital messuage, called New Place, the best house in Stratford, which Shakspere purchased in 1597, she was assured of the same life-interest, from the moment of the conveyance, provided it was a direct conveyance to her husband. That it was so conveyed we may infer from the terms of the conveyance of the lands in Old Stratford, and other places, which were purchased by Shakspere in 1602, and were then conveyed "to the onlye proper use and behoofe of the saide William Shakespere, his heires and assignes, for ever." Of a life-interest in a third of these lands also was she assured. The tenement in Blackfriars, purchased in 1614, was conveyed to Shakspere and three other persons; and after his death was re-conveyed by those persons to the uses of his will," for and in performance of the confidence and trust in them reposed by William Shakespeare deceased." In this estate certainly the widow of our poet had not dower. The reason is pretty clear-it was theatrical property. It has been remarked to us that even the express mention of the second-best bed was anything but unkindness and insult; that the best bed was in all probability an heir-loom: it might have descended to Shakspere himself from his father as an heir-loom, and, as such, was the property of his own heirs. The best bed was considered amongst the most important of those chattels which went to the heir by custom with the house. "And note that in some places chattels as heir-looms (as the best bed, table, pot, pan, cart, and other dead chattels moveable) may go to the heir, and the heir in that case may have an action for them at the common law, and shall not sue for them in the ecclesiastical court; but the heirloom is due by custom, and not by the common law."*

It is unnecessary for us more minutely to enter into the question before us. It is sufficient for us to have the satisfaction of having first pointed out the absolute certainty that the wife of Shakspere was provided for by the natural operation of the law of England. She could not have been deprived of this provision except by the legal process of Fine,—the voluntary renunciation of her own right. If her husband had alienated his real estates she might still have held her right, even against a purchaser. In the event, which we believe to be improbable, that she and the "gentle Shakspere" lived on terms of mutual unkindness, she would have refused to renounce the right which the law gave her. In the more probable case, that, surrounded with mutual friends and relations, they lived at least amicably, she could not have been asked to resign it. In the most probable case, that they lived *Coke upon Littleton,' 18 b.