een Master of the Shoemakers'
Company, _might_ have been called "Mr."[133] In the earlier undated
draught from which this was taken the Commissioners state: "wee suspect
theese nyne persons next ensuinge absent themselves for feare of
processes, Mr. John Wheeler, John his son, Mr. John Shackespeere," etc.

Away up in London in 1593 the tide was beginning to turn for the family
through the efforts of the poet and the affection of the Earl of
Southampton.

In this year Richard Tyler sued a John Shakespeare for a debt, but it is
not at all certain it was not one of the others of the name. In a case
brought by Adrian Quyney and Thomas Barker against Philip Green,
chandler, Henry Rogers, butcher, and John Shaxspere, in 1595, for a debt
of L5, the absence of a trade after Shakespeare's name has made Mr.
Halliwell-Phillipps suppose that he had retired by this date. A John
Shakespeare attested by a cross the marriage settlement of Robert
Fulwood and Elizabeth Hill in 1596, which represents probably the name
of the poet's father. In 1597 he sold, to oblige his neighbour, George
Badger, a narrow strip of land at the western side of his Henley Street
garden, 1-1/2 feet in breadth, but 86 feet in length. For this he
received L2 10s., and his ground-rent was reduced from 13d. to 12d., the
odd penny becoming Badger's responsibility. He also sold a plat, 17 feet
square, in the garden, behind the wool-shop, to oblige his neighbour on
the other side, Edward Willis.

The application made for coat-armour, initiated in 1596, ostensibly by
John Shakespeare, but really by William Shakespeare, as well as the
Lambert case, dragged on through the later years of the century.

That he had not lost credit with his fellow-townsmen may be seen by
John's latest recorded piece of work.

Early in 1601 an action was brought by Sir Edward Greville[134] against
the Corporation respecting the toll-corn; and John Shakespeare, with
Adrian Quyney and others, assisted to draw up suggestions for the use of
the counsel for the defendants. On September 8 of that year the funeral
of the old burgess took place at Stratford-on-Avon, but there is no
trace now left of any sepulchral monument or memorial of any kind. No
will or inventory, or even inquisition post-mortem, has come down to us.

It is quite possible that the Henley Street houses were entailed upon
his eldest son, or that he may have bought up all rights during his
father's lifetime to such an extent