casion to act with
his parents. But probably there was some other hitch: the L20 may have
been held to be covered by the "other debts," which already had done
service for Edmund Lambert; or the Shakespeares weighed their desire to
have back the land, which they probably then wished, with their growing
family, to farm themselves. Nothing seems then to have been settled, and
they were too poor to risk the perils of a great law-suit. Doubtless,
with sad hearts and bitter retrospect, they regretted their unlucky
purchases in 1575, which seemed to have pinched them so, and wished at
least they had been contented with the half, with the one tenement in
Henley Street that formed part of their residence. For, had they only
spent L20 then instead of L40, they could have repaid their hard-dealing
relative not only the smaller mortgage, but the "other debts," out of
the L40 they received for Snitterfield from the more liberal Robert
Webbe.

Finding John Lambert even harder to deal with than his father, John
Shakespeare brought a Bill of Complaint against him in the Court of
Queen's Bench,[115] 1589, by John Harborne, attorney, in which his wife
and son are mentioned. Nothing seems then to have been done. On November
24, 1597, backed by their son's influence and money, John and Mary
Shakespeare, plaintiffs, without associating their son's name, made a
formal complaint to the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Egerton,[116]
stating that Edmund Lambert was to hold it only until repaid the loan,
that the money had been duly tendered to him on the agreed date, that he
had refused it, and that his son John holds the land still, and makes
secret estates of the premises, the nature of which they cannot
describe, as the papers have been withheld them; that their papers and
evidences are open to the court. They add further that "the sayde John
Lamberte ys of greate wealthe and abilitie, and well frended and allied
amongst gentlemen and freeholders of the county ... and your saide
oratores are of small wealthe and very fewe frendes and alyance in the
said countie. They pray a writ of subpoena to be directed to John
Lambert to appear in the Court of Chancery."

John Lambert, pointing out the uncertainty and insufficiency of the
plaintiff's bill, also that the bill had _already been exhibited against
him_ in the same court, and he had fully answered it, asserts that the
arrangement was a deed of sale, with the conditional proviso that if
John Shake