By his death his wife's will[204] came into force, written while she was still "in perfect memory—blessed be God!—and mindful of mortality." She recounted the settlement of April 18, 1653, to which the trustees were Henry Smith, of Stratford, gent., and Job Dighton, of the Middle Temple, London, Esquire. Henry Smith, her surviving trustee, or his heirs, six months after the death of her husband, Sir John Barnard, was to sell New Place, giving the first offer to her loving cousin, Edward Nash, and the money was to be used in legacies. Her cousin, Thomas Welles, of Carleton, in county Bedford, was to have £50 if he be alive, and if he be dead, her kinsman, Edward Bagley, citizen of London, was to receive the amount. How she was connected with these men I have been unable to find out. "Judith Hathaway, one of the daughters of my kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, late of Stratford," £5 a year or £40 in hand. Unto Joane, the wife of Edward Kent, another daughter of the said Thomas Hathaway, £50, failing whom to her heir, Edward Kent the younger, at his coming of age. To this same Edward Kent she left £30 for his apprenticeship. To Rose, Elizabeth, and Susanna, three other "daughters of my kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, £40 a piece." Henry Smith was to have £5 for his pains, and Edward Bagley to be residuary legatee. "To my kinsman, Thomas Hart, the son of Thomas Hart, late of Stratford, all that my other messuage or Inne commonly called the Maydenhead, with the next house thereto adjoining, with the barne belonging to the same, now in the occupation of Michael Johnson; to Thomas Hart and his heirs, failing whom to his brother George Hart and his heirs," failing whom to her own right heirs for ever. She made her "loving kinsman Edward Bagley" executor, "in witness of which I set my hand and seal." It may be seen that she retained absolute power of the poet's purchases, but justly left his inheritance from his father John to his sister's descendants. But she did no more than justice.
It is not clear how the connection is traced between her and her other legatees, but it is very noticeable her preference for the Hathaway connections to those of the Shakespeare side.
Ere she died the poet's Blackfriars tenement had been reduced to ashes in the Great Fire of 1666. What right in it or its site remained, accrued to Edward Bagley, "citizen of London," her executor and residuary legatee, who proved her will, March 4, 1669, though it is stated to have been sold in Shakespeare's Biography in the Dictionary.
Edward Nash did not buy New Place, after all. It was bought by Sir Edward Walker, at one time Secretary of War to Charles I., and then Garter King-at-Arms. Halliwell-Phillipps states[205] it was sold by the "surviving trustee," but Sir Edward Walker's own will[206] puts it a little differently. He left to his dear daughter Barbara, wife of Sir John Clopton, various bequests, among which appear "A yarde land in Stratford field I bought of Mr. Hall, of the value of £12 10s. by year ... fyftly Land I bought of Sir John Clopton in the mannor of Clopton, of the yearely value of £10. Sixtly 4 yard land lying in Stratford and Bishopton fields which I bought of Mr. Bagley, and a house called the New Place, situated in the Towne of Stratford upon Avon, of the yearely value about fyfty fyve pounds ... my deare daughter and her husband Sir John Clopton, sole executors, 30th June, 1676." He died early the following year, and his will was proved March 10, 1676-77.
Thus, the property Shakespeare had put together became dispersed shortly after his family became extinct, and New Place came back to the heirs of the Cloptons, from whom it was purchased. I had hoped we might find something from the will of Edward Bagley, but he died intestate,[207] and the administration mentions nothing of interest to Shakespeare.
It is therefore quite clear that the whole period covered by Shakespeare's life and that of his descendants was 105 years, i.e., from 1564 to 1669, and that no lineal descendants can survive. Yet, as if in illustration of the methods of fabrication of tradition, when it is desired, I have heard of many of the name who boast a lineal descent from the poet; and of one even who boasts of having inherited not only the Shakespeare's dinner-service, but his teapot! Yet that the presence of the name is a certain bar to the descent, as above shown, no such claimants seem to have taken the trouble to find out, as they easily might do. I am told that in Verona, by the tomb of Romeo and Juliet, a modern visitor has described himself as "Shakespeare, descendant of the poet who wrote the play." William Shakespeare's poems alone are his posterity.
Even under another name they are not to be accepted.[208] In the Cambridge Chronicle obituary, January 1, 1842, appears: "Died on the 28th ult. at Exning, Suffolk, aged 87, Mrs. Hammond, mother of Mr. Wm. Hammond, of No. 8, Scots Yard, Cannon Street, London, Indigo Merchant. The deceased was one of the few remaining descendants of Shakespeare." So lately as June, 1857, there was recorded the death of William Hammond, Esq., of London, "one of the last lineal descendants of Shakespeare."
Dr. Bigsby says that Colonel Gardner, descendant of the Barnards, had some Shakespeare letters, and claimed descent from Lady Elizabeth Barnard.[209]
A correspondent remembered to have seen when a boy the Shakespear Inn, Lower Northgate Street, Gloucester, kept by an old gentleman named Smith. Outside the passage to the inn was a signboard, "The Shakespear Inn, by William Smith, descendant from and next of kin to that immortal bard."[210]