(tbttmll Mmvmxty 1 
 
 X\t%M% 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 
 FROM THE ..-■-. ■"■' 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 34 cur 9 W. Sage 
 
 f\.3£0_5s<\ 
 
 r|W.'A. 
 
V T- 
 
 ■*iftiiii7u ?nni 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 7 
 
 TflWt&W 
 
 $R DEC -^ 
 
 %NH^ 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 PN 2598.B94S88 
 
 Burbage and Shakespeare's stage 
 
 3 1924 027 118 755 
 
Burbage 
 
 and Shakespeare's Stage 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924027118755 
 
BURBAGE 
 AND SHAKESPEARE'S 
 
 ft 
 
 STAGE 
 
 By 
 MRS. C. C. STOPES, Hon. F.R.S.L 
 
 Diplomee Edin. University. 
 
 Author of 
 
 'Shakespeare's Warwickshire Contemporaries"; " William Hunnis 
 
 and the Revels of the Chapel Royal"; "Shakespeare's 
 
 Family," etc.; and Editor of "Shakespeare's 
 
 Sonnets" (King's Classics) 
 
 ALEXANDER MORING LTD. THE DE 
 LA MORE PRESS 32 GEORGE STREET 
 HANOVER SQUARE LONDON W. 191 3 
 
 E.V' 
 
r/i/ 
 
 M«o5* 
 
 1 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THE Lives of the Burbages ought to have been written 
 long since by others. For many years I have desired 
 to do this work, and published instalments in " The Fort- 
 nightly " and the " Athenaeum," 1909, but the decision of the 
 Shakespeare League to raise a Memorial to them in Shoreditch, 
 determined me to do so at once, in order to help that Memorial 
 Scheme. Therefore the collection, arrangement and publica- 
 tion of my materials, have at the last been rather more hurried 
 than I would have liked, and some details may have been left 
 in a state of comparative incompleteness which more leisure 
 would have remedied. I would have liked to have said some- 
 thing of the lives of other contemporaries, such as Edward 
 Alleyn, " who was Esquire made," and Ben Jonson, who criti- 
 cized and praised Shakespeare ; and to have aired some of 
 my theories regarding the dramatic history of the time. But 
 I did not wish, by presenting too many interesting people in 
 the background, to distract my readers' attention from the 
 central figures, or to divert their thoughts from the facts pre- 
 sented, to any discussion of my views. 
 
 I may now, however, make some trifling suggestions regard- 
 ing the facts on which I have so long dwelt. It may be noticed, 
 by those who read my Note 28, the list of " the performances 
 for 80 years of the Burbage Company," that there is a gap 
 during which they do not perform at court, i.e., between 1563 
 and 1572. This may have arisen from lack of business quali- 
 ties in the manager. It is quite possible that Burbage was only 
 an ordinary member of the Company at its commencement, 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 and that the first manager, after failing so long to attract the 
 favour of the Master of the Revels, was superseded by him about 
 1570. (At least it isfa fact] that the Company came into re- 
 newed importance from the time Burbage's name became 
 associated with it.) I know that this is only an hypothesis. 
 
 I put forward with a stronger faith, another suggestion, that 
 Burbage did not remain in the company till his first Master 
 died, but left it between 1582-4. I am not clear whether the 
 date of the transference coincided with the first performance of 
 Lord Hunsdon's Company at court, or whether it took place in 
 the following year when all the companies were " harrowed." 
 I have shown that Richard Burbage began his work in 1583. 
 The following year James acknowledged as his Master, Lord 
 Hunsdon, who shortly afterwards became Lord Chamberlain, 
 and after that there is no uncertainty as to the company with 
 which he was concerned, though the Lord Chamberlain's and 
 the Lord Admiral's sometimes played together. I believe also 
 that Shakespeare joined the Lord Chamberlain's company at 
 the beginning of his career, and never changed his " fellows." 
 
 An interesting suggestion also rises through the Subsidy 
 Rolls. They show that by 1595 at least, Shakespeare was 
 occupying a more important house and was rated higher than 
 either of the Burbages. Does this suggest that he had at some 
 time his family with him in London, before his son Hamnet's 
 health failed ? 
 
 I must here explain, that writing of Burbage, I was forced 
 to look at the words and actions of the Authorities of the time, 
 Lay and Clerical, as they must have appeared to him, as a 
 series of hindrances and complexities retarding the completion 
 of his Idea. But, looking at the actions of the objectors to the 
 Stage, from their own standpoint, I can see them justified. 
 There is no doubt that in relation to the cosmic scheme of the 
 Lord Mayor and others the players were the apparent cause, 
 direct or indirect, of many of the evils then censured. The 
 hitch came in the fact that this cosmic scheme was unbalanced, 
 that, in their war against effects, they confused causes. They 
 
Preface vu 
 
 wanted to prevent the spread of the plague, and they prevented 
 the people assembling together, instead of making the people, 
 their streets, and dwellings, clean and wholesome. They 
 aimed at making good workmen, and clean money in those 
 days, and they thought they attained their object best by an 
 unbroken grind, relieved only by heavy meals and heavy slum- 
 bers. Amusement seemed to them a distraction from the main 
 duty of life, the recuperating value of relaxation they had not 
 learned ; they fought even against the games we consider 
 healthful. 1 The very stringency of trade rules threw many 
 men out of occupation, -and the unemployed naturally sought 
 assemblies so as to be occupied as well as to be amused. The 
 preachers had a similar view in religious matters, that it was 
 difficult to combine seriousness with enjoyment of life. But it 
 was not revealed to their Authorities, that to the " unruly 
 people " they tried to coerce, the Theatres were the great civi- 
 lizing influences of the day. They were the Clubs, the Lecture 
 Halls, the Concerts, the Social and Religious Guilds, the Univer- 
 sity Chairs of History, Poetry and Rhetoric. The players' 
 audiences of the time could feel and respond to what they heard 
 at the Theatres. They co-operated in a way of which modern 
 audiences know nothing. They were prepared (as strings are 
 prepared by a violinist) to be played on to the themes of the 
 elemental passions of humanity. For the " unruly multitudes ' ' - 
 that the Lord Mayors repressed, was ' ' Henry V ' ' written, with its 
 patriotic fervours, its reverent attitude to the Unseen, its self- 
 forgetfulness in brave work ; and they were moulded to nobler 
 things through its teachings. The Theatres were the only 
 avenue through which the bulk of the people became sharers 
 in the influences of the Renaissance, and out of the despised 
 art arose the vivifying breath of what can neither be defined nor 
 described, but can only be named as the Spirit of the Sixteenth 
 Century. 
 
 They obeyed the impulses of healthy evolution when they 
 pressed in crowds to the plays. To many who could neither 
 1 Stow regrets the passing of the people's games by his time. 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 read nor write were they a mine of wealth ; to many who could 
 write, but could not invent, were they a treasure house of 
 memoranda. As Marston says in his " Scourge of Villainy," 
 
 "Now I have him that nere of oughte did speake, 
 But when of playes or plaiers he did treate, 
 Hath made a commonplace book out of playes." 
 
 And among players' poets who made their power for good, 
 there was none who better served his day and generation, in 
 raising their moral tone, their mental status and their aesthetic 
 sense than Burbage's " deserving man," William Shakespeare ! 
 
 In claiming for James Burbage the building of the first stone, 
 as well as the first wooden Theatre, of course I meant it to be 
 the designing and alteration rather than building, for the " great 
 stone walls," as well as the chambers, were part of his Black- 
 friars purchase. But in the rectangular hall of the Blackfriars, 
 covered and lighted, he created new conditions, invented new 
 arrangements and developments, and made new access to the 
 stage, impossible before. (No gallants had sat on the stage, in 
 Theatre or Globe.) It may be asked why I have made no refer- 
 ence to the earlier Blackfriars of twenty years before ? Partly 
 because that was conducted on an entirely different system, 
 it was not like Burbage's, meant for a high-class public theatre, 
 but chiefly because the discovery of its existence was not mine. 
 It was very unlucky for me that when, in 1905, I asked leave 
 from Mr. More Molyneux to go down and inspect his papers at 
 Loseley, I received for answer, from a friend of the family, that 
 the owner was abroad, and the papers had gone to the care of 
 the Hist. Man. Comm.. and would not be available for some time, 
 but that he had taken voluminous notes, and would be glad to 
 assist me in any way he could. I replied that I wanted to know 
 if there was anything about William Hunnis, Master of the 
 Children of the Chapel ; of the Earls of Southampton (more 
 than Kempe had given), and of the general history of the Drama. 
 He said there was nothing about Hunnis, but much about the 
 other two. I then said I should wait till I could have access, 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 rather than trouble him. There is always something to do in 
 research work. Shortly after I heard that Professor Feuillerat 
 was at work on these papers. Being certain they would be 
 treated well in his hands, I thought I could still wait a little. 
 But when I heard that he had found Hunnis after all, and in 
 connexion with the earlier Blackfriars Theatre, I blew him up 
 for not sooner publishing his discovery that I might have com- 
 pleted my Hunnis book, even by borrowed matter duly 
 acknowledged. The other facts I wanted from these papers I 
 have since secured for myself. 
 
 When I began work long since, I wanted to get a more 
 thorough knowledge of Shakespeare than I had. To do so I 
 felt I must know about the predecessors who moulded his 
 conditions, and the successors who were affected by him, as well 
 as the contemporaries among which he moved. 
 
 So I measured out a very liberal century to work in, from the 
 accession of Henry VIII in 1509, to 1640. After bringing out the 
 second edition of my " Bacon Shakespeare Question answered " 
 in 1889, which was chiefly based on printed books, I devoted 
 myself altogether to manuscript work. During 1890 1 worked 
 at the Guildhall Records, and took out everything concerning 
 Players and Poets of the time, which material I have frequently 
 used since in my papers. My special " find " was that concern- 
 ing William Hunnis, which gave a clue to so much more. I 
 turned aside from my main work to write about him, because 
 he was the designer of the main Kenilworth " devices " ; 
 which I believe stimulated young Shakespeare's imagination, 
 and because " of his life very little was known." But I never 
 gave up my search after traces of Shakespeare, in every possible 
 department open to me. When I was going consecutively 
 through the Coram Rege Rolls of James I (the most uncom- 
 fortable of records to read), Dr. Wallace plunged into the middle 
 of my work, in 1905 . I met him on the twenty -eighth of October 
 of that year, the day on which he brought out his first paper 
 about Shakespeare's wishing the title deeds of his Blackfriars 
 purchase. He told me he was doing the Children of the Chapel 
 
x PREFACE 
 
 under Nathaniel Giles, I told him that I had done " the children " 
 under William Hunnis, his immediate predecessor, and that my 
 book was in the press. I found he was not then in touch with 
 the London Shakespeareans (he thought that Dr. Furnivall was 
 dead by that time). So I invited him to tea to meet our Chief, 
 and asked the Secretary of the Shakespeare League to send him 
 invitations to our meetings, especially to our excursion to Hamp- 
 ton Court, under the guidance of Mr. Ernest Law. The date 
 is important, for a few months after Dr. Furnivall told me that 
 Dr. Wallace had, from the uncalendared papers of the Court of 
 Requests, found some Shakespearean things. I asked Dr. Furni- 
 vall if he knew how he had been allowed to get these out, when 
 I had asked for them three or four times, and had been told to 
 wait until they were classified. Dr. Furnivall confessed he 
 had forgotten that I had not yet had them, and had himself 
 signed Dr. Wallace's application for permission to search them. 
 As he was not a resident in London, they agreed to let him have 
 them out. I naturally therefore insisted on having them also, 
 though I knew there was no chance of me, single-handed, and 
 handicapped by other duties, catching up two devoted workers 
 with a three months' start. But I could see the things for myself, 
 which is after all the genuine object of research study. Believ- 
 ing they had begun with the reign of James I, I began with 
 that of Elizabeth, until I found the things I wanted, then I 
 turned and completed the reign of James I before I completed 
 that of Elizabeth. After doing the whole of these, I did a part 
 of Charles I before I returned to my normal path, with a good 
 many extra notes in hand. Even where references were not 
 taken, I found this series of papers exceptionally interesting 
 and very easy work, as compared to some others. 
 
 In regard to " authorities " I have placed at the end of this 
 book I must explain my methods. I always insert the double date 
 at the beginning of the years. Everybody may be aware that 
 the year began on the twenty-fifth of March in those days, 
 but nobody can be quite sure whether a writer is dating in old 
 or new style. There can be no mistake when both are given, 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 On the other hand, as there was a limit to space I always cut 
 off the flourishes of the regnal years, which I reduce to bare fact, 
 as " 2 Eliz.," etc. I also always cut out repeated references to 
 "his heirs, assigns, executors and administrators," and similar 
 repetitions unnecessary to modern understandings, and I write 
 money statements in modern terms. Space would make it 
 impossible to give all the originals in extenso ; and in regard to 
 Giles Alleyn's cases, it would become monotonous to do so, 
 for the whole story of " the lease " is repeated every time. 
 So I have had to cut that out as much as possible. I fear I have 
 repeated too much. Sometimes therefore I give a shortened 
 paper, at other times only an abstract, according to the degree 
 of interest. I generally leave the old spelling ; but if a scrivener 
 has spelt " him " three times normally and three times as 
 " hym," in the same page, and my printer insists on uniformity, 
 I am not sure that I should correct either as a printer's error, 
 because I am writing a biography of Burbage, not of the clerks 
 whose idiosyncrasies are shown frequently by their preference 
 for a variety in spelling even in the course of the same article. 
 It is the desire of exactitude in facts which fills my mind. 
 When I find these important, even to details, or when I wish to 
 preserve them for my own use, I give them in extenso, as for 
 instance the pleading before the Lord Chamberlain in 1635. 
 It took me a very long time to find this, nobody could locate it 
 for me, it never having been asked for. Since I found it, the 
 references have been changed three times, now I think they are 
 permanent, and so give them. That is printed, among his 
 copies, verbatim by Halliwell-Philhpps (except for the table), but 
 it was too interesting to me not to include my own transcript. 
 I do not repeat his other copies of the easily accessible corre- 
 spondence between the Privy Council and the Lord Mayor 
 about the limitation of the Theatres in 1600-1601, as they do 
 not concern Burbage. I must give some explanation of the 
 peculiar methods of this writer, to whom all Shakespeareans 
 owe so much for his indefatigable labours. With all his virtues, 
 he had two faults. He did not, or very rarely did, give his 
 
Xll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 references, and when he did so, he more rarely gave them fully. 
 He told Dr. Furnivall this was intentionally done, " If I give 
 references, they quote them, if I give none, they have to quote 
 me," knowing as he did, the predatory instincts of lazy 
 writers. He goes even further. He seems at times to try to 
 mystify his readers as to his sources of information. For in- 
 stance, in his valuable note on " The Theatre and the Curtain," 
 he speaks of " a suit instituted many years afterwards," of 
 " a deposition taken in 1602," and alludes, in seven or eight 
 disconnected and scattered phrases to the same case, as if they 
 were different originals, though I have found they are all drawn 
 from " Earl of Rutland v. Alleyn," Exchequer proceedings, see 
 my note 14, p. 185. Neither does he give all the important facts 
 in full, even of the papers he hints at. For instance, he seems 
 to have heard of, rather than seen, the Star Chamber Case, 
 see my Note 21, p. 220, for he only gives the earlier and least 
 interesting part of it under the indefinite title, " Complaint. 
 Alleyn v. Burbage, 44 Eliz," whereas the remainder of paper is 
 much more interesting and gives a key to all Alleyn's litigation. 
 I know that, at least in later life, he employed others to do his 
 research work, and that they did not always proffer further 
 information than he asked. 
 
 He copies faithfully the Indenture of purchase by which James 
 Burbage secured the Blackfriars ; but gives no reference. 
 When I hunted, and found it for myself among the Loseley 
 papers, I found he had omitted the signature which interested 
 me, " James Burbadge," and does not mention the Seal used, 
 a very perfect " Griffin." He must have used the enrolment 
 only (Close Rolls, 1540, m. 28). 
 
 I have not dwelt on the papers found by Mr. Greenstreet 
 and worked out so fully by Mr. Fleay in his " History of the 
 Drama," as full references are given. 
 
 I have made no use * of the work of Dr. Wallace, preferring 
 
 1 A friend has pointed out to me that Dr. Wallace published in 
 " The Times " this year, the little incident about Burbage and Rice in 
 Munday's device, see my p. 108. I have had that by me since 1890, 
 
PREFACE 
 
 xm 
 
 to give readers references to his own papers, except in one 
 case, where I give the original reference, seeing it had not been 
 yet published. 
 
 Mr. T. F.O^dish'sworkon "The Early London Theatres " 
 is known to every one. It is however more topographical 
 than biographical. 
 
 Mr. E. K. Chambers and I seem to have been working inde- 
 pendently at the same time on the same papers, as may be 
 proved by our publications. But the things new and old that 
 I have collected, are only brought together to make concrete the 
 vision of the Burbages in the midst of their work, and the sug- 
 gestion of the College in which Shakespeare learnt some of his 
 law. I am aware there are many imperfections. I know 
 that I am a bad proof-reader, and I have no help ; my mind is 
 so filled with things in themselves, I sometimes omit to note the 
 fringes of the " garments that we see them by." 
 
 I must not forget to thank the Officials of the Record Office 
 and the British Museum for their unfailing courtesy and fre- 
 quent help ; Dr. Reginald Sharpe, late keeper of the Guild- 
 hall Records, for similar kindness, and the Rev. E. R. Ford, 
 Vicar of St. Leonard's, for giving me access to the Register of 
 the Parish, selections from which close my text (see p. 139). 
 I regret the delay in publication, but that did not arise from my 
 slackness, but from some hitch at the printers. 
 
 CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES. 
 
 Hampstead, 
 15th June, 1913. 
 
 I have frequently used it in my Lectures, some of which were reported 
 last year. On the eighth of March of this year I asked leave to go 
 to Guildhall to check it, but was told on the tenth that Dr. and Mrs. 
 Wallace were working there (and there was no convenient room for 
 more than two), but a checked copy was sent. This I enclosed with my 
 book to the printer the following day, and Dr. Wallace's communica- 
 tion did not appear until the twenty-eighth of March, so my conscience 
 does not trouble me much for not having acknowledged it in the text. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 "I James Burbage .... 
 II James Burbage's Sons . 
 Ill WhAJ was Left of the Burbages 
 
 page 
 i 
 
 67 
 
 124 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 I Elizabeth's Proclamation. 1559 . 
 
 II The Danger of Conventicles 
 
 III The Lord Mayor's Orders 1574 
 
 IV Middlesex Sessions Rolls . 
 
 V Concerning Players .... 
 
 VI Burbage v. Braynes .... 
 
 VII Braynes v. Burbage, and Myles v. Bishop 
 
 VIII Peckham v. Alleyn .... 
 
 IX Burbage's Purchase of Blackfriars 
 
 X Petitions of Inhabitant s of Blackfriars 
 
 XI The Rose and Swan .... 
 
 XII Meres on Shakespeare 
 
 XIII Burbage v. Ames .... 
 
 XIV Earl of Rutland v. Alleyn and Burbage 
 
 145 
 145 
 
 146 
 
 149 
 
 153 
 
 154 
 
 159 
 166 
 
 170 
 
 174 
 177 
 
 183 
 
 184 
 
 185 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 XV Subsidy Rolls. 
 
 XVI Site of the Globe . 
 
 XVII Augustine Phillipps Examined . 
 
 XVIII Alleyn v. Peter Street . 
 
 XIX Burbage v. Alleyn. 
 
 XX Alleyn v. Burbage, Coram Rege Roll 
 
 XXI Alleyn v. Burbage, Star Chamber 
 
 XXII Player's Patents . 
 
 XXIII The Actors in Shakespeare's Plays 
 
 XXIV The Complaint of Young Players 
 XXV Privy Council Register . 
 
 XXVI Censorship of Plays 
 
 XXVII Burbageana .... 
 
 XXVIII Performances of Burbage's Company 
 
 page 
 194 
 
 196 
 
 197 
 
 198 
 
 200 
 
 217 
 
 220 
 
 228 
 
 229 
 
 230 
 
 240 
 
 242 
 
 243 
 246 
 
Burbage, and Shakespeare's Stage 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 JAMES BURBAGE 
 
 THE story of James Burbage is a wonderful record, not 
 only for the work he did, but for its results. His life 
 is well worthy of being enrolled among the treasured biographies 
 of his time. Through his courageous struggle against unceasing 
 difficulties he became the founder of the modern British Stage, 
 the teacher as well as father of its greatest actor, and the dis- 
 coverer of its greatest Dramatist. It was he who gave Shake- 
 speare the chance to make the best of the life he had not 
 willingly chosen, x and he was able to do this because he him- 
 self always tried to do the best possible to him under his cir- 
 cumstances. He impressed himself upon his times without 
 their fully being conscious of it. Our eyes are more able to 
 measure his position than were his contemporaries, stirred 
 as they were to fever-heat by polemic storms that now leave 
 us calm. 
 
 It is trying to find dullness in preliminary matter before we 
 reach the story. But it must not be forgotten that it is 
 out of broken chips one creates a mosaic, and it is from the 
 petals of Detail that one distils the Idea of a Life, and the 
 conception " of the form and fashion of the time." 
 
 In attempting to make a pen and ink sketch of it, I must ask 
 my readers, as Shakespeare asked his audience in " Henry V " 
 to " piece out my imperfections with your thoughts . . . 
 
 1 " O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide . 
 
 That did not better for my life provide." — Sonnet cxi. 
 
 1 B 
 
2 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 and when I speak of Burbage, think you see him " in the 
 stress and strain of the life he lived, always buffeted with 
 difficulties above his fellows, never acknowledging or accepting 
 defeat, and always forging ahead as pioneer in the path he had 
 designed for himself. 
 
 We all know somewhat of the world into which he stepped, 
 a world in the convulsions of a great upheaval, plunged into 
 the melting-pot of Fate, with no certainty as to the mould 
 into which its future would be cast. It had been stirred to its 
 depths by mighty religious influences spreading from Germany 
 and Switzerland. Its perceptions had been stimulated by the 
 Italian renaissance, which travelled to us through France. 
 A demand for knowledge of the new learning came from all 
 classes, a supply of translations attempted to answer the 
 demand. As a new world had been given to them out of the 
 haze of the West, which widened their horizon, and stimulated 
 their faculties of wonder and imagination, so a new world had 
 been unrolled to them by the miracles of the printer's shop. 
 Its conservative and reproductive powers made books cheap. 
 The people began to buy them, to read, discuss and understand 
 them, in a way hardly understood by modern readers. Every- 
 thing seemed new and fresh and interesting in the third quarter 
 of the sixteenth century. The political despotism of the Tudors 
 had not yet produced rebellion. The dissolution of the mon- 
 asteries and the confiscation of their property, one outcome of 
 these influences, had resulted in social, educational, and econo- 
 mic changes, as well as further religious developments. What- 
 ever may have been the faults of some of their inmates, the 
 convents had remained, in general, the centres of education, 
 the guardians of literature, science, art, and empiric knowledge, 
 the dispensers of hospitality, medical treatment and charity. 
 Though a future was assured the better-class priests willing 
 to conform at home, or brave enough to make a career for 
 themselves abroad, their suppression flung on the world num- 
 bers of helpless and inferior monks and servitors, whose so- 
 called " pensions " were too irregularly paid to be any security 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 3 
 
 against want. Armies of old mendicants, formerly their pen- 
 sioners, some of them harmless and only helpless, others the 
 " sturdy beggars " of later statutes, became deteriorated 
 through the disappearance of their regular reckonings of work 
 and provision at the Abbeys. Driven along with those on the 
 hunting ground of the road were many " poor scholars," many 
 younger sons of the minor gentry even, whose family estates 
 had been seized for recusancy ; apprentices from various trades 
 whose apprenticeships had been broken from an awakening 
 to independence of thought and action, under the harsh rules 
 a severe master had power to impose ; wounded soldiers for 
 whose support there was no proper provision ; cozeners, 
 thieves, highwaymen at war with society. Short shrift were 
 allowed the latter, the gallows at once for them (when they 
 were caught), for human life was then of less value than the 
 means of supporting it. From all these classes arose groups of 
 men who earned a precarious livelihood by satisfying the tastes 
 of the people. To these also had cornea modification of the 
 renaissance, a spirit from the outer world had stirred among the 
 dry bones. 
 
 Men hungered to have their imaginations stirred by romance, 
 wonder, harmony after conflict ; they absorbed and repeated 
 the old legends and romances ; they ran after translations, 
 they were interested in humanity in all its aspects. Music 
 was already a national possession, Church music, chamber 
 music, folk music, dance music. 
 
 There was no art in England, that is to say in its limited 
 sense of painting pictures or chiselling statues. There was not 
 a sculptor in all England above the level of a tomb-maker ; 
 there was hardly a native painter before Hilliard, and he became 
 a painter after being a carver of jewellery. If men wanted 
 their portraits painted they sent for foreign artists ; if they 
 wanted landscape pictures, they had to content themselves 
 with natural scenery, or landscape gardens as the background 
 for architecture, a form of art which throve in the country. 
 Though the printers had introduced some woodcuts into a few 
 
4 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 of their books, they seemed to be rather decorations than 
 illustrations. There was not a picture gallery to be seen. 
 For the encouragement of pictorial art and scientific research, 
 men had to wait till the coming of the Stuarts ; for the over- 
 flowing of these into all national industry, we have had to wait 
 till our own times. 
 
 But our ancestors had already begun to develop a native 
 form of mixed art, in the beginnings of the drama which gave 
 them something to stimulate their art-instincts. The Church 
 had for a long time represented to the unlearned multitude 
 the Bible Stories in a concrete form, to hold the hearer's atten- 
 tion. The peoplewanted to share in the art, so the Miracle Plays 
 of the Church evolved into the Mystery Plays of the Trades- 
 Guilds, performed on their Saints' Day, Foundation Day ; 
 on Midsummer's Eve they had pageants in their processions, 
 at Christmas they had various shows amid mirth and misrule. 
 
 In the Courts there had been morality plays and allegories, 
 as well as religious plays. Bands of interlude players, as well 
 as musicians, were kept by the sovereigns ; and the gentlemen 
 and children of the Chapel Royal had special presentations of 
 their own, having the charm of song to add to their other 
 attractions. There were masques, prepared for royal disport, 
 in which royalties themselves occasionally. joined. The Re- 
 naissance may be credited for introducing more mirth and 
 humour into Court plays, translations of foreign romances 
 were moulded into interludes ; satirical skits and topical allu- 
 sions spiced even solemn subjects. The gentlemen of the 
 Inns of Court and the scholars of the Universities performed 
 dramas from classical sources on great occasions. 
 
 The great noblemen who were forced to live in their far-away 
 castles through official duties, to lighten their absence from 
 Court had similar amusements provided for them by their own 
 household servants and their own chapel boys. The people 
 themselves provided companies for the minor nobles and 
 gentry, companies which were never salaried, being paid only 
 by their performances, but who generally managed to persuade 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 5 
 
 some nobleman to allow them to wear his livery, to be called 
 by his name, to perform for him when he wanted them, but 
 when he did not want them to let them wander over the coun- 
 try, finding from their own audiences their own means of 
 support. Such companies sometimes visited the metropolis, 
 heard far off of the doings of courts, and while they were on the 
 road home were too glad of the chance to show " the latest play 
 from London " in provincial towns to bailiffs and aldermen and 
 their friends, in their guild halls or inn-yards, or in lowlier 
 districts even on the village green, where payment would be 
 poor and uncertain. To the rustics they gave joy of a kind 
 they knew not how to produce for themselves, until by 
 repeated "views," some of them even desired to imi- 
 tate. 
 
 The love of changing one's attire, and pretending to be some- 
 body else, is a natural instinct of humanity, beginning even in 
 early life. Thus the love not only of seeing plays but of acting 
 them, pervaded all ranks of society. To the companies of 
 players on the road resorted many classes, the poor scholars, 
 able to make or to translate a skeleton plot ; the old monks 
 who once had acted in their monastery, and who could still 
 be eloquent, and knew how to dress and advise ; the old sol- 
 diers, ready to teach fencing or display their skill with the sword 
 in martial parts ; ancient minstrels, by this time discredited in 
 their art, but knowing how to draw music from unlikely instru- 
 ments and to add a varied attraction to a play. From all 
 these elements rose the people's companies, who created a 
 national drama of the people's own. Fragments of romances 
 translated or home-grown, legends, stories, traditions, as of 
 Robin Hood and Maid Marian ; all were rendered concrete 
 to the imagination, pictured to the eye, by the players in hall 
 or hovel. In the limbo of forgotten things are scores of their 
 skeleton plots of comedies and tragedies, made ready to be filled 
 up by the actor's wit, of which we can only assume the exist- 
 ence by later allusions. We have none of their " play-books " 
 preserved, but we have an illustrative example in Bottom's 
 
6 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 play in "Midsummer's Night's Dream" based clumsily upon a 
 classic story. 
 
 Round such players would gather at country fairs palmists 
 and sorcerers to tell fortunes, jugglers and acrobats to display 
 dexterity ; bear-wards to awake a fascinating terror, rivals or 
 jackals to the mummers' fraternity. The efforts of sovereigns 
 and officials had long been spent in attempting to clear the 
 road of all these. Henry VIII and Edward VI had done some- 
 thing. Mary had attempted to reform " printers, prechars, 
 players." In 1556 all justices of the peace and other officers 
 were commanded not to allow wandering players and musicians 
 to go about, " for that kind of lazy people frequently in their 
 songs and acting shew forth various heresies and seditions." 
 And a special mandate was given them to seek for the dissemin- 
 ators of " false rumours " everywhere. (St. Pap., Dom. Ser., 
 Mary, viii. 50.) On May 16th, 1559, a Royal Proclamation 
 restricted' plays. (See Note I.) 
 
 Into this world James Burbage stepped. I have not yet 
 found the date of his birth, probably about 1535 ; I do not 
 know where he was born. Some have suggested Warwickshire 
 on the strength of the fact that a John Burbage was Bailiff of 
 Stratford-on-Avon in 1555. There were Burbages, however, also 
 in Leicestershire (whose wills are yet to be read) ; there were 
 some in Somerset, some in Hertfordshire, some in London, the 
 latter evidently in later years acquainted with James Burbage. 
 We know nothing of his childhood, though we may infer that 
 he had been taught to read and write then (he might have been 
 a choir boy). But we do know something of his youth. He 
 succeeded to no estate, he went to no university, he was appren- 
 ticed to a joiner by trade, and must have persevered through 
 his apprenticeship and taken up his freedom, as he was often 
 in later years called a " Joiner." When or how the spell of 
 the player's life lured him away from the safe beaten tracks of 
 his trade I know not, nor how and when he worked himself 
 into the better class of actors who wore the livery, retained 
 nominally as " the servants " of some great lord. We do not 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 7 
 
 know where and how he found his " Master," but as when he 
 does appear it was as the chief of Sir Robert Dudley's (then the 
 Earl of Leicester's) players, it may reasonably be inferred it was 
 about the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Sir Robert Dudley 
 wrote to the Earl of Shrewsbury in June, 1559, requesting that 
 his servants might be allowed to play in Yorkshire, as other 
 Lords Lieutenants of other shires had allowed them to do in 
 their districts, and certified them to be " honest men, and shall 
 play none other matters than such as are tolerable and con- 
 venient " (" Lodge's Illustrations," i. 307). We may be sure 
 that the critical and magnificent Sir Robert Dudley would not 
 have been satisfied with second-rate "servants." His accept- 
 ance argues not only James Burbage's honesty and prudence, 
 but his handsome appearance, charming manners, tact and 
 ready wit. 
 
 Players were not welcome to the Church of the time. The 
 Bishop of London, writing of them in 1563, describes them as 
 " an idle sort of people, who have been infamous in all good 
 communities." 
 
 We hear nothing definite about them until after the Pope sent 
 his ill-advised Bull against Elizabeth to England in 1569, and 
 the consequent rising in the north. After the comparatively 
 placid ten years at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, this was 
 a call to action, definite and decisive on both sides. Religion 
 became henceforth inseparably associated with politics. Some 
 of the old faith resisted, and all were suspected and carefully 
 repressed, punishments were decreed for disobedience to order, 
 in money if they had any, in person if they had none. Old 
 laws not openly dealing with the question were made indirectly 
 able to do so, former repressive laws were enforced with increased 
 severity. New laws were drafted. The Pope became indi- 
 rectly the exciting cause of unexpected domestic legislation, of 
 new official efforts to clear the roads. Because it was seen that 
 besides giving an opportunity of reforming the habits of those 
 who lived on the road, more stringent than any previous efforts 
 had been, it might also help the authorities in spreading their 
 
8 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 net over " suspects," priests and men in sympathy with, and 
 acting in obedience to an alien political Power, through faith 
 in his religious authority. Those who had slipped on a lord's 
 livery over their own old coats, had to make their position more 
 assured. By Burbage's forethought at the end of 1571 he 
 secured a licence from the Lord Mayor of London, " Item this 
 day licence is geven to my Lord of Leicester's men to play 
 within this Cittie such matters as are allowed of to be played, at 
 convenient howers and tymes, so that it be not at the time of 
 Devyne Service." Jovis, 6th Die Decembris, 1571. (Guildhall 
 MSS., Repertory 17, 23g b ). 
 
 In the following month, 29th January, 157 1-2, "a license 
 was granted to the Lord Abergavenny's players during my 
 Lord Maior's pleasure." I have noted no other actors who took 
 this step then. The players of Sir Robert Dudley (afterwards 
 the Earl of Leicester) had meanwhile played frequently at Court 
 for the " solace " of the Queen, and were known in other great 
 cities ; for instance, the Gloucester Records have, 1569-70, 
 " In rewarde to the Erie of Leyseter's players playing before 
 Mr. Mayor, 13/4." 
 
 " 1 571. Also given to the Erie of Leyseters plaiers for play- 
 ing before Mr. Maior 30th April 13/4. Spente on them at the 
 taverne, 3/8." 
 
 On 3rd January, 1571-2 there had been issued a proclamation 
 against retainers, ordaining that Lords should not " retain " 
 more men than they actually used as " servants," domestic or 
 otherwise ; and those who did so after this notice, beyond the 
 20th of February next were to be visited with the Queen's dis- 
 pleasure. 14 Eliz. (See Brit. Mus. Proclamations, G. 6463.) 
 This was specially directed in appearance against players. It 
 brings James Burbage definitely into view at last, for some 
 time in January or in the first twenty days of February, he, 
 and his fellows, wrote an undated letter to his master peti- 
 tioning for a closer relation in domestic service. This must 
 be printed here in full : — 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 9 
 
 " To the Rt. Hon. Earle of Leicester, their, good Lord and Master. 
 " Maye yt please your honor to understand that forasmuch 
 as there is a certaine Proclamacion out for the revivinge of a 
 Statute as touching Retayners, as your Lordshippe knoweth 
 better than we can enforme you thereof, We therefore, your 
 humble servaunts and daylye orators, your players, for avoyd- 
 ing all inconvenients that maye growe by reason of the saide 
 Statute, are bold to trouble your Lordshippe with this our 
 suite, humblie desiringe your honor that (as you have always 
 been our good Lord and Master) you will now vouchsaffe to 
 reteyne us at this present as your houshold servants and daylie 
 wayters, not that we meane to crave any further stipend or 
 benefite at your Lordshippe's hands, but our Lyveries as we 
 have had, and also your Honor's Licence to certifye that we 
 are your Household Servauntes, when we shall have occasion 
 to traveyl amongst our frendes, as we do usuallye once a yere, 
 and as other noblemen's players do, and have done in tyme 
 past, wherebie we maye enjoye our facultie in your Lordshippe's 
 name as we have done heretofore. Thus beyinge bound and 
 readye to be alwayes at your Lordshippes commandmente 
 we committe your Honour to the tuition of the Almightie. 
 
 Long may your Lordshipe live in peace 
 
 A pere of noblest peres 
 In helth welth and prosperitie 
 
 Redoubling Nestor's yeres. 
 
 Your Lordshippes servaunts 
 Most bounden 
 James Burbage 
 John Perkinne 
 John Laneham 
 William Johnson 
 Robert Wilson 
 Thomas Clarke 
 (Docketed Your L. Players) " 
 
 (No date.) 
 
io BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Copied by Rev. J. E. Jackson, Hon. Canon of Bristol, from 
 the Marquis of Bath's papers atLongleat, and printed in "Notes 
 and Queries," 3rd Ser. xi, May 4, 1867. 
 
 The proclamation was intended to help officials to force into 
 the open many questionable characters, among whom are not 
 named, but fully intended, all Jesuits and messengers from 
 Rome. That " proclamation " would send more dismissed 
 men on to the roads, whence a statute was being prepared to 
 clear them, one that has been carefully studied by all social 
 workers, and by all dramatic scholars. It also was intended to 
 check religious and political spies and messengers. The Act of 
 14 Eliz. C. 5, 1572, generally spoken of as the Act for punishing 
 rogues and vagabonds, and for relief of the poor. Previous 
 statutes are repealed. Any one over 14, convicted of being a 
 rogue or vagabond, was to be grievously whipped, and pierced 
 in his right ear, "unless some honest person shall take him into 
 his service." If he depart from such service he is to be treated 
 as a felon and sent to jail. " For the full expressing what . . . 
 persons shall be intended ... to be Roges, Vagabounds 
 and Sturdy Beggars ... all idle persones using subtyll crafty 
 and unlawful games or playes, and some of them fayning them- 
 selves to have knowledge in phisnomye, Palmestrye, or other 
 abused Scyences, whereby they beare the people in hand they 
 can tell their destinyes, Deathes and Fortunes, and such other 
 like fantastical imaginations . . . and all Fencers, Beare- 
 wards, Comon Players in Enterludes and Minstrels, not belong- 
 ing to any Baron of this realme or any other honorable person- 
 age of greater degree ; all Juglers, Pedlers, Tynkers, and Pctye 
 Chapmen, who shall wander abroade and have not licence of 
 two justices of the peace at leaste, whereof one to be of the 
 Quorum, wher and in what shier they shall happen to wander." 
 
 No one was to harbour them or give them lodging. This 
 Act was to continue in force for seven years, and to the end of 
 the Parliament next ensuing. 
 
 This, it may be seen, besides many other things, was an Act 
 against the exercise of " imagination." It would no doubt 
 
JAMES BURBAGE n 
 
 be a great benefit to the bona-fide travellers of the time, a 
 benefit even to the rogues and vagabonds themselves, for some 
 of them would bestir themselves to get " suited " ; some of the 
 poor would be provided for, and the competition for the sur- 
 vivors on the road would become less. It would give the better 
 class an opportunity of rehabilitating themselves, it would 
 make them more careful in their behaviour. Especially it 
 would benefit those players, servants to noblemen, who were 
 exempted, and clear out of their way rivals doubtless very often 
 troublesome. 
 
 But the statute, while decreasing the number of real " Rogues 
 and Vagabonds," would increase the number of players, who 
 were careful to seek a great lord's protection from the scourge 
 of vagabondage. Players were protected by the very statute 
 that seemed to be directed against them. Danger made them 
 more circumspect. Such companies had an ambition which 
 tended to their improvement. They naturally desired to excel 
 each other. But they also wanted to excel themselves, not 
 only to please their own " masters," but also the Master of the 
 Revels, that they might become worthy to be invited to play 
 before their Sovereign, in competition with her own salaried 
 servants. How they did this, how they succeeded in ousting 
 and superseding, for a time at least, Court performers, is a 
 part of the general history of the Stage. 
 
 The treatment of players by municipal bodies was very un- 
 certain, depending upon the tastes and creeds of the mayors 
 and corporations of the time. To a certain extent this was 
 true also of London, but the balance was generally set against 
 them in the Common Council and in their favour in the Privy 
 Council. The lords encouraged their companies, as a means of 
 winning favour from the Queen by some brilliant dramatic 
 success. After the statute there were more performances than 
 ever in the Metropolis. The corporation would have preferred 
 it if they could have classed all common players as vagabonds, 
 it would have simplified matters so much for them. They did 
 what they could to preserve the powers that remained to them. 
 
12 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 On the 2nd March, 1573-4, the servants of the Earl of Sussex 
 asked a licence to be allowed to play in the city, as they needed 
 a place for rehearsals there, being summoned to play before 
 the Queen. The Lord Mayor refused his permission. Sussex 
 was Leicester's greatest rival then, high in the Queen's favour, 
 and it is more than probable that Burbage would again address 
 his master and remind him that the next sufferers would be his 
 servants. On the 22nd March the Privy Council wrote to ask 
 the Lord Mayor why he restrained players so, and received no 
 satisfactory answer. 
 
 Determined that his servants should not have to submit to 
 such a restriction, within two months Leicester had got through 
 all its stages the first " Royal Patent " ever granted to players. 
 It is an item in general stage history. It not only raised the 
 craft of the vagabond into the profession of an artist, but through 
 its verbal construction it gave the Earl of Leicester's " ser- 
 vants " power (on paper) to act independently of the com- 
 monalty, and to defy all repressive authorities. It is hardly to 
 be wondered at that no other nobleman of the time seems to 
 have had the will, or the power, to secure a similar patent for 
 his " servants." Perhaps even Leicester saw that he had gone 
 too far. The Patent does not seem to have been much used, 
 except perhaps in the country. The copy in Rymer's " Fcedera ' ' 
 omits all reference to the Lord Mayor of London. Indeed, it 
 was a practical infringement of civic rights, and helped to 
 precipitate a crisis. 
 
 This is too important a document in the history of Bur- 
 bage 's Life, to be relegated altogether to the chapter on 
 " Authorities." 
 
 On 7th May, 1574, the Royal Patent x addressed to all 
 mayors, bailiffs, and officials, warned them to permit " to 
 James Burbage, John Perkyn, John Laneham, William John- 
 son, Robert Wylson and others, servants to our trustie and 
 well-beloved Cousin and Counsellor, the Earl of Leicester, to 
 
 1 See Ayscough's " Cat. of Sloane MS.," 4,625, f. 198. The original 
 Privy Seal is in the Chapter House at Westminster. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 13 
 
 use, exercise and occupie the art and facultie of playing Come- 
 dies, Tragedies, Interludes, Stage Plaies and such other, like as. 
 they have already used and studied, or hereafter shall use and 
 study, as well for the recreacion of our loving subjects as for our 
 solace and pleasure when we shall think good to see them . . . 
 together with their musick ... as well within our city of 
 London and the Liberties of the same, as also within the liber- 
 ties and freedoms of any other cytyes, towns, boroughes, etc., 
 whatsoever throughout our realm of England, willing and 
 commanding you and every of you, as ye tender our pleasure, to 
 permit and suffer them therein, without any your letts hind- 
 rance or molestation, any act, statute, proclamation, or 
 commandment heretofore made, or hereafter to be made to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. Provided that the same ... be 
 allowed by our Master of the Revels and that they be not pub- 
 lished or shewen in the time of Common Prayer, or in the time 
 of great and common plague in our said City of London." 
 
 On 22nd July, 1574, the Privy Council granted a licence * to 
 them to go to London and to be favourably used there, and a 
 letter was written to the Lord Mayor to that effect. 
 
 The battle between the Common Council and the Privy 
 Council raged all the more hotly after Leicester's servants 
 were "patented." The corporation were naturally exasperated 
 and did not tender the "Queen's pleasure " in regard to players. 
 
 They had some reasons, which must be respected. On the 
 6th December, 17 Eliz. 1574, they explained these in a pre- 
 amble to their " Order." 2 They considered the inordinate 
 haunting of plays prejudicial to peace, to industry, to health, 
 to morality, and to religion. They believed that it increased 
 poverty, the temptations to robbery, and the risk of accidents 
 and death by the falling of scaffolds. (This latter phrase is 
 noteworthy because the great Paris-Garden accident had not 
 happened by that time.) They determined therefore that no 
 player should perform without the Lord Mayor's licence and 
 
 1 Privy Council Register. 2 Lansd. MS. xx. 10. 
 
14 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 that they should give large shares of their profits to the poor. 
 This was not to extend to plays in private houses. 
 
 Either through submission to these orders or without, Bur- 
 bage's Company managed to have rehearsals that month and 
 to perform before the Queen twenty days later, on St. Stephen's 
 Day. They also opened the year of 1574-5 by playing at 
 Court on New Year's Day. 
 
 A good deal of confusion has been caused among writers on 
 this period, through the Lansdowne MSS. xx. 10, 11, 12, 13 
 having been, by some official hand in the past, dated " 1575." 
 Now these " Orders " are dated " 6th Dec, i7Eliz." Conse- 
 quently, they clearly should have been entered as 1574. The 
 others are undated, but may be dated roughly by careful study. 
 The petition of Her Majesties poor players must have been 
 later as they were not appointed until 1583. The letter of the 
 Lord Mayor, and the answer to the " player's articles," must 
 have been somewhat later still. 
 
 Two documents are missing from the series. The player's 
 " articles," and the second municipal " Order," both referred 
 to in those that have been preserved. The " articles " seem 
 to have been entirely lost, though their purport may be gleaned 
 from the reply preserved, which is evidently in 1584. But 
 the second " Order" which strayed, probably because it had 
 been printed, has been preserved elsewhere. This comes into a 
 totally different category from the others. 
 
 I notice that Mr. E. K. Chambers says that Mr. Ordish, and 
 consequently many others, are incorrect in stating that " the 
 Lord Mayor expelled all players from the city in 1575." Per- 
 haps the language is too strong and misleading, as applied to 
 players instead of plays. But its correctness depends on find- 
 ing with certainty the date of this " Order," which is not at all 
 certain as it stands. Mr. Chambers refers it to a time near to 
 the Player's " Petition. ' ' Several facts tell against that opinion. 
 In the first place the "Order" is printed in a municipal publica- 
 tion, called " Orders for the Relief of the Poor," and for setting 
 rogues and idle persons to work, printed by Hugh Singleton, 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 15 
 
 undated, where it is slipped quietly into article number 62. 
 In the answer to the player's petition, the Lord Mayor says he 
 encloses "two acts of Common Council," the first was made in 
 " 17 Eliz., tempore Hawes," " Afterwards, when these Orders 
 were not observed," "in an act of Common Council for relefe 
 of the poore, which I send you here printed," in article 62 it is 
 enacted " there are no interludes allowed in London." These 
 words show this is the Order referred to. " Since that time, and 
 namely upon the ruine at Paris Garden sute was made to my 
 Lordes to banishe playes wholly in the -places adjoyning." 
 Now Paris Garden disaster took place on 13th January, 1582-3 
 and the " Order " must have been made at least before that 
 date. It is not referred to in " Remembrancia," which begins 
 in 1580. 
 
 We may therefore look into the Order itself, and we find 
 there is no allusion to the Paris Garden disaster or even to the 
 earthquake of 1580, and the causes given for inhibition are 
 the danger of infection of plague, immorality, withdrawal 
 from Church Service, waste of time and money. 
 
 There is no allusion to " disturbances," no suggestions of 
 the existence of " the Theatre " and " the Curtain," and there- 
 fore I think it is most naturally dated at the end of 1575, or 
 the beginning of 1576, that is in the time of the Lord Mayor 
 who succeeded " Hawes." The Corporation felt that their 
 Orders of 1574 had been too long to be read or attended to ; 
 now they formulated an Order, short and definite, which, once 
 read, could not be forgotten. Its importance to the subject 
 in hand makes it worth printing in extenso here, all the more 
 so as there is some difficulty experienced by students in finding 
 it, not being classified in relation to Players or the Stage. 
 
 " Order for relief of the Poor 
 
 Containing 
 
 " Orders for setting Rogues and idle persons to work," Hugh 
 Singleton, (undated) B. M. 796, e. 37. 
 
 " Section 62. Forasmuch as the playing of Enterludes and 
 
16 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the resort to the same are very dangerous for the infection of 
 the plague, whereby infinite burdens and losses, to the cittie 
 may increase, and are very hurtfull in corruption of youth with 
 incontinence and lewdnesse, and also great wasting both of the 
 time and thrift of many poore people, and great provoking of 
 the wrath of God, the ground of all plagues, great withdrawing 
 of the people from publique prayer, and from the service of 
 God ; and daily cryed out against by the grave and earnest 
 admonitions of the preachers of the Word of God : Therefore 
 be it ordered that all such Enterludes in publique places, and 
 the resort to the same, shall wholly be prohibited as ungodly, 
 and humble sute be made to the Lords that lyke prohibition 
 be in places near unto the Cittie." 
 
 It was necessary to complete the discussion of the date of 
 this Order, and the facts gleaned from the LansdowneMS. xx., 
 as it is very important in Burbage's life, whether it was drawn 
 up in 1575 or 1576, or at a much later date. I am in favour of 
 accepting the earlier date. 
 
 The Earl of Leicester's servants the players were certain to 
 have been employed during the summer of 1575 at Kenilworth, 
 where their master received the Queen with the most magnifi- 
 cent festivities known in our history. Doubtless they worked 
 at part of the great device of Master William Hunnis there 
 called " The Lady of the Lake," 1 and were in readiness to per- 
 form that other unfortunate device of the Goddesses by George 
 Gascoigne 2 which was three times postponed because of the 
 weather, and never came to hearing. The wonderful time is 
 best described in a letter by Robert Laneham, 3 keeper of the 
 Council Chamber door, probably a brother of John Laneham, 
 one of Leicester's player-servants, and " fellow " of Burbage. 
 
 It is not too much to believe it possible that the eldest son of 
 Master John Shakespeare, late Bailiff of Stratford-on-Avon, 
 
 1 See my " William Hunnis and the Revels of the Chapel Royal." 
 
 2 " The Princely Pleasures of Kenilworth," by George Gascoigne. 
 s " Laneham's Letter," edited by Dr. Furnivall, New Shakespeare 
 
 Society. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 17 
 
 should have been present, as Leicester sought popularity and 
 co-operation from neighbouring corporations. And there is 
 much to support the belief in the possibility to be found in a 
 careful study of " The Midsummer's Night's Dream," with 
 these other authorities. 
 
 One can well imagine Laneham and Shakespeare spoke of 
 the same scene, Laneham in the fresh enthusiasm of a late 
 experience, describing Arion on the Dolphin's back and the 
 delectable music " in the evening of the day resounding from 
 the calm waters " . . . " the hole armony conveyed in tyme 
 tune and temper thus incomparably melodious " . . . " with 
 what lyvely delighte this might pearse into the heerers harts, 
 I pray ye imagine," and Shakespeare, feeling through the lapse 
 of years the first great stimulant of his youthful imagination, 
 the music on the waters. It was Oberon himself who spake 
 
 Once I sat upon a promontory . . . 
 And heard a Mearemaid on a Dolphin's back 
 Uttering such dulcet and harmonious breath 
 That the rude sea grewe civil at her song 
 And certain starres shot madly from their spheres 
 To heare the sea-maid's music." — (M.N.D. II. 2). 
 
 And July is a time for shooting stars to start. 
 
 When they had once more returned to the City after the 
 notable " Progress," they again played before the Queen at 
 Court on Innocents' Day, 1575, and again on the Sunday before 
 Shrove-tide, following. For the first time they were fully de- 
 scribed in their Warrants for payment as " Burbage and his com- 
 pany, Servants to the Earl of Leicester," as may be seen in the 
 " Privy Council Register," and the " Declared Accounts of the 
 Treasurer of the Chamber." But they could not hope to live 
 on a Christmas Box even twice a year, and the Kenilworth 
 festivities were not events to be expected every year. 
 
 James Burbage must have been making up his mind by this 
 time that he needed some more regular sphere of work. If the 
 second Order of Common Council was drawn up at this period, it 
 might act as the illuminating cause of decision ; if it was not, 
 
 C 
 
18 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 then he must have had some prevision of its approaching publi- 
 cation. We do not know anything of the places in which he 
 had resided before this, but we know from the Registers of St. 
 Leonard's, Shoreditch, that by this time he had shaken off the 
 dust of London from his feet and removed from the unappreciat- 
 ing City to the Northern Liberty of Shoreditch just outside 
 the walls of Finsbury Fields and the City's jurisdiction. We 
 know he was a married man, married probably in the adjoining 
 parish of Whitechapel to Ellen Brayne, 1 daughter of a deceased 
 Mr. Brayne, and sister of John Brayne, citizen and grocer of Lon- 
 don. They had had at least two sons by this time, Cuthbert and 
 Richard, at dates not yet discovered, and had settled in Holy- 
 well Street early in 1576, probably a short time before that. 
 There a daughter Alice was born to them on nth March, 1575- 
 6. It is interesting to note from the same Registers that many 
 other players must have gone to live there about the same time ; 
 musicians too, among them the Queen's musicians the distin- 
 guished brothers Bassano. It is not clear whether his exodus 
 to the Northern Liberty had been planned for the purpose, or if 
 the purpose took shape after he found himself there. But it 
 is quite clear that the signs of the times spoke to him of his great 
 Idea as clearly as did the Brazen Head " Time is ! " And he 
 rose at once to the first call. 
 
 With all James Burbage's advantages he suffered from one 
 disadvantage, common to many inventors and pioneers, the 
 lack of money. Without that his great Idea could not become 
 materialized. 
 
 He knew he would be forced to borrow at the high rate of 
 interest then legal, and I think he began at first to borrow from 
 John Hyde, citizen of London, who became so mysteriously 
 connected with his enterprise in later years. 
 
 It is probable he also discussed his plans with others, especi- 
 ally with his wife's brother, John Braynes, but they do not 
 seem to have come to an early agreement. 
 
 1 I have just noted that Brayne is a name in Stratford-on-Avon about 
 the same time as John Burbage, but I do not wish to build on this fact. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 19 
 
 About a month after his daughter's birth, on 13th April, 
 1576, he signed and sealed his half of the Indenture of Lease he 
 had secured of an extensive tract of land formerly part of the 
 old Priory of Holywell, lying between the property then held 
 by a long lease from the Crown by the Earl of Rutland, and the 
 brick wall which bounded Finsbury Fields. 1 These fields were 
 in reality the City's " Common " where children went forth 
 to play, maidservants to dry linen ; men to practise archery ' 
 apprentices to amuse themselves by the games of the time, and 
 lovers to go a-courting. The old Priory grounds belonged to 
 Master Giles Alleyn, who signed the other half of the Indenture 
 and thereby came into the whole future life of James Burbage, 
 and much of that of his sons. But at first it was all sunshine and 
 plain sailing. Giles Alleyn signed the lease, knowing perfectly well 
 the use to which that land was to be put, knowing also how 
 much the Corporation would object to that use. But he also 
 knew that James Burbage was a favoured " servant " of the 
 powerful Earl, whom it was not quite prudent to ruffle just 
 then. Besides, he had just secured for his company that 
 magnificent brand-new " Royal Patent," which gave them 
 such large liberty. 
 
 The agreement seemed very reasonable, indeed, on the face 
 of it, liberal. The rent was to be only £14 a year, with £20 
 down by way of a fine. The owner would not give a longer 
 lease than twenty-one years at first, but was willing that at 
 the end of the first ten years it might be extended for another 
 ten years, if both parties agreed. The conditions on the land- 
 lord's side were, that James Burbage before the end of that 
 term of ten years should have expended on the rebuilding or 
 restoration of some tenements on the property at least £200, 
 and that he should pay the legal expenses of drawing up this 
 second agreement. 
 
 It is more than probable that James Burbage was in posses- 
 sion of the property some time before the final Indenture was 
 signed, as was the custom then. Indeed, his lease was reckoned 
 
 1 See p. 33 . 
 
20 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 from 25th March, quarter-day, and may have begun even earlier. 
 Before he had secured the land he had planned what to do with 
 it. As the lease shows, there were included cottages, barns, 
 gardens, a well, sewers, a pond, and apiece of " void ground." 
 There was also an inn on the estate, the George Inn, which comes 
 into the history afterwards, and may be the very one that 
 suggested Shakespeare's words about 
 
 " St. George that swinged the Dragon and e'er since 
 Sits on his horse-back at mine hostess' door." 
 
 But the Mayor's Proclamations had forbidden players to play 
 in the city, in inn-yards, he had also forbidden them to play 
 in open spaces. So James Burbage, while seeming to obey in 
 every point to the letter, struck out a new form of liberty in the 
 spirit by building a house for himself. He was his own archi- 
 tect and builder and put into his building all his experience, 
 tastes, desires and hopes. His old inn-yards gave him sugges- 
 tions as to enclosures and galleries, but he did not follow them 
 in shape, making his building round ; the carefully prepared 
 halls and chambers in royal and noble houses where he had 
 been allowed to perform, gave him the recognition of the 
 attractiveness of decoration, the ominous warnings of the Orders 
 of 1574 made him see to it that his stages and galleries were made 
 of seasoned wood, of solid proportions, soundly fixed. He 
 made his building also of wood (the material of which he knew 
 most) supported by brick at the foundations. Doubtless he 
 secured some of the boards and pillars frequently sent prepared 
 from the country to some of the river wharfs, as Peter Street 
 afterwards spoke of doing, and I am certain he rushed it up in 
 a very much shorter space of time than is generally estimated. 
 Men were not bound to work only eight hours a day then. He 
 was able to do so much himself, and he had many to encourage 
 and help. All the company, idle at that season, would be only 
 too eager to help him, at least with the lighter jobs, to get the 
 place ready the sooner for their plays. I believe that he would 
 be able to complete all that was necessary to do at first, within 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 21 
 
 a month ; and it would be sure to cost as little as possible. 
 
 But, careful as he was, he found it was costing more than he 
 had^anticipated, more than he had. It seemed fortunate for 
 him at the time (though it turned out differently afterwards) 
 that his fervours had infected his wife's brother, John Brayne,, 
 a comparatively rich man, who had a wife but no children, 
 and who had always, therefore, spoken of the young Burbages 
 as his heirs. He became willing to invest in Burbage's 
 venture half the outlay, so that he also shared the profits. 
 
 Burbage called his building by a new name, The Theatre, 
 a pioneer in that also, for its particular name became the general 
 name of all its successors. 
 
 The building was its own advertisement. From the play- 
 grounds of Finsbury Fields it could be watched as it rose, 
 curiosity and eager anticipation would certainly fill many 
 hearts there. As it approached completion, it could be seen 
 even from the Bankside (where afterwards it was to be trans- 
 ported) ; when its flag flew, the Lords of the Privy Council at 
 Whitehall might see that the play was about to begin. 
 
 When it was ready, probably in that very April, 1576, we 
 may be sure that it would fill only too rapidly. Extra crowds 
 would go from curiosity, willing to pay if only to see the house, 
 even larger crowds of the impecunious people hoping for chance 
 access, as they formerly had had occasionally in inn-yards, 
 and always in " open spaces." But for the first time there was a 
 check at the door, no admission to the house without payment, 
 no waiting for a collection afterwards. Turmoils would be sure 
 to ensue, the impecunious unwilling to leave, the fee-provided 
 eager to pass through. When they struggled through, what 
 did they see ? They found themselves in an enclosed central 
 space, which we now call " the pit," but without seats, and 
 without a roof. When they looked above, they saw the sky 
 and faced the elements. When they looked in front, they saw 
 an open stage crossing one end of the circle, at the back of it 
 were doors and curtains, above it a Player's House, which was 
 to represent a balcony, a tower, a steeple, a bridge, a prison, or 
 
22 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 anything chat required a higher level than the stage. If they 
 looked round they would see galleries, as they had been wont 
 to see in inn-yards, but much more gorgeously draped than they; 
 seats were there also, of varying degrees of comfort ; from the 
 ordinary gallery, to the " Lord's Rooms." And over all the 
 galleries as over the stage was a thatched roof, with projecting 
 eaves. If the first comers had a suspicion of the probable 
 coming of rain, they would probably make a rush for the gal- 
 leries. But here they would have to pay anew, according to 
 the degree of the gallery. If they could not, or would not pay 
 further, they would stay where they were, on the ground floor, 
 the first samples of those who were afterwards caUed " ground- 
 lings," somewhat protected from the wind, little protected from 
 the rain, and not at all protected from their neighbours, amid 
 crowds who surged in until all were wedged together beyond 
 hope of comfort, the good-humoured ones cracking nuts, the 
 ill-conditioned picking quarrels with each other. It would 
 seem so long to wait, however short it was, and when the 
 drum beat and the gorgeously dressed actors entered, a sudden 
 stillness would fall on the multitude eager to hear. 
 
 One would like to know what was Burbage's first play, per- 
 formed at the Theatre ? Was it the play he had performed 
 before the Queen the Sunday before Shrove-tide, or was it an 
 older one ? Was it one of those he had helped to brighten at 
 Bristol or Gloucester, or other places to which he had travelled ? 
 Was it a play specially compiled for this great occasion of 
 founding the British Stage, or was it, amid the hubbub of the 
 disappointed men outside, merely for the occasion " feats of 
 activity." 1 We know not, but we do know that it must have 
 been some of these, and that its performance only whetted the 
 appetite of the audience and sight-seers for more. " The 
 
 1 I only know the names of a few that belonged then to Leicester's 
 Company, " Chariclea," " Predor and Lucia," "Mamillia,'' "Philemon 
 and Philecia," " Panecia," and they might have been preparing the 
 "History of the Collier " for the following Christmas at Court. (Dec. 
 Ace, Treas. Chamb. and Off. Var. 1213.) 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 23 
 
 Theatre " leapt into fame and popularity at once. James 
 Burbage's dreams of the possibilities of his Idea had come true. 
 But immediately a cloud of troubles arose over his head, and 
 dimmed his bright prospects of paying off his debts with speed. 
 The first of his troubles was rivalry, the second was litigation, 
 the third was the frequent recurrence of the plague, and the 
 fourth the ever constant disturbances among those coming or 
 going to " the Theatre " or surrounding it, that is, among those 
 outside of his personal responsibility. We hear no story of 
 disturbances within the theatre. James Burbage could manage 
 them there himself. It was outside the Theatre that troubles 
 arose. 
 
 His first rival was, like its name, a veiled one. We know 
 nothing of its foundation, its owner, and little of its career. 
 It " rose like an exhalation," and though often a threatened 
 life, it managed to live longer than any other playhouse and 
 escaped the litigation that nearly ruined James Burbage. The 
 only good these old lawsuits ever did to any one, they have done 
 to us — they have preserved the story of the pioneer who 
 breasted the first difficulties, and made the path easy, and the 
 fortunate founder of the Curtain is forgotten. Only one thing 
 we do know of it is, that it stood very near " The Theatre," 
 in the same Liberty, in the same Parish, on another part of the 
 same old Holywell Priory ; on the grounds of the Prioress's 
 wing indeed. And it is not a little curious that Maurice Long, 
 citizen and Clothworker of London, who had bought for £60 
 " All that House, Tenement or Lodge called theCurteyne, and 
 the parcel of ground close walled, called the Curteyn Close, 
 etc." had sold it for £200 on the 23rd Aug., 14 Eliz. 1571 to 
 Sir William Alleyn, then Lord Mayor of London. Whether the 
 negative peace of the Curtain Theatre was due to the fact that 
 it was built somehow on land belonging to Sir William Alleyn 
 is not certain, but the question may be considered yet. (See 
 Chancery Claus, 9 Eliz., f. 14, and the " Curtain Theatre," 
 Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1844, p. 29.) 
 
 One can realize all the jealousy kindled against James Bur- 
 
24 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 bage in the hearts of less successful men, all their machinations 
 and ruses ; all the righteous wrath of the preachers, all the 
 efforts of the Corporation to check and minimize what to them 
 seemed sources of danger to the common weal. We can 
 realize them because some information concerning these can be 
 found, scattered through old records. 
 
 The name of " The Theatre " first appears in the Privy 
 Council Register, for a letter was written by the Privy Council 
 to the Middlesex authorities on ist August, 1577, instructing 
 them, for fear of the plague, to " take order with such as use 
 to play without the Liberties ... as at the Theatre and such 
 like, to forbear playing tiU after Michaelmas." It is hardly to 
 be supposed they were allowed to play even then, because the 
 plague continued, as we may learn from " A sermon preached 
 at Pawles Crosse on Sunday, the thirde of November, 1577, 
 in the time of the Plague," by an uncertain " T. W." This 
 has been translated by some into Thomas White, by others into 
 Thomas Wilcox. It was printed in 1578-9. A second copy is 
 preserved in the British Museum, with a different title page 
 affixed, dated 9th December, 1596, but at the end there is the 
 same date as the above, " 1578." It is not however a dupli- 
 cate, as stated in the B. M. Catalogue. Sign. A at feast has 
 been reprinted and much altered. It has been bound up by 
 some previous owner with a sermon preached by T. White, 
 and hence the usual ascription, which is however unsup- 
 ported by any evidence. (See Harrison's " England," ed. 
 FurnivaU, 4th vol., p. 343.) 
 
 This sermon is very severe upon the sins of the people, 
 which, the preacher thought, had brought down God's wrath 
 on them in the Plague. " Look but uppon the Common 
 Playes in London and see the multitude that flocketh to them, 
 and followeth them ; beholde the sumptuous Theatre houses 
 a continual monument of London's prodigalitie and folly. 
 But I understand they are now forbidden, because of the 
 Plague. I like the policye well, if it holde still, for a disease is 
 but bodged or patched up that is not cured in the cause ; and 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 25 
 
 the cause of the plague is sinne, if you looke to it well ; and 
 the cause of sinne are plays ; therefore the cause of plagues 
 are playes." The preacher supported this logical inference 
 and went on, " Wherefore if thou be a father thou losest thy 
 child, if thou be a maister, thou losest thy servaunt ; and if 
 thou be what thou canst be, thou losest thyself that hauntest 
 those schooles of vice, dennes of theeves, and Theatres of all 
 lewdnesse ; and if it be not suppressed in time, it will make 
 such a Tragedie, that all London may well mourne whyle it is 
 London, for it is no playing-time." It is difficult to harmonize 
 these severe charges with the accounts that have come down 
 to us of Burbage's work. It is more than probable the preacher 
 had never visited the Play-house, and formed his opinion from 
 garbled accounts. One cause of the Corporation's practical 
 objections was the bringing together of so many crowds, some 
 of them recovering from, others sickening for the plague, and 
 the enormously increased danger of the rapid spread of infec- 
 tion. But that danger, at least, would be common to assem- 
 blages in churches, or at St. Paul's Cross. Yet apparently 
 the crowding was not so serious at the sermons as at the plays. 
 The month after T. W.'s sermon, on 2nd December, 1577, 
 John Nbrthbrook entered at Stationer's Hall, his " book 
 against Dicing, Dauncing, Vain Plays or Enterludes." He too 
 refers to " The Theatre " and adds the " Curtain." Youth 
 asks him, " Doe you speake against those places which are 
 made uppe and builded for such playes and enterludes as The 
 Theatre and Curtaine is, and other such like places besides ? " 
 Age replies, " Yea, truly, for I am persuaded that Satan hath 
 not a more speedie way and fitter schoole . . . than those 
 places and playes and theatres are." The Earl of Leicester's 
 players played at Court that Christmas, showing that they and 
 their plays were appreciated there. 1 
 
 Again on 17th April, 1578, the Privy Council instructed the 
 Middlesex authorities to restrain players till after Michaelmas 
 because of the plague. (See Privy Council Register.) 
 1 Pipe Office, Dec, Ace, Treas. Chamb. 541. 
 
26 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 John Stockwood preached a sermon at St. Paul's that year, 
 and is also severe upon the players. He printed his sermon the 
 same year, and dedicated it to the Worshipful Company of 
 Skinners. "A sermon preached at Paules Crosse on Bartholo- 
 mew Day, being the 24th of August, 1578, by John Stockwood, 
 Scholemaister of Tonbridge." 
 
 At page 23 he commences the charge : " More resorte to 
 playes than to sermons." " Wyll notafilthye playe, with the 
 blast of a Trumpette, sooner call thyther a thousand, than an 
 hour's tolling of a Bell bring to the Sermon a hundred ? Nay, 
 even here in the Citie, without it be at this place, and some 
 other certaine ordinarie audience, where shall you finde a reason- 
 able company ? Whereas if you resorte to the Theatre, the 
 Curtayne, and other places of playes in the Citie, you shall on 
 the Lorde's daye have those places, with many other that I 
 can not reckon, as full as possibly they can throng." 
 
 Stockwood comes back to the Theatres on page 135, which he 
 censures along with other " divelish inventions, as Lords of 
 Misserule, Morris Dances, Maygames," etc. " What should I 
 speake of beastly playes againste which out of this place every 
 man crieth out ? Have we not houses of purpose built with 
 great charges for the maintenance of them, and that without the 
 Liberties, as who woulde say, ' there let them saye what they will 
 saye, we wil play ! ' 1 I know not how I might with the godly 
 learned especially more discommende the gorgeous Playing place 
 erected in the Fieldes, than to terme it, as they please to have 
 it called, a Theatre, that is, even after the manner of the old 
 Theatre at Rome, a show place of al beastlie and filthy mat- 
 ters. . . . I will not here enter into the disputation whether 
 it be utterly unlawful! to have any playes, but will onely joyne 
 in this issue, whether in a Christian Common-wealth they be 
 tolerable on the Lord's Day, when ye people should be exer- 
 cised in hearing the word. ... If playing in the Theatre or 
 any other place in London, as there are by sixe that I know, 
 
 1 This is one of the phrases which suggest that the Corporation Order 
 had been passed by this time. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 37 
 
 be any of the Lordes wayes . . . then, not only it may, but 
 ought to be used ... I speak not howe little pollicie it is to 
 suffer so much mony to be so ill spente, which might be em- 
 ployed to better uses. For reckoning with the leaste, the gaine 
 that is reaped of eighte ordinarie places in the Citie which I 
 knowe, by playing but once a weeke (wheras many times they 
 play twice and sometimes thrice) it amounteth to £2,000 by 
 the yeare, the suffering of which waste must one daye be 
 answered before God." 
 
 At page 147, he also inveighs against the " reding of filthie 
 books " as the " Amadis of Gaul," 1 the " great Pallace and the 
 little Pallace of Pleasure, with a number moe of such filthie 
 books." 
 
 Now it is true that the plays prepared for performance at 
 that time were not always perfect in tone and taste ; nor were 
 the novels on which they were based. But Burbage (as the 
 Master of the Revels did) " chose the best that were to be had," 
 and later notices show that his actors even were " free from 
 scurrility." 
 
 The complaint of the waste of time is genuine. Far more 
 people at the close of the sixteenth century attended the 
 theatres in proportion to the population than now do. They 
 had no other excitements, no newspapers, picture galleries, 
 lectures, concerts, and few games that were not also disap- 
 proved of. And the plays were performed in the afternoons, 
 that is, in business hours, so that, between the going to the 
 Fields to hear a play, the waiting there, the play itself, and the 
 return home, probably delayed by a supper at the inn, havoc 
 would be played in the day's work, especially among the appren- 
 tices. We must not forget that the psychology of the time 
 did not recognize the needs of relaxation to all, and of amuse- 
 ments for the young. 
 
 1 Thomas Payne's translation of " Amadis of Gaul " published 1567. 
 William Paynter's "Palace of -Pleasure," published ist vol. in 1566, 
 22nd volume in 1567. George Pettie's " A petite pallace of Pettie 
 his pleasure " in 1576. 
 
28 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 " All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy," was a 
 proverb not understood in its full bearing. So that many 
 more amusements which seem to us quite innocent, were also 
 anathematized by the voluntary Censors of the times, such as 
 football and other games. The preachers certainly had an 
 effect upon the Corporation, who always went officially to hear 
 them at Paul's Cross. 
 
 This latter ser^eon, printed also in 1578, gives us some inter- 
 esting points of information. The defiant phrase, attributed 
 to the Theatre out in the Fields, " as who would say there, 
 let them saye what they will saye, we will playe," is curiously 
 illustrative of Burbage's attitude to those who sought to hinder 
 him. The fact that Stockwood knew at that date, of six or 
 eight playing places in the city shows that other companies 
 of players, supported by the populace, had ignored municipal 
 orders, as later correspondence proves. It also gives some 
 notion of the estimate formed by the outside world of the 
 players' earnings. Of course the sum of £2,000 a year must 
 have included the whole of the six or eight companies, and even 
 that, for the time, was probably a sum much above the reality. 
 The deductions for expenses, and for seasons of " sickness," as 
 the plague was then generally called, were probably not made 
 at all, and the best days reckoned as an " average day." 
 
 Such sermons could not have had a beneficial effect, either 
 on Burbage's business or himself. 
 
 In this year 1578 another and entirely unexpected trouble 
 touched him, which did not entirely leave him all his life. His 
 brother-in-law, probably under the influence of his wife, began 
 to refuse to contribute to the expenses, though he still expected 
 a share in the profits of the common concern. Of course, the 
 whole of his original share had been spent in the building, as 
 well as James Burbage's, and working expenses were neces- 
 sary. So bitter had the discussion on the subject become that 
 they had to seek arbitrators, who found in favour of Burbage, 
 and caused Braynes to be bound to him in a bond of £200, that 
 he would pay his share of the expenses, or forfeit the bond, 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 29 
 
 which was to be increased under some condition which I have 
 not been able to clear. Possibly Braynes at first, stimulated 
 by the decision, obeyed the finding of the arbitrators, having 
 hope in the repaying powers of the concern, but evidently it 
 was not for long. 
 
 In spite of the sermons *• the Earl of Leicester's players had 
 a licence to play in the City, on 24th December, 1578, because 
 they were going to perform before the Queen on St. Stephen's 
 Day. This they did, but on the Shrove Tuesday following 
 they were paid in full for coming, though a play, by her Majes- 
 ty's command, was supplied by others. This would rather 
 seem to have arisen from a Royal tiff with Leicester than from 
 any attempt to pacify the preachers. Promptness, gorgeous- 
 ness and success could not be attained without money. 
 
 For some mysterious reason Burbage, that year, on 17th Sep- 
 tember, 1579, mortgaged the " Theatre " to one John Hyde, 
 grocer. It is probable that he found the heavy rates of interest 
 too much for him, through such long continuance of plague, 
 and the withdrawal of Braynes' contributions to expenses, or 
 it may have been to protect the building from the claims of 
 Braynes and other creditors, trusting to the one in preference 
 to whom he owed most. 
 
 Of course Burbage remained ostensible owner and manager, 
 and it is probable that the mortgage at the time was kept pri- 
 vate, except to those concerned and their attorneys. But it 
 was a step which caused much misunderstanding afterwards, 
 and gave a handle to his enemies against him for years. 
 
 Against the dangers of debt and public and private inter- 
 ference, Burbage still bravely fought, and the cessation of the 
 plague gave him new courage. But the very return of liberty 
 excited the people to more eager desire for the amusement 
 they had so much appreciated, and from which they had been 
 
 1 " Newes from the North," 1579, says, " The Theaters, Courtaines . . . 
 where the time is so shamefully misspent, namely the Sabaoth days 
 unto the great dishonour of God, and the corruption and utter destruc- 
 tion of youth." 
 
30 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE STAGE 
 
 so long restrained. Greater crowds than ever hurried through 
 the fields to Holywell, and disturbances arose. His popularity 
 was made the grounds for a summons to appear before the 
 Middlesex authorities, as '* John Braynes, yeoman, of Shore- 
 ditch, and James Burbage, yeoman, of the same parish, to 
 come before the Middlesex Assizes at Clerkenwell Sessions 
 on 21st February 22 Eliz., 1579-80." x The charge for- 
 mulated against them was curiously worded, " for bringing 
 together unlawful assemblies to hear and to see certain 
 colloquies or interludes called playes or interludes, exercised 
 and practised by the same John Braynes and James Burbage, 
 and divers other persons unknown, at a certain place called the 
 Theatre at Holywell in the county of Middlesex, by reason of 
 which great affrays, assaults, tumults, and quasi-insurrections 
 and divers other enormities . . . were perpetrated to the 
 danger of the lives of divers good subjects . . . against the 
 form of the Statute," etc. This was found preserved among 
 the Middlesex County Records of the reign of James I by Mr. 
 Cordy Jeaffreson, and translated by him out of the original 
 crabbed legal Latin into English. This teaches us many things. 
 It shows that John Braynes though entered in no list of the 
 Earl of Leicester's players, or any other company, was per- 
 forming at least on this occasion. It hardly supports Mr. 
 Jeaffreson's contention that he must have been the chief 
 player, and the proprietor of the Theatre. Braynes might 
 very well have been placed first as being the elder man, appar- 
 ently the richer of the two, and a freeman of the proud Company 
 of the Mystery of Grocers, or the two might have agreed to 
 put Braynes forward as the chief, so as to bear the examina- 
 tion with more innocent demeanour, while Burbage was look- 
 ing after his plays, his house, his rehearsals and his audience. 
 Braynes was a business man, quite able to face an attorney and 
 a magistrate, but he was certain to play second fiddle at the 
 Theatre. No record of any decision is preserved. It is prob- 
 able that they were bound over to keep the peace, and dismissed, 
 1 Middlesex County Records, vol. ii, xlvii, by Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 31 
 
 but there would certainly be some expenses, and a good many 
 extra " gratifications." One would like to know what was 
 the " Statute " referred to. Was it the municipal Order ? 
 God's " admonition " was the earthquake on 6th April, 1580. 
 Enemies read into it tokens of God's wrath against the Theatre. 
 Ballads were written, and good advice given l — 
 
 " Comme from the Plaie, 
 The House will fall so people saye, 
 The earth quakes, lett us hast awaye." 
 
 Munday says only, " At the play-houses, the people ran forth 
 supprised with great astonishment," but Stubbes says that 
 many were " sore crushed and bruised," possibly from a panic 
 at the exit. But we have no record of any damage done at the 
 Theatre beyond a " crack." Burbage the Joiner had done good 
 work in its building, and not a stage or gallery fell, not even a 
 chimney-pot in Burbage's house in Holpwell Street, though 
 many chimneys fell in more respectable places. 2 The only 
 chimney that fell in Shoreditch was in Alderman Osborne's 
 house. 
 
 Immediately after the earthquake there were new troubles. 
 From the " Remembrancia " in Sir Nicholas Woodroffe's time 
 we learn that the Lord Mayor on 12th April, 1580, complained 
 to the Privy Council, and then stopped proceedings when he 
 heard that " the Lords " had already taken action. " Where 
 it happened on Sunday last that some great disorder was com- 
 mitted at the Theatre, I sent for the Undersheriff . . . and 
 for the Players to have appeared before me, the rather because 
 these playes doe make assemblies of citizens and of their 
 families, of whom I have control " ; but hearing that the 
 Lords were considering the matter he " surceased to pro- 
 ceed," only he thought it his duty to remind them " that the 
 players of playes which are used at the Theatre and other such 
 places . . . are a very superfluous sort of men, and of such 
 
 1 See Halliwell Phillipps' Outlines, note, " The Theatre and Curtain " 
 
 2 Stowe's " Chronicles," p. 686. 
 
32 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 facultie as the lawes have disallowed, and their exercise of those 
 playes is a great hindrance of the service of God, who hath with 
 His mightie hande so lately admonished us of our earnest 
 repentance." The end of this complaint is not preserved 
 here. 
 
 There were many Gossons in Shoreditch, and it is to be sup- 
 posed the scourge of the players was a native. He had been a 
 player and had written plays himself in his youth. He tells 
 us himself that one of them, " Catiline's Conspiracy," had been 
 performed at the Theatre. But he had learned to see the evils 
 associated with playing-houses then. On 22nd July, 1579, 
 had been licensed his "Schoole of Abuse," a pleasant invective 
 against Poets, Pipers, Players, Jesters and such like Caterpillars 
 of the Commonwealth," and it would be in every man's hands 
 early in 1580. It had a personal interest in being dedicated to 
 Sir Philip Sidney, without permission asked or accorded, and it 
 was soon publicly known that Sir Philip had been displeased 1 
 with the dedication. Gosson also wrote in 1580 a " second 
 and third blast of retreat from plays and Theatres," and 2 
 
 "A ringing retreat couragiously sounded 
 Wherein plays and players are fitly confounded." 
 
 Thomas Lodge answered him effectively in his defence of 
 " Poetry, Music and Stage plays," but his pamphlet was sup- 
 pressed by authority. It is to be believed that Sir Philip 
 Sidney himself meant a dignified reply in his " Apologie for 
 Poetry." Thomas Lodge returned to the defence later, in his 
 " Alarum against Usurers," dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney 
 himself, while Gosson tried a dedication to Walsingham, Sir 
 
 1 Spenser writing to Gabriel Harvey, 16th Oct., 1579, says that 
 Gosson " was for his labour scorned " as far as so gentle a spirit could 
 show scorn. 
 
 2 Stat. Reg., 1 8th Oct., 1580. Lycensed unto Henrie Denham under 
 the Warden's hands a seconde and a thirde blaste of retrait from 
 playes and Theaters vi« ; " 10th Nov., 1580, Allowed a ringing retraite 
 couragiouslie sounded wherein Plaies and Players are fytly confounded 
 to Edward White iv d ." 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 33 
 
 Philip's father-in-law. " The Play of Playes " was acted by 
 Lord Leicester's players at the Court and at the Theatre against 
 Gosson's attacks. The paper war went on for some years. 
 
 Five weeks after the earthquake, the plague recommenced, 
 and doubtless it was again read as a sign of the wrath of God 
 against the playhouse. On 13th May, 1580, an order of the 
 Privy Council was issued to forbid all plays in and about the 
 city till Michaelmas next. 
 
 Poor Burbage, five months' forced " unemployment " with 
 his rent, the interest of his loans running on, his creditors clam- 
 ouring, his company worrying him for advances, and his house- 
 keeper asking him for daily bread. His was the fate of Tanta- 
 lus, for the golden stream was ever at his lips. If only he could 
 be let alone to supply the eager demand of the people, his outlay 
 would return to him an income sufficient to pay all his debts 
 and be a free man. Minor battles he might fight, but a Privy 
 Council Interdict and a threatening plague were too much even 
 for a stage manager of his calibre. 
 
 It is possible he went on tour. But he played at 
 Court that Christmas as usual. A new and entirely un- 
 expected set of troubles commenced for James Burbage in 
 1581, through, though not by his landlord. To understand 
 this, as it has been mentioned by no historian of the Stage 
 (see p. 52), we must go back to the past history of Holy- 
 well Priory. The Priory had been granted to Henry Webbe, 
 gentleman porter of the Tower, who had only one daughter 
 and heir, Susan. Sir Edmund Peckham had arranged with 
 him for a marriage between his son George, afterwards Sir 
 George Peckham, and Susan. Webbe settled the Priory upon 
 his daughter and her heirs, failing whom upon George and his 
 heirs. But there were certain conditions, that George should 
 marry her willingly, and should do so before a certain date. 
 Having arranged everything, 28th February, 6 Ed. VI., as he 
 thought safely, Webbe died, and George Peckham married 
 Susan. In a very few months they sold the Priory to Christo- 
 pher Bumpstead, citizen of London, for £533 6s. 8d., and there 
 
34 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 was a fine levied in the Court of Common Pleas, in Michaelmas 
 Term, 2 and 3 Philip and Mary. Susan died December 1555, 
 leaving her son Edmund, one day old. Bumpstead sold the 
 place very shortly after for £600 to Christopher and Giles Alleyn. 
 When his father Christopher died, it came to Giles Alleyn as 
 survivor, and he had held it ever since. But in 1581 Edmund 
 Peckham, having grown to manhood, claimed it, saying that his 
 father Sir George had very unwillingly married Susan Webbe, 
 that he did not marry her at the date agreed on, and therefore 
 that the Priory ought to come to Susan and her heirs. His father 
 George Peckham had sold it without her will or signature ; 
 and she died shortly after, leaving him, Edmund, her heir, one 
 day old. He therefore, when he had come to his majority, had 
 considered the question and now claimed the property. He 
 had found a jury to agree with him, not understanding the 
 case, and his emissaries were prowling about, in James Bur- 
 bage's leasehold, trying to effect an " entrance," and gave him 
 no end of trouble and unnecessary irritation. This is fully 
 described afterwards in the Court of Wards and Liveries, for 
 Edmund Peckham having died, his son George, a minor, became 
 a Royal Ward, and the claim was revived again for his benefit, 
 with further discomfort and loss toBurbage. This is pointed 
 out still later in the litigation between Giles Alleyn and Cuth- 
 bert about the Theatre (see Note XIX). In 1581 Tilney had 
 a licence to take up men artificers, etc., for the Queen's 
 service ; and another to make players and play-writers come 
 before him to recite their plays and have them reformed. 
 
 On 10th July, 1581, the Privy Council wrote 1 to the Lord 
 Mayor, to allow no plays or interludes in the City or liberties, 
 till the end of September, unless the plague had disappeared. 
 To this he gladly assented, and on 13th July, 1581, 2 ordered 
 every alderman of the city to see that no plays or interludes 
 were shown in their wards. 
 
 On 14th November 3 the same year the Common Council 
 
 1 Privy Council Register of date. « Repertory 20, f. 152. 
 
 3 Journal 21, f. 1516. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 35 
 
 resolved that if any should presume to allow plays he should be 
 sent to prison. 
 
 The Lords of the Privy Council wrote, on the 18th of that 
 month, 1 to the Lord Mayor, that as the sickness had ceased they 
 required him forthwith to suffer the players to perform and to 
 use such plays as were ready in their usual places as they were 
 wont to do. 
 
 But the Lord Mayor paid no attention to this. He was not 
 going to countermand his own orders. Indeed, he proclaimed 
 a new restraint on his own account. But he was justified 
 by a return of the plague, and so the Lords of the Council held 
 their peace. Mr. E. K. Chambers seems to think that Hugh 
 Singleton's printed " Order " comes in here, because on nth 
 April, 1582, the Lords of the Council wrote the Lord Mayor 
 about the plague : " We have therefore thought good to pray 
 your Lordship to revoke your late inhibition against their 
 playing on holidays." 1 But the wording of that inhibition 
 has no relation to the terms in Hugh Singleton's order. 
 
 The falling of a stage at the Beare-baiting at Paris Garden 
 on 13th January, 1582-3, when several were killed and many 
 injured, had a great effect on people's minds, and it was taken 
 as another testimony of God's wrath against sight-seers. 
 Though James Burbage did not erect that frail woodwork, 
 and his own galleries stood firm, and though his plays gave 
 much more humane and intelligent spectacles than bear- 
 baiting he suffered for it all the same, as we may see later. 
 The murmurings against the plays in the Liberties increased. 
 
 In March 1582-3, the Queen, through Walsingham, took a 
 step fraught with serious consequences to many players. In 
 order to keep more control over them, and to keep pace with 
 her nobles, she resolved to have her own Royal Company of 
 Players. She had been accustomed through her officers to 
 take up singing children for her chapels. But she also had a 
 right to take up any workman or artificer she had need of. 
 Exercising that right, she took up, or selected, twelve men from 
 1 Privy Council Register of date. 
 
36 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the various companies then in existence to be her own servants, 
 and grooms of the Royal Chamber. We do not know the names 
 of the whole of them who were chosen, but we know that 
 Richard Tarleton and Robert Wilson were among them. 1 
 
 Of these Howes, in continuation of Stowe, writes (naming 
 Robert Wilson, " Thomas "), 1583, p. 697 : " Thomas Wilson for 
 quick delicate extemporall wit, and Richard Tarleton, for a 
 wondrous pleasant extemporall wit, he was the wonder of his 
 time." Richard Tarleton does not seem ever to have belonged 
 to Burbage's company, though he lived and died in Shoreditch. 
 The Curtain was his sphere when he played in that neigh- 
 bourhood. He made his will in 1588, and mentions William 
 Johnson his fellow. 
 
 James Burbage does not seem to have been " selected." 
 He must have been getting on in years by this time, and had 
 probably gone somewhat out of the " form and fashion of the 
 time." Besides, he was the only player of the time who had a 
 play-house of his own to tie him. 
 
 We know that John Laneham continued Leicester's man for 
 a time, for he was the leader of Leicester's reformed Company 
 who followed their lord abroad to the Low Countries. 
 
 This politic move of Walsingham led to far-reaching re- 
 arrangements. I hardly fall in with all Mr. Fleay's kaleido- 
 scopic changes of " companies," at least for Burbage's men. 
 The Lord Mayor's letter of the following year gives a better 
 account of it, as changes of individual members of companies. 
 To this date I refer the association of James Burbage with Lord 
 Hunsdon, which continued till the end of his life. 
 
 One of the changes of this year has never been noted by any 
 
 1 Mr. Hunter finds a list in the Early Lay Subsidies, 1588, which 
 he gives in his " Collections," p. 354. Richard Tarleton, John 
 Laneham, William Johnson, John Towne, John Adams, John Garland, 
 John Dutton, John Singer, Lyonell Cooke, and Davy Duboys. Add. 
 MSS. 24,497, p. 59. From orig. in Excheq. Lay Sub., 69/97. This 
 suggests that they were salaried servants, successors of the old Royal 
 Interlude Players. Richard Tarleton had by this time offended the 
 Queen by a satire on Sir Walter Raleigh, and he died that year. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 37 
 
 writer on the Stage. Richard Burbage, James's second son, 
 began his career as an actor that year, as his brother Cuthbert 
 said of him later, he had had " 35 years paines." (See Lord 
 Chamberlain's accounts, L. v, 94, 95.) After 1583, therefore, 
 we may begin to look for Richard as a performer. 
 
 He might have been a chorister in some church or chapel, 
 he may have acted among the " Earl of Leicester's boys." 
 But we are sure that James Burbage poured into him all his 
 experience and skill, and made him the pride of his life. We 
 know the date of his beginning from Cuthbert Burbage's 
 pleadings in 1635, which have been too much neglected in the 
 history of the Stage. He began early, it is certain, to fill up 
 some of the vacancies made in the various companies. He most 
 likely followed Robert Wilson in his career, as the description 
 of him and his acting reads more like Wilson's than any other's. 
 Richard was evidently handsome, charming in manners and 
 talented ; it is nearly certain that in his early days he would be 
 cast for the women's parts. But he rose almost at once to the 
 chief parts, in Tarleton's " Deadly Sins " even to doubled chief 
 parts, 1 and a long career of glory raised not only his own and his 
 father's name, but that of his whole company and his whole 
 profession through him. 
 
 James Burbage had evidently given his sons the best educa- 
 tion he could give them. Cuthbert, the elder, seemed to have 
 been trained as a lawyer and business manager. His name 
 appears in no records as an actor, he may not have been fitted 
 for the profession. But as proprietor and business manager 
 his interest would be sure occasionally to induce him to be a 
 sort of under-study, stop-gap, a " servitor " or an odd man in a 
 crowd when he was needed. He was the son of the provident 
 and worldly business side of James Burbage, as Richard was 
 evidently the son of his ideal side, inheriting his good looks, 
 charm and inspiration. 
 
 1 See the Dulwich MSS. xix. for a " Piatt of the second part of the 
 Seven Deadly Sins of Tarlton." Richard there plays both " King 
 Gorboduc " and " Tereus." 
 
38 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The "Anatomie of Abuses" by Philip Stubbes, ist May, 1583, 
 was dedicated to the Rt. Hon. Philip Earl of Arundel. In the 
 preface he says he does not dislike all plays, as they might give 
 a good example. But in the book itself he describes plays as 
 " invented by the Devil, practised by the Heathen Gentiles, 
 and dedicat to their false gods." The matter of both tragedy 
 and comedy is sin. " Theatres and Curtains are Venus 
 Pallaces. I beseech all players and founders of plaies and 
 enterludes, to leave off that cursed kind of life, and give them- 
 selves to honest exercise." 
 
 In spite of the Royal appointment, the Corporation in 1583 
 made a determined attempt " to thrust the players out of the 
 city, and to pull down all playhouses and dicing-houses in the 
 liberties." (D. N. B.) The Lord Mayor writing to Walsing- 
 ham on 3rd May of that year for powers to destroy the theatres 
 mentions among the dangers from stage plays at The Theatre 
 " the peril of ruins from so weak a building." But no refer- 
 ence then or afterwards suggests that any accident had at 
 any time befallen any part of James Burbage's good work. 
 
 The troubles came to a head in the following year, and the 
 story thereof gives a reason for believing that James Burbage 
 had chosen him another master 1 by this time. It is too inter- 
 esting and illustrative to miss, and I give Mr. Fleetwood's 
 " Report of Sundry Broiles in Whitsontide, 18th June, 1584" 
 (Lansd. MS. 41 art. 13). " Upon Sondaye my Lord sent two 
 Aldermen to the Queen's court for the suppressing and pulling 
 down the Theatre and Curtain. All the Lords agreed thereto 
 saving my Lord Chamberlen, 2 and Mr. Vice Chamberlen, but 
 we obteyned a letter to suppress them all, and upon the same 
 night I sent for the Queen's Players, and my Lord of Arundell 
 his Players, and they all wilhnglie obeyed the Lord's letters. 
 
 1 I have sometimes wondered if James Burbage had in any way be- 
 come affected by the Earl of Leicester's destruction of Edward Arden, 
 of Park Hall, Warwickshire, in 1583. 
 
 2 The office of Lord Chamberlain, both in patent and performance 
 changed frequently about this period. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 39 
 
 " The chief est of Her Highness' Players advised me to send 
 for the owner of the Theatre, who was a stubborn fellow, and to 
 bind hym. I dyd so, he sent me word that he was my Lord pf 
 Hunsdon's man, and that he would not come to me, but he 
 wold in the morning ride to my Lord. Then I sent the Under- 
 sheriff for him, and he brought hym to me, and on his coming 
 he scoutted me out very lustie, and in the end, I showed hym 
 my Lord his master's hand, and then he was more quiet, but 
 he die for it, he wold not be bound. And then I mynding to 
 send hym to prison, he made sute that he might be bownde to 
 appear in the Oier and determiner, the which is tomorrow, 
 where he said that he was sure the Court would not bynd him, 
 being a Counsellor's man. And so I have graunted his request, 
 and where he shal be sure to be bownd or else to do worse " 
 
 (ff. 35, 36). 
 
 So he must again have appeared at least a second time in 
 Court. We do not know the conclusion of this case. 
 
 Again, however, Burbage's " whole state of man " must 
 have been racked by fears and anxieties. Never before had all 
 the Lords gone against him and his house, but times were 
 changed. Nevertheless he must have had some faint hope 
 lingering in his breast, that something would turn up to save 
 him. Wherever or however that help came we know not, but 
 the Theatre was not then destroyed. And now we must con- 
 sider the Landsdowne MSS. 1 misdated as 1575. Do they fit in 
 here, in the late autumn of 1584 ? 
 
 Lansd. xx, 12. 
 " To the Right honorable the hordes of her Matte's Privie 
 Counsell. 
 
 " In most humble manner beseche your Lordships your 
 
 dutifull and daylie Orators the Queenes Maties poor Players. 
 
 " Whereas the tyme of our service draweth verie neere, so 
 
 that of necessitie wee must needes have exercise to enable us the 
 
 better for the same, and also for our better helpe and relief in 
 
 1 See p. 14. 
 
40 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 our poore lyvinge, the season of the yere beynge past to playe 
 att anye of the houses without the cittye of London, as in our 
 articles annexed to this our supplication maye more att large 
 appeere unto your Lordships. Our most humble peticion ys 
 that yt maye please your Lordships to vowchsaffe the readinge 
 of these few Articles and in tender consideracion of the matters 
 therein mentioned, contayninge the verie staye and good state 
 of our lyvinge to graunt unto us the confirmacion of the same 
 or of as manye or as much of them as shalbe to yor honors good 
 lykinge. And therewith all your Lordships favorable letters 
 unto the Lord Mayor London to permitt us to exercise within 
 the cittye according to the articles, and also that tlie said 
 letters maye contayne some order to the Justices of Middlesex 
 as in the same ys mentioned, wherbie as wee shall cease the 
 continewoll troublinge of yor Lordships for your often letteres 
 in the premisses, So shall wee daylie be bownden to praye for 
 the prosperous preservation of your Lordships in honor helthe 
 and happiness long to continew. 
 
 " Your Lordships most humblie bownden and 
 
 daylie Orators, 
 " her Majesties poor Players." 
 
 Their articles are lost, but the Mayor's reply gives a sugges- 
 tion of them. 
 
 Lans. MS. xx, n. 
 
 " It may please your good Lordship — 
 
 " The orders in London whereunto the players iref err them 
 are misconceaved, and may appeare by the two acts of Com- 
 mon Counsell which I send you with note directing to the place. 
 
 " The first of these actes of Common Counsell was made in 
 the Maioraltie of Hawes, 17 Regine, and sheweth a maner how 
 playeswere to be tolerated and used, althoughe it were rather 
 wished, that they were wholly discontinued for the causes 
 appearing in the preamble, which is for that reason somewhat 
 the longer. Where the players reporte the order to be that they 
 shold not play till after service time, the boke is otherwise, for 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 41 
 
 it is that they shal not onely not play in service time, but also 
 shal not receive any in service tyme to the same : for though 
 they did forbeare beginning to play till service were done, yet 
 all the time of service they did take in people, which was the 
 great mischefe in withdrawing the people from the service. 
 
 " Afterwards when these orders were not observed, and the 
 lewd matters of playes encreased, and in the haunt unto them, 
 were found many dangers, bothe for religion, state, honestie of 
 manners, unthriftinesse of the poore, and danger of infection, 
 etc., and the preachers daily cryeing against the Lord Maior 
 and his brethren, in an act of Common Counsel for relefe of 
 the poore which I send yowe printed, in the article 62 the last 
 leafe, is enacted, as there appeareth by which there are no 
 enterludes allowed in London in open spectacle, but in private 
 houses onely, at marriages or such like, which may suffise, 
 and sute is apoynted to be made that they may be likewise 
 banished in places adjoyning. 
 
 " Since that time and namely upon the ruins at Paris Garden 
 sute was made to my Lords to banishe playes wholly in the 
 places nere London, according to the said lawe, letters were 
 obtained from my Lords to banish them on the Sabbath day." 
 
 (This is evidently part of No. 13, following.) 
 Lans. MS. xx, 13. 
 {Answer, evidently incomplete, seems to follow No. xx.) 
 " Now touching their petition and articles, where they pre- 
 tend that they must have exercise to enable them in their 
 service before her Majestie. 
 
 " It is to be noted that it is not convenient that they present 
 before her Majestie such playes as have been before commonly 
 played in open stages before all the basest assemblages in Lon- 
 don and Middlesex, and therefore sufficient for their exercise 
 and more comely for the place that (as it is permitted by the 
 sayd lawes of Common Counsell) they make their exercise of 
 playing only in private houses. 
 
 "Also it lyeth within the dutiefull care of her Majestie's 
 
42 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Royal person, that they be not suffered, from playeing in the 
 throng of a multitude, and of some infected, to presse so nere 
 to the presence of her majestie. 
 
 " Where they pretend the mater of Stay of their lyving : 
 
 " It hath not been used nor thought meete heretofore, that 
 players have, or shold make their lyving on the art of playeing, 
 but men for their lyvinge using other honest and lawf ull artes, 
 or reteyned in honest services have by companies learned some 
 enterludes for some encrease to their profit by other mens 
 pleasures in vacant time of recreation. 
 
 " Where in the first article they require the Lord Maiors order 
 to continewe for the tymes of playeing on hollydaies : They 
 misreport the order, for all those former orders of toleracion are 
 expired by the last printed act of Comon Counsell, allso if 
 the toleration were not expired they do cautelously omitt the 
 prohibition to receive any auditorye before common prayer be 
 ended, And it may be noted how uncomely it is for youths to 
 come streight from prayer to playes, from God's service to the 
 devells. 
 
 " The second article, If in winter the dark do carry incon- 
 veniance and the short time of day after evening prayer do 
 leave them no leysure, and fowlnesse of season do hinder the 
 passage into the fields to playes : The remedie is ill conceyved 
 to bring them into London, but the true remedie is to leave off 
 that unnecessarie expense of time wherunto God himself 
 geveth so many impediments, 
 
 " To the Third, 
 
 " To play in plagetime is to encrease the plage by infection : 
 to play out of plage time is to draw the plage by offendinge 
 of God upon occasion of such playes. 
 
 " But touching the permission of playes uppon the fewness 
 of those that dye in any weke : yt may please you to remember 
 one special thing. In the report of' the plage we report only 
 those that dye and we make no report of those that recover 
 and cary infection about them either in their sores running or 
 in their garments, which sort are the most dangerous. Now 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 43 
 
 my Lord when the number of those that dye groweth fewest, 
 the number of those that goe abroad with sores is greatest, the 
 violence of the disease to kill being abated. And therefore 
 while any plage is, though the number of them reported that 
 dye be smaller, the number infected is so great that playes are 
 not to be permitted. 
 
 " Also in our reporte none are noted as dying of the plage 
 except they have tokens,- but many dye of the plage that have 
 no tokens and sometimes fraude of the serchers may deceive. 
 Therefore it is not reason to reduce their toleration to any num- 
 ber reported to dye of the plage. But it is an uncharitable 
 demand against the safetie of the Queen's subjects, and by 
 consequens of her persone, for the gaine of a few whoe, if they 
 were not her majestie's servants, shold by their profession be 
 rogues, to esteme fifty a weeke so small a number as to be the 
 cause of tolerating the adventure of infection. 
 
 " If your Lordships shal think reasonable to permit them, in 
 respecte of the fewnesse of suche as dye, this were a better way. 
 The ordinary deaths in London when there is no plage is be- 
 tween forty and fiftie, and commonly under 40 as the bookes 
 do shew. The residue or more in plage-time is to be thought 
 to be the plage. Now it may be enough if it be permitted that 
 when the whole death of all diseases in London shal by 2 or 3 
 wekes together be under 50 a weke, they may play (observatis 
 alioque observandis) during such time of death under 50 a 
 week. 
 
 " Where they require that only her Majestie's servaunts be 
 permitted to play. It is lesse evell than to grant moe. But 
 therein if your Lordships will so allow them : it may please you 
 to know that the last year when the toleration was of the 
 Quene's players only, all the places of playing were filled with 
 men calling themselves the Queen's players. Your Lordshipps 
 may do well in your letters or warrant for their tolleration to 
 expresse the number of the Queene's players and particularly all 
 their names. 
 
44 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The Remedies. 
 
 " That they hold them content with playing in private 
 houses, at weddings, etc., without public assemblie. If some 
 be thought good to be tolerated ; that then they be restrained 
 to the orders in the act of Comon Counsell tempore Hawes. 
 
 " That they play not openly till the whole deaths in London 
 have been by 20 daies under 50 a weeke, nor longer than it 
 shal so continue. That no playes be on the Sabbath. 
 
 " That no playeing be on Holy daies but after evening 
 prayer, nor any received into the auditorye till after evening 
 prayer. 
 
 " That no playeing be in the dark, nor continue any such 
 time but as any of the auditorie may returne to their dwellings 
 in London before sonne set or at least before it be dark. 
 
 " That the Quenes players only be tolerated and of them 
 their number and certaine names to be notified in your Lord- 
 ships letters to the Lord Maior and to the Justices of Middlesex 
 and Surrey. And those few players not to divide themselves 
 into several companies. That for breaking any of these orders 
 their toleration cease." 
 
 A very different list of performances before the Queen was 
 drawn up that Christmas. No servants of the Earl of Leicester, 
 or of Lord Hunsdon's, except as individuals perhaps. " A 
 pastorall of Phillyda and Choryn presented and enacted before 
 her Majestie by her Highness Servauntes on St. Stephens daie 
 at night at Greenwich, whereon was ymployed — yardes of 
 Buffyn for Shepherd's coates 30 ells of sarcenet for fower 
 matadeyne sutes one greate curteyne and scarfes for the 
 nymphes one mountayne and one great cloth of canvas and 
 vi peeces of buccram. 
 
 " The History of Agamemnon and Ulisses presented and 
 enacted before her maiestie by the Earle of Oxenford his boyes 
 on St. John's daie at night at Greenwich. Dyvers feates of 
 Actyvetie were shewed and presented before her Maiestie 
 on Newe Yeres daie at night at Grenewiche by Symons and his 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 45 
 
 fellows. . . . The History of Felix and Philiomena shewed 
 and enacted before her Highness by her Maiesties servauntes 
 on the Sondaie next after Newe Yeares daye at nighte at 
 Grenewich, wherein was employed one battlement and one 
 house of Canvas. 
 
 " An Invention called Five playes in one presented and en- 
 acted before her Maiestie on Twelfe daie at nighte in the Hall 
 at Greenewich by her Highness servants . . . An invention of 
 three playes in one prepared to have ben showed before her 
 highnes on Shrove Sondaye at night and to have been enacted 
 by her Maiesties servaunts at Somerset House. But the 
 Queen came not abroad that night. . . . An antick play and 
 a comodye shewed presented and enacted before her Highnes 
 on Shrove tewsdaie at night at Somerset Place by her 
 maiestie's servants." 
 
 How the players, especially those of Burbage, got out of the 
 imbroglio, and continued to perform in companies, is not 
 clear. The appointment of Lord Hunsdon to be Lord Cham- 
 berlain shortly after probably helped. 
 
 The position was hard enough for players, but it was much 
 harder for play-house proprietors ; 1585 would be among the 
 " lean years " which ate up James Burbage's earnings. And 
 just then his brother-in-law got into trouble too, and gave him 
 his share of it. 
 
 I found a little undated case in the Uncalendared Court of 
 Requests of this year, not important, except as showing that 
 John Braynes had by this time had some losses. 
 
 " John Braynes Citizen and Grocer of London complained 
 against Roger Ward citizen and stationer of London." It 
 seems that Christopher Ames of Stepney had agreed with Roger 
 Ward to buy certain goods of him for £15, entering into a bond 
 to pay £30 if it were not paid by a certain time. But Ward 
 would not take the bond of Ames alone, and associated Braynes 
 with it, and as Ames had not paid, the creditor naturally sued 
 Braynes. The conclusion of the proceedings is not preserved 
 but Braynes would be sure to lose such a case. 
 
46 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The year 1586 was fraught with matters of weighty import 
 to James Burbage. In spite of all the disturbances, threats 
 and excitement about the destruction of the " Theatre," he 
 was planning to extend its existence. It was the year during 
 which he might get the lease of the Theatre grounds extended, 
 if so be it he had observed the conditions. One may be very 
 certain that James Burbage had been provident enough to do so, 
 as well as he knew how. Before April he had had the new lease 
 drawn up at his own expense, as agreed to, as a lease for twenty- 
 one years from that date, all other conditions remaining the 
 same. There was to be a free seat in the gallery for Giles Alleyn 
 and his family in the Theatre whenever he chose to come to the 
 play, should he come in time. Untempted by that attraction 
 and forgetful of his promise, the owner of Holywell Priory re- 
 fused to sign that lease. He refused to believe that the £200 
 had really been spent upon the upkeep and restoration of the 
 tenements on the estate, and insisted that the new lease was 
 different from the old one. Burbage said that he could prove 
 that the £200 had been spent on the property, and that the 
 only difference between the two leases lay in the fact that the 
 scrivener had naturally not inserted a clause for the extension 
 of lease at the end of ten years. Nothing would satisfy the 
 irascible landlord ; he insisted on drawing up a new lease himself 
 now, and when he presented his there were changes. He 
 evidently had exaggerated ideas of the net profits realized at 
 the Theatre, and he wanted to raise the rent from £14 to £24 
 a year, and to make the condition that if he did add ten years 
 to the lease, then the use of the Theatre for playing purposes 
 should be restricted to five more years. During the remaining 
 five years Burbage might retain it, and use it for any other pur- 
 pose he pleased. It was evident that a theatre owner could not 
 and would not sign such a lease. He might have paid more 
 rent, for the advantage of remaining, but to pay more rent and 
 not be allowed to use his building as a Theatre for the last five 
 years, was prohibitive. Alleyn would not sign the one, nor 
 Burbage the other, and the year fixed for extension drifted on 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 47 
 
 to its completion, and neither lease was signed. We know that 
 conferences continued upon the subject during the whole period 
 of the original lease and beyond it, till the grand finale in 1598. 
 The details of the later litigation prove that. 
 
 On nth May the Privy Council sent a letter to Lord Mayor 
 to restrain plays for fear of the plague. (See Register.) 
 
 Another important set of troubles developed a new phase 
 this year. It is evident that John Braynes had not always 
 remained, as he had begun, the perfect partner and brother-in- 
 law. He had not contributed to the expenses of the Theatre, 
 in spite of the original agreement, and the 1578 arbitration, 
 and thereby had legally forfeited £200 and his share of ex- 
 penses. Burbage seems to have contented himself by growling 
 at him, and by taking more and more absolute control of the 
 concern. Bad feeling seems to have been engendered on both 
 sides, fostered by the reproaches of Mrs. Braynes. Then 
 John Braynes died. It is well to remember the married 
 women's inheritance laws of the time. When a married man 
 died, if there were children the property was divided into 
 thirds, one for the wife, one for the children, one for the dead. 
 If there were no children it went in halves. If there were no 
 will, the widow inherited the one half, and the other half went 
 to the nearest heir of the husband's family. Had there been 
 no will, therefore, as there were no children, half the property 
 would naturally have devolved on the widow, and the other half 
 on Mrs. Ellen Burbage and her children. But there seems at a 
 period before the investment in the theatre to have been some 
 form of old will, in which it is said Mrs. Braynes was left heir, 
 and she wanted either the half of the Theatre, the half of the 
 profits, or the £500 she claimed that her husband had put into 
 it. Burbage, on the other hand, said Braynes had lost that 
 share through not keeping to his agreements ; that the old will 
 did not deal with this investment, and that John Braynes had 
 always promised that his sister's children should be his heirs, 
 had indeed re-affirmed it solemnly on his death-bed. 1 Some 
 
 1 This was then held legal, as a nuncupative will, if attested by 
 witnesses afterwards. 
 
48 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 sort of agreement might have been come to among the relatives 
 had they been left to themselves, but unfortunately there were 
 several other complexities. At some time since the arbitra- 
 tion, either at the time when James Burbage had mortgaged 
 the Theatre, or before the time of the suit with Roger Ward, 
 John Braynes had executed a deed of gift of all his goods and 
 chattels to Robert Myles, goldsmith, to one Tomson and also 
 to one Gardiner. 
 
 It evidently was not a genuine sale, as Braynes seems to 
 have received no return for it. It was apparently a trust, or a 
 ruse to protect the goods and chattels for the use of Braynes 
 and his wife, from landlords, partners, arbitrators and credi- 
 tors. But such plans do not always perfectly succeed. The 
 trustees were quiet enough during John Braynes' life, but as 
 soon as he had died, as executors they attempted to secure not 
 only the other goods and chattels left at home, or in other 
 investments, but they wanted to secure the share of the 
 Theatre too. And Margaret Braynes learned to her surprise 
 that they wanted to secure these things for themselves and not 
 for her. Death made further complexities, for John Gardiner, 
 one of the executors, dying, his administrator, Robert Gardiner, 
 laid claim to his brother's interest. Margaret Braynes had to 
 go to law with her husband's executors at the first while they 
 and she were worrying James Burbage by cross-suits, and try- 
 ing to get him shut up in prison to force him, rather than let 
 the whole of his business go in his absence from its control, to 
 pay up. So he had at last to go to law himself. He could not, if 
 he would, give up the half, or his venture would be wholly ruined: 
 
 John Hyde sat tight on it, fortunately for the family. From 
 the Book of Chancery Decrees and Orders we can glean some- 
 thing of the amount of litigation which waged round Burbage's 
 devoted head. But it tells so little. Margaret Braynes had 
 had her suit against Robert Myles filed in 1586, and by 
 Easter, 1587, 1 " a week is granted him to make answer or an 
 
 1 Chancery Proceedings D. & O., 1586, A. Book, 384, Braynes v. 
 Myles— 6th May, 29 Eliz. (see Note VII). 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 49 
 
 attachment will be granted." After a second complaint she 
 seems to have given that up, or agreed with Myles. Burbage was 
 a more promising prey. The worry galled him, and he opened 
 a cross-suit himself. Halliwell-Phillipps, and all the writers who 
 follow him, say that his first action was in 1590. It was 
 certainly before that. He had never seen the earlier suit of 
 Burbage v. Braynes, nor followed its various stages through 
 Chancery. The record is very much injured, and the complete 
 date is uncertain. x I believe it is 1588, as the only number visible 
 is 8. The plaintiffs are James Burbage, Ellen his wife, and Cuth- 
 bert, Richard, Alice, and Ellen their children, versus Margaret 
 Braynes. It is this complaint which explains fully how he had 
 taken the land from Gyles Alleyn, his brother-in-law had agreed 
 to go shares with him in The Theatre and " The George Inn " ; 
 and how Braynes had forfeited a bond of £200 through not 
 obeying the arbitration of July 12, 1578, about the conveyances 
 to Myles and Gardiner. He bitterly complains that Robert 
 Myles " enters the Theatre, and troubles your orator and his 
 tenants," and that Robert Gardiner the administrator of John 
 Gardiner, who died in 1587, " goes about to sue the said James 
 Burbage in two several bonds, and by reason of the multiplicity 
 of their conveyances they joyn together to imprison your said 
 orator to enforce him to yield to their request." They will not 
 pay the forfeited bond, their action is costly and leads to his 
 impoverishment. He prays relief. Their answer is, of course, 
 that his is an untrue and insufficient bill. His reply was that 
 theirs was an insufficient demurrer. This is the case referred 
 to in the 2 Decrees and Orders, Book A, f . 454, 22nd February, 
 1588-9. It was referred to Mr. Dr. Carew, and if he thought it 
 insufficient a subpoena to be awarded against the defendant. 
 Margaret Braynes, Myles and Gardiner had meanwhile 
 brought a cross-suit against the Burbages, and in that, on 21st 
 May, 1590, 3 the Court was informed that the defendants had 
 
 1 Chancery Proceedings, Series II, 222/85 
 
 2 Ch. Proc. Dec. and Orders, A. Book, 454, 22nd Feb. 1588-9. 
 
 3 Ibid. 610, 1590. 
 
50 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 put in an insufficient demurrer, and it is also referred to Mr. Dr. 
 Carew for consideration. This came up again 1 next Trinity 
 Term, and on 4th November Mrs. Braynes appeals again 2 
 through Mr. Scott for the moietie of the Theatre and other 
 tenements, as she and her husband had been at very great 
 charges for the building thereof, to the sum of £500, and 
 did for a time enjoy the moietie. It is ordered that if the 
 defendants (that is now the Burbages) do not show good cause, 
 sequestration of the moietie shall be granted. On 13th Novem- 
 ber 1590, 3 Mr. Sergeant Harrys for Burbage, prayed consider- 
 ation of a former order made in his behalf in the suit of Burbage 
 v. Braynes. Sequestration was stayed. This seemed to pro- 
 mise peace : but on 20th January, 1590-1, 1 Robert Myles 
 made oath that the Burbages had broken an order made in 
 court on November 13th ; therefore an attachment was 
 awarded for contempt of court. On 30th January 5 Cuthbert 
 Burbage made his appearance in person to save his bond to the 
 Sheriff of London, and nothing further was done on that count 
 at the time. On 23rd March, 6 it was stated in court that the 
 Burbages had been examined upon interrogations and that 
 these had been committed to the consideration of Mr. Dr. 
 Caesar. 
 
 On 24th April, 1591, 7 Burbage continued his suit against 
 Mrs. Braynes, she having put in an insufficient demurrer, and 
 consideration was referred to Mr. Dr. Carew. On June 15th, 8 
 as nothing material had been advanced on her side, Burbage 
 asked for a subpoena against her and Myles. 
 
 On 20th July 9 Margaret appeared to follow her own case 
 against Cuthbert and James Burbage ; they also appeared, but 
 the Master in Charge could not attend. On 12th October, 
 
 1 Ch. Proc. Dec. and Orders, A. Book, 15, 1590. 
 
 2 Ibid. 109, 1590. 3 Ibid. 145, 1590. 
 
 4 Ibid. 270, 1590-1. 5 Ibid. 317, 1590-1. 
 
 6 Ibid. 456, 1590-1. ' Ibid 493, 1591. 
 
 8 Ibid, f 720, 1591. 9 Ibid. 818, 1591. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 51 
 
 1591, 1 it was decided that no advantage should be given until 
 it was found whether Burbage had or had not committed con- 
 tempt of court ; and on 13th November 2 this question was 
 heard again. It had been referred to Mr. Dr. Stanhope and Mr. 
 Dr. Legg, who had heard counsel on both sides, but they 
 declared they could not proceed to examine the parties before 
 they examined John Hyde of London, grocer, Ralph Myles 
 of London, soapmaker, Nicholas Bishop and John Allen, 
 upon the contempt pretended. 
 
 The need of considering these witnesses arose through Bur- 
 bage's having in 1579 mortgaged the Theatre to John Hyde, 
 who, after holding the mortgage for ten years had released it in 
 1589 to Cuthbert Burbage, not to James. Whether this hap- 
 pened because Cuthbert had paid off the loans, or whether it 
 had been arranged so for further protection of James, does not 
 clearly appear. At some date, following his brother-in-law's 
 lead, James had transferred all his property to his sons (a King 
 Lear who was not made to repent the deed). Probably in an 
 attempt at pacification, the " George Inn " had been leased to 
 Robert Myles ; and Myles had let the stables and some of the 
 rooms to his son Ralph, 3 and his follower, Nicholas Bishop, for 
 a soap factory. 
 
 The plague caused a lull in the Chancery proceedings, but 
 they started again. Latterly Margaret Braynes either tired or 
 died, and her name disappears from the Chancery proceedings. 
 But Robert Myles continued versus Burbage, and Burbage 
 versus Myles, and the litigation went on till he died. 
 
 Delay was the next best thing for him to winning his case. 
 But only think of the wear and tear of the proceedings, the 
 money, time, strength and brain-power, spent in litigation, and 
 the hindrance to Burbage's full success. I thought it was 
 wiser to finish talking about this case, because it would have 
 been a source of constant interruption to writer and reader alike 
 
 1 Ch. Proc. Dec. and Orders, A. Book, 16, 1591. 
 
 2 Ibid. 151, 1591. 
 
 3 Chancery Proceedings, 2nd Series, 245-85, Myles v. Bishop. 
 
52 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 (as it was to Burbage) if it had been allowed constantly to crop 
 up in pages devoted to other details. 
 
 On 23rd November, 1588, the Corporation moved the 
 Privy Council to suppress plays and interludes within the 
 City and the Liberties (Repertory 21, f. 2036). " The Theatre " 
 came back to its builder in 1589, through his son Cuthbert. 
 Meanwhile Burbage had other troubles. It may be remembered 
 (see p. 34) that in 1581 Edmund Peckham had brought a suit 
 against Giles Alleyn for the possession of Holywell. He had 
 found a jury to agree with him, and had shortly after died, 
 leaving his son George a minor. On 9th June, 1589, 1 Richard 
 Kingsmill, Attorney-General to the Court of Wards and 
 Liveries, sued in that court an information of what he took to 
 be the situation on behalf of George Peckham, a minor and a 
 Royal Ward, and also on behalf of the Queen as guardian, and 
 Chief Lord. Again there were emissaries from Court, trying 
 to effect an entrance on the premises occupied by James Bur- 
 bage, which must seriously have annoyed him and troubled 
 him at times, and are indeed mentioned as one of the causes of 
 non-payment of rent, and the absence of things to distrain, 
 complained of by Giles Alleyn. 
 
 There were constantly minor interferences and inhibitions 
 and checks, but in that same year of 1589 their troubles entered 
 on a new phase. Some of the players having interfered in the 
 Martin Marprelate controversy, Burghley authorized Tilney, 
 Master of the Revels, to command all players and playmakers 
 to appear before him, and hand in the play-books they had in 
 readiness, in order that anything tending to immorality or 
 sedition should be reformed. 
 
 This would involve a considerable amount of trouble, and 
 some expense ; the " reforming of plays " at first would prob- 
 ably be to the humiliation of the poet, and the confusion of the 
 player. But it would have a good effect upon the future of 
 the drama, for it would force poets and managers alike to be 
 
 1 Pleadings, Court of Wards and Liveries. See Note VIII. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 53 
 
 careful as to what was written and what was performed. It 
 also gave some check to the impromptu and audacious sallies of 
 the players themselves, who often brought authors into trouble. 
 It is comforting to know from later authorities that Richard 
 Burbage was " never scurrilous." 
 
 It may be asked, why I am so long in introducing Shake- 
 speare ? The answer is, we have] no stage record of him up to 
 this date. Whatever great thing Shakespeare was, he was 
 not a pioneer. He waited until a stage was made ready for 
 him on which to act, and until crowding suggestions from 
 previous plays would stimulate his receptive imagination. 
 
 We know but little of him from other sources. I absolutely 
 refuse to believe any of the so-called " traditions " which have 
 come down to us (for none of them can be proved to have been 
 recorded in times even nearly contemporary), especially about 
 the cause of his leaving Stratford-on-Avon and coming to Lon- 
 don. That he should have fled for fear of a whipping, is, on 
 the face of it, too absurd to be even discussed by those who 
 know the customs of the period. 
 
 That he fled to escape the normal consequences of stealing 
 Sir Thomas Lucy's deer, I have dealt with in " The Fort- 
 nightly," February, 1903, showing that Sir Thomas Lucy had 
 no park then to steal deer from, etc. He came to London 
 because he had been bred to no trade, his father having ex- 
 pected him to become a little farmer on his mother's inherit- 
 ance of Asbies. When that was seized by his uncle Edmund 
 Lambert, he did not know what to do with himself. But as 
 he had a family to keep, he must do something, and he came to 
 London with hopes of something turning up for him, perhaps 
 even at court. There had been two Shakespeares there before 
 him, Roger and Thomas, the one in Mary's reign, the other in 
 Elizabeth's. 1 If he did consciously bend his steps towards 
 that bourne he fulfilled his desire before he died, though not 
 in the way he planned. 
 
 His father and mother and he had found John Lambert even 
 
 1 See my paper, " Shakespeare of the Court," " Athenaeum," 12th 
 March, 1910. 
 
54 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 harder to deal with than his father Edmund. They had showed 
 him how and why he should restore Asbies to them on their 
 paying the mortgage, and failing that, why it should be treated 
 as an ordinary and honourable sale, in which the purchase-money 
 paid was much below the value of the property bought. They 
 asked £20 more for it, and John Lambert had seemed to them 
 to yield and then had ignored the arrangement. My theory of 
 the cause of Shakespeare's advent in London at a particular 
 date is one which has never been suggested by any other. It is 
 that he came up personally to press the lawsuit his father and 
 mother and he were bringing against John Lambert. He was 
 the prospective heir, and nothing could be done without his 
 signature ; they had had to wait till he came of age before even 
 discussing it. But after the delays in Stratford and in London, 
 that suit came to the hearing, but not to the decision, in the 
 Queen's Bench in Mich, term 1589. In the draft of that case 
 then, appears the first mention of " William Shakespeare " in 
 London. Having come, he probably remained, dangling about 
 the law-courts in the intervals of seeking something to do. 
 He would probably live with his friend, Richard Field, and 
 read the precious volumes in his shop which leave their traces 
 in his plays, waiting, waiting, waiting. x And when all his bright 
 hopes faded one after another, the Theatre, which he would 
 have been sure to have frequented as a solace and recreation, 
 would become the means of opening to him a way of earning his 
 daily bread, which, if humiliating to his pride, 2 yet came easily 
 to his intelligence, and was ready for his entrance. If it be true, 
 as has been suggested by others, that James Burbage was a 
 Warwickshire man, that might have given a reason for the 
 Stratford man wishing to join him, or it may only have been 
 that Burbage was the best manager going. 
 
 Shakespeare was a little old to begin to learn the art of play- 
 ing, and he would need to content himself at first with being an 
 apprentice or servitor while he learned, and to take very inferior 
 
 1 See my " Shakespeare's Warwickshire Contemporaries," chap. i. 
 Richard Field. 2 See Sonnet CXI. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 55 
 
 parts. The good actors around him would soon inspire him, and 
 once admitted his progress would be rapid. And again, having 
 been prepared by his life's experience, and by that wonderful 
 bookseller's shop in Blackfriars, he began to read the players' 
 " books," to criticize them, to see their faults, and to correct 
 them all, and to remake some altogether. And thus we may 
 take it, Burbage had the high honour of discovering Shake- 
 speare at the critical moment of his life, of securing him, of 
 giving him his life's chance, and us the heritage of his genius. 
 Probably he added to his kindness a temporary home in 
 Holywell Street. 
 
 The first notice of Shakespeare is written by an enemy and 
 is all the more valuable. It tells us a great deal in a few words. 
 They are known to all scholars, but in case any one has for- 
 gotten, I give them here. Poor, dying, grumbling Robert 
 Greene, brought out as his last words his " Groat's worth of 
 wit," 1592. He was warning some of his fellow-scholars 
 (among them Nash) not to waste more time in writing for the 
 players, they were false, ungrateful, jealous, and now one of 
 them was trying to ape the poets, and " thinks himself able to 
 bumbast out a blank verse as well as the best of you. 
 
 " Young Juvenal, that biting satyrist, and those no less 
 deserving than the other two. . . . Base-minded men all 
 three 1 of you, if by my misery ye be not warned ; for unto 
 none of you (like me) sought those burres to cleave, those 
 Puppits (I meane) that speak from our mouthes, those anticks 
 garnished in our colours. Is it strange that I, to whom they all 
 have been beholding, shall (were ye in that case that I am 
 now) be both at once of them forsaken ? Yes, trust them not ; 
 for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that 
 with his Tiger's heart Wrapt in a Player's hide, 2 supposes he is as 
 
 1 Marlowe, Lodge and Nash. 
 
 2 " Oh, Tiger's heart wrapt in a Woman's hide," "King Henry VI," 
 part 3. Probably Marlowe and Greene were part authors of the two 
 parts of the Contention, and " the true tragedie," on which Henry VI 
 was built. 
 
56 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you; and 
 being an absolute Johannes Factotum, he is in his own conceit 
 the only Shakescene in a countrie. Oh that I might entreate 
 your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses ; 
 and let these Apes imitate your past excellence, and never more 
 acquaint them with your admired inventions. . . . Whilst 
 you may, seeke you better maisters, for it is pittie men of such 
 rare wits should be subject to the pleasures of such rude 
 groomes." 
 
 This shows, to me at least, conclusively that Shakespeare 
 was by this time a recognized actor, and that he, the first actor 
 recorded to have done so, had before this time critically begun 
 to improve upon their poets' plays. 
 
 He must have already become acquainted with the Earl of 
 Southampton, through whose inspiration he was writing his 
 first poem then, and, I believe, the earlier sonnets. It was the 
 custom of the times for the young noblemen who sat in " The 
 Lord's Rooms " at the Theatre, to be patronizingly friendly to 
 the players. It must not be forgotten in the making of the 
 man that the Theatre, maligned as it was by the Corporation 
 then, was an academy of the fine arts to a certain degree, of 
 elocution, language, dancing, deportment, manners, jeux 
 d' esprit ; that the painstaking rehearsals before the ageing 
 James Burbage, would be supplemented by the critical censor- 
 ship of the upper class audience, who would be too pleased to 
 check a blunder or a gaucherie in the stories of a court, and 
 who would delight in whispering the first rumours of a scandal 
 about to come out, and thereby bring their proteges often into 
 hot water for making fun of it on the stage in impromptu 
 waggery. With such polishing, the susceptible inland-bred 
 youth soon learned to speak and act as to the manner born, 
 a fact which is witnessed to even by the poets of his time. He 
 had the advantage, too, of acting with Richard Burbage, who 
 had been trained as an actor from his youth, and had appar- 
 ently been prepared by the " Divinity that shaped his ends," 
 to be his mouthpiece in his later creations. It may also be 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 57 
 
 taken as an advantage for Shakespeare that he came fresh 
 from all the legal formalities of the land-transfers 1 among 
 the members of his family, with the fortunes of his own law- 
 suit constantly running in his head, to a family where legal 
 questions were of daily and absorbing interest. The Baconians 
 scornfully ask us, where could Shakespeare learn his law ? I 
 answer, Those who study Shakespeare' s life faithfully and intelli- 
 gently find no difficulty in answering that question. 
 
 About this time a new rival playhouse started on Bankside, 
 in the Rose, where Henslowe and Alleyn reigned. Just then, 
 in 1592, their old enemy the plague came down on the people 
 and the players, the plague, and inhibitions, and starvation 
 threatened but for the manager's chest. Yet it was through 
 the gloomy experiences of the plague year, that Shakespeare 
 wrote the light and sunshiny poem of " Venus and Adonis," 
 a classical translation, based on the new edition of " Ovid " 
 which had lately been brought out by Vautrollier and Field, a 
 poem by which he became enrolled as a Spenserian poet, a 
 much higher thing to his contemporaries than a play-actor or 
 even a play-maker. To the making of it what went ? The 
 readings in Field's shop (there were many poetic translations 
 at the time) — there was Puttenham's Art of English Poesie, a 
 book that gave rules for criticism on the method of the poet's 
 art, reasons for the use of blank verse in the drama instead of 
 the old " jigging lines " ; there were other books and manu- 
 scripts awaiting him at Southampton house, 2 where an enthusi- 
 astic young noble had discovered something in the player and 
 tried to urge him on to better things ; and there was somebody 
 behind the scenes, was it Lady Southampton, or her friend 
 Sir William Harvey, who had urged Will to use his influence to 
 get the Earl safely married to Burleigh's granddaughter, and 
 out of the danger of Burleigh's displeasure. He had tried his 
 
 1 See my " Shakespeare's Aunts and Snitterfield " — "Athenaeum," 
 July 24, 1909. 
 
 * See my edition of the Sonnets, King's Classics, Preface. Chatto 
 and Windus. 
 
58 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 " pupil pen " in the early sonnets, speaking against his will for 
 his patron's good, and now he wrote a poem to dedicate to that 
 patron. It illustrates his position, a heart too busy with other 
 things to be moved by the pleadings of love, even of its Queen. 
 
 " Describe Adonis and the counterfeit 
 Is poorly imitated after you." 
 
 On 18th April, 1593, " Richard Field entered for his copie 
 under the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Master 
 Warden Stirrup, a booke intituled Venus and Adonis vd." The 
 printing and publication would take some months, it is true, 
 but it came out within the year. The first heir of his invention 
 took the literary world by storm, and surprised both the poet 
 and his patron. It raised the status of the poet among his 
 fellow-players, and they heard of him at court. What then ? 
 He was still working, still writing, he was keeping his word 
 about that " graver labour " he had promised to do for the 
 honour of the young nobleman who had been so kind to him. 
 Kinder than he had expected far, so when he wrote the dedica- 
 tion of his new poem in the following year, it was to no far off 
 patron now, but to one who had made himself — 
 " Lord of my love." 
 
 Is this not an echo of the 26th Sonnet ; which well read as 
 an accompanying private dedication ? 
 
 " Lord of my love to whom in vassalage 
 Thy merit hath my duty strongly knit, 
 
 To thee I send this written embassage 
 To witness duty, not to show my wit ! " 
 
 In the spring of 1594 the " Rape of Lucrece " was entered in 
 the Stationer's Register ; it would likely be published ready for 
 October when his friend attained his majority, and became free 
 from the leading strings and match-makings of Lord Burleigh, 
 free also, as soon as it might be arranged, from the trammels of 
 the Queen's guardianship in money matters. He could marry 
 whom he pleased now, and when he pleased, or he could remain 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 59 
 
 one of the Queen's bachelors like Fulke Greville, which he 
 would have done awhile had he been wise. 
 
 Shakespeare's new poem is the reverse of the picture in the 
 first. The theme is no longer chastity through indifference to 
 temptation, but the fierce chastity which makes itself essential 
 to the completeness of moral being. 
 
 In the same month as the completion of his " graver labour " 
 is dated for us, his patron's mother, Mary Countess of South- 
 ampton, married Sir Thomas Henneage, Treasurer of the Privy 
 Chamber, a trusted friend of the Queen, and a patron of poetry 
 himself. It is quite probable they had a play at their marriage- 
 feast, as the city " orders " imply it was usual to have. And 
 if they had a play who so likely to write it as their son's pro- 
 tege ; and what play was he so likely to write for the occasion 
 as " The Midsummer's Night's Dream,'.' a story laden with 
 remembrances for all who had been at the Kenilworth festivi- 
 ties, as both bride and bridgroom had been, and probably many 
 of their guesj: ? sThe wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta was a 
 classic story harmonious enough to lead it off ; the love stories 
 of Athens, if we knew more, we might find to have been associ- 
 ated with contemporary life ; the delicate compliment to Eliza- 
 -beth (written before Shakespeare's heart had been embittered 
 against her) showed the poet's tact. She was probably present. 
 The Fairy scenes, the very coinage of Shakespeare's brain, were 
 from Warwickshire, where Shakespeare knew their haunts, and 
 the poet's romantic feeling had been called forth, like Lane- 
 ham's, by the unforgettable charms of the Lady of the Lake at 
 Kenilworth. The inimitable humours of Bottom the weaver, 
 or the artisan performance, original to Shakespeare, was fitted 
 into the frame, as a rustic desire to please the Queen, just as 
 the Warwickshire men had tried to do in 1575. And here may 
 I be allowed to romance a little. It is not at all improbable 
 that this little play was grafted upon early memories of James 
 Burbage, in some of his wanderings. But it came to perform- 
 ance in his later years, when he had probably retired from 
 active service. Did he appear on this occasion ? Was it a 
 
60 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 little bit of good-humoured raillery, that Snug the joiner, in 
 Bottom's play, was given the Lion's part, who had nothing 
 to do now but to roar? 
 
 Early in that year Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, had 
 died. He was remembered by Wood in his " Athenae Oxoni- 
 enses " with praise ; also by an epigrammatist who said, 
 " He was the enemy of all poor players." 
 
 When Shakespeare did play at court that Christmas on the 
 26th and 28th December, the first recorded occasion in which 
 his name is used at court, 1 in two plays, neither of which are 
 named, was one of them " The Midsummer Night's Dream " ? 
 I have shown fully elsewhere my reasons for believing that the 
 other performed on 28th December, 1594, was the " Comedy 
 of Errors " 2 in the afternoon at Greenwich, as that was the one 
 performed by the " common players " at the Gray's Inn Revels 
 that night, which was ever afterwards called " The night of 
 Errors." It was considered the crowning disgrace of Gray's Inn 
 until Bacon took away that disgrace a fortnight later, by pre- 
 senting triumphantly his " Divers Plots and Devices." That 
 was the first form of the Bacon-Shakespeare question, which 
 may be studied with advantage still, as it gives a clear illustra- 
 tion of the distinctions between the authors. His fellow-stu- 
 dents then preferred Bacon's " Divers Plots " ; we moderns 
 prefer Shakespeare's " Errors " to Bacon's perfections ; and 
 delight in realizing the pictures in Gray's Inn Hall on the two 
 evenings. 
 
 James Burbage by this time had seen some of his concep- 
 tions realized, and his credit assured among the better sort, 
 as well as his popularity among " the baser sort." There seems 
 to have been about this time a temporary relaxation of Cor- 
 
 1 " To William Kernpe, William Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, 
 servants to the Lord Chamberlayne . for two several comedies 
 shewed by them ... on St. Stephen's daye and Innocent's Daye . . 
 £■2.0." at Greenwich, Dec. Ace, Treas. Cham., Pipe Office, 542, 2076. 
 
 8 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1895. " The first official record of Shake- 
 speare's name." 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 61 
 
 poration interference. He appears to have had a happy home, 
 where all his family co-operated harmoniously with him. But 
 trouble was never far away from him and there were jagged 
 rocks ahead in the stream of his life. 
 
 There was still the unsigned extension of lease haunting him, 
 and undefined possibilities of loss associated therewith. He 
 had doubtless at times been handicapped by the proximity of 
 his rival, " The Curtain " (unless he had managed, by some 
 astute arrangement, to get some share in that for himself). 
 But as I have said, there is no record of the business of " The 
 Curtain," as it escaped all the lawsuits which might have told 
 us somewhat. Before Burbage's mind must already have 
 loomed large the consequences of an ejection order, and a forced 
 removal. Where should he go ? In the Liberty of Bankside 
 there was the Rose 1 in which Henslowe reigned ; and to which 
 Edward Alleyn's attractions drew every one. Henslowe and his 
 son-in-law had been as fortunate and their lives had been made 
 as easy, as Burbage's had been made difficult for him. They 
 were quite friendly where they were, but they might not be 
 so friendly if he were to plant himself down by their side, and 
 try to share their gains, as " The Curtain " had done to him. 
 Besides, he heard the rumour that the rich Francis Langley, 
 Alnager of Cloth, meant to build a playing-house on Bankside, 
 which should eclipse in grandeur all that had hitherto been 
 reared. He was rich enough to buy the land, to do without 
 any interfering and hindering partners, he had influence beyond 
 any that Burbage could command, and the founder of the 
 Theatre doubtless made up his mind then, that though South- 
 
 1 A property transfer on Bankside shows the site of a previous 
 " Rose," whence the name was probably borrowed. John Payne lets 
 the*capital messuage and tenements called the Barge, the Bell and the 
 Cocke, etc., " lying between the King's highway next the water of 
 Thames on the north, against a tenement called the Rose on the other 
 side, and a tenement sometimes the Lady Stratfords on the west side 
 andfagainst Maiden Lane on the south." ist Aug., 24 Eliz. Eg. MSS., 
 2,623. 
 
62 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 wark might support two theatres, there would be little chance 
 for a third. I have found a good deal of new matter concerning 
 Francis Langley, which will be fitted into its place. Mr. E. K. 
 Chambers says " there is no proof the Swan was built before 
 1598." But it must have been built by 1595. The Lord Mayor 
 wrote to the Lord Treasurer on 3rd November, 1594, that 
 Francis Langley, one of the Alnagers for the sealing of cloth, 
 intended to erect a new stage or theatre on Bankside, and 
 praying that the same might be prevented on account of the 
 evils likely to arise therefrom (" Remembrancia," ii. 73). 
 
 Nobody has noted that Langley went over to Shoreditch for 
 a wife. On 15th January, 1594-5, he married Hester Saule 
 in St. Leonard's Church there, " with a Bp. Cant. Licence." 
 Then he started building his theatre. When he was at it, he 
 was not going to be niggardly in the matter of size or of decora- 
 tions. That is the reason that John de Witt in a visit to Lon- 
 don in 1596 describes the new theatre. 1 He said there were four 
 large and splendid playhouses in London, the Theatre and 
 Curtain towards the north, the Rose and the Swan towards the 
 south. He estimated the latter as able to hold 3,000 specta- 
 tors, and gives a sketch of it, which is a most valuable help 
 towards understanding the stage of the time. These notes 
 had been long buried in the Library of Utrecht. Dr. Gaedertz 
 discovered them, published them, lent the MS. to Dr. Furnivall 
 and the New Shakespeare Society, who printed a pamphlet 
 and reproduced the drawing. 2 
 
 Three thousand was a large estimate for one theatre in a 
 relatively small-sized city such as London then was. 
 
 But we have many proofs that in the lesser London of the 
 day, there was a much greater proportion of theatre-goers. 
 When in later years new threats were made to pull down the 
 Surrey theatres, the watermen of London brought in a petition 
 for them, because they reckoned the chief part of their busi- 
 ness arose from carrying theatre-goers over the water. " The 
 
 1 The Times, nth May, 1888. 
 
 2 New Shakespeare Society publications, Mr. H. B. Wheatley. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 63 
 
 Swan " was not doomed to be very successful or long-living, 
 in spite of its richness of adornment. 
 
 One little incident, hitherto unknown, hit Langley hard in 
 1597. He had arranged with the Earl of Pembroke's company 
 to play for a year in his house, when an inhibition closed all 
 the theatres because of the plague. When this was lifted, the 
 players took out a new patent to play, but Langley did not 
 take out a licence for his house, as he should have done. They 
 reproached him for this and said that if he did not take out a 
 licence for his house, they would have to go and play for 
 Henslowe at the " Rose." He bid them "go," apparently in 
 derision, they went and there they stayed and joined the 
 Admiral's company under Henslowe's management. Hence 
 a lawsuit, which gives the story (see Note XI). 
 
 The rising of the Swan seemed a signal to James Burbage 
 to keep away from Bankside. So he turned his attention to a 
 very different Liberty ; not one that held all the off-scourings 
 of the city, as Bankside was said to do, nor one that had all 
 the disadvantages of Holywell, but a real Royal Liberty, 
 among aristocrats and well-to-do respectable people, many of 
 them of the Court, Blackfriars. For this, originally built 
 outside the walls, had been later enclosed within the walls of 
 the city, yet was not of the city. After the dissolution it had 
 become Crown lands. Though disposed of to tenants in chief, 
 the Crown remained Chief Lord. Battles royal had been 
 fought between the Court and the City over various rights in 
 Blackfriars, and more were to be fought. But James Burbage 
 imagined that he had reckoned all round, and preferred a better- 
 class neighbourhood where, he thought, there would be less 
 danger of those disturbances which had so often injured him. 
 He would be nearer the Privy Council than the Common Coun- 
 cil — nearer a cultured class, and nearer supervision of Royal 
 authority, which he never shunned. So he decided to risk 
 the chances and try his second venture in the Liberty of Black- 
 friars. He thought himself fortunate to be able to buy for 
 £600 from Sir William More of Loseley, on February 4th, 1595-6, 
 
64 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 a suite of rooms, which he saw might be modelled into another 
 style of theatre, more after the Court fashion, with safe roofs 
 over-head to protect from all weathers. It was to be independ- 
 ent of daylight, too, for it would be artificially lighted. He 
 hoped to draw an audience from the neighbourhood, who were 
 not forced to get home before dark. Into this work he put his 
 soul and his " invention." He wanted it ready before the Holy- 
 well lease should have completely run out, that he might be 
 able to transplant his company of brilliant players at once, 
 without a forced interval of unemployment, and with no 
 future fear of being turned out by a grasping landlord. His 
 property would necessitate a good deal of rebuilding to fit it for 
 his purpose, stone and lime for walls and pillars, and wood for 
 stage, benches and boxes. Decorations, too, must have been 
 new instead of being carried from the Theatre. He seems to 
 have made for himself a temporary home there, to have been 
 his own clerk of works, because there, according to Mr. Collier, 
 he lost a daughter Helen, buried at St. Annes, Blackfriars, 
 13th December, 1595. 
 
 An evil omen, as well as a heart-wound, he would take it. 
 
 But an even more evil omen was the death of his master, the 
 Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, on 23rd July, 
 1596. His son succeeded to the title, and to him James Bur- 
 bage transferred his company's allegiance. But the new Lord 
 Hunsdon was neither so cordial nor so powerful as his father, 
 and the Queen did not make him, at the time at least, Lord 
 Chamberlain. She put another man in his father's place, Lord 
 Cobham who was no friend to Lord Hunsdon's players. Lord 
 Cobham did not like the character given to ' Sir John Oldcastle,' 
 after changed to ' Falstaff.' 
 
 James Burbage's heart sank within him. Already the Cor- 
 poration were making things very difficult for him. It was 
 easier to do so when his " master " was not a Court official. 
 The Earl of Essex, also a friend to players, was abroad. 
 
 Nash, the dramatist, wrote in 1596 : — 
 
 " The Players . . . are piteously persecuted by the Lord 
 
JAMES BURBAGE 65 
 
 Mayor and the Aldermen, and however in their old Lord's 
 time they thought their estate settled it is now so uncertain 
 they cannot build upon it " (Grosart's " Nash," I. lxi.). 
 
 He knew that Myles was meditating more mischief in the 
 law-courts, that Giles Alleyn meant to trick him in Holywell, 
 but it was a woman who led the unexpected attack at Black- 
 friars. The Dowager Lady Elizabeth Russell did not like the 
 notion of the fashionable district of Blackfriars becoming con- 
 taminated by the evils she had heard surrounded the public 
 theatres in the Liberties. She bestirred herself to collect signa- 
 tures for a petition to the Privy Council against the plans of 
 Burbage. She does not seem to have found very many of her 
 own class to sign this, but she found, and persuaded somehow, 
 the most important man, Lord Hunsdon, the " Master " of 
 James Burbage and his company. He must have groaned in 
 spirit when he heard that name. The other petitioners were 
 chiefly insignificant men, except one, Richard Field, the printer, 
 the publisher of " Venus and Adonis," and " Lucrece." His 
 name in that list must have hit Shakespeare hard. It was 
 " Et tu Brute," with him then. The petition is undated and 
 many writers seemed to think it had no effect. But a later 
 petition in 1618-9 to the Lord Mayor refers to it as having been 
 presented in November, 1596, and as having been successful 
 in staying the public theatre there and then. 
 
 Collier produces a forged counter petition of the players, which 
 is preserved at the Record Office, though the dates it gives 
 convict themselves of being impossible. Burbage knew, of 
 course, nothing of that. Battered, bruised and beaten in the 
 development of his second idea, James Burbage, the first 
 builder of theatres in stone as he had been the first builder of 
 theatres in wood, at last yielded to Fate. He had spent a life 
 of incessant toil, constantly thwarted and handicapped in all 
 his undertakings. But though less successful than he meant 
 they should be, he had been enabled to do through them more 
 for the British Stage than all the other actor-managers put to- 
 gether. He was not young then, his body was not equal in 
 
 F 
 
66 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 bravery to his soul, and just a year after he had bought his 
 Blackfriars property, 1 he lay down to rest. He was buried 
 at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, probably in the churchyard, on 
 2nd February, 1596-7, just six weeks before the termination of 
 the Holywell lease. 
 
 Oh ! Brave James Burbage ! 
 
 1 From a letter among the Loseley papers written by Lord Hunsdon, 
 Lord Chamberlain, to Sir William More 9 Jan. 1595-6 we may see 
 that he wished to purchase this for himself. This must have caused 
 some friction between him and his "servant." 
 
CHAPTER II 
 JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 
 
 CUTHBERT and Richard Burbage entered on a critical 
 year. The fame of Richard had been spreading, and 
 the dramas of their poet Shakespeare had redounded to their 
 credit, as well as to his own. The loss of their father was not 
 only a domestic affliction, it was the loss of the captain of their 
 ship on a stormy sea. They succeeded to his Ideas, and to 
 their results, but the constant difficulties and oppositions he 
 had endured seemed also entailed upon them. James Bur- 
 bage left no will. Cuthbert, as we have seen, had become owner 
 of the Theatre in 1589. The Blackfriars James had bought 
 and altered for Richard, and had apparently given it to him 
 during life. It was of more value than the Theatre even in its 
 present peril. But apparently the brothers harmoniously 
 shared their business properties amicably and equally. They 
 allowed their mother Ellen to take out letters of administra- 
 tion, and apparently there was little to administer save the 
 furniture and goods at Holywell Street, as Giles Alleyn implies 
 in later litigation. They cared for their father's family as well 
 as their own and Cuthbert stayed on in his father's house, the 
 larger of the two homes. Both seemed to have married their 
 wives in another parish as there is no entry in St. Leonard's 
 regarding either, and Cuthbert, at least, had children by this 
 time. 
 
 There must have been a good deal of hard thinking done in 
 Holywell at that time. By 25th March or by 13th April, as 
 they chose to read it, there was the end of their lease to grapple 
 with. Neither of the proposed new leases of 1585-6 had been 
 
 67 
 
68 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 signed, but as Cuthbert did not know what else to do, he stayed 
 on, paying rent quarterly as usual. No one has suggested the 
 reason of Giles Alleyn's unwonted placidity at this crisis. 
 
 It was because a new law-suit had been started against him, 
 and he wanted Cuthbert Burbage to act as a buffer to him, and 
 to save him coming up too often from his home at Haseley in 
 Essex. It was a foolish and unfounded suit, but he knew he 
 could not hope to get a new tenant to the property till it was 
 settled, he knew that no one was so likely to have it so favour- 
 ably settled as Cuthbert Burbage. The Earl of Rutland, his 
 nearest neighbour, had claimed the close on which the Theatre 
 was built, and had given his tenants leave to enter it and enclose 
 part. Cuthbert naturally objected, and Alleyn induced him 
 to sue the aggressors, PoweU, Ames and Robinson, in the 
 King's Bench ; so that the owner might rest at Haseley in 
 peace. 
 
 The Earl of Rutland was a minor, and beyond the seas, 
 knowing nothing about it. It was a scheme of Thomas Scriven, 
 his steward. But Giles Alleyn well knew that the young 
 nobleman was friendly with the Earl of Southampton, Shake- 
 speare's patron, with the Burbages themselves indeed, and he 
 was more likely to get out of the business easily if Cuthbert 
 had it in hand, than if he himself appeared, or got a new tenant 
 to make a timid and uncertain protest. So Giles Alleyn took 
 Cuthbert 's proffered rent and said nothing and each of them 
 waited, warily watching the other. 
 
 One comfort the brothers had — their master, Lord Hunsdon, 
 was appointed Lord Chamberlain on 17th March, 1596-7, so 
 once again theirs became " the Lord Chamberlain's company." 
 
 In the summer Cuthbert Burbage lost his son, " James 
 Burbage, son of Cuthbert Burbage, buried 15th July, 1597, 
 Halliwell." The small namesake of his grandfather died at a 
 saddening season. Hardly had his father Cuthbert returned 
 from his burial in St. Leonard's than he had to face a cloud- 
 burst. 
 
 It was not because that year, 39 Eliz., the Statute against 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 69 
 
 Rogues, Vagabonds, and sturdy beggars was confirmed and 
 strengthened. 
 
 But a letter written by the Lord Mayor on 28th July, 1597, 
 found a new cause of complaint against the theatre. " Divers 
 apprentices and other servantes, who have confessed unto us 
 that the saide Staige-playes were the very places of their 
 randevous appointed by them to meete with such others as wear 
 to joigne with them in their designes and mutinus attemptes, 
 beinge allso the ordinarye places for maisterles men to come 
 together to recreate themselves," so they pray for " the present 
 staie and fynall suppressinge of the saide stage-playes as well 
 at the Theatre, Curten and Banckside, as in all other places in 
 and about the City." 1 
 
 The Privy Council on the same day wrote to the Justices of 
 Middlesex, "Her Majestie being informed that there are verie 
 greate disorders committed in the common playhouses, both 
 by lewd matters that are handled on the stages, and by resorte 
 and confluence of bad people, hath given directions that not 
 onelie no plaies shal be used within London or about the Citty, 
 or in any publique place, during this tyme of sommer, but that 
 also those playhouses that are erected and built only for suche 
 purposes shal be plucked downe namelie the Curtayne and 
 the Theatre nere to Shoreditch, or any other within that 
 county ; theis are therfore in her Majestie's name to chardge 
 and command you that you take present order ther be no more 
 plaies used in any publique place within three myles of the 
 Citty untill All-halloutide next, and likewise that you do send 
 for the owner of the Curtayne Theatre, Theatre or anie other 
 common playehowse, and enjoin them by vertue hereof forth- 
 with to plucke downe quite the stages, galleries and roomes that 
 are made for people to stand in, and so to deface the same as 
 they maie not be ymploied agayne to such use ; which if they 
 shall not speedily performe you shall advertyse us that order 
 maie be taken to see the sam doon, according to her Majesties 
 pleasure and commandment." 
 
 1 " Remembrancia," p. 354. 
 
lo BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 It was a hard saying, for it meant that all James Burbage's 
 life-work was to be destroyed without compensation, and all 
 the means of support of the family taken from them. 
 
 Cuthbert seems to have found some means of postponing the 
 destruction, probably by a " gratification " to some one in 
 power. It does not seem however to have been used. A book, 
 probably written in that year, but published as Guilpin's 
 " Skialethia," in 1598, speaks of a character — 
 
 " But see yonder, one 
 Who, like the unfrequented Theater 
 
 Walkes in dark silence and vast solitude." 
 
 This of course might only have referred to its appearance 
 during the summer months of inhibition. 
 
 In February 1597-8, a seemingly contradictory order was 
 issued that none but the servants of the Lord Admiral and the 
 Lord Chamberlain were to be allowed to play, practically mak- 
 ing them the Queen's two companies, instead of the defunct 
 company entitled "The Queens." 
 
 In the 1598 edition of Stow's Survey he mentions Holy- 
 well, and the old priory long since pulled down, as a place 
 " where many houses are built for the lodging of noblemen, 
 of strangers born and other." He speaks of the Church of 
 St. Leonard's, "and near thereunto two publique Houses for 
 the acting and Shewe of Comedies, tragidies and Histories for 
 recreation whereof one is called The Courtein, and the other 
 the Theatre both standing on the Southwest side towards the 
 Field." This was his last printed reference to The Theatre. 
 His next edition came out without mentioning it, for it had 
 departed long before to a better place. 
 
 In 1598 appeared another Book, where the Burbages had an 
 " advertisement " of their wares, from an unexpected quarter. 
 Francis Meres, Master of Arts in both Universities, and Pro- 
 fessor of Rhetoric in Oxford, in his " Wit's Treasury," classed 
 their poet Shakespeare among the greatest poets, and the 
 greatest dramatists, and gave a long list of his admired plays. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 71 
 
 This praise alone must somewhat discount the judgment of the 
 railers at the Theatre and its audiences, amongst whom Meres 
 must often have sat to hear the plays he praised. For play- 
 books were not printed then, they lost value by publication, 
 and many a complaint the players made about the wicked 
 pirate printers. 
 
 A tragedy took place that year in Shoreditch which may have 
 affected them somewhat. To understand it fully we must, as 
 has never been done, go back to the story of a previous tragedy 
 in the same place. In the Middlesex Sessions Roll it is re- 
 corded that at the Coroner's inquest taken at Holywell Street on 
 10th December, 39 Eliz., i.e. 1596, the body of a certain James 
 Feake there slain was viewed, and it was stated that " a cer- 
 tain Gabriel Spenser, late of London, yeoman " and James 
 Feake had been in the dwelling-house of Richard East, barber, 
 in the said parish, on the 3rd day of December current, between 
 the fifth and sixth hour of the afternoon, and insulting words 
 had passed between them. James Feake had in his hand a 
 candelabrum of copper, which he had intended to cast at 
 Gabriel Spenser, wherefore the said Gabriel Spenser having a 
 sword called a rapiour of iron and steel, of the price of 5s., in the 
 scabbard, beat the said James Feake, and gave him a mortal 
 wound " six inches deep and two inches wide on the face, 
 between the pupil of the right eye called the ball of the eye 
 and the eyebrows, penetrating to the brain, of which the afore- 
 said James Feake languished and lived in languor at Hallo- 
 well Street from the 3rd day of December until the 6th day, 
 when he died." He was buried at St. Leonard's Church, 
 7th December, 1596. " Thus the aforesaid Gabriel Spenser then 
 and there killed and slew the aforesaid James Feake in the 
 manner aforesaid and no otherwise, nor in any other manner 
 than is aforesaid the said James Feake came to his death." 
 What amount of property Gabriel Spenser had is unknown ; 
 and there is no record of his being condemned, or of reading his 
 neck-verse and being branded in the thumb. 1 It is possible 
 
 1 But that be was in trouble may be seen from Henslowe's Diary. 
 
72 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 that the three days' delay in his victim's death helped him, 
 and friendly witnesses and relatives might have said that James 
 Feake had been provoking. But it is a witness to the quarrel- 
 some disposition of the time, and also a proof of the fact that 
 in spite of the statute against it, ordinary people did carry 
 about with them weapons of warfare. Spenser was last 
 mentioned in Henslowe's Diary on 19th May, 1598 (42. 24). 
 
 It was necessary to tell this story of Gabriel Spenser, one of 
 Lord Pembroke's men, who transferred himself to the Lord 
 Admiral's men, and left Langley for Henslowe on nth October, 
 1597 ( see Note XI) because of the remarkable manner in 
 which Nemesis came to him in the following year. 
 
 There is a full account of it in Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson's book, 
 p. xxxviii. On the 22nd September, 40 Eliz., there was, at 
 the Middlesex Sessions a true bill found against Benjamin John- 
 son, late of London, yeoman, for killing Gabriel Spenser in 
 the Fields 1 on the said day. G.D.R., 40 Eliz. " The said Ben 
 Jonson with a certain sword of iron and steel called a Rapiour 
 of the price of 3s. gave Gabriel Spenser on his right side a mortal 
 wound of the depth of 6 inches and breadth of one inch, of 
 which he then and there died." 2 Johnson confessed the indict- 
 ment at the gaol delivery in Old Bailey in October 1598. He 
 was thrown into prison, and indicted by grand jury, and 
 " arraigned " at the next gaol delivery. The indictment called 
 him the aggressor, he afterwards stated that the quarrel was 
 forced on him. He read his neck-verse, and was delivered 
 according to the Statute, 18 Eliz., C. 7, after being branded in 
 the thumb with the Tyburn " T." Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson says 
 
 The cause of his becoming connected with Henslowe is not mentioned, 
 but I give it among my new authorities (Note XI). Henslowe however 
 gives the date, " the nth of October begane my Lord Admirals and my 
 Lord Pembroke's men to play at my howsse " 1597. (27. 15). 
 
 1 Hoggesdon or Hoxton Fields, in parish of St. Leonard. 
 
 2 " Gabriel Spenser being slayne, was buryed the 24th of Sept., 1598, 
 Register St. Leonard's, Shoreditch." There were many Spensers in 
 Shorcditcli, probably relatives. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 73 
 
 that he must have had some chattels to be forfeited, or the 
 clerk would have noted the fact against his name. Whether he 
 really had his thumb branded is doubtful, it might have been 
 done by a cold iron, or some of his friends at Court might have 
 saved him. None of his enemies ever taunted him with it, 
 not even Dekker. 
 
 In Jonson's Conversations with Drummond (" Shakespeare 
 Society's Transactions," 1842, p. 8) he says, " being appealed 
 to the field he had killed his adversarie who had hurt him in the 
 arm, and whose sword was 10 inches longer than his, for the 
 which he was imprisoned and almost at the gallows." 
 
 Henslowe was very angry at the loss of his man, as he wrote 
 to his son-in-law about it. He let his spite out by calling 
 Jonson " a Bricklayer " in recording the event. 
 
 He would naturally have nothing to do with Jonson's next 
 play, which was offered to the Lord Chamberlain's men and was 
 accepted, it has been said, through the influence of Shakespeare, 
 who acted in it himself (see the printed list in Jonson's works) . 
 
 The year 1598 as it approached its close, became darker and 
 darker to the Burbages. Weightier matters than plays 
 absorbed them. Poets were as plentiful as blackberries then, 
 it was theatres which were scarce. They were suspicious of 
 the mind of Giles Alleyn ; and their patrons had become 
 weaker. The Earl of Southampton had lost favour with the 
 Queen, for secretly marrying her maid of honour, Elizabeth 
 Vernon, and reflected favour fades as the shining from the 
 source of light pales. The Earl of Essex even was not in the 
 same favour he used to be. Perhaps Giles Alleyn reckoned 
 on that, he was sure he could reckon on the support of the Cor- 
 poration in his plan to pull the Theatre finally down, as the 
 Council had decreed, take possession of the material, and recoup 
 himself for all the losses he fancied he had suffered. He would 
 cut the Gordian knot of the contested lease, get rid of one he 
 called " a troublesome tenant " and start with a new tenant. 
 It is more than probable that he had got one in view at that 
 time ; and he thought that the suit with the Earl of Rutland 
 
74 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 might be quashed. At any rate, he made up his mind to do 
 the deed, had engaged a party of " housebreakers " to join him 
 just after the Christmas holidays, on some day then to be fixed 
 by him. 
 
 But Cuthbert was too acute for him, and he lived among 
 friends who gave him warning. He realized there was no 
 further chance of saving his Theatre, the most he could hope 
 for was the saving of its material. He turned his eyes south- 
 ward to the southern Liberty of Bankside. There were already 
 two theatres there, but he had no choice. He found a suitable 
 enough site near St. Saviour's Church, west of Dead Man's 
 Place and south of Maiden Lane, and he arranged with its owner, 
 Nicholas Brend, to take a long lease of it at £14 10s. a year rent, 
 to run from the December quarter, 1598. I know that the 
 final concord was not signed till 21st February, 1598-9, but 
 as it expressly states that the lease was to commence from 25th 
 December, 1598, we may be sure that a lease parole had already 
 been assured by that time. There would be some delay in 
 preparations for his desperate venture, but as soon as he could 
 he risked it. 
 
 One night after Christmas, on 28th December, 1598, he, with 
 an army of companions and workmen, under the direction of 
 Peter Street, a master carpenter, began hastily to tear down 
 his father's beloved Idea. 
 
 They did not find it so easy as they expected. There had 
 been tale-tellers on both sides, and Alleyn's men, finding their 
 promised job about to be snatched from them, were there to 
 disturb, and trouble and hinder, and make an uproar. It was 
 probably they who did most to destroy the grass valued after- 
 wards in Alleyn's complaint at forty shillings. 
 
 We are accustomed to consider the players as the temporary 
 element, and " the House " as a comparatively stable one. But 
 in this case the Lord Chamberlain's company moved, like the 
 snail, with their house on their back. To tear it up was one 
 task, to remove it was another. They would never dream of 
 taking it the easiest way, in a chain of lumbering waggons 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 75 
 
 across London Bridge. At night the gates there would be shut, 
 at all times there were heavy tolls for " wheelage and passage," 
 and they would lay themselves open to questions and delays 
 at many points. I feel sure they would go by water, and that 
 they would start from Peter*Street's Wharf at Bridewell Stairs, 1 
 or at one engaged by him nearer, whence he probably wafted 
 them by sailing barges at high tide to the other side. Remov- 
 ing the things down to the wharf must have been the hardest 
 part of the work, and much must have been destroyed and 
 probably much stolen in the transit. And when Cuthbert had 
 succeeded in his herculean task of carrying away his dead 
 Theatre to the other side, there it would he, an unsightly 
 pile of rubbish to the west of Dead Man's Place while the old 
 year passed away and the New Year came in. 
 
 They played at Court that Christmas, in spite of their upturn- 
 ing on St. Steven's Day at night, on New Year's Day at night, 
 and on Shrove Sondaye at night. 2 Think of it ! 
 
 I know that the law-suits give two different dates for the 
 event, the one as above on 3 28th December, 1598, the other 
 on 20th January, 1598-9. 4 Many have tried to account for 
 this by reckoning two occasions of carrying away the material 
 (I did so myself at one time). But now I believe that old Giles 
 Alleyn blundered in the date at his first suit, and corrected it in 
 his later one. He had not been present, he makes it a count 
 in his complaint that Burbage had come " while he was away 
 in the country." But he also says that he had begun his suit 
 against Peter Street the Hilary Term ensuing, and after 20th 
 January he would hardly have time for the processes. 
 
 A close study of all the pleadings convinces me that we may 
 take the earlier date as the true one. It was more practicable 
 
 1 Court of Requests, 91 (37), 29th Jan., 39 Eliz. 
 
 2 Dec. Ace, Treas. Chamb., Audit Off. 387, 38. 
 
 * Star Chamber Proceedings, 44 Eliz. xii. 35, 1601, Alleyn and 
 Burbage. 
 
 * Coram Rege Rolls, Trinity Term, 42 Eliz. R. 587, Alleyn v. Peter 
 Street. 
 
76 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 and prudent, it was covered by the date of Nicholas Brend's 
 lease and it was unexpected. Quite probably the original plan 
 had been made for 20th January when the " information " 
 came. The Burbages were always short of money. We owe 
 Alleyn a debt of gratitude for telling us of the mysterious friend 
 who helped the transportation of the Theatre in many ways, in 
 money particularly. This was a man called plain William 
 Smith, who has never been noticed in this relation by anybody. 
 But so important did Alleyn reckon him as a helper to Burbage 
 that he included his name in his later " complaint " (Note XXI). 
 
 Who was William Smith ? I believe he must have been a 
 player at some time or other, and one of the minor poets of 
 the time, with the confusing initials W. S. (Stat. Reg.), 
 " Amours by J. D., and certain other Sonnets by W. S.," suggest 
 the trace of further details. At least, he then proved himself 
 the friend in need. Another curious thing may be noted, that on 
 20th January, 1599, Giles Alleyn was drawing up his complaint, 
 in conjunction with Cuthbert, against Ames and others, for 
 trespass on his Holywell property (see Note XIII). It may 
 be Cuthbert had withdrawn from it. 
 
 This incident of the Earl of Rutland's claim has not been 
 thoroughly worked out by any one ; it bulks more largely in the 
 story than has been estimated. Therefore I give some further 
 details among the " Authorities." 
 
 The transportation of the Theatre was a great and novel 
 conception heroically designed, and heroically executed through 
 the dark night and cold grey dawn of midwinter. It cannot be 
 imagined the work would be completed in one round of the 
 clock. But scarcely less heroic than the transportation, would 
 be the rebuilding. Every nerve would be strained to its utmost 
 at the highest speed-limit. Fortune seemed willing to shine 
 on such determined courage at last. The Burbages were not 
 now working alone. They had associated five of their fellows in 
 their enterprise, and practically turned their responsibility 
 for the future of the new theatre into a company. We may 
 read in that group the names of their chosen friends, and it is 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 77 
 
 pleasant to know that Shakespeare was one of them. Cuthbert 
 divided the liabilities and prospective profits into two parts, 
 one of which he reserved for his brother Richard and himself 
 in equal shares, because they always seem to have been held as 
 owners of the house, the other to be divided into five equal 
 shares for William Shakspeare, Augustine Phillipps, Thomas 
 Pope, John Hemmings, and William Kempe, who shortly after- 
 wards gave his share up to the other four. 
 
 Professor Wallace has found the exact proportions of the 
 shares in the Record Office, which may be consulted inde- 
 pendently, but which do not affect my story. x Where was Wil- 
 liam Smith ? Peter Street did his best, Burbage did his best, 
 the shareholders were eager, and money-lenders ready. Cuth- 
 bert put into the work material and probably all his own savings. 
 At any rate, in a very short time, a much shorter time I imagine 
 than is generally reckoned, a new theatre arose, like a Phoenix 
 from the ashes of the old, and wise in his day and generation, 
 Cuthbert changed its name. All the decrees were out against 
 " The Theatre," and so " The Theatre " disappeared. They 
 called it " The Globe " — was it because they had already heard 
 " All the world's a stage," they did so, or was it from their 
 figure of Hercules carrying the world on his back (as they had 
 so lately done for their world) which adorned their new struc- 
 ture ? Truly, as Hercules had done in fable, that they had 
 done in reality ; and " The Globe " it was called, and as " The 
 Globe " it was known till the end. There Shakespeare was 
 free to create and Richard Burbage to interpret his creations. 
 Now it was North London (which had watched curiously its 
 exodus) that could see afar its rising again phoenix-like from 
 its ashes, and again it was its own advertisement. The hopes 
 of the Thames watermen were radiant at the prospect. There 
 
 1 See Prof. Wallace's " Shakespeare's money interest in the Globe 
 Theatre," " Century Magazine," August, 1910. Also his article in 
 " The Times," Oct. 2nd, 1909 — on the Osteler-Hemming case ; of which 
 the original may be found in Coram Re^e Rolls, Hilary term, 13 James 
 I, 1454, R. 692. 
 
78 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 were now three important theatres in Bankside beside the Bear 
 Garden and minor shows. 
 
 But neither Henslowe nor Langley seemed to have any 
 animus against the Burbages, at least there are no law-suits 
 between them. At last, for a time (too short, alas), Cuthbert 
 breathed free from a law-suit. Myles had given up harassing 
 him after the death of his father, and he did not trouble him- 
 self much about the suit he had brought against Roger Ames, 
 John Powell and Richard Robinson, because they had on ist 
 May, 1596, trespassed on the inner close of Cuthbert Burbage 
 at Holywell, kept it in their own custody from the ist May till 
 27th June, and destroyed grass to the amount of forty shil- 
 lings. For the close was no longer his even by tenancy, Giles 
 Alleyn, whose interest he had been protecting, 1 had become his 
 foe. The young Earl had come of age and repudiated the suit 
 and Thomas Scriven, his steward, was in a fix. He had found 
 that it was quite true that the Close belonged to the " Capital 
 Mansion " but the Capital Mansion did not belong to the Earl 
 of Rutland, but to Giles Alleyn. The Earl's was a secondary 
 mansion which an ancestor had leased from the Crown and 
 enlarged for his own use. 2 
 
 Whether Cuthbert gave himself any further trouble in the 
 matter of Ames, Powell and Robinson, I know not, but in 
 Easter term, 41 Eliz., 1599, Alleyn brought in the bill of com- 
 plaint, of which he says he had given notice in Hilary term, 
 against Peter Street in an action for trespass and other crimes 
 in the Queen's Bench. Of course all the expense and most of 
 the trouble would fall on Cuthbert Burbage, not on his employe 
 (who would, however, have trouble enough). They had leave 
 to " imparl the complaint until Friday next after the morrow of 
 Trinity." 3 
 
 1 See Coram Rege Rolls, Trinity term, 38 Eliz. Coram Rege Rolls 
 Hilary term, 41 Eliz., R. 320 (see Note XIII). 
 
 2 Exchequer Bills and Answers, Eliz., 369 (see Note XVIII). Ex- 
 chequer Depositions, Eliz. No. 18, 44, 45 (see Note XIV). 
 
 8 Coram Rege Rolls, Trinity term, 42 Eliz., R. 587 (see Note XVIII). 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 79 
 
 Alleyn charged Peter Street with coming on the 20th day 
 of January with force and arms to break the close called The 
 Inner Courtyard, formerly belonging to the disused Monastery 
 of Holywell, now belonging to him and his wife. He trod down 
 and consumed the grass, and did other enormities, in pulling 
 to pieces and carrying away a building belonging to the said 
 Giles Alleyn, called the Theatre, worth £700, and the damages, 
 added to the loss, he reckoned at £800. Peter Street denied all 
 wrong-doing except treading down the grass. He acknowledged 
 that he took down and carried away the Theatre, but he acted 
 only as the servant of Cuthbert Burbage, and Giles Alleyn 
 ought not to maintain this action against him. But he gave 
 all Burbage's story of the lease and following events, and sought 
 judgment that Giles Alleyn should have no plea. 
 
 Giles Alleyn and his wife said that Peter Street's defence 
 was insufficient in law and that they should have their plea. 
 Peter Street said he was able to verify his statements. The 
 Court did not think itself yet fully informed of the cause, and 
 gave a day to both parties, on Thursday next before the 
 Octaves of Michaelmas to plead before a jury. 
 
 It is curious to see that Alleyn should content himself with 
 a charge of trespass. 
 
 But that date was further postponed by Cuthbert Burbage 
 giving notice of a complaint against Giles Alleyn in the Court 
 of Requests, to stay the suit that he had brought in the Queen's 
 Bench. This was heard on 26th January, 42 Eliz., 1599-60, 
 and seems to have been carefully heard. Giles Alleyn answered 
 on 6th February, 42 Eliz. Cuthbert replied on 27th April, 
 1600. Not only is the whole story repeated here in compara- 
 tively simple English (the Coram Rege Rolls are in contracted 
 Latin), and ordinary witnesses heard on 9th April, but a Royal 
 Commission was appointed to hear formal depositions upon 
 Interrogatories on 5th June, 1600. The depositions were taken 
 at Kelvedon, Essex, for the convenience of Alleyn, on 14th 
 August, 1600. There one Robert Vigerous, acquainted with 
 both parties, on Giles Alleyn's side stated that " about four 
 
80 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 years past " he had drawn up a new lease of Holywell for James 
 and Cuthbert Burbage, who offered to take the Theatre for a 
 new term of ten years at £24 a year, and that he believed an 
 offer of £100 as a consideration accompanied the draft of agree- 
 ment. The deponent had drawn it up himself, Cuthbert Bur- 
 bage had come to his rooms (in the Temple at that time), paid 
 him his fees, and promised him a satin doublet when the agree- 
 ment was completed. But he had never had that doublet. 1 
 
 Thomas Neville, of Bricklesea, co. Essex, gent., gave a 
 rather confused statement of the same events, adding that 
 James Burbage had not paid £30 of his rent, and Cuthbert had 
 promised to do so, with the other conditions about 2 years ago. 
 But he evidently refers to Giles Alleyn's lease, which Cuthbert 
 Burbage had always refused to sign. 
 
 Among the uncalendared proceedings of the Court of Re- 
 quests, Eliz., Bundle 372, I found an imperfect book of " de- 
 crees and orders," and therein, under date nth June, 42 Eliz., 
 one which duly records the order for the arrest of Giles Alley n, 
 for contempt of court, which he describes so bitterly in his later 
 Star Chamber Case (44 Eliz. xii. 35, see Note XXI), and this may 
 be the cause of the delay between the appointment of the Com- 
 mission on 5th June, and the depositions on 14th August. 
 Poor old Giles Alleyn, he felt himself terribly discredited by 
 having been sent for by a Royal messenger, and in his wrath he 
 did not hesitate to charge Cuthbert with conspiracy, and the 
 deputy registrar even with fraud over the order (ibid.). 
 
 We may note that in general Giles Alleyn's papers in his 
 various suits were much longer than those of his opponents. He 
 brought in many irrelevant matters, and tried to prejudice the 
 hearers by charging James Burbage with taking the Theatre 
 from John Braynes, who had really built it, and with various 
 other mal-practices. However, the Court did not find for him 
 but for Cuthbert Burbage, and ordered Giles Alleyn to stay his 
 suit at the Common Law and to bring no other suits on this 
 count. 
 
 1 See Note XIX. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 81 
 
 Halliwell-Phillipps states that the decision has not been pre- 
 served. I know that. But I find the fact recorded in Giles 
 Alleyn's own later pleadings in the Star Chamber(see Note XXI), 
 which Halliwell-Phillipps did not study. Nevertheless Alleyn is 
 not afraid to bring a similar suit against " Cuthbert Burbage, 
 in the custody of the Marshall," in Hilary term, 1 43 Eliz., 
 1601, under another claim for a " breach of covenant " ; and it 
 comes to hearing in Easter term, 44 Eliz. Cuthbert said they 
 had no right to bring the case after the last decision ; Gilei 
 Alleyn and his wife said they had. 
 
 But they had overreached themselves in their eagerness. 
 They had brought a suit against Cuthbert and Richard Bur- 
 bage in the Star Chamber, on 23rd November, 44 Eliz., 1601, 
 xii. 35. It is this suit, unstudied by Halliwell-Phillipps, which 
 gives us the greatest amount of information. Giles Alleyn had 
 thought that he saw a chance, now that the Essex conspiracy 
 had thinned the ranks of the friends of the Globe company, 
 when the players had even been touched themselves, of getting 
 what he would call a " true bill " heard without influence being 
 exerted against him. He first states the well-known prelimin- 
 ary arrangements, and adds that " the Theatre was erected at 
 the cost not of Burbage but of Braynes to the value of 1,000 
 marks " ; gives as a reason why he could not sign the second 
 lease, that the £200 had not been spent, and that the building 
 had been assigned to John Hyde. 
 
 The lease was not signed, but Cuthbert remained on the pre- 
 mises after the expiry thereof, and therefore the right to the 
 Theatre clearly remained to the landlord. He seeing that 
 " great and grievous abuses grew by that said Theatre " meant 
 to pull it down to relieve himself from his losses, and the breach 
 of his covenants, and because James Burbage had made a deed 
 of gift in his lifetime of all his goods and chattels to Cuthbert 
 and Richard, who made their mother Ellen, " a very poor 
 woman," administratix in order to defraud him. But Cuthbert 
 
 1 The time the world was aghast at the trial of Essex, and the Globe 
 Company excited over the examination of Augustine Phillipps. 
 
82 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 " having intelligence of his purpose " unlawfully confederated 
 with Richard Burbage, Peter Street, and Wilham Smith, and 
 removed it on and about 28th December, 41 Eliz., 1598. 
 Whereupon he (Giles Alleyn) in the Hilary term x following 
 commenced an action of trespass in the King's Bench, but Cuth- 
 bert " mahciously intending to vex and molest your subject, 
 in the Easter term 2 following, brought a complaint in the Court 
 of Requests to stay his suit, and he appeared and made answer 
 in the Trinity term s afterwards, 42 Eliz. An order was pub- 
 lished that the suit should be stayed till the cause in Equity was 
 heard — Michaelmas, 42 Eliz. 4 Meanwhile, Cuthbert to " en- 
 trap your subject, did very mahciously and fraudulentlie " 
 confederate with John Maddox, his attorney, and Richard 
 Lane, the deputy registrar, "to draw up an order (which it did 
 not appertayne to him to do), thereby abusing your Highness' 
 Court and subject " that he should not draw up a demurrer. 
 Not knowing this, he drew up a demurrer, and went home to 
 the country, thinking everything would rest till the hearing of 
 the cause. But on the last day of the term Cuthbert made oath 
 in court that he had broken order by making that demurrer, 
 and for supposed contempt of court, in the Vacation time was 
 fetched up to London by a pursuivant, " a man very aged and 
 unfitt to travell, to his excessive charges in journey and other- 
 wise to his great discredit and disgrace among his neigh- 
 bours." He was there bound to Cuthbert Burbage in 
 £200 to appear at Michaelmas which he did and was dis- 
 charged. He had had several witnesses to appear viva voce 
 on his behalf. But Cuthbert and Richard reviled them for 
 having spoken untruths and threatened to stab them if they 
 did it again. " By which furious and unlawful threats your 
 
 1 Hilary term from 23rd or 24th January till 12th or 13th February. 
 
 2 From seventeen days after Easter Day, till four days after Ascension 
 Day. 
 
 ' From Friday after Trinity Sunday till Wednesday a fortnight after. 
 4 From 9th or 10th of October till 2§th or 29th November. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 83 
 
 said servant's witnesses were terrified and durst not testifie the 
 truth on behalf of your subject." He said Cuthbert had 
 maliciously bribed Richard Hudson and Thomas Osborne to 
 commit perjury about the costs of £200 promised to be spent on 
 repairs by James Burbage. " By which unlawful practices your 
 said subject did then lose his cause." Further, all the suits had 
 been prosecuted against your subject by the " Malicious un- 
 lawful maintenance of William Smith," who spent money in 
 acquiring illegal proof. 
 
 Giles Alleyn had excelled himself in vituperation this time. 
 The charges were serious, and that against a deputy-registrar 
 (so far as I know) unparalleled. The legal profession would 
 prick up its ears. 
 
 The defendants said they had no reason to answer but they 
 explained that Alleyn had, in the Hilary term, after the removal 
 complained against Peter Street and Cuthbert Burbage, that 
 Cuthbert had sued in Court of Requests against the unjust pro- 
 ceedings, that he knew he was in danger by Common Law, but 
 that it was through Alleyn's own wrong and breach of covenant 
 the second lease was not signed, that they had proved James 
 Burbage had fulfilled all the conditions and Cuthbert had perfect 
 right to remove the Theatre as had been agreed if conditions 
 fulfilled. That the Court of Requests gave order on 18th Octo- 
 ber, 42 Eliz., that the suit at Common Law should be stayed, 
 that Alleyn should never again be able to commence any other 
 action for the same cause, and that Cuthbert could take his 
 remedy at Common Law against Alleyn for not sealing the new 
 lease. That if it had been true that Cuthbert had committed 
 any fraud it might have been showed while the case was pend- 
 ing, and it would have been redressed. But Alleyn caused 
 great scandal to Your Majesties Counsel to raise such a case 
 again after such an order in another court. 
 
 On 12th June, 44 Eliz. (1602) Richard Lane indignantly 
 repudiated any favour, or any forgery. 
 
 t& On 31st May, 41 Eliz., an order had been issued that the case 
 should be heard on 5th June of next term, and that Alleyn 
 
84 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 should stay his suit and should be free to examine his witnesses 
 till 2nd day of next term, that he (Richard Lane) had taken 
 notes of the proceedings in his ordinary way, without partiality, 
 and they were signed by some of her Majesty's Counsel, that 
 AUeyn had slanderously and untruly charged Burbage, 
 Maddox and himself with confederating to draw an order 
 illegally, and that every part of Alleyn's bill was untrue. 
 
 On 17th June, 44 Eliz., Richard Hudson and Thomas Os- 
 borne said that none of the matters with which Giles AUeyn 
 charged them were true and demurred against his bill being 
 brought against them. The Court therefore referred the case 
 to the consideration of the right worshipful Francis Bacon, Esq., 
 and "he reporteth that the said Bill is very uncertain and insuffi- 
 cient, and that no further answer needeth to be made thereto." 
 
 Here at last I have found a real association of Francis Bacon 
 with the Theatre, and I am glad to find he supported its owners 
 and friends. But it was only, as we have seen, in his legal 
 capacity, not a poetic one at all. This case, it may be seen by 
 the dates, was running concurrently with Alleyn's second case 
 at Common Law against Cuthbert Burbage for breach of 
 covenant, which was brought in Hilary term, 43 Eliz., heard 
 in Easter term, 44 Eliz., 1602, on the Quindene of Easter. 
 Cuthbert had defended himself, Giles and Sara threw themselves 
 on the country and demanded a jury — which was not named — 
 and no decision was come to because this Star Chamber case 
 decision of June 1602 covered the proceedings in that court, 
 as well as in all others. 
 
 So, at last, by midsummer 1602, Cuthbert Burbage cast the 
 millstone of Alleyn's law-suits from his neck. The gall must 
 have remained in him for long, for much trouble and anxiety 
 had been spent, and much more money than would appear on 
 the surface It would be a little alleviation to him that Giles 
 AUeyn would have to pay costs in both of the latter courts of 
 Star Chamber, and King's Bench. But it would not cover the 
 losses to the family, or to the Globe Company, for the output 
 and the actor Richard's time and strength must have been 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 85 
 
 occupied considerably also. It is quite possible that Giles 
 Alleyn might have tried to run another case somewhere on some 
 pretext under the new King. But from the beginning of 
 James' reign favour was shown to the Globe Company, their 
 star was in the ascendant, and Giles Alleyn's had set for ever. 
 
 I thought it necessary to go on till this date with the law-suits, 
 so as to get the story of The Theatre finished before I turned 
 to other things. 
 
 We must go back to understand. By 28th December, 1598, 
 we found that the Lord Chamberlain's company were homeless. 
 With a beautiful theatre, " curtained and closed and warm," 
 ready for their winter work, waiting them at Blackfriars, it 
 must have been peculiarly galling that they should have been 
 forbidden to use it. It is quite probable that the Company 
 risked playing a few times there or played for a time at the 
 Curtain when the Globe was rising. Unfortunately, there was 
 no parallel to Henslowe in charge at the Curtain, and we only 
 know fragmentary facts from stray notices as to what hap- 
 pened there. Halliwell-Phillipps gives some of these — under 
 " The Theatre and Curtain." But I am convinced that the 
 Globe did not take so very long to build as is supposed. Just 
 a year after it was commenced a curious incident occurred. 
 Henslowe and Edward Alleyn, of the Rose Theatre, engaged 
 Burbage's " Peter Street " to build for them a Theatre after the 
 model of the Globe in Golden Lane, afterwards called " The 
 Fortune." It would almost seem as if the rivalry had affected 
 them, and that they wanted to secure the northern contingent 
 of theatre-goers now that they had two rivals in the south. 
 
 The Burbages, though removing their theatre to the south, 
 continued to live in Shoreditch. We know this not only from 
 the Parish Register, which records the births and deaths in their 
 family ^ but from the Subsidy Rolls. James Burbage's house 
 in Holywell Street, afterwards Cuthbert's, may be supposed 
 to have been larger than Richard's, as Cuthbert was rated on £4 
 goods — and Richard on £3. Shakespeare did not live in Shore- 
 ditch itself but he was not far off. He lived in the parish of St. 
 
86 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Helen's in Bishopgate. It is curious to realize that he was 
 assessed on £5, which implies that he lived in a larger and better 
 house than either of the brothers Burbage. That again sug- 
 gests a possibility, which has never been suggested, that his 
 family was with him during some years of his life in town. 
 There is a curious point about Shakespeare's house to note. 
 The Subsidy Roll for St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, in October 
 1598, 146 / 369, which assesses William Shakespeare on £5 
 goods was discovered by Joseph Hunter in 1845, though many 
 others have claimed the discovery since. The levy was for 
 13s. ifd. and the marginal reference affld. means that he did not 
 pay but made an affidavit as to his reason for not paying. 1 
 
 About twenty other names out of seventy-two in the same 
 roll had also " affid." against them, so the collector had had 
 some trouble that year. Of course the natural suggestion was 
 that he had followed the fortunes of the transported theatre, 
 and gone to live in Bankside. Fortunately for us, Professor 
 Hales has been able to prove this supposition true. 
 
 In an article in " The Athenaeum," 26th March, 1904, p. 
 401, Professor Hales now tells us that Shakespeare's name 
 appears in the same Subsidy Rolls for 1595-6, and 1596-7 
 with smaller levies in proportion, but they had not been col- 
 lected, the 13s. ifd. was therefore cumulative. The curious 
 point is that in the great Roll of the Pipe of 40 Eliz., 1598, in 
 " Residuum, London " is the entry, " William Shakspeare in the 
 Parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate Ward, owes 13s. ^d. of the 
 subsidy," and he answers in the following Roll 41 Eliz. In 
 " Residuum Sussex," is the entry, " William Shakspeare in the 
 parish of St. Helens, 13s. ^d. of the whole subsidy granted in the 
 said 39th year which is required upon the same roll there," 
 Against this is the entry " 0. N." or " oneraturnisi " unless he 
 show cause, and in the margin " Episcopo Wintonensis " and a 
 
 1 See Excheq. Lay. Subs. London, 35 Eliz. H- 
 
 354 
 
 146 
 "39 Eliz. ^ 
 
 Roll of the Pipe Residuum, Sussex, 41 Eliz. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 87 
 
 " t " which the sheriffs mark against names they collect from. 
 Now Sussex and Surrey had only one sheriff between them, the 
 Bishop of Winchester owned the Liberty in which the theatre 
 and Shakespeare now found themselves. The subsidy must 
 have been at last settled then and the Bishop of Winchester 
 accounts for a sum of money from payments of various persons. 
 
 The summer after the transplantation of the Theatre was a 
 fortunate one for the company. Their poet was enriching their 
 repertoire by his inimitable plays. Curiosity made Londoners 
 row over to see their new attractions. 
 
 Many came often. We know that the Earl of Southampton, 
 still out of favour at Court, because he had married the Eliza- 
 beth of his choice, along with his friend the Earl of Rutland, 
 undisturbed by his steward's suit with Cuthbert Burbage 
 " went to see plays every day." 1 
 
 In the early days of the Globe, Shakespeare's " Henry V" 
 was produced, a play which gives many traces of the- poet's 
 feelings. His views of the relations of the audience to the actors 
 are there explained, " You must work, work your thoughts." 
 Your imagination must make up for us the deficiencies in our 
 stage setting ; you must give, as we give though in a greater 
 degree. Thus only can you understand the suggestions and 
 generalizations of a dramatist. He loved his subject on this 
 occasion. There is no doubt that in describing the personal 
 charm of the young King, his will to rough it among his sub- 
 jects, his patriotic praise of England, and his power of infusing 
 his subjects with courage, he had made the Earl of Essex sit 
 as his modern model. The words in the chorus to Act v. also 
 reflect the personal influence of the Earl on Londoners especi- 
 ally. The Mayor, his brethren, the plebeians may 
 
 " Go forth and fetch their conquering hero in 
 As by a lower, but loving likelihood, 
 Were now the general of our gracious empress 
 (As in good time he may) from Ireland coming . . . 
 How many would the peaceful city quit 
 To welcome him." Chorus, Act V. 
 
 1 Winwood's " Memorials." 
 
88 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 A happy proclamation of the popularity of his friend's friend, 
 too soon, alas ! to sink in gloom. Separation ensued, when 
 Southampton went over to join Essex in Ireland, and then came 
 the Queen's wrath, the Council's underhand policy, discontent, 
 planning of strong remedies for sore needs, failure, return, 
 rising and death, a tragedy enacted on the world's stage which 
 poured a new tragic sense into the soul of the Globe's Poet, 
 and coloured the after output of his brain. 
 
 How very near had the sympathies of the players drawn them 
 to the maelstrom of Essex's evil fortunes ! Augustine Phillipps 
 was examined 1 by the Privy Council over the suspicious per- 
 formances of " Richard II," the play which Elizabeth hated and 
 feared. Either his astute " confessions," or the influence of the 
 Lord Chamberlain, saved them then. Essex's enemies, it is 
 true, had no wish to increase the number of their enemies, or 
 to destroy more than the principals. But there is no doubt 
 that sorrow and doubts and fears hovered around the hearts of 
 every player in the Globe Theatre from the consequences of 
 Essex's so-called Treason. 2 A time of suspense, during 
 which their sore hearts did not prevent them from being called 
 to complete their engagement to perform before the Queen, 
 and then the grand head of Essex rolled in blood from the block 
 in the Tower ! His friend was left there, long expecting a similar 
 fate. His followers were heavily fined for their complicity, 
 while the Lord Chamberlain's men thought it their wisest 
 course to go and travel in the country. Did they travel as far 
 as Scotland then ? and did Shakespeare go with them ? A 
 fascinating question arises over that, when we meditate over 
 the suggestions of personal knowledge of the country given in 
 " Macbeth," of St. Colme's Inch, of the blasted heath on the 
 way to Forres, of the unexpectedly mild climate of Inverness. 
 
 1 State Pap., Dom. Ser., Eliz. 278 (85). 
 
 2 I have just noted Sir Walter Raleigh's letter to Cecil dated 5th July, 
 1597, "I acquainted the Lord General with your letters and kind 
 acceptance of your entertainment. He was wonderful merry at the 
 conceit of Richard II." What can this mean ? Dom. Ser. State Pap., 
 Eliz. 264 (10). 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 89 
 
 Shakespeare might have read the whole of Holinshed's 
 history of ancient Scotland, but where did he get, " How far 
 is 't called to Forres ? " a pure Scotch idiom which could not 
 have flowed by nature from the lips of a man of English birth. 
 At that same season we know that a man afterwards so mysteri- 
 ously associated with their fortunes was in the North of Scot- 
 land, and that the King favoured him above measure, Laurence 
 Fletcher by name, " The English Comedian." Of him no 
 English records are available, but there are several notices 
 among Scotch public records. " Payment to certain English 
 Comedians, February 1593-4." Treasurer's accounts Register 
 House. The first mention of Fletcher is in a letter from George 
 Nicolson 1 to Mr. Bowes, dated 22nd March, 1595, in which it 
 is said, " The King heard that Fletcher the player was hanged 
 and told him and Roger Aston so in merry words, not believ- 
 ing it, saying very pleasantly " that if it were true, he would 
 hang them too." 
 
 The second entry is a much more serious one. George Nicol- 
 son, in his usual despatch to Sir Robert Cecil on 12th November, 
 1599, said that the King had given the English players 
 permission to play. But " the four Sessions of this town 
 (without touch by name of our English actors Fletcher and 
 Mertyn with their company) and not knowing the King's ordin- 
 ances for them to play and be heard, enacted yt their flocks were 
 to forbear and not to come or haunt profane games, sports or 
 plays." The King was in a towering passion, summoned the 
 Sessions before him and threatened them with punishment. At 
 first the ministers would not yield an inch, later they agreed to 
 be silent as to the action of their congregations. The next day 
 the King " by proclamation with sound of a trumpet hath com- 
 manded the players liberty to play, and forbidden their hinder 
 or impeachment therein " (St. Pap., Scotch Ser. lxv. 64). He 
 also ordered the ministers " not to restrain or censure those that 
 repair to comedies and plays on pain of rebellion. Holyrude 
 House, 8th November, 1599." 
 
 1 St. Pap., Scotch Ser., Eliz. lv. 59. 
 
go BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The third notice is even more interesting. It shows us the 
 English Players in 1601, as far north as Aberdeen, where the 
 Town Council on the request of the King granted " The Free- 
 dom of the City " to Fletcher, Martin, and their fellows (see 
 Dibdin's " History of the Edinburgh Stage " and Kennedy's 
 " Memorials of Aberdeen"). That was the very year Shake- 
 speare's company was travelling. Was it possible that, through 
 the known sympathies of the Scotch King for the Earl of Essex, 
 the players who had performed for him " Richard II " thought 
 themselves safer for a while under his protection ? Was it 
 there, in the far north, Laurence Fletcher forged the links of 
 association between himself and the Lord Chamberlain's 
 players, which were afterwards to be bound more closely in 
 the south ? 
 
 When the Chamberlain's company returned to the Globe, 
 there was for them an end of the Essex Conspiracy, except for 
 the memory of the prisoner immured in the Tower. An 
 interesting notice in a contemporary University play shows 
 somewhat of the position they had attained. 
 (Written 1601, printed 1606.) 
 
 In " The Returne from Pernassus," Part II, Act iv. Scene 3, 
 Philomusus and Ingenioso are driven to try the stage, and 
 interview Burbage and Kempe, who are willing to consider 
 them because they would work cheaply. 
 
 " Kemp. Few of the University pen plaies well, they smell 
 too much of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis 
 and talke too much of Proserpine and Juppiter. Why, here's 
 our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, I, and Ben Jonson 
 too. Oh that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up 
 Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath 
 given him a purge that made him beray his credit. 
 
 " Bur. It's a shrewd fellow indeed. 
 
 "Kemp. Be merry, my lads, you have happened upon 
 the most excellent vocation in the world for money : they 
 come north and south to bring it to our playhouse, and for 
 honours, who of more report, than Dick Burbage, and Will 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 91 
 
 Kempe, he is not counted a gentleman that knows not Dick 
 Burbage and Will Kemp. . . . 
 
 " Phil. Indeed, Mr. Kempe, you are very famous. 
 
 (After suggestions as to acting, and teaching it.) 
 
 *' Kemp. Thou wilt do well in time, if thou wilt be ruled by 
 thy betters, that is by myself, and such grave Aldermen of 
 the Playhouse as I am. 
 
 "Bur. I like your face and the proportions of your body 
 for ' Rich. III." 
 
 In " Returne from Pernassus," Part I, there are allusions 
 to Shakespeare and his poems. 
 
 But new trouble arose to them all through Richard's inherit- 
 ance. 
 
 When in the year 1597 James Burbage's heart had been 
 broken by his failure to work the Blackfriars as a theatre, it 
 seems to have been left unused. Perhaps it may have been 
 borrowed for private entertainments, for fencing classes, or other 
 purposes, we may surmise, but we know nothing. On the death 
 of William Hunnis * the Master of the Children of the Chapel 
 Royal, on 6th June, 1597, he was succeeded by Nathaniel Giles. 
 He received the patent of appointment and privilege and the 
 patent to take up singing children for the Queen's Chapel, 
 similar to those generally granted to his predecessors. He also 
 in pursuance of custom set about to prepare the children to 
 perform plays before the Queen if invited to do so. 
 
 It is probable that from the very first he set his eyes upon 
 Burbage's theatre (compulsorily vacated by the Lord Cham- 
 berlain's company) for the rehearsals of his children, and that 
 gradually, by the convenience of things, wider ideas took shape. 
 He associated himself with one Henry Evans, who took a lease 
 of the premises from Richard Burbage at £40 a year, and they 
 began to run what was afterwards called " a private theatre," 
 at which the children performed. It became very fashionable 
 and successful. The rougher elements were shut out entirely, 
 
 x See my book, " William Hunnis and the Revels of the Chapel 
 Royal," the first book written about the man. 
 
92 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 prices were high, the luxuries designed by James Burbage for 
 audiences to come to see his son, came to hear the children 
 instead. They attracted the better classes away from the 
 Globe, and other public theatres, where anybody could go by 
 payment. The " Globe " players were wounded as by an 
 arrow feathered from their own wing by the successes of the 
 children actors. Then trouble came to the managers at the 
 Blackfriars Theatre. Mr. Greenstreet discovered what is 
 known as the Clifton Case, which has been fully published in 
 Fleay's " History of the Stage." Nathaniel Giles' patent to 
 take up children had a proviso, " not the sons of gentlemen," 
 but Giles or Evans or their assistants disobeyed the limita- 
 tions, and " took up " children who had no " singing voices," 
 for their aptitude as players, " took up," (unfortunately for 
 them) by main force a lad called Clifton, son of a gentleman, 
 who very indignantly appealed at once to Court authorities, 
 secured his son, and instituted proceedings against Giles and 
 Evans, which must have put both of them in a very unpleas- 
 ant position. Evans made over his lease to his son-in-law, 
 paid a visit to the country, a new directorate was formed and 
 the children at Blackfriars went on as a Company as popular 
 as ever. 
 
 Ben Jonson, Marston, Chapman and others wrote plays for 
 the children, plays that held music, singing, dancing, masques, 
 with less depth of feeling, more sparkle, more Court gossip, wit 
 and satire, till the audience became attracted, not only for the 
 refinement and the prettiness of the things, for the lightness of 
 the touch, but for the news of the day. It took less thinking, 
 less imagination than " the strong meat " presented by Shake- 
 speare at the Globe. Jealousies arose between the companies ; 
 courtiers accustomed to bearbaiting fanned these jealousies 
 for their own amusement, and hence arose a curious Theatre- 
 War. The story has been frequently told. The main point 
 of interest in it all is the consideration of the meaning of the 
 words in Shakespeare's " Hamlet " (his greatest tragedy, 
 created for Richard Burbage, the greatest actor), when the 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 93 
 
 two great men felt their popularity begin to fade before the 
 meretricious charms of the children. 
 
 It is worth re-reading as a chapter apart. 
 
 " Hamlet. What players are they ? 
 
 " Ros. Even those you were wont to take such delight in, 
 the tragedians of the city. 
 
 " Ham. How chances it they travel ? J Their residence 
 both in reputation and profit, were better both ways. 
 
 " Ros. I think their inhibition comes by the means of the 
 late innovation. 
 
 " Ham. Do they hold the same estimation they did when 
 I was in the city ? Are they so followed ? 
 
 " Ros. No, indeed, they are not. 
 
 " Ham. How comes it ? Do they grow rusty ? 
 
 " Ros. Nay, their endeavour keeps in the wonted pace ; 
 but there is, sir, an aery of children, little eyases, that cry out 
 on the top of question, and are most tyrannically clapped f or't ; 
 these are now the fashion ; and so berattle the common stages 
 (so they call them) that many wearing rapiers are afraid of 
 goose-quills, and dare scarce come thither. 
 
 " Ham. What ! are they children ? Who maintains them ? 
 How are they escoted ? Will they pursue their quality no 
 longer than they can sing ? Will they not say afterwards, if they 
 should grow themselves to common players (as it is most like 
 if their means are not better) their writers do them wrong, to 
 make them exclaim against their own succession ? 
 
 " Ros. 'Faith there has been much to do on both sides ; 
 and the nation holds it no sin, to tarre them to controversy ; 
 there was, for a while, no money bid for argument, unless the 
 poet and the player went to cuffs in the question. 
 
 " Ham. Is it possible ? 
 
 " Guil. O ! there has been much throwing about of brains. 
 
 1 The title page of the edition of Hamlet licensed in 1602, notes that 
 the Chamberlain's men had been travelling to Oxford and Cambridge. — 
 Fleay. 
 
94 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 " Ham. Do the boys carry it away ? 
 
 " Ros. Ay, that they do, my Lord. Hercules and his load 
 too. 
 
 " Ham. It is not strange." 1 
 
 The betraying phrase in the passage is in Rosencrantz's de- 
 scription, " They dare scarce come thither." Shakespeare 
 acknowledges they of the Globe are the losers, through the 
 triumphs of the children and the children's poets. " The pity 
 of it," to turn to gall what might have been good fellowship, 
 for the pleasure of those who were not ashamed " to tarre them " 
 on, and to provide them with quarrelsome plays against players. 
 But he does not acknowledge defeat. The real conclusion of 
 the poet's thoughts requires further reading. The players, 
 driven to travel, are the real artists. 
 
 " Ham. Come, give us a taste of your quality ; come, a 
 passionate speech ! 
 
 " ist Player. What speech, my good Lord ? 
 
 " Ham. I heard thee speak a speech once : — but it was never 
 acted ; or if it was, not above once ; for the play, I remember, 
 pleased not the million ; 'twas caviare to the general, but it 
 was (as I received it and others, whose judgments in such 
 matters cried in the top of mine) an excellent play, well digested 
 in the scenes, set down with as much modesty as cunning. I 
 remember, one said, there were no sallets in the lines to make 
 the matter savoury, nor no matter in the phrase that might 
 indite the author of affectation, but called it an honest method, 
 as wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than 
 fine. One speech in it I chiefly loved : 'twas iEneas' tale to 
 Dido ; and thereabouts of it especially where he speaks of 
 Priam's slaughter. If it live in your memory, begin at this 
 line." . . . 
 
 " Polonius. Look whe'er he has not turned his colour and 
 has tears in his eyes ! Prythee no more ! 
 
 " Ham. 'Tis well, I'll have thee speak out the rest of this 
 soon. . . . 
 
 1 Dr. Furnivall's Leopold Shakespeare, " Hamlet," Act ii. Sc. 2. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 95 
 
 " Ham. ! what a rogue and peasant slave am I ! 
 Is it not monstrous that this player here, 
 But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, 
 Could force his soul so to his whole conceit 
 That from her working, all his visage wanned ; 
 Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect, 
 A broken voice, and his whole function suiting 
 With forms to his conceit ? and all for nothing ! 
 For Hecuba ! 
 
 What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba 
 That he should weep for her ? " 
 
 And that is the distinction the poet (Shakespeare) would 
 draw between plays fit for " the tragedians of the city," be- 
 tween the passion and power of these tragedians, and the little 
 eyases and their plays. We may think of it as if Richard Bur- 
 bage himself had spoken the words, a challenge to the great- 
 ness in the souls of men, which he and Shakespeare had done 
 so much to foster. Oh Mayors, Aldermen, Recorders, Sheriffs, 
 what preacher of his time had done more for his kind than this 
 player-poet Shakespeare had done by this time ? 
 
 The old year of 1602 died in gloom. A failing Queen, uncer- 
 tain succession, rumours and realities of plague, and the spirit 
 of Hamlet was in the air. 
 
 " O cursed spite 
 That ever I was born to set it right." 
 
 The New Year of 1603 opened no better. The Queen's 
 sister Mary had said that when she died the word " Calais " 
 would be written on her heart. The loss meant so much to 
 her, for she was patriotic and proud of her country, though 
 she had so little chance to show herself. More truly might 
 Elizabeth have said, and all knew, though she never spake the 
 words, that the word " Essex " would be written on her heart. 
 The bright life quenched by her, she the mere tool of enemies, 
 as she had discovered when too late, it burned into her soul. 
 
96 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The years being then reckoned from the 25th March, it was 
 a curious coincidence that Elizabeth should die on the 24th 
 March, the last day of the old year, 1602-3, an d that a King saw 
 the New Year in. And even amidst the terrors of the plague 
 time, in the hearts of the players at the Globe his coming 
 awakened a dawn of hope. They did not pretend to mourn. 
 Their poet Shakespeare made no sign. Others did. 
 
 " A MOURNFUL DlTTIE ENTITULED ELIZABETH'S LOSSE. 
 
 " You poets all, brave Shakspere, Jonson, Greene, 
 Bestow your time to write for England's Queene. 
 Lament, Lament, Lament you English peeres, 
 Lament your losse, possest so many yeares, 
 Return your songs and sonnets and your layes 
 To set forth sweet Elizabetha's praise. 
 
 Lament, Lament." 1603. 
 
 Many noted this. Chettle in his " England's Mourning 
 Garment " wrote — 
 
 " Nor doth the silver-tongued Melicert 
 Drop from his honied muse one sable teare 
 To mourne her death, who graced his desert, 
 And to his laies opened her Royall eare. 
 Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth, 
 And sing her rape, done by that Tarquin, Death." 
 
 In vain. The Poet's memory was with Essex. His heart was in 
 the Tower, where his chief patron lay, left there by the departed 
 Queen. Drayton hastened too much to welcome James, others 
 just hit the time. The players made no sign. But the coming 
 King scattered joy and peace and freed Southampton on 10th 
 April. Hardly had James reached the Metropolis, and begun to 
 touch State business, than he changed many things. He took 
 from noblemen the power to select and patronize players. 
 Henceforth that was to be a Royal privilege alone. He chose 
 as his own royal company the company of the Lord Chamber- 
 lain, who had just retired sick unto death, but with this pecu- 
 liar condition, that the Laurence Fletcher who had delighted 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 97 
 
 his heart in Scotland was to be at their head. We do not know 
 how the Burbage Company dealt with this intrusion, and how 
 they fitted him among their ranks at the Globe. He does not 
 seem to have been up to their mark, and little more is heard of 
 him. But he led in the Royal Patent. The King came to 
 London on 7th May, the Privy Seal for their patent was signed 
 on 17th May, 1603. The patent was granted on the 19th. 
 
 " Pro Laurentio Fletcher et Willielmo Shakespeare et aliis. 
 " James by the Grace of God, etc., to all Justices, Maiors, 
 Sheriffs, Constables, Headboroughs, and other our Officers 
 and lovinge Subjects, Greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of our 
 Speciall Grace, certeine knowledge, and mere motion, have 
 licensed and authorized, and by these presentes doe license 
 and authorise these our Servaunts, Laurence Fletcher, William 
 Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John 
 Hemings, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Rich- 
 ard Cowly, and the rest of their Associates, Freely to use and 
 exercise the Art and Facultie of playing Comedies, Tragedies, 
 Histories, Enterludes, Morals, Pastoralls, Stage Plaies and such 
 others, like as these have alreadie studied or hereafter shall use 
 or studie, as well for our Solace and Pleasure, when wee shall 
 thincke good to see them, during our Pleasure ; and the said 
 Commedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Moralls, Pas- 
 toralls, Stage-playes, and suche like, to shewe and exercise 
 publiquely to their best Commoditie, when the Infection of the 
 Plague shall decrease, as well within their nowe usual house 
 called the Globe within our countie of Surrey, as also within 
 anie Towne Halls, or Moote Halls, or other convenient places 
 within the Liberties and Freedom of anie other Cittie, Univer- 
 sitie, Toune or Boroughe whatsoever within our saide Realmes 
 and Dominions. 
 
 " Willing and commaunding you and everie of you, as you 
 tender our Pleasure, not onelie to permit and suffer them here- 
 in, without anie your Letts, Hindrances, or Molestations, during 
 our said Pleasure, but also to be aiding and assistinge to them 
 
 H 
 
98 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 if anie Wronge be to them offered, and to allow them such 
 former curtesies as hath been given to men of their Place and 
 Qualitie ; and also what further Favour you shall shewe to 
 theise our servaunts for our sake, Wee shall take it kindly at 
 your handes. In witnesse whereof, etc. 
 
 " Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the nynetenth Daye of 
 Maye in the first year of our reign. 
 
 " Per Breve de Privato Sigillo." 
 
 It is interesting to compare this patent, the first player's 
 patent of the new King, with the first Royal patent granted 
 Burbage's men by Elizabeth by the persuasion of the Earl of 
 Leicester in 1574. 
 
 With all their faults, the Stuarts were the first real patrons 
 of the Drama in this country, as they were the first patrons of 
 art and science. 
 
 The difference made thereby in the players' status was enor- 
 mous. They took rank as grooms of the Royal Chamber 
 (though without fee), wore the King's livery, held certain 
 privileges, as freedom from arrest while on the King's service 
 (except for Treason or great crimes). The Lord Chamberlain 
 dealt with the minor questions of debt, duty and recog- 
 nizances. Their patent carried them all over the country, and 
 protected them in London from Civic interference. 
 
 The Earl of Southampton, safe now himself, and in attend- 
 ance on the King (though his affairs were not all settled) would 
 doubtless have a good word to say for them in the Royal ear. 
 
 In the Royal Progress that year, necessitated by a recurrence 
 of the Plague, the King visited the Earl of Pembroke on 30th 
 August, and held his court at Wilton, Winchester, and Basing 
 during the most of October, November and December, as may 
 be seen by following the dating of Letters and Proclamations 
 from thence among the State papers of the time. Apparently 
 the King was not inclined to wait till Christmas to see his 
 players, so he summoned them to come to him. "John 
 Hemynges one of his majesties players" received a warrant 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 99 
 
 for a play at the Court at Wilton on 3rd December, 1603, 
 " for the paynes and expense of himself and the rest of the com- 
 pany coming from Mortlake in the Countie of Surrey unto the 
 Courte aforesaid, and there presenting before his Majestie one 
 play on the second of December last, ... by way of his 
 Majesty's reward £30." They would think that liberal in those 
 days even after their long journey. 
 
 But even more liberal would the company feel it, when in 
 February they had at last some compensation made them for 
 their loss through their inhibition on account of the plague. 1 
 " To Richard Burbage, one of his Majesties Comedians, upon a 
 warrant dated at Hampton Courte 8th Feb., 1603-4, f° r the 
 maintenance and reliefe of himselfe and the rest of his company 
 being prohibited to present any plaies publiquely in or neare 
 London by reason of the great perill that might growe through 
 the extraordinarye concourse and assemblie of people to a newe 
 increase of the plague, till it shall please God to settle the city 
 in a more perfect health, His Majesties free gift £30." 
 
 In the same month they were also paid for two plays. x " John 
 Hemyngs one of his Majesties players by a Warrant dated at the 
 Courte at Whitehall on the last day of February, 1603, for two 
 playes presented before his Majestie on Candlemas Day at 
 night, and on Shrovesunday at night . . . £20." 
 
 Henceforth all the nagging lawsuits against the Burbages 
 were closed, all the Giles Alleyns and his like had to hide their 
 diminished heads. The King's company went from glory to 
 glory. Early in the New Year the plans were being arranged 
 for the King's Coronation, which had to be postponed, and the 
 details of the Royal Procession through the city, which took 
 place on 15th March, 1603-4. 
 
 In the Lord Chamberlain's accounts ii. 4. (5) are noted be- 
 tween the Fawkeners and the Officers of the Household the 
 King's players, to receive each for their Livery 4^ yards of 
 Scarlet Cloth (they knew their rank by the amount of cloth 
 given), the same as the other Grooms of the Chamber. There 
 
 1 Declared accounts Treasurer of the Chamber, Pipe Office, 542. 
 
ioo BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 is something new in the order of the players themselves as 
 written in that volume. This list is commenced currente 
 calamo, right across the page — 
 
 " William Shakespeare (sic) 
 Augustine Phillipps 
 Laurence Fletcher 
 John Hemminges 
 Richard Burbidge 
 William Slye 
 Robert Armyn 
 Henry Cundell 
 Richard Cowley." 
 
 I know not if it be a sign of a deposing of Laurence Fletcher 
 in the King's favour. The spelling of the first name is 
 important, for it is spelt in the way it always is in Court re- 
 cords when it is intended to represent the player of Stratford- 
 on-Avon, giving no support to the nonsensical theory of the 
 Baconians that when spelt so it represents the nom de plume 
 of their man. Their fellow, Thomas Pope, had lately died 
 — was it of the plague ? 
 
 After the Players and their liveries comes the Clerk of the 
 Closet, Mr. Doctor Neale. 
 
 It may be interesting to add that in the Queen's Expenses 
 also come her players, among the officers of her household. 
 
 I know that many believe that though receiving red cloth, 
 among the others in preparation for the Procession, that the 
 players did not go on that procession, because they were no- 
 where mentioned as players in accounts of the Coronation. I 
 do not myself see that there is any force in the argument, be- 
 cause since they had received their patent, they were the King's 
 Servants, before being his players, and as such, would march 
 among other Servants. In the temper of the King at the time, 
 I am inclined to think he would have made it a personal matter 
 that they should do so. If we are not absolutely sure they did 
 not, we have a right to suppose they did. But it is true that 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 101 
 
 the grant of the cloth was not in itself an invitation to the Coron- 
 ation. It was to be their ordinary livery, given in future 
 " every other year," with a bit of red velvet for a cap. 
 
 There have been doubts suggested that they were really 
 appointed Grooms of the Chamber, doubts that they were paid. 
 Of course not — they were of the class called extraordinary 
 Grooms of the Chamber and they were paid only when they 
 rendered services. In the general hospitality offered to foreign 
 ambassadors that summer something occurred to show that 
 their royal service was a real office. 1 In August 1604 they were 
 appointed to attend on the Spanish Ambassador at Somerset 
 House, and were paid for the occasion. Some one must have 
 told this fact to Halliwell-Phillipps and he had forgotten the 
 reference, 2 which had troubled him, and he invited his readers 
 to contribute it if they knew, but none replied during his life. 
 I believe I was the first to find it many years ago anew for my- 
 self, and after keeping it for a suitable setting, I interwove it 
 into my " Shakespeare of the Court," 3 fortunately for me 
 before Mr. Law brought out his little book, " Shakespeare as 
 Groom of the Chamber." 
 
 " To Augustine Phillips and John Hemynges for th' allow- 
 . ance of themselves and tenne of their fellows his Majesties 
 Groomes of the Chamber and Players, for waytinge and attend- 
 inge in his Majestie's Service by commandmente, upon the 
 Spanishe Embassador at Somersette House, for the space of 18 
 dayes, viz. from the 9th day of Auguste, 1604, tiU the 27th day 
 of the same, as appeareth by a bill thereof signed by the Lord 
 Chamberlayne £21 12. 3 
 
 It is interesting to think of Shakespeare and his fellows 
 learning Spanish Court Etiquette from the Ambassador's own 
 Major Domo. We wonder in vain whether they performed any 
 
 1 See my " Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers," " Shakespeare 
 Jahrbuch," 1910. 
 
 8 " Athenaeum," July 8th, 1871. 
 
 * " Athenaeum," 12th March, 1910. Declared Ace. Treas. Cham- 
 ber, Audit Office R. 41, Bundle 388, and Pipe Office, 543, 
 
102 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 plays before him or no. There is just a straw, blown by the 
 breezes of the time, which gives a suggestion that they did. 
 This is the fact that six months after they spoke of having 
 lately revived " Love's Labours Lost," a play which they might 
 have supposed fit to suit a Spaniard. This play is noted in 
 three references. The one is the 1605 forged list of plays per- 
 formed at Court during the winter of 1604-5, preserved among 
 Cunningham's Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at 
 Court. There are many other reasons to suspect this list, but 
 the main one is the inclusion of an entry, " By his Majesties 
 Plaiers Betwin Newers Day And Twelfe day A Play of 
 Loues Labours Lost." Now the clerks of the Treasurers of 
 the Chamber always knew their dates (which they were paid to 
 do). Nothing would come " between " two things. 
 
 The Dec. Ace. Treas. Chamber, Pipe Office, 543, show that 
 the King's company did not play at Court that year between 
 Innocent's Day at night and 7th January, and if they did not 
 do so, no other company would have dared to perform this 
 ' Love's Labours Lost," for the play belonged to the 
 King's company. I am not going to discuss the honesty of 
 Peter Cunningham, but to get to the real story of the perform- 
 ance. Just after the New Year 1604-5, Sir Robert Cecil, then 
 Viscount Cranborne, and the Earl of Southampton were plan- 
 ning festivities in their own houses in honour of the Queen and 
 her brother. Each was going to give a play. Sir Walter Cope 
 was helping Lord Cranborne to arrange his when he wrote the 
 following letter dated only " 1604," but which may be dated 
 nth January, 1604-5, by the context. 
 
 " From your Library. 1 
 
 "Sir, I have sent and bene all thys morning huntyng for play- 
 ers, juglers and such kinde of creatures, but fynde them harde 
 to fynde, wherefore leaving notes for them to seeke me, Bur- 
 bage ys come, and says there is no new playe that the Queene 
 hath not seene, but they have revyved an olde one cawled 
 " Loves Lahore Lost," which for wytt and mirthe he sayes will 
 
 1 Cecil Papers. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 103 
 
 please her exceedingly. And thys ys apointed to be playd 
 tomorowe night at my Lord of Sowthamptons, unless you send 
 a wrytt to remove the Corpus cum causa to your howse in 
 Strande. Burbage ys my messenger ready attendyng your 
 pleasure. 
 
 " Yours most humbly, 
 
 *' Walter Cope." * 
 
 Apparently Cranbourne did not do anything so ungenerous 
 as to change arrangements at the last, but likely got Burbage 
 to revive another play for him. Carleton writes, in one of his 
 gossippy letters, dated 15th January, 1604-5 : — 
 
 " Last nights revels were kept at my Lord of Cranborne's 
 . . . and ye like two nights before at my Lord of Southamp- 
 ton's." They played several times at Court that season, as 
 may be seen in the Treasurer's Declared Accounts, though un- 
 fortunately no names of plays are given at that date. It is 
 certain they were successful at the Globe, now that they were 
 distinguished above their fellows, until they had been unwise 
 ' enough to produce " The Tragedy of Gowry," in which the 
 King himself was represented on the stage. Something in the 
 rendering probably was the real cause, but the ostensible reason 
 given was that it was not fit to represent events or people of 
 the time, when the play was ordered to be suppressed. We do 
 not know the author, but it evidently was not Shakespeare. 
 
 The incident would, however, determine him in the idea he 
 had conceived. Shakespeare was composing a new form of 
 Laureate poem — a Laureate Play to please the King who 
 had done so much for them. " Macbeth," a story from Scotch 
 history, at one of the rare times when Scotland was at peace 
 with England, in which Scotch characters and incidents are 
 combined, yet not a true story. The reverse of his " Hamlet," 
 who, unlike the real history, became christianized and through 
 conflicting feelings became a man of thought, and not of action, 
 
 1 St. Pap., Dom. Ser., James I, xii. 19. 
 
104 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 who did not kill his father's murderer, and who did not succeed 
 to his father's throne ; a different Hamlet entirely from the truth. 
 Here otherwise the reverse of this picture the best king that early 
 Scotland had, has all the crimes of his predecessors for ninety 
 years poured on his head, to create a generalized idea of his 
 race, a pagan at heart, utilitarian of creed, but a man of action. 
 And this to glorify Banquo, from whom the King supposed he 
 had descended. The King's book, and the King's opinions are 
 skilfully interwoven in " Macbeth," which was we know, a popu- 
 lar tragedy. We can see the little suggestion of the witches in 
 Holinshed ; but there was also the little play produced at 
 Oxford on the subject by Matthew Gwynn when the King went 
 there in 1605. There is no doubt the King would be pleased 
 with " Macbeth." Of Shakespeare's genius and of Shakespeare's 
 plays I cannot now speak, but I may later say a word about 
 them in relation to the career of Richard Burbage. 
 
 Little seems to have disturbed the King's company at the 
 Globe during the early years of James, save the loss of members 
 of their company, Augustine Phillipps in particular. He left 
 remembrances to his " fellows " in his will. His unwise widow 
 made a foolish second marriage with John Witter, who brought 
 her and her children to ruin, 1 and instituted legal proceedings 
 which give a good deal of information about the history of the 
 company. 
 
 The pin-pricks of the children at Blackfriars continued to 
 a certain degree, but there were great changes there. The 
 " Children of the Chapel " had been discontinued as actors. 
 
 Richard Burbage had leased his house to Henry Evans for 
 twenty-one years from Michaelmas (Sept. 29), 1600, at £40 a year. 
 It must be remembered this rent was for the house ; at the Globe 
 the £14 10s. rent was only for the ground on which they built 
 their house. The Clifton Case had practically ruined Evans in 
 credit. He handed over his lease to his son-in-law, Hawkins, 
 let half the profits to Kirkham, Rastell and Kendall in consider- 
 
 1 See Prof. Wallace's " Shakespeare's Money Interest in the Globe 
 Theater," " The Century," August 1910. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 105 
 
 ation of their taking over the bond of £400 he had assigned to 
 Burbage for the fulfilment of covenant. 
 
 Then came the plague of 1603-4 > the changed relations with 
 the new King. After the plague was over Evans began to 
 treat with Burbage about surrendering the lease, but instead 
 of this the company was reconstituted as the Children of the 
 Queen's Revels, under Kirkham, Hawkins, Kendall, Payne. 
 They were still lively and audacious, but more solemnly satiri- 
 cal than ever. The troubles arising from the performance of 
 " Eastward Hoe " in 1605 were serious. Some of the chil- 
 dren were sent to prison and Chapman had to hide. The 
 Queen's patronage was withdrawn, changes took place among 
 the managers, but the children continued to act as the Children 
 of the Revels. Though the lightness and brightness had gone 
 from their boards, the poets still remained unwise in treating 
 contemporary matters satirically, and the children did not 
 mince matters in their methods of performing them. Finally 
 Chapman's " Tragedy of Biron " offended the French King, 
 and to pacify him the children were suppressed. On 9th 
 August, 1608, the lease of Blackfriars was surrendered to 
 Richard Burbage, as owner, and as Cuthbert said in 1635 " it 
 was considered that house would be as fit for ourselves." 
 Doubtless it would be a relief to them to get rid of their "eyases." 
 Richard Burbage made a company of seven sharers from his 
 partners at the Globe, and took over some of the children who 
 had grown up, Underwood, Field and Ostler. The other chil- 
 dren ran a new career at Whitefriars later, independent of the 
 Burbages. 
 
 The King's company strengthened themselves in the new 
 venture of the Blackfriars Theatre. 1 At last old James Bur- 
 bage's second " Idea " was fulfilled, and his son Richard was 
 able to hold his own in a theatre of which he was the landlord, 
 and the King himself the Lord in Chief. With two stages at 
 his command, he could vary his parts and his performances, in 
 
 1 It is strange that just then Laurence Fletcher dropped out of their 
 lives. He was^buried in St. Saviour's that year. 
 
106 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 a way few actors then could do. He could work both summer 
 and winter, both by daylight and by candlelight. He had 
 still his " Poet " by his side, a fellow and fellow-actor, ready to 
 find themes and characters suited to his genius, and for the 
 remaining years of his life he was the pride and joy of his fellow- 
 countrymen. Not that he was always at peace. Litigation 
 pursued him, but it was a litigation not overwhelming in its 
 magnitude, or fundamental in its bearings, arising over second- 
 ary questions, the claims of disappointed individuals as to 
 profits and shares in the ventures which he, above all others, 
 made a success, questions in which the company bore a share of 
 the trouble and expense, and in which he won his suits. 
 
 The suits of Evans v. Kirkham, 1612, 1 and of Kirkham v. 
 Painton, however, 2 caused a good deal of trouble. Besides 
 being a witness, Richard Burbage was dragged into giving an 
 " answer " to Kirkham, " The joint and several answers of 
 John Hemings and Richard Burbage to Edward Kirkham, 2nd 
 November, 1612," by order of the Master of the Rolls. Richard 
 acknowledged that being seized in the Blackfriars he had let it 
 to Henry Evans for a lease of twenty-one years to erect a com- 
 pany of playing boys. But he asked some security that Evans 
 would be able to pay the rent, and then Alexander Hawkins, 
 his son-in-law, became bound with him in a bond of £400 in 
 conditions for paying that rent of £40. He thinks it true that 
 Evans treated with Edward Kirkham, William Rastall and 
 Thomas Kendall about setting up the company of boys, which 
 they did. And he thinks they spent money on it and became 
 sharers. He thinks that it was the great visitation of the plague 
 which was the cause that they earned less than had been ex- 
 pected. Alexander Hawkins did not like the notion of the 
 heavy bond, and so the lease was cancelled, and Evans' interest 
 in the playhouse ended. Hemings agreed with Burbage and 
 believed that the complainant did spend money, but not on the 
 house but on apparel. They denied that Evans assigned the 
 
 1 Chanc. Bills and Answers, Bundle E, 4-9. 
 
 2 Ibid., K. 5, No. 25. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 107 
 
 house to Hawkins on trust, but believed the complainants were 
 to be partners. They themselves never got any profit and 
 denied that they confederated with Evans to defeat the 
 complainant's claim. 
 
 Edmund Kirkham replied, repeating the fact that Alexander 
 Hawkins deceased had half the property and the other half 
 assured to him and his fellows, that Evans had no right to give 
 up the lease, and that Hemings and Burbage and their company 
 made by playing in " the fryers " in one winter by a thousand 
 poundes more than they were used to get at the Bankside. 
 He wonders Evans could claim any interest in the premises 
 after the decision in the Clifton Case, when he was censured 
 and all his engagements cancelled, 1 that they did not make so 
 much money as they expected. Edward Painton in his answer 
 says he married Margaret Hawkins, widow of Alexander Haw- 
 kins, and daughter of Henry Evans — and she says that the 
 interest and residue of the lease is her own as it was sold to 
 Alexander Hawkins though the deed remains with Evans, 
 Hemings and Burbage. 
 
 Mr. Greenstreet found all the papers long since, and they 
 appear nearly in full in Mr. Fleay's " History of the Stage." 
 
 Robert Keysar had also brought a suit against Richard Bur- 
 bage, John Hemmings and Henry Condall in the Court of Re- 
 quests, complaining that he had bought a share in the Company 
 from Marston, the Poet, for £100, before the Children of the 
 Revels had been suppressed, and he had not been indemnified. 
 He also had maintained many of the boys, he said, to his great 
 loss. His extravagant reckonings, his unfounded charge of 
 fraud, were easily rebutted by the King's company. Professor 
 Wallace discovered this case and gives the details of the law-suit 
 in " The Century Magazine " for September 1^10. 
 
 The law-suits lead us on to busy years. The Corporation 
 had become more friendly with players, since the King's steady 
 favour allowed them to see the men as they really were. On 
 
 1 Chancery Bills and Answers, James I, K. 5, 25. 
 
108 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 one occasion, indeed, they enlisted his services to do honour to 
 Prince Henry on his installation as the Prince of Wales. 
 Anthony Monday wrote the speeches, and designed the pageant, 
 and we may be sure that Burbage did all the honour he could 
 to his part, for the sake of his prince. 
 
 " Martis quinto die Junii Anno regni Regis Jacobi Anglie, 
 etc. octavo. . . . 
 
 " Item, it is ordered that Mr. Chamberleine shall pay unto 
 Mr. Burbage and John Rice the players that rodd upon the twoe 
 fishes and made the speeches at the meetinge of the high and 
 mighty prince the Prince of Walles upon the River of Thames 
 on Thursday last seventeene pounds tenne shilhnges and six- 
 pence by them disbursed for robes and other furniture for 
 adorning themselves at the same meeting. And that they 
 shall retaine to their own use in lewe of their paynes therein 
 taken such Taffety, silke and other necessaryes as were pro- 
 vided for that purpose without any farther allowance. And 
 this shalbe Mr. Chamberlain his warrant in their behalfe Guild- 
 hall." (Letter Book DD. f. 1846). 
 
 One talent of Richard Burbage I have not ye'e discussed. 
 He was deeply interested in Art, to the extent that he had 
 somehow acquired the art of painting. There are specimens of 
 his work preserved at Dulwich College even yet. Perhaps 
 we would not pass on them the high encomiums that his con- 
 temporaries did, but they have some power, and we must re- 
 member the rarity of native painters at his time. It was said 
 that he had painted one of the portraits of Shakespeare, a fact 
 possible, but hardly complimentary to his skill. 
 
 It is probable that his artistic knowledge enabled him to 
 visualize the effects of the grouping of characters on the stage 
 in producing pleasing pictures to be remembered by the 
 audience. 
 
 But about this time he is noticed as earning money in a new 
 way, fringing on art, in an interesting record at Belvoir Castle. 
 It occurs in the expenses of the Steward, that very Thomas 
 Scriven who had plagued Cuthbert Burbage so, by bringing a 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 109 
 
 suit in the name of the Earl of Rutland for the possession of 
 the close in which his Theatre stood ; the same Thomas 
 Scriven who became a benefactor to the Church of St. Leonard's 
 to the extent of £10 (for the good of his soul, no doubt). The 
 entry occurs among the expenses in preparation for his master 
 the Earl of Rutland's masking suit and tilting suit, and runs : 
 "31 Martii, Paid To Mr. Shakspeare in gold, about my Lordes 
 impreso, 44/- To Richard Burbage for paynting and makyng 
 yt, in gold, 44/ £4. 8." 
 
 This had been discovered by Mr. Stevenson while calendaring 
 the Belvoir MS. But I discovered it for myself among these 
 MSS., when I was kindly allowed to see them at Belvoir Castle. 
 The decoration was not intended for the Earl Roger of the 
 Shoreditch lawsuit, who in 1599 with his friend the Earl of 
 Southampton " went not to the court, but only to plays every 
 day," the Roger of the conspiracy. He had died, it was his 
 brother Francis who now reigned at Belvoir and was going to 
 court and to tilt. 
 
 Now a crest was intended to reveal in a figure the name of the 
 visored knight, but an impresa was intended to do just the 
 opposite — to veil the name of the knight under some special 
 device, known only to a few. This entry was of course at once 
 accepted by the public as referring to the poet and his actor. 
 It is quite possible the poet was interested in heraldry. But 
 there is an alternative possibility. There was in court at the 
 time another of the name, who was in the habit of preparing de- 
 corations for tournaments, Mr. John Shakespeare, the Prince's, 
 afterwards the King's, bitmaker. If, as I suppose, this John 
 was Shakespeare's cousin of Snitterfield, there need be no sur- 
 prise at his being associated with Richard Burbage in related 
 work. 1 
 
 In later years Richard Burbage was employed again. " 25th 
 Martii 1616, given to Richard Burbidge for my Lorde's shelde 
 
 1 See my article, "Mr. Shakspeare about my Lorde's Impresa," 
 " Athenaeum," 16th May, 1908. 
 
no BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 and for the embleance £4 18/-." It may be supposed that it 
 would be a painted shield with devices thereon, as an artist 
 painter was employed. 
 
 The events which stand out in the general history of the time, 
 were the coming of the Prince Palatine in October 1612, the 
 death of Prince Henry on 6th November, 1612, and the mar- 
 riage of the Princess Elizabeth in February 1612-13. For her 
 and her betrothed, the Prince Palatine, many performances 
 took place. The succession to the Blackfriars Theatre had helped 
 to modify Shakespeare's later plays. The introduction of 
 masques, songs and dances was an inheritance from the " Chil- 
 dren," made possible by the different stage, and Shakespeare 
 wrote " The Tempest " to show that he could command in that 
 vein also. There was long a question as to the date of " The Tem- 
 pest," there is so still. It cannot very well have appeared before 
 the news arrived of Sir George Somers' wreck on the Bermudas, 
 
 1610, we know it was presented before the Princess Elizabeth in 
 1613. On the authority of the doubtful papers in Cunning- 
 ham's " Extract " it was entered as having been performed in 
 
 1611. Even if a forgery, it may still speak the truth. If it 
 appeared in 1611 it can hardly be read as the poet's last play, 
 as so many consider it to be. Ben Jonson, his greatest rival, 
 who had so often satirized him on the Blackfriars boards, in 
 his Prologue to " Every Man in his Humour," brought with 
 his Collected Works in 1616 — while he satirizes plays which let 
 years pass in their Acts, made use of stage-tricks and unreal 
 imaginations, speaking of himself as author — 
 
 " He rather prays you will be pleased to see 
 One such to-day, as other plays should be 
 Where neither Chorus wafts you o'er the seas. 
 . . . nor rolled bullet heard 
 To say it thunders ; nor tempestuous drum 
 Rumbles to tell you when the storm doth come. 
 But deeds and language such as men do use. 
 
 Which, when you heartily do, there's hope left then 
 You, that have so graced monsters, may like men." 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS in 
 
 To a certain extent, a classic scholar whose work was limited 
 by the dramatic unities of time, place and action, his strictures 
 were just of the work of the great master of the Romantic 
 School of Drama. But we cannot conceive that Ben Jonson 
 meant his Prologue to appear in the very year of his friend's 
 death. That it did so appear, is no doubt partly the reason 
 that he tried so eloquently to put his position clear, in his 
 enthusiastic appreciation of Shakespeare before the first folio 
 in 1623. 
 
 London had calmed down after the festivities of the Royal 
 Wedding in the spring of 1613, when another event excited 
 every inhabitant of the city. 
 
 The Globe Theatre was burned to the ground on St. Peter's 
 Day, 29th June, 1613, burned, too, without warning, in the 
 middle of a performance ! Yet it speaks much for the build- 
 ing and the management of the time, much for the common- 
 sense and self-control of the audience, that all should have 
 escaped x by " two small doors." The performance was 
 " Henry VIII," or " All is True," and some of the cannon used 
 to express the rejoicings caught some of the drapery, and in- 
 stantly the whole wooden shell seemed to ignite. Many con- 
 temporary allusions show regret for the loss and wonder at the 
 escapes. (See Reliq. Wotton, 165, 425-6 ; Howe's " Continua- 
 tion of Stowe," 1003-4 > Win wood's " Memorials," iii. 469 ; 
 Lorkin's " Letter to Puckering," Harl. MS. 7002 ; Taylor's 
 " Collected Works," Epigram 33, 265.) 
 
 Ben Jonson in a poem called " An Execration of Vulcan " for 
 his mad pranks, .reproaches the God for destroying 
 
 " The Globe, the Glory of the Bank, 
 Which, though it were the fort of the whole parish, 
 Flanked with a ditch, and forced out of a marish 
 I saw with two poor chambers taken in 
 
 1 " It was a marvel and fair grace of God that the people had so little 
 harm, having but two narrow doors to get out." — Winwood's Mem. iii. 
 469. 
 
ii2 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 And razed, ere thought could urge this might have been. 
 See the World's ruins ! Nothing but the piles 
 Left, and wit since to cover it with tiles." 
 
 But a more graphic, if more homely description is preserved 
 in some verses from an old MS. printed by Haslewood ; and 
 also by Halliwell-PhilHpps : — 1 
 
 " Now sitt thee downe Melpomene 
 
 Wrapt in a sea-cole robe. 
 
 And tell the direfull tragedie 
 
 That late was played at Globe. 
 
 For never man that can singe and saye 
 
 But was scard upon St. Peters daye. 
 
 Oh sorrow ; pitifull sorrow, and yett all this is true. 
 
 "All you that please to understand 
 Come, listen to my storye 
 To see Death with his rakeing brand, 
 'Mong such an auditorye ; 
 Regarding neither Cardinall's might 
 Nor yett the rugged face of Henry theight. 
 Oh, sorrow, etc. 
 
 This fearfull fire began above — 
 A wonder strange and true — 
 And to the Stage howse did remove 
 As round as taylor's clewe 
 And burnt downe both beame and snagg, 
 And did not spare the silken flagg. 
 Oh, sorrow, etc. 
 
 " Out runne the Knightes, out runne the Lordes 
 And there was great adoe, 
 
 Some lost their hattes, and some their swordes, 
 Then out runne Burbidge too, 
 The Reprobates, though drunck on Munday, 
 Prayed for the Foole and Henry Condye. 
 Oh, sorrow, etc. 
 
 1 Stat. Reg. A dolefull Ballad of the general conflagration of the 
 Globe. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 113 
 
 " The perriwigges and drummeheades frye. 
 
 Like to a butter firkin 
 
 A wofull burneing did betide 
 
 To many 'a good buff jerkin. 
 
 Then with swolne eyes like druncken Fleminges 
 
 Distressed stood old stuttering Heminges. 
 
 Oh, Sorrow, pitiful sorrow, and yet all this is true." 
 
 This would be a great and special loss to the Burbage brothers, 
 and an indirect loss to all the Company. Yet doubtless they 
 made shift to have performances in their winter house of 
 Blackfriars, or elsewhere. 
 
 Then there was the new toil and trouble of building, and it 
 is said that the King and Court helped them liberally, and they 
 built their Globe House fairer than before. Court letters witness 
 the satisfaction with the restoration. Sir Matthew Brand, son of 
 Nicholas Brand, from whom they had leased the land, extended 
 the original lease for them, and they were once more in working 
 order early in 1614. (In February of that year there were 
 burglaries committed in the Burbages' houses — with the grue- 
 some conclusion of the execution of the principal (see Note IV). 
 
 It has seemed to me that this " Fire " would be the deter- 
 mining factor in Shakespeare's complete separation from the 
 acting stage. We know that he had made a home for his wife, 
 himself and children in Stratford, and that he spent there more 
 and more of his time as the years went by. But he was often 
 up in London, once at least in 1615, as his cousin, Thomas Green, 
 says in his Diary, " My cosin Shakespeare coming yesterday to 
 town I went to see him how he did." Their talk was chiefly of 
 the Stratford enclosure. He might have brought in his pocket 
 something for others than Greene a new play for Burbage. 
 
 Richard Burbage was still to the front. On 29th March, 
 1615, a Royal Messenger was sent for John Hemmings and 
 him, with the chiefs of the other companies to come before 
 the Council, because they " have presumed, notwithstanding 
 the commandment of the Lord Chamberlain, signified unto 
 them by the Master of the Revels, to play this prohibited 
 
 I 
 
ii 4 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 time of Lent." They were to appear " on Friday next at 8 
 of the clock in the forenoon, without any excuse or delay. 
 And in the meantime that neither they, nor the rest of their 
 company presume to present any playes or interludes as they 
 will answer the contrary at their perils." The results were 
 not preserved. The Register of the Privy Council had been 
 destroyed by fire from the beginning of the reign of James up 
 till 1613 ; and after that date they are in manuscript but have 
 not been published. I extracted the points relating to the 
 players and published them in the " Shakespeare Jahrbuch," 
 1911. 1 
 
 There is also an interesting account of a rival theatre in 
 Blackfriars, which came to grief that year. Philip Rosseter 
 had really got permission to build in Blackfriars under the great 
 seal of England. He had already pulled down the Lady Sandars 
 house, but the Lord Mayor and Aldermen complained of it and 
 said it would be so near the church in Blackfriars that it would 
 disturb the congregation -at divine service. The Lord Chief 
 Justice ruled that Rosseter's licence applied to building a 
 theatre in the liberties but not in Blackfriars. So the Lords 
 told Rosseter and his workmen that if they continued the work 
 they should be sent to prison. 
 
 Rosseter and his friends, however, seem to have been undis- 
 mayed by the threats and continued the building, unluckily for 
 themselves. On 26th January, 1616-7, the entry is made : 
 
 " Whereas his Majestie is informed that notwithstanding 
 divers commandments and prohibitions to the contrary 
 there be certain persons who goe about to sett up a Play-house 
 in the Blackfriars neere unto his Majesty's Wardrobe, and for 
 that purpose have lately erected and made fit a building which 
 is almost, if not fully finished. You shall understand that his 
 Majesty hath this day expressly signified his pleasure that the 
 same shall be pulled down soe as it be made unfitt for any such 
 use, whereof we require your Lordship to take notice and per- 
 
 1 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, " Dramatic Records from the Privy Coun- 
 cil Register," 1912. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 115 
 
 formed accordingly with all speede, and thereupon to certifie 
 us of your proceedings." 
 
 So Richard Burbage and his company were saved from what 
 might have proved a dangerous rival. 
 
 This Philip Rosseter was one of the Royal Musicians, but he 
 had occasionally presented plays at Court by the Children of 
 the Chapel, as for instance, 1 " To Philip Rosseter, on a warrant 
 dated 24th November, 1612, for presenting a play by the Chil- 
 dren of the Chapel before the Prince, the Lady Elizabeth and 
 the Prince Palatyne, £6 13s. 4A. More to the said Philip Rosse- 
 ter, for presenting before them two other plays by warrant, 
 dated 31st May, 1613, £13 6s. 8^." 
 
 A new crop of law-suits arose around the Company, the one of 
 them personal to Hemmings, the other relating to the Company 
 in general. Hemmings' daughter had married William Osteler, 
 one of the Blackfriars " children " who had been received into 
 the King's company, and he had died. She sued his father for 
 the full control of his shares, and John Witter, who had 
 married the widow of Augustine Pope, one of the original share- 
 holders, sued the Company for more profits. (See Professor 
 Wallace's paper in " Century," August, 1910.) 
 
 Shakespeare was out of it all now — away in the quiet Strat- 
 ford Church he lay. And Richard Burbage, having a son at 
 the end of the year, in memory of him called the child by the 
 name of " William." It has often been noted by enemies 
 that the world did not seem very much distressed about the 
 death of Shakespeare. No one seems to have grasped the true 
 reason. Shakespeare had retired from the stage, as an actor, 
 some time before he died. His personal appearances in London 
 were rare. 
 
 And when the end came, and the creation of plays from that 
 source ceased, we have every reason to believe that there was 
 an increase in the number of the performances of his plays. For 
 in the characters Shakespeare wrote for him Richard Burbage 
 attained his greatest glory. Men did not realize that Shake- 
 1 Dec. Ace, Treasurer of the Chamber, p. 543. 
 
n6 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 speare was dead while Burbage lived. His power of impersona- 
 tion was so great that he became his characters. An illustra- 
 tion may be given from Bishop Corbet's poem, " Iter Boreale," 
 p. 193. Speaking of his Host at Bosworth Field — - 
 
 " But chiefly by that one perspicuous thing 
 When he mistooke a player for a King. 
 For when he would have cryd King Richard dyed 
 And call'd A Horse ! A Horse ! he ' Burbidge ' cryde." 
 (This shows that he acted " Richard III.") 
 
 We have only to turn to the poems referring to Richard Bur- 
 bage to realize that it was in the death of Burbage that to the 
 world our Shakespeare died. Hardly three years later was it, 
 when the nervous system of Richard Burbage broke down. It 
 seems from one of the poems to have been a shock, or an acute 
 attack of paralysis which took him away. Queen Anne of 
 Denmark had died on 2nd March, 1618-9, Richard Burbage 
 died on the 13th of the same month (not on the same day, as the 
 D.N.B. says), and sorrow for his loss seems to have made men 
 forget to show the sorrow due to a Queen's death. 
 
 " Exit Burbage." * 
 
 The city and the Stage were clothed in gloom. He was 
 buried in St. Leonard's, probably in the churchyard. Men 
 poured forth their mourning for the loss of their great dramatist. 
 
 Chamberlain writes : " The funeral (of the Queen) is put off 
 to the 29th of next month, to the great hindrance of our players, 
 which are forbidden to play so long as her body is above 
 ground : one special man among them, Burbadge, is lately dead, 
 and hath left, they say, better than £300 land." 
 
 A touching tribute to his charm comes from the pen of the 
 great Lord Pembroke himself, to whom and to his brother, 
 Hemmings and Condell afterwards dedicated Shakespeare's 
 plays — reminding them how much they had honoured the 
 writer living. The letter is new to literature, and is worthy of 
 being preserved (Egerton MSS., 2,592, f. 81). 
 
 1 See Camden's Remains, also Ashmol. MS. Bodleian. 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 117 
 
 Letter of William, Earl of Pembroke, to Viscount Doncaster, 
 Ambassador to Germany, at Middleburg. 
 
 "My Lord — 
 
 " I could not let my cousin Berkley go without this small 
 testimony of my unceremonious respect unto your Lordship. 
 . . . This day the French Ambassador took leave ... we 
 shall put off our blacks at St. George's tyde, and be laught at 
 for it by all Christendom at Midsummer . . . now you have 
 all that I know that past since your departure but that my 
 Lord of Lenox made a great supper to the French Embassador 
 this night here and even now all the company are at the play, 
 which I being tender-harted, could not endure to see so soone 
 after the loss of my old acquaintance Burbadge. . . . Your 
 Lordships most affectionate friend and Servaunt, 
 
 " Pembroke. 
 
 "Whitehall, 
 " 20th May." 
 
 Thomas Middleton writes lines, published among his poems, 
 " On the death of that great Master in his art and quality, 
 painting and playing, R. Burbage : 
 
 " Astronomers and Stargazers this year 
 Write but of four eclipses, five appear, 
 Death interposing Burbage and there staying 
 Hath made a visible eclipse of playing." 
 
 De Burbagio et Regina. 
 
 '' Hung be the Heaven's with black, yield day to night. 
 
 Comets importing change shoot through the sky. 
 Scourge the foul fates that thus afflict our sight, 
 
 Burbadge the player has vouchsafed to die ; 
 
 Therefore in London is not one eye dry : 
 The deaths of men who act our Queens and Kings 
 Are now more mourned than are the real things. 
 The Queen is dead ! To him now what are Queens ? 
 
 Queans of the Theatre are much more worth. 
 ***** 
 
 Dick Burbage was their mortal God on earth. 
 
n8 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 When he expires, lo ! all lament the man, 
 
 But where's the grief should follow good Queen Anne ? " 
 
 An epitaph upon Mr. Richard Burbage, the player. 
 
 "This Life's a play, sceaned out by Nature's Arte, 
 Where every man hath his allotted parte. 
 This man hath now (as many men can tell) 
 
 Ended his part, and he hath acted well 
 The Play now ended, think his grave to be 
 
 The retiring house of his sad Tragedie, 
 Where to give his fame this, be not afraid, 
 Here lies the best Tragedian ever played." 
 
 Sloane MS., 1786. 
 
 The longest Epitaph is worth inserting. 
 
 "On ye death of ye famous actor R. Burbage. 
 
 " Some skillful limner aide mee, yf not soe 
 Some sad Tragedian to expresse my woe : 
 But (oh) hee's gon, yt could ye best both limne 
 And act my griefe, and it is only him 
 That I invoke this strange assistance to't, 
 And on ye point call for himselfe to doe't : 
 For none but Tully Tully's praise could tell, 
 And as hee could, no man could doe so well 
 This part of sorrow for him, nor can drawe 
 So truely to ye lyfe this mapp of woe. 
 This griefe's true picture, which his losse has bred 
 Hee's gon, and with him what a world is dead. 
 (Which he revived to be renewed soe. 
 No more young Hamlett, ould Hieronymoe, 
 Kind Lear, the grieved Moore, and more besyde 
 That lived in him, have now for ever dy'de,) 
 Oft have I seen him leape into a grave 
 Suiting ye person (which he seemed to have) 
 Of a sad lover, with so true an eye 
 That then I would have sworn he meant to die ; 
 Oft have I seen him playe his part in jest, 
 So lively, yt spectators, and the rest 
 Of his sad crewe, while hee but seemed to bleed 
 Amazed thought that he had died indeed. 
 Oh I did not knowledge check me, I should sweare 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS ng 
 
 Even yet it is a false report I heare, 
 And thinke that he who did so truly faigne 
 Is only dead in jest to live againe : 
 But now this part he acts, not playes, 'tis knowne 
 Others hee plaide, but now hee acts his owne. 
 [England's great Roscius, for what Roscius 
 | Was more to Rome than Burbadge was to us ; 
 J How to ye person hee did suit his face, 
 I How did his speech become him, and his face 
 | Suit with his speech, whilst not a word did fall 
 "-Without just weight to balance it withall. 
 Had'st thou but spoke to Death, and used ye power 
 Of thy enchaunting tongue, but ye first hower 
 Of his assault, hee had let fall his dart 
 And charmed bene by all thy charming art. 
 This he well knew, and to prevent such wrong 
 First cunningly made seizure of thy tonge, 
 Then on ye rest 'twas easy, by degrees 
 The slender ivy toppes ye tallest trees. 
 Poets ! whose glory 'twas of late to heare 
 Your lines so well exprest : henceforth forbeare 
 And write noe more, or if you doe't, left bee 
 In comic scenes, for tragic parts you see 
 Die all with him, nay, rather sluice your eyes 
 And henceforth write naught else but tragedies, 
 Moist dirges, or sad elegies, and those 
 Mournfull laments, which may expresse your woes. 
 Blurr all your leaves with blotts, yt what is writ 
 May bee but one sad blacke, and upon it 
 Draw marble lines, yt may outlast ye sun 
 And stand like trophies when ye world is done. 
 Or turn your ink to blood, your pens to spears 
 To pierce and wound the heaven's hearts and eares ; 
 Enraged, write stabbing lines yt every word 
 May be as apt for murder as a sword, 
 That no man may surmise after this fact 
 Of ruthlesse Death, either to hear or act. 
 And you, his sad companions, to whom Lent 
 Becomes more lenten yn this accident, 
 Henceforth your wavering flag no more hang out. 
 Play now noe more at all, when round about 
 Wee looke and misse ye Atlas of ye spheare, 
 What comfort thinke you have wee to bee there; 
 
120 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 And how can you delight in playing when 
 
 Sad mourning soe affecteth other men ? 
 
 Yf you will hang it out, yt let it weare 
 
 No more light colours, but death's livery beare. 
 
 Hang all your house with black, ye eaves it beares 
 
 With icicles of ever melting teares : 
 
 And yf you ever chance to play againe 
 
 Let nought but tragedies affect your scene. 
 
 And thou dear earth yt enshrines yt dust yt must 
 
 By heaven now committed to thy trust 
 
 Keepe it as precious as ye richest mine 
 
 That lies entombed in ye rich wombe of thine 
 
 That after times may know yt much loved mould 
 
 Fro' other dust, and cherish it as gold. 
 
 On it bee laid some soft but lasting stone, 
 
 With this short epitaph endorst thereon ; 
 
 That every one may reade, and reading weepe, 
 
 ' 'Tis England's Roscius, Burbage, whom I keepe.' " 
 
 Em. H. 
 
 There are five transcripts of this Elegy, one at Warwick 
 Castle ; one in Mr. Huth's collection, which calls it " A funeral! 
 Elegy on the death of the famous Actor Richard Burbage : 
 who died on Saturday in Lent, the 13th of March, 1618-9." 
 It was first printed in " The Gentleman's Magazine," 1825 ; 
 and Collier prints from some other MS. some extra verses. 
 This copy is from " The Gentleman's Magazine," corrected 
 from Halliwell's with one of Collier's verses included within 
 brackets. 
 
 Collier says he has found another MS. which enlarges the 
 list in his " New Particulars." 
 
 An elegy on our late Protean Roscius Richard Burbage. 
 
 (After a few couplets, the same as above, it continues) : — 
 " No more young Hamlet though but scant of breath 
 Shall cry revenge for his dear father's death : 
 Poor Romeo never more shall tears beget 
 For Juliet's love and cruel Capulet ; 
 Harry shall not be seen as King or Prince, 
 They died with thee, Dear Dick — 
 Not to revive again. Jeronimo 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 121 
 
 Shall cease to mourn his son Horatio ; 
 They cannot call thee from thy naked bed 
 By horrid outcry ; and Antonio's dead. 
 Edward shall lack a representative, 
 And Crookback, as befits, shall cease to live. 
 Tyrant Macbeth, with unwash'd bloody hand 
 We vainly now may hope to understand. 
 Brutus and Marcius henceforth must be dumb. 
 For ne'er thy like upon our stage shall come 
 To charm the faculty of eyes and ears, 
 Unless we could command the dead to rise. 
 Vindex is gone, and what a loss was he ! 
 Frankford, Brachiano and Malevole 
 Heart-broke Philaster and Amintas too 
 Are lost for ever ; with the red-haired Jew, 
 Which sought the bankrupt merchant's pound of flesh. 
 By woman-lawyer caught in his own mesh. 
 TWhat a wide world was in that little space, 
 Thyself a world, the Globe thy fittest place ! 
 Thy stature small, but every thought and mood 
 Might thoroughly from thy face be understood, 
 And his whole action he could change with ease 
 From ancient Lear to youthful Pericles. 
 But let me not forget one chiefest part, 
 Wherein beyond the rest, he moved the heart, 
 The grieved Moor, made jealous by a slave 
 Who sent his wife to fill a timeless grave, 
 Then slew himself upon the bloody bed. 
 All these and many more with him are dead, 
 Thereafter must our poets leave to write. 
 Since thou art gone, dear Dick, a tragic night 
 Will wrap our black-hung stage. He made a Poet, 
 And those who yet remain full surely know it ; 
 For having Burbadge to give forth each line 
 It filled their brain with fury more divine." 
 
 Another outburst of praise came after the Restoration, printed 
 in Collier's " New Particulars " from an MS. of time of 
 Charles I : — 
 
 " Dick Burbage, that most famous man, 
 That actor without peer. 
 
122 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 With this same part his course began 
 
 And kept it many a year. 
 Shakespeare was fortunate, I trow. 
 
 That such an actor had, 
 If we had but his equal now 
 
 For one I should be glad." 
 
 Richard Flecknoe in his Epigrams gives — 
 
 The praises of Burbage, or an excellent Actor. 
 
 Who, by the best and noblest of the age 
 Was held the chiefest ornament of the stage, 
 And Actor's clearest Light in no dark time 
 To shew them what to follow, what decline. 
 Who knew, by rules of the Dramatic Art, 
 To fit his speech and action to his part, 
 And of an excellent orator had all 
 In voice and gesture which we charming call ; 
 Who a delightful Proteus was that could 
 Transform himself into what shape he would 
 And finally did on the stage appear 
 Beauty to th' Eye, and Musick to the Ear. 
 
 Richard Flecknoe in his " Short Discourses on the English 
 Stage," printed 1664, inserted the description of an excellent 
 actor, versified in his Euterpe restored 1672 — 
 
 The praises of Richard Burbadge 
 
 " Who did appear so gracefully on the stage 
 He was the admired example of the age, 
 And so observed all your dramatic laws 
 He ne'er went off the stage but with applause." 
 
 Sir Richard Baker, " Theatrum Redivivum " answering 
 Prynne's " Histriomastix," 1662, " Scurrility." "Yet he shall 
 never give that contentment to Beholders as honest Tarlton 
 did, though he said never a word. And what scurrility was 
 ever heard to come from the mouths of the best actors of our 
 time, Alleyn or Burbidge ? Yet what plays were ever so 
 pleasing, as where their parts had the greatest part." 
 
JAMES BURBAGE'S SONS 123 
 
 Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle, 1643, continues : — 
 " After such men (Statesmen, Writers, Divines), it might 
 be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage-players ; but seeing 
 Excellency in the meanest things deserves remembering and 
 Roscius the Comedian is recorded in History with such com- 
 mendation, it may be allowed us to do the like with some of our 
 nation. Richard Bourbidge and Edward Allen, two such actors 
 as no age must ever look to see the like ; and to make their 
 Comedies compleat, Richard Tarleton, who for the part called 
 the Clown's part, never had his match, never will have. For 
 writers of playes, and such as have been players themselves, 
 William Shakespeare and Benjamin Johnson have specially 
 left their names commended to posterity " (p. 120). 
 
 We might go even further to behold how Richard Burbage 
 became an example to succeeding ages, and men moulded their 
 art on his conceptions. 
 
 When Burbage Played. 
 
 When Burbage played, the stage was bare 
 Of fount and Temple, Tower and Stair, 
 Two backswords eked a battle out, 
 Two supers made a rabble rout 
 The Throne of Denmark was a chair ! 
 
 And yet, no less the audience there 
 Thrilled through all changes of Despair, 
 Hope, Anger, Fear, Delight and Doubt, 
 When Burbage played. 
 
 This is the Actor's gift, to share 
 All moods, all passions nor to care 
 One whit for scene, so he wjthput 
 Can lead men's minds the roundabout, 
 Stirred as of old these hearers were 
 When Burbage played. 
 
 (Austin Dobson's Poems, 1897, p. 473) 
 
^*Vsssw> 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 
 
 CUTHBERT BURBAGE, whose material, whose work 
 and whose brains were built into the first Globe Theatre, 
 does not appear much during the course of its history. There 
 were no insurance companies then, and he and his brother must 
 have lost much more than the others. But it seemed to have 
 been made up to them somehow. The brothers put their brains 
 into the building of the second Globe Theatre, but the " Shares " 
 by that time necessarily changed much in value and in condi- 
 tion. Cuthbert remained a sharer in the House, as may be seen 
 later. It is to be supposed that he followed some other pro- 
 fession, such as that of a Scrivener or an Attorney, by which 
 he could help the Company in their business affairs. 
 
 He comes into our notice, performing such duties, when, in 
 that ill-starred month of March 1618-9 his brother Richard 
 was seized by his last illness. The picture rises before us. 
 Richard had lost his power of writing, lost his power of clear 
 speech, but seated by the bed Cuthbert drew up in his fair 
 clerkly hand the nuncupative will of his brother on 12th March, 
 1618-9. Richard appointed his well-beloved wife Winifred 
 sole executor of his goods and chattels and his will was signed 
 by Cuthbert Burbage his brother, Elizabeth his wife (made her 
 mark), Nicholas Tooley, Anne Lancaster, Richard Robinson, 1 
 Elizabeth Graves (made her mark), and Henry Jacksonne. The 
 widow proved it on 22nd April. She had a daughter after her 
 
 1 Richard Burbage's widow afterwards married Richard Robinson. 
 
 124 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 125 
 
 husband's death, whom she baptized Sara. She had lost many 
 children, but her son William survived. To him his father's 
 lands in Kent and elsewhere would pass by law. 
 
 Before the month was out, on 27th March, 1619, the King 
 granted a new Patent by Privy Seal to his servants, still includ- 
 ing the name of Burbage second in the list. 
 
 The names of the members of the King's company re- 
 patented in 1619 show how few of the old men still remained. 
 John Hemmings, Richard Burbage, Henry Condell, John 
 Lowen, Nicholas Tooley, John Underwood, Nathan Field, 
 Robert Benfield, Robert Gough, William Ecclestone, Richard 
 Robinson, John Shancks and the rest of their associates. The 
 first was evidently manager, as we may see from various 
 references in public papers. 
 
 The apparently friendly relations of all the company to each 
 other might have been noted throughout. They remembered 
 each other in their wills, they trusted each other as overseers. 
 And Cuthbert Burbage was still reckoned as one of their band 
 privately. This may be seen in his relation to Nicholas Tooley, 
 who had been the " servant " or apprentice of Richard Bur- 
 bage. He had lived in Shoreditch and he died in Cuthbert 
 Burbage's house there. He made his will on 3rd June, 1623. 
 For some unexplained reason he seems to have been called 
 Nicholas Wilkenson alias Tooley, though he used the latter 
 name, made his will, signed it, and then added a codicil 
 as " Nicholas Wilkenson alias Tooley," that he wished all the 
 items in his will signed " Nicholas Tooley " to be faithfully 
 carried out. He left £80 to the Church of St. Leonard's for 
 the distribution of 32 penny wheaten loaves every Sunday to 
 the poor ; and Howe in his continuation of Stowe, duly enters 
 him among the benefactors of the parish, and notes the fact 
 that the parish had invested the money in a rent-charge 
 " issuing out of the George in Holywell Street " for the true 
 performance of the will. He seems to have died single and had 
 no heirs. He forgave most of his debtors. What Richard 
 Robinson owed him (over £29), he desired to be paid to Sara 
 
126 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the daughter of his late master, Richard Burbage. He left 
 £10 as a remembrance of his love to Mrs. Elizabeth Burbage 
 for her motherly care of him, and £5 to Alice Walker, sister of 
 his late master. He then left Cuthbert Burbage and John 
 Hemmings his executors, and after they had paid all his funeral 
 expenses and legacies they were to share the remainder be- 
 tween them. He was buried in St. Giles without Cripplegate. 
 
 When John Hemmings made his will, it was " Mr. Burbage 
 his loving friend, to be overseer," and Mr. Rice also. 
 
 He was buried 12th October, 1630. Condall had already 
 gone in 1627. 
 
 In 1633 there was a definite attempt to suppress the Black- 
 friars Theatre, on account of the great inconvenience to the 
 inhabitants ; not as was attempted in Elizabethan times with- 
 out redress to the owners or the Players. In the yet unpub- 
 lished volumes of the Privy Council Register there is entered a 
 letter dated " 8th Oct., 1633. Upon consideration this day 
 had at the Boarde of the greate inconvenience and annoyance 
 occasioned by the resort and confluence of Coaches to the Play- 
 house in Blackfriars, whereby the Streets being narrow ther- 
 abouts are at those times become impassable to the great preju- 
 dice of his Majesties subjects passing that way upon their 
 severall occasions and in particular to divers noblemen and 
 Councillors of State whose houses are in that way, whereby they 
 are many times hindered from their necessary attendance upon 
 his Majesty's person and service. Their Lordships calling to 
 mind that formerly upon complaint hereof made the Board 
 was of opinion that the said Playhouse was fitt to be removed 
 from thence, and that an indifferent recompense and allowance 
 should be given them for their interest in the said house and 
 buildings thereunto belonging, did therefore thinke fit and order 
 that Sir Henry Spicer and Sir William Becher Knights, the 
 Aldermen of the Ward, Laurence Whitacker Esq. and William 
 Child citizen of London, or any three of them, be hereby re- 
 quired to call such of the parties interested before them, as 
 they shall thinke fitt, and upon hearing of their demands and 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 127 
 
 view of the place, to make an indifferent estimate and valewe 
 of the said house and buildings, and of their interests therein 
 and to agree upon and sett down such recompense to be given 
 for the same as shall be reasonable and thereupon to make 
 report to the Board of their doings and proceedings therein by 
 the 26th of this present month." 
 
 In the course of the inquiries, it was found that Cuthbert 
 Burbage and William Burbage the son of Richard were the 
 owners ; and they estimated its value as £700. They were 
 owners also of 4 adjacent tenements, and their estimation of its 
 business value raised it to a very high figure. Collier says the 
 Report was subscribed by William Baker, Humphrey Smith, 
 Laurence Whitaker and William Childe, and in consideration of 
 the loss to the shareholders and the players the surveyors 
 estimated it at £2,400. Probably this was thought too much to 
 spend for the purpose, and further correspondence and arrange- 
 ment ensued but nothing definite seems to have been done then. 
 Arrangements were attempted. 
 
 " 20th November, 1633. Whereas the Board hath taken 
 consideration of the great inconveniences which growe by rea- 
 son of their resort to the Playhouse of the Blackfriars in coaches, 
 whereby the Streetes neare thereunto are at the Play time so 
 stopped that his Majesties Subjects going about their neces- 
 sarie affayres can hardly finde passage and are oftentymes 
 endangered. Their Lordships remembering that there is an 
 easie passage by water unto that Playhouse without troubling 
 the Streetes, and that it is much more fit and reasonable that 
 those which goe thither should goe thither by water or else on 
 foote, rather than the necessarie businesses of all others and 
 the public commerce should be disturbed by their pleasure, doe 
 hereafter order, that if anie person, man, or woman, of what 
 condition soever repaire to the af oresaide playhouse in a Coach, 
 so soon as they are gone out of their coaches the Coachmen shall 
 departe thence and not retourne till the end of the play, nor 
 shall stay or retourne to fetch those whom they carried anie 
 nearer with their coaches, than the further part of St. Paules 
 
ia8 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Churchyarde on the one side, and the Fleet conduit on the other 
 syde, and in ye tyme betweene their departure and returne shall 
 either returne home, or else abide in some other streetes lesse 
 frequented with passengers, and to range their coaches in these 
 places that the way be not stopped, which order if any coach- 
 man disobey the next Constable or officer is hereby charged to 
 commit him presently to Ludgate or Newgate : And the Lord 
 Mayor of London is required to see this carefully performed by 
 the Constables and officers to whom it apperteynethe, and to 
 punish every such Constable or officer as shall be found negligent 
 therein. And to the ende that none may pretende ignorance 
 thereof it is lastly ordered that Copies of this order shall be set 
 up at Paules Chaine, by direcion of the Lord Mayor also at the 
 West end of St. Paules Church at Ludgate, and the Blackfriars 
 gate and Fleete Conduit." 
 
 In order to strengthen this resolution of keeping the streets 
 clear, the Privy Council wrote on 29th November, 1633, to the 
 Lord Mayor, etc. : " Wee send your Lordship herewith an order 
 of this Board, for redressing of the inconveniences that growe by 
 reason of the great resort in Coaches to the Playhouse in the 
 Blackfryers which orders we doe hereby pray and earnestly 
 require your Lordship to see fully and diligently executed in 
 every point thereof, and so much the rather in regard it is of 
 noe lesse unsemeliness to the City, than of trouble and annoy- 
 ance to his Majesties subjects. So expecting your Lordship's 
 performance of these our directions, etc." 
 
 One can imagine the outcry that wealthy women, going 
 to the Playhouse in fine clothes, would make about uncertainty 
 as to the whereabouts of their carriages in wet weather. There 
 were no umbrellas then. The husbands and friends on the 
 Privy Council could not have spent a happy month, between 
 their first order, and the succeeding one — 
 
 " 29th December, 1633. Ordered this day, the King present, 
 upon informacion this day given to the Board of the dis- 
 commoditie that divers persons of great quallity, especially 
 ladies and gentlewomen, did receive in going to the Playhouse 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 129 
 
 of Blackfriers by reason that noe coaches may stand within 
 the Blackfryers gate, or returne thither during the play, and of 
 the preiudice the players, his Majesties servants, doe receive 
 thereby. But especially that the streetes are soe much the 
 more encumbred with the said Coaches, the Board, taking into 
 consideration the former order of the 20th November last con- 
 cerning this business, did thinke fitt to explaine the said order 
 in such manner, that as many coaches as may stand within 
 the Blackfriers gate may enter and stay there, or retourne 
 thither at the end of the play, but that the said former order of 
 the 20th November be duly observed in all other partes. 
 Whereof as well the Lord Mayor, as all other his Majesties 
 officers who are prayed and required to see the said order 
 observed, are to take notice, etc." 
 
 The Lord Mayor and Corporation, even then, would have 
 thought it easier and wiser to suppress the theatre altogether, 
 but their time was not yet. 
 
 There was trouble also at the Globe. For the second time 
 in his life Cuthbert had trusted his landlord in a verbal pro- 
 mise concerning a lease, and for the second time was driven to 
 strong measures. Sir Matthew Brand, son and heir of the 
 Nicholas Brand from whom he had taken the site in Maiden 
 Lane, had respected the original 31 years lease, but had been 
 very uncertain about further extension. His principle began 
 more and more to go against theatres, and his interest, in this 
 case pulled in the same direction as his principle ; for there 
 seems to have been no saving clause as to the builder's right to 
 carry away the material when his lease expired. Cuthbert and 
 the others went to law against their landlord. I have not been 
 able to find the proceedings in the case, but I have found the 
 note in the Decree and Order Books of the Court of Requests. 
 " 6th February 9 Charles I, Hilary Term, 1634. Burbage v. 
 Brend. In the Cause at the suit of Cuthbert Burbage, Richard 
 Robinson, William Hemmings and others, plaintiffs, against Sir 
 Matthew Brand, Knt. defendant. Upon the motion of Mr. 
 Richard Lane of Counsaill with the said Complainants, it is 
 
 K 
 
130 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 ordered that the Council on both sides shall attend this Court 
 upon Monday next to be heard upon the case this day delivered 
 into the said Courte by the said complainants under their 
 counsells hands of Richard Lane and John White Esquiers 
 of Counsaill severally with the said parties, and thereby such 
 further direction shall be given in the case as shall be moved. 
 And the said defendant forthwith to have notice of this present 
 notice." The names above mentioned rouse memories. Cuth- 
 bert, the oldest survivor of the whole concern ; Richard 
 Robinson, witness to Richard Burbage's will, who had married 
 his widow, and stood, jure marito in her place, and as representa- 
 tive of his stepson William, not yet of age, William Hemmings, 
 the unlucky son of old John Hemmings of the First Folio. And 
 Mr. Richard Lane their Counsel, was the very same Deputy 
 Registrar in the Court of Requests, whom Giles AUeyn had 
 charged with confederacy, fraud and acceptance of bribes, in 
 the last year of Elizabeth, when Francis Bacon, Esq., found the 
 charge fit only to be dismissed. (See Note 21.) Sir Matthew 
 Brand seems to have come round at the time, probably through 
 the influence of the Court of Equity. 
 
 But Cuthbert Burbage was to have one more blow, of the 
 same nature as he had so often endured, but in a new court, 
 under conditions more trying to him than ever. In his long life he 
 must have seen many changes in the personnelle of what through 
 all its various names had remained the Burbage Company. 
 New actors had risen round him and grown old, and men newer 
 still had grown up and had become popular. We see their 
 names in the payments of the Lord Chamberlain's books, and 
 Eyllardt Swanston, one of these, was the leading actor of the 
 company when he brought Cuthbert Burbage's last trouble to 
 him. He was of the modern school, the worker is everything, 
 the Inventor, the Creator, the Supporter, is nothing ; there is 
 no meaning in inheritance, no right in Landlords. Such 
 thoughts, hazily enough shaped, no doubt, were in Eyllardt 
 Swanston's mind when he persuaded Robert Benfield and 
 Thomas Pollard, who had been one of the boy-actors in the 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 131 
 
 early Blackfriars, to complain along with him to the Lord 
 Chamberlain, that the bulk of the shares of the Theatre were 
 in the Burbages' hands, they being no actors. He wanted 
 shares in the house, and there being none to sell just then, he 
 wanted the Lord Chamberlain to force the Burbages to part with 
 some of their shares, and to sell them to him and Pollard. It 
 must be remembered that this Lord Chamberlain was not Wil- 
 liam, Earl of Pembroke, whose touching tribute to Richard Bur- 
 bage's memory I have recorded above. He had died in 1630. 
 The Lord Chamberlain in 1635 was his brother Philip, of a denser 
 brain, and a coarser heart-fibre. It was he who, on the 
 petition of Swanston and Pollard, probably because they were 
 the best actors in the King's company at the time, granted their 
 petition before he heard what the Burbages had to say, and 
 supported his decision after he had heard the old survivor's 
 " answer." There seems some rough justice in the decision, but 
 it was hard on the man, at the close of his life, who had in- 
 herited his father's Idea, had carefully tended it, sacrificed him- 
 self for it, and expected comfort in his old age as the result of 
 the labours of his youth. His speech has a dramatic power. It 
 is the fourth act of his Tragedy. 
 
 I can only here give a few phrases from it, as it appears in 
 extenso at the end : — 
 
 " Right Honourable. . . . Wee your humble suppliants 
 Cuthbert Burbage, and Winifred x his brother's wife, and 
 William his son . . . wee ought not in all charity to be disabled 
 of our livelyhood by men so soone shott up, since it hath been 
 the custom that they should come to it by f arre more antiquity 
 and desert than these can justly attribute to themselves. . . . 
 shewing the infinite charges, the manifold lawsuits, the lease's 
 expiration, the restraints in sickness times and other accidentes 
 that did cutt from us the best part of the gaines. . . . 
 
 " The father of us Cuthbert and Richard was the first builder 
 of playhouses, and was himself in his younger yeres a Player. 
 
 1 She was by this time Mrs. Robinson. 
 
132 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 The Theatre he built with many hundred pounds taken up at 
 interest, the Players that lived in these first times had only the 
 profits arising from the dores, but now they (the players) 
 receave also the cominge in at the dores to themselves, and half 
 the galleries from the Housekeepers. Hee built this house 
 upon leased grounds by which meanes the Landlord and he 
 had a greate suite in lawe, and by his death, the like troubles 
 fell on us his sonnes. We then bethought us of altering from 
 thence, and at like expense built the Globe, with more summes 
 of money taken up at interest which lay heavy on us many 
 yeares, and to ourselves we joined those deserving men Shake- 
 speare, Hemmings, Condall, Phillipps and others partners in ye 
 profitts of that they call the house. 
 
 " The Blackfriers that is our inheritance, our father pur- 
 chased it at extreme rates, and made it into a play-house with 
 great charge and troble which after was leased out to one 
 Evans that first sett up the Boyes commonly called The 
 Queen's Majesties Children of the Chappell. In processe of 
 time, the boyes growing up to bee men, which were Under- 
 wood, Field, Ostler, and were taken to strengthen the King's 
 service, and the more to strengthen the service, the boyes daily 
 wearing out, it was considered that house would be as fitt for 
 ourselves, and soe purchased the lease remaining from Evans 
 with our money, and placed men-players which were Hemmings, 
 Condall, Shakespeare, etc. And Richard Burbage who for 35 
 years pains, cost and labour, made meanes to leave his wife and 
 children some estate (and out of whose estate soe many of 
 other players and their families have been mayntained) these 
 new men that were never bred from children in the King's 
 service, would take away with oathes and menaces that wee 
 shall bee forced, and that they will not thank us for it. . . . 
 
 " Against their sayinges that wee eat the fruit of their 
 labours, we referre it to your Honours judgment to consider 
 their profitts, which wee may safely maintain . . . each of 
 these complainants gained severally, as he was a player and 
 noe Housekeeper £180, Besides Mr. Swanston hath received 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OP THE BURBAGES 133 
 
 from the Blackfriers this year, as he is there a Housekeeper, 
 above £30, all which accompted together, may very well keep 
 him from starving. Wherefore your honours most humble 
 suppliants intreate they may not further bee trampled upon 
 then their estates can beare, seeing how dearly it hath been 
 purchased by the infinite cost and paynes of the family of the 
 Burbages, and the great desert of Richard Burbage for his 
 quality of playing, that his wife should not starve in her old 
 age. 
 
 " Mr. Hemming and Mr. Condall had theirs (shares) of the 
 Blackfriers of us for nothing, It is only wee that suffer continu- 
 ally." That may be taken as the last known words of Cuth- 
 bert Burbage, indeed of the whole family. 
 
 The Lord Chamberlain, in spite of all, held to his earlier 
 decision and the scornful Eillardt Swanston triumphed over the 
 others. 
 
 How little did it all matter in the light of the short leases yet 
 to run. Yet how much it seemed to matter to the old share- 
 holders. 
 
 The new Shakespeare Society's Transactions of 1886 give 
 some dates concerning the Shakespearean Actors, and John 
 Shancke is said to have been buried 27th January, 1635-6, 
 so soon after his pleadings with Burbage, against Eillardt Swan- 
 ston before the Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage died not long after. Did the Lord Cham- 
 berlain's decision, and the inevitable bad feeling stirred up by 
 it help to hasten the end ? Or was it a swift visitation in the 
 Plague of 1636 which carried Cuthbert Burbage away in Sep- 
 tember 1636? The Register does not notify the cause. It 
 says : — 
 
 " Cuthbert Burbardge was buryed ye 17th day of September 
 1636" (no address given). And within a fortnight his wife 
 followed him : " Elizabeth Burbadge, widow. First day of 
 October, 1636 " (no address). They were buried in the same 
 tomb in the Chancel of St. Leonards'. Strype's continuation of 
 Stow records it, and if we read the words aright, the inscrip- 
 
134 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 tion ran, " Cuthbert Burbage and Elizabeth his wife. They 
 departed in Sept. 1636. 
 
 Venimus, Vidimus, Redivivimus, Resurgemus." 
 
 This memorial is gone now, as well as that which must cer- 
 tainly have been set up to James and Richard Burbage, of 
 whose last resting-place no definite account has been preserved. 
 
 Cuthbert left no son alive. If there are any descendants it 
 must have been through Elizabeth. We know too little of any. 
 
 Cuthbert had secured at some time before his death a coat 
 of arms, entered in the Visitation of London, 1634, " Crest, a 
 Boar's Head ; and three Boars' Heads on a Shield." He claims 
 no long pedigree. The family began and ended in father and 
 sons. 
 
 James Burbage, of St. Leonard's in Shoreditch, 
 m. Ellen, d. of — Brayne, London 
 
 1 ' 1 1. 
 
 Cuthbert m. Elizabeth, d. of Richard=Winifred Alice m. Walker 
 
 John Cox, of 
 London, gent. 
 
 Elizabeth m. 1st, Amias Maxey, gent. ; William Sara, d. 1625 
 2nd, George Bingley, one 
 of His Majesty's auditors 
 
 James Burbage, son of Amias Maxey, whom 
 Cuthbert, his grandfather, hath adopted 
 
 In Wood's " Fasti Oxoniensis," I, 303, Robert Burbage 
 is described as a great professor of divinity " nearly related 
 to the famous Richard Burbage." 
 
 Among the numerous records I have searched at the Record 
 Office to find any information concerning the family I was often 
 confused by a Richard Burbage 2 of Somerset. 
 
 1 X include Richard's name. There may bs descendants. 
 
 2 In searching the Registers of South Stoke, Oxfordshire, or the 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 135 
 
 William Burbage, twenty years old at death of his uncle, evi- 
 dently had not the genius of his father or his name-father, not 
 even the talent ; or perhaps he was affected by the fresh wave of 
 disapproval of the stage. 
 
 I have found nothing definite of William, but there are 
 two little suits which may, or may not, refer to him. 
 
 In the Records of the Middlesex Sessions for 9th September, 
 27 Charles II, at Whitechapel, complaint was made that John 
 Rudd, late of the same parish, yeoman, assaulted John Hew- 
 lett, the apprentice of William Burbidge, Taylor, and sent him 
 off to Virginia and sold him there. Also in Chanc. Proc. Rey- 
 nardson, 399-66, Burbage v. Burbage, 16th Feb. 1669, com- 
 plaint that Henry Burbage in his minority claims a small pro- 
 perty in Barrow-on-Soar, Leicester, which had been bought by 
 Richard Burbage, 2 Jan., 9 Jas. I, by deed from Henry Earl of 
 Huntingdon and it had come to William Burbage his son and 
 heir, who had gone to the Barbadoes for fifteen years. This 
 Henry was his son born in this country who had also gone to 
 the Barbadoes and was now of the age of twenty years. On the 
 other hand, he is said to have given the property to his brother 
 Hugh. 
 
 It is difficult to know how the Burbage " inheritance " 
 went. The Globe Theatre was entered as " the inheritance of 
 Sir Matthew Brand and worth £20 a year in 1637." ^ r - 
 Furnivall found in the Phillipps Collection at Cheltenham a 
 copy of the 1631 edition of Stow, with manuscript notes at the 
 end regarding the fate of the playhouse : " The Globe Play- 
 house on the Bank side was burnt down . . . built up again 
 . . . and now pulled again to the ground by Sir Matthew 
 Brand on Monday, the 15th April, 1^44, to make tenements in 
 the room of it." (Through the transfers of these tenements 
 we learn the boundaries of the old site.) The Blackfriars estate 
 
 notices of the Rev. James Stopes there, I found " Richard Burbidge, son 
 of Richard Burbidge, baptized 30th March, 1577 — buried 1578." 
 "Thomas Burbidge, baptized 2nd Dec, 1579," "buried 16th March, 
 1608." 
 
136 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 was held in fee simple, and it is difficult to imagine how the 
 property was dealt with, and whether there was any compen- 
 sation or not, to anybody. The same authority notes, " The 
 Blackfriars Playhouse pulled down on 6th August, 1555," and 
 the other playhouses finished their career shortly before or after. 1 
 
 The Stage sank to a lower level after the death of the great- 
 est poet and the greatest player. Yet a reflected light from 
 their glory still hung for awhile about their successors until 
 1640. 
 
 We know something of their names and of their Court per- 
 formances from the Lord Chamberlain's Books, 2 and less from 
 other books of Court expenses. 
 
 Only those who have long been searching in that later 
 period for minor details, can estimate the difference in the bulk 
 of material information concerning the stage which has come 
 down to us from the later years of James, and the beginning of 
 Charles' reign, compared with those to be had of Elizabeth's 
 reign. There was a dearth of the old gossippy Court letters, 
 which told us so much in the sixteenth century. Histories 
 dealt with things more serious than the fortunes of playhouses 
 and the fate of players. Yet we are allowed the pleasure of 
 " looking backwards " later, and think of the diatribes of the 
 preachers when Richard Burbage was a boy. 
 
 Wright in his " Historia Histrionica " says, " The reader may 
 know that the Profession of Players is not so totally scandalous, 
 nor all of them so reprobate. . . . We have indeed poets of a 
 different genius, so are the plays ... as much inferior to 
 those of former times, as the actors." He had seen before the 
 wars Lowen, Taylor, Pollard and some others, " all who related 
 to the Blackfriars, where they acted in perfection." In the 
 
 1 " The Fortune between White Cross Streete and Golding Lane 
 burned 1619, rebuilt 1622, pulled down 1649." " The Hope on Bank- 
 side commonly called the Bear Garden, a playhouse on Mondays, 
 Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and for the Baiting of Bears Tues- 
 day and Thursday, built 1610, pulled down 25th March, 1656." 
 
 2 See my paper reprinted from the Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1910, 
 " Shakespeare's Fellows and Followers." 
 
WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BURBAGES 137 
 
 conversation Lovewit asks, " What master parts can you 
 remember the old Blackfriars men to act in Johnson's, Shake- 
 speare's and Fletcher's plays ? " 
 
 " Shakespeare (who, as I have heard was a much better poet 
 than player), Burbage, Hemmings, and others of the older sort 
 were dead before I knew the town. . . . Lowen used to act 
 with mighty applause Falstaffe." " Taylor acted Hamlet, in- 
 comparably well," " Swanston used to play Othello, Pollard and 
 Robinson were comedians, so was Shank. These were of the 
 Blackfriars. . . . The Blackfriars and the Globe on the Bank- 
 side, a winter and a summer house belonging to the same com- 
 pany, called the King's servants ... all these got money and 
 lived in reputation, especially those of the Blackfriars who 
 were men of grave and sober behaviour." 
 
 " The prices were small (there being no scenes) and better 
 order kept among the company that came, which made very 
 good people think a play an innocent diversion for an idle hour 
 or two, the plays being then for the most part more instructive 
 and moral," and a great contrast to the present. " The private 
 houses were small, and the acting was by candlelight. The 
 Globe, Fortune and Bull were large houses, and lay partly open 
 to the weather." " When the stage was put down, most of 
 them except Lowen, 1 Taylor, 2 and Pollard (who were super- 
 annuated) went into the King's army, and like good men and 
 true served their old master." Robinson was killed at the 
 taking of Basinghouse by Harrison. 3 Hart was a Lieutenant 
 of Horse, Allen of the Cockpit a Major at Oxford. " I have not 
 heard of one of the players of any note that sided with the other 
 party, but only Swanston, and he protest himself a Presby- 
 terian, took up the trade of a jeweller and lived in Alderman- 
 bury. . . . The rest either lost or exposed their lives for the 
 King." 
 
 Collier gives some particulars of the other actors. Notices 
 of the greater ones appear in the " Dictionary of National Bio- 
 graphy." 
 
 1 Buried 18th March, 1659. 2 1653. 3 23rd March, 1647. 
 
138 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Of these some were born in Shoreditch, some lived, some were 
 buried there, some both born and buried. 
 
 It would make this volume too long to dwell even on all of 
 these, the Shoreditch players. They were men of the same pro- 
 fession, it is true, but not to them was given the inspiration of 
 pioneers, the courage of champions, the provident skill of 
 commanders. 
 
 Not to any but to the Burbages, so interwoven with the whole 
 history of the Dramatic Art in their century, can we ascribe 
 the honour of being the discoverers and fellow-workers of 
 Shakespeare, and the Founders of the British Stage. 
 
/31 
 
 Selections from St. Leonard's Registers, Shoreditch. 
 
 Burials. 
 
 William Somers was buryd the 2nd day of Julye, 1560, Shordiche. 
 Joan Dowle, wife of Isaac Dowle, 19th Feb., 1580, Curtayn. 
 —John Aynsworth, a player, Sept. 28th, 1581. 
 -Joane Burbidge, daughter of James Burbage, 18th August, 1582. 
 —Richard Torrelton, 3rd September, 1588, Halliwell Street. 
 
 Augustine Fletcher, 24th June, 1596, Goddards. 
 ~James Feake, 7th Dec, 1596, Halliwell Street. 
 -James Burbidge, 2nd Feb., 1596-7, Halliwell. 
 James Burbage, son of Cuthbert Burbage, 15th July, 1597, Halliwell. 
 -Gabriell Spencer being slaine was buryed ye 24th September, 1598, 
 
 Hoggeslane. 
 Francis Burbedge, the daughter of Richard Burbadge, 19th Sept., 
 
 1604, Halliwell Street. 
 Augustine Beeston, son of Christopher Beeston, 17th Nov., 1604, 
 
 Halliwell Street. 
 Richard Burbage, son of Richard, 16th Aug., 1607. 
 Jane Beeston, daughter of Christopher, 22nd Sept., 1607, Halliwell. 
 Mary Condell, daughter of Henry Condell, 24th March, 1607, 
 Hoxton. 
 —William Slye, gent, 16th Aug., 1608, Halliwell Street. 
 Juliet Burbege, daughter of Richard Burbage, 12th Sept., 1608, 
 
 Halliwell. 
 Thomas Cowlie, 19th March, 1608, Peckham's Rents. 
 Elizabeth Keysar, widow, 23rd June, 1609, Churchend. 
 Christopher Beeston, son of Christopher Beeston, 15th July, 1610. 
 Thomas Greene, 29th April, 1613, Peckham's Rents. 
 Hellen Burbadge, widow, 8th May, 1613, Hallywell Street. 
 George Wilkins (poet and player), Aug. 9th, 1613. 
 
 139 
 
140 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Julia Burbadge, daughter of Richard Burbadge, 15th Aug., 1615, 
 
 Halliwell Street. 
 Robert Beeston, son of Christopher Beeston, Clerkenwell, 26th 
 
 Dec, 1615. 
 "Elizabeth Cowley, wife of Richard Cowley, 28th September, 1616, 
 
 Holywell Street. 
 Wynefryd Burbadge, daughter of Richard Burbadge, 14th Oct., 
 
 1616, Holywell Street. 
 Sylvanus Skory, Esq., 15th Oct., 1617, St. Peeter's Hill. 
 -Richard Cowley, Player, 12th March, 1618, Halliwell Street. 
 •Richard Burbadge, Player, was buried the 16th March, 1618-9, 
 
 Halywell Street. 
 Etheldred, wife of William Johnson, 20th Jan., 1622-3, Halliwell. 
 Margaret Cooley, widow, 24th Oct., 1623. 
 Thomas Ainsworth, son of Robert Ainsworth, 10th Nove., 1625, 
 
 Halliwell Street. 
 John Hide, 14th Maie, 1624, Swan Yard. 
 Sara Burbadge, 29th April, 1625, Hallywell Street. 
 Robert Wilson, 27th July, 1625, Church End. 
 Elizabeth, servant to Mr. Shoncke, Aug. 2nd, 1625. 
 Other two servants same place, Garden Alley. 
 Sara, daughter of — Shoncke, 16th August, 1625, Garden Alley. 
 John Pollard, 26th August, 1625, Halliwell Street. 
 John Batcher, servant to Mr. Shoncke, 16th Sept., 1625, Garden 
 
 Alley. 
 Joane Johnson, wife of William Johnson, nth June, 1627, Halliwell. 
 Margery Wilkins, 1st April, 1635, Halliwell. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbardge was buryed ye 17th day of September, 1636. 
 Elizabeth Burbadge, widow, first day of October, 1636 (no address). 
 Winifred, the wyfe of Mr. Richard Robinson, 2nd May, 1642. 
 There were Gossons, Quyneys, Taylors, Lamberts, Somers, Greenes, 
 
 Sissells, Newtons, Kemps, Jaggards, etc. 
 
 Baptisms. 
 
 Alice Burbage, d. of James Burbage, 17th March, 1575-6, Halliwell 
 
 Street. 
 Oliver Stiddard, sonne of Thomas Stiddard, bapt. 17th Feb., 1582, 
 
 Curtayne. 
 Samuel Heming has many children, and also the Bassanos. , 
 
NOTES I4I 
 
 Henry Lawes, son of Henry, 14th Jan., 1592. 
 
 Cuthbert Cowley, son of Richard Cowley, 8th May, 1597, from 
 
 Allin's. 
 John Hart, son of John Hart, 19th June, 1597, Talbot Alley. 
 Cuthbert Cowley, son of Richard Cowley, 8th May, 1597. 
 Richard Cowley, son of Richard Cowley, 29th April, 1599, Halli- 
 
 well St. 
 Robert Wilson, son of Robert Wilson, 15th Jan., 1600. 
 Elizabeth Burbedge, daughter of Cuthbert, 30th Dec, 1601, Halli- 
 
 well. 
 Elizabeth Cowley, daughter of Richard Cowley, 2nd Feb., 1601. 
 ^-Julia Burbedge, daughter of Richard Burbedge, 2nd Jan., 1602-3, 
 Halliwell. 
 John Field, son of John Field, 26th Feb., 1603-4. 
 —Frances Burbadge, daughter of Richard Burbadge, 16th Sept., 1604. 
 Augustine Beeston, son of Christopher, 16th Nov., 1604, Halliwell 
 
 Street. 
 Christopher Beeston, son of Christopher Beeston, 1st December, 
 1605, Halliwell Street. 
 -Anne Burbadge, daughter of Richard, 8th August, 1607, Halliwell 
 Street. 
 Christopher Ames, son of Richard Ames, 25th Oct., 1607. 
 Mary Wilson, daughter of Robert Wilson, 17th Jan., 1607-8. 
 Robert Beeston, son of Christopher Beeston, 2nd April, 1609. 
 Albone Sly, daughter of John Slye, nth June, 1609. 
 —Winifred Burbadge, daughter of Richard Burbadge, 10th Oct., 
 
 1613, Halliwell Street. 
 -Julia Burbadge, daughter of Richard Burbadge, 27th Dec, 1614, 
 Halliwell Street. 
 — -William Burbadge, son of Richard Burbadge, 6th Nov., 1616. 
 Elizabeth Burbadge, daughter of Cuthbert Burbadge, baptized 
 30th December, Halliwell Street. 
 —Sara Burbedge, daughter of Winifred Burbadge, widow, 5th Aug., 
 
 1619, HalliwelL Street. 
 , Richard Cooly, son of John Cooly and Sara his wife, 29th April, 
 1621, Hoxton. 
 
 Marriages. 
 
 John Cooke and Joane Larinor, 14th July, 1589. 
 
 John Cooke and Elizabeth Norland, 5th Sept., 1591, Halliwell, 
 
142 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Francis Langley and Hester Saule, 15th Jan., 1594-5, Bp. Cant. Lie. 
 
 John Donne and Dorithy Dale, nth May, 1619, Licence fac. 
 
 Francis Goldingham and Alice Lawless, widow, 13th Oct., 1619, 
 Lie. Bp. of London. 
 
 Peter Street and Elizabeth Wooten, wid., 12th Feb., 1628. 
 
 Samuel Johnson and Anne Lane, wid., 1st Feb., 1634, from Church- 
 end. 
 
 Many Somers, Spensers, Robinsons, Greens, Fields, Slys, Shaws, 
 
 Cookes, Jubyes, Beestons, Hemings, Miltons, Griffins, Johnsons. 
 
 (I only spent four long days on the Registers, and had not a list 
 
 of all the players with me.) 
 
AUTHORITIES FOR 
 THE FACTS IN THE 
 STORY OF THE BURBAGES 
 
AUTHORITIES 
 
 NOTE I. — Queen Elizabeth's Proclamation as to Licences 
 for Interludes, and their not Touching Religion or 
 Politics. 
 
 By the Queen, 1559. 
 
 " Forasmuch as the tyme wherein common Interludes in the 
 English tongue are most usually to be played is now past untyll 
 All Hallowtyde, and that also some that have been of late used, 
 are not convenient in any good ordered Christian Common Weale 
 to be suffered." The Queen's Majistee forbids any to be played 
 openly or privately, without notification and licenjgfc, by the Maior, 
 Chief Officers, or Lieutenants for the Queen, and none to be per- 
 mitted, where matters of religion or the governance of the estate 
 of the commonweale shall be treated. If any attempt to do 
 to the contrary, they are to be arrested. 
 
 Westminster, 16th Maye, 1 Eliz. 
 
 This proclamation was the cause of Sir Robert Dudley's letter 
 in 1559, see page 7. 
 
 NOTE II. — 1572. " The danger of Conventicles of people 
 
 at playes in hot weather. Martis xx Die Maij, 1572 
 
 (" Repertory," 17, 316). 
 
 " Item this Daie, after the readyng of the Lordes of the Queenes 
 
 Maiesties most Honorable Counselles Lettres, writen in the favor 
 
 of certein persones to have in theire howses, yardes, or backe sydes, 
 
 being open or overt places, such playes, enterludes, Commedies 
 
 and Tragedies as maye tende to represse vyce and extoll vertewe, 
 
 for the Recreacion of the people, and thereby to draw them from 
 
 sundrye worser exercises, The matter thereof being first examyned, 
 
 145 L 
 
146 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 sene, and allowed, by such discrete person or persons as shalbe 
 by the Lord Maiour thereunto appoynted, and taking bondes of the 
 said Housekeapers not to suffer the same playes to be in the tyme 
 of devyne service, and upon other condicions in the same Letters 
 expressed. 
 
 " Item, it was agreed that Master Town Clark shall devyse a letter 
 for answer of thother, to be sent unto my Lord of Burleighe, signify- 
 ing to his honour, that it is thought very perillous (considering the 
 tyme of the year, and the heat of the weather) to have such con- 
 venticles of people by such means called together, whereof the 
 greatest number are of the meanest sorte, beseeching his Honour, 
 yf it may so seeme him good, to be a meane wherbye the same for a 
 tyme, may be forborne." (See p. n.) 
 
 Football playing is also forbidden in the city shortly afterwards. 
 
 NOTE III.— The Lord Mayor's Orders of 1574 
 
 are printed in Stow's " Survey," v. 245, but I give the copy 
 in Lansdowne MS. xx. 10, where on 6th December, 17 Eliz. (1574), 
 the Lord Mayor, Council, and Recorder William Fleetwood were 
 present. 
 
 " Whereas hearetofore, sondrye greate disorders and Inconveni- 
 ences have beene found to ensewe to this cittie by the inordynate 
 hauntynge of greate multitudes of people, speciallye youthe, to 
 playes, enterludes and shewes namelye, occasyon of frayes and quar- 
 relles, eavel practizes of incontinencye in greate Innes, having cham- 
 bers and secrete places, adjoyning to their open stayres and gally- 
 ries, inveglyinge and allowynge of maides, speciallye orphanes, and 
 good cityzens children under age to previe and unmete contractes, 
 the publishynge of unchaste uncomelye and unshamefaste speeches, 
 and doyinges, with drawing of the Queenes Majesties servantes 
 from dyvyne service on sundaies and hollydayes, At which tymes 
 suche playes weare chefelye used, unthriftye waste of the moneye 
 of the poore and fond persons, sondrye robberies by pyckinge and 
 cutting of purses, utteringe of popular busye and seditious matters, 
 and manie other corruptions of youth and other enormityes besydes 
 that allso sondrye slaughters and mayheminges of the Queenes 
 subjectes have happened by ruines of Skaffoldes frames and stages, 
 and by engynes weapons and powder used in plaies. And whear 
 
NOTES 147 
 
 in tymes of Godes visitacion by the plaigue suche assemblies of the 
 people in thronge and presse have beene very dawngerous for the 
 spreadynge of Infection, and for the same and other greate cawses, 
 by the Aucthoritie of the honorable Lords Mayors of this cyttie and 
 thaldermen theire Bretheren and especially upon severe and earneste 
 Admonition of the Lords of the most honorable councell with signi- 
 fyinge of her Majesties expresse pleasure and commandemente in 
 that behalfe, suche use of playes, Interludes and shewes hath beene 
 duringe this tyme of syckenes forbydden and restrayned, And for 
 that the Lorde Mayor and his brethren thaldermen together with 
 the goode and discrete citizens in the comon councell assembled, 
 doo doughte and feare leaste uppon Goddes mercyfull withdrawinge 
 his hand of sickness from us (which God graunte) the people, speci- 
 allye the meaner and most unrewelye should with sodayne forget - 
 tinge of his visitacyon withowte feare of goddes wrathe and with- 
 oute deowe respecte of this good and politique meanes that he hath 
 ordeyned for the preservacion of the comen weales and peoples in 
 healthe and good order retourne to the undewe use of suche enormy- 
 ties to the great offence of god, the Queenes Majesties command- 
 ment and good governance. We therefore to the intent that such 
 perilles maie be avoyded and the lawfull honest and comelye use of 
 plaies pastymes and recreacions in good sorte onelye permitted, 
 And good provision hadd for the saeftie and well orderynge of the 
 people there assemblyd. Be yt enacted by the Aucthoritie of this 
 comen councell That from henceforthe, no playe, comodye, Tragedye, 
 enterlude nor publyke shewe, shall be openlye played or shewed 
 within the liberties of the cittie, wherein shalbe uttered anie wourdes, 
 examples, and doyinges of anie unchastitie, sedicion, or suche lyke 
 unfytt and uncomelye matter upon paine of Imprisonment by the 
 space of 14 daies, of all persons offendinge in anie suche open playings 
 or shewinges, and £5 for everie other suche offence And that no 
 Inkeper Tavernkeper nor other person whatsoever within the liber- 
 ties of the said cittie shall openly shewe or playe, or cause or suffer 
 to be openly shewed or played, within the hous yarde or anie other 
 place within the liberties of this cyttie anie playe enterlude comodye, 
 Tragidye, matter, or shewe which shall not be first perused and 
 allowed in suche order and forme and by such persons as by the Lord 
 Maiour and Courte of Aldermen for the tyme beinge shalbe ap- 
 poynted, nor shalle suffer to be enterlaced added mynglyed or uttered 
 
148 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 in anie suche playe enterlude Comodye Tragidie or shewe anie other 
 matter then shalbe first perused and allowed as ys abovesaid, And 
 that no person shall surfer anie playes enterludes comodyes Tragidies 
 or shewes to be played or showed in his hows yarde or other place, 
 wheareof he then shall have rule or power, but onely suche persons 
 and in such plaies as upon good and reasonable consideracions 
 shewed shalbe theareunto permitted and allowed by the Lord Maior 
 and Aldermen for the tyme beinge neither shall take or use anie 
 benifitt or advantage of suche permission or allowing before or until 
 suche person be bound to the Chamberlaine of London for the tyme 
 beinge with suche sureties and in suche Summe and suche fourme 
 for the keeping of good order and avoidinge of the disorders and 
 Inconvenyences abovesaid as by the Lorde Maior and courte of 
 Aldermen for the tyme being shall seeme convenyent neither shall 
 use or execute anie suche lycence or permission at or in anie tymes in 
 which the same for anie reasonable consideration of Syckness or 
 otherwise shalbe by the Lorde Maior and Aldermen by publique 
 proclamacion or by precept to suche persons restrayned or com- 
 manded to cease to playe, nor in anie usuall tyme of dyvyne ser- 
 vice in the Sondaie or Hollydaie nor receyve anie to that purpose in 
 tyme of service to se the same upon payne to forfeit for everie 
 offence £5. And be yt enacted that everie person so to be lycensed 
 or permitted shall duringe the tyme of such contyneuance of suche 
 lycens or permission paye or cause to be paid to the use of the poore 
 in hospitalles of the cyttie or of the poore of the cyttie visyted by 
 the sycknes by the discretion of the saide Lord Maior and Aldermen 
 suche sumes and paymentes and in suche forme, as betweene the 
 Lord Maior and Aldermen for the tyme beinge on thonne partie 
 and suche person so to be lycensed or permitted on thother partie 
 shallebe agreed upon payne that in waunte of everie suche paymente, 
 or if suche person shall not firste be bound with good suerties to the 
 Chamberlaine of London for the tyme being for the trewe payment 
 of suche sommes to the poore That then everye suche lycense or 
 permission shalbe utterlye voide and everie doinge by force or cullor 
 of suche lycence or permission shalbe adiuged an offence againste 
 this Acte in suche manner as if no such lycense or permission hadd 
 benne hadd nor made anie suche lycence or permission to the 
 contrarye notwithstanding. 
 And beyt lykewise enacted that all somes and forfeytures to be 
 
NOTES 149 
 
 incurryd for anie offence against this Acte and all forfeytures of 
 Bonds to be taken by force meanes or occayson of this acte shalbe 
 ymployed to the relief of the poore in the hospitalles of this cittie 
 of London as the Lord Maior and courte of Aldermen for the tyme 
 being shall adiudge meete to be distributed, And that the chamber- 
 layne of London shall have and recover the same to purpoyes afore- 
 said by Bill, plainte, accion of Dett or ynformacion to be commenced 
 and pursewed in his owne name in the courte of the utter Chamber 
 of the Guildhall of London called the Maiors courte in which sute 
 no Essoine nor wager of lawe for the defendants shall be admitted or 
 allowed. Provided allways that this Acte (otherwise then touchinge 
 the publishinge of unchaste sedycious and unmete matters shall not 
 extend to anie plaies, Enterludes, comodies, Tragidies or shewes to 
 be played or shewed in the pryvate hous dwellinge or lodginge of 
 anie nobleman, citizen, or gentleman who shall or will then have 
 the same thear so played or shewed in his presence for the festivitie 
 of anie marriage assemblye of frendes or other lyke cawse, With- 
 oute publique or comen collection of money of the Auditorye or 
 behoulders thereof, referringe alwaies to the Lorde Maior and Alder- 
 men for the tyme beinge the judgment and construction According 
 to equitie what shalbe counted suche a playinge or shewing in a 
 pryvate place, anie thinge in this Acte to the contrarie notwith- 
 standing. 
 
 Acte for Plaies tempore Hawes Lord Maior. 
 
 NOTE IV. — (Resumes of following.) 
 
 Middlesex County Records, ed. by Cordy Jeaffreson. Vol. 
 ii., p. xlvii. 
 
 See also "Athenaeum," 12th February, 1887. 
 
 These are recorded Jn Latin, but a free translation is pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Middlesex, to wit ; The Jurors for the Lady the Queen present 
 John Braynes of Shorditche in the Countie of Middlesex yeoman, 
 and James Burbage of the same yeoman, on the 21st day of Febru- 
 ary in the 22nd year of the reign of Elizabeth, etc., etc., because that 
 they on divers other days and occasions before and afterwards 
 brought together and maintained unlawful assembles of the people 
 to hear and see certain colloquies or interludes called plays or inter- 
 ludes exercised and practised by the same John Braynes and James 
 Burbage, and divers others persons not known at a certain place 
 
150 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 called The Theatre in Hallywell in the aforesaid county By reason 
 of which unlawful assembly of the people, great affrays, assaults, 
 tumults and quasi-insurrections and divers other misdeeds and 
 enormities having been there and then done and perpetrated by very 
 many ill-disposed persons, to the great disturbance of the peace of 
 the Lady the Queen and the overthrowing of good order and rule, 
 to the danger of the lives of divers good subjects of the Queen being 
 there, and against the form of the Statute in that respect published 
 and provided. Result not given 
 
 On 6th Dec. 38 Eliz. Gabriel Spencer had killed James Feake with 
 a sword costing 5s. by a wound in the eye at the barbers in Holywell 
 Street, parish of St. Leonards, Shoreditch. Inquisition, 10th Dec, 
 39 Eliz., see page 71. 
 
 (It does not say how he got off.) 
 
 Vol. i. R.Ac. 8108, arraigned in Oct. 
 
 The Jurors for the Lady the Queen present that Benjamin John- 
 son late of London, yoman, on the 22nd day of September in the 
 fortieth year of the Lady Elizabeth by God's grace Queen, etc., 
 made an assault with force and arms against and upon a certain 
 Gabriel Spenser, when he was in God's and the Queen's peace, at 
 Shoreditch in the aforesaid county of Middlesex in the fields there, 
 and with a certain sword of iron and steel, called a rapiour, of the 
 price of 3s., which he then and there held in his right hand drawn, 
 feloniously, and wilfully struck and beat the same Gabriel then and 
 there with the aforesaid sword, giving to the same Gabriel Spenser, 
 in and upon the same Gabriel's right side a mortal wound of the 
 depth of 6 inches and of the breadth of one inch, of which mortal 
 wound the same Gabriel Spenser then and there died instantly, in 
 the aforesaid Fields at Shordich in the said Countie of Middlesex. 
 And thus the jurors said upon their oath that the said Benjamin 
 Johnson feloniously and wilfuUy slew and killed the aforesaid Ga- 
 briel Spenser at Shordiche in the said county and fields, in the yeare 
 and day above stated against the peace of our Lady the Queen. 
 Endorsed " True Bill." But at the beginning is written, " He con- 
 fesses the indictment, asks for the Book, reads like a Clark, is 
 marked with the letter " T," and is delivered according to the 
 Statute 18 Eliz. c. 7. Mr. Jeaffreson Cordy adds, " had he had no 
 chattels to forfeit, the Clerk would have written ' ca null'. " 
 
 See also '.' Athenaeum," 6th March, 1886. 
 
NOTES 151 
 
 28th Oct., 40 Eliz., at Hoxton. 
 
 Three yeomen of London " broke burglariously into the dwelling 
 house of Jerome Bassano gentleman and stole therefrom a gold 
 cheyne worth £24, a pair of bracelets of gold worth £32 ; eight gold 
 rings worth £40, a Jewell of gold worth £6 13, and £17 in numbered 
 money." 
 
 II, 62, 3, March 18th, 7 James I. 
 
 John Lockewood, late of London Clerk, made a priest by the see of 
 Rome, traitorously and feloniously regardeth not the statutes. He 
 puts himself on a jury of the Country, and is found guilty, and has 
 no goods and chattels. He was to be executed at Tyburn by the 
 traitor's death, but he was reprieved by the court after judgment. 
 (Among the 12 jurors, was " Cuthbert Burbage.") 
 II, 108, 19th Feb., 12 James I. 
 
 True Bill That at Hollowel Street in Shoreditch co. Middlesex 
 about 12 o'clock of the night of the said day Henry Elliot yeoman, 
 and his wife Emma Elliot, and Thomas Pierson yeoman all three late 
 of the same street, broke burglariously into the dwelling house of 
 Cuthbert Burbage gentleman, and stole therefrom a French russet- 
 coloured cloake worth sixty shillings, another russet coloured cloake 
 worthe forty shillings, and another cloake " color Daroye " worth 
 twenty shillings and a green sage apron worth five shillings, of the 
 goods and chattells of the said Cuthbert Burbage gentleman. 
 
 On the same file is a true bill against the same culprits on the 
 same night, about the same hour, who broke burglariously into the 
 dwelling house of Richard Burbage gentleman, in Hollowell Street, 
 and stole thence a "darinxe carpet worth six shillings and eight pence, 
 a fowling piece worth twenty four shillings, forty pieces of pewter 
 worth twenty shillings, three holland aprons worth eight shillings, 
 a smock worth four shillings, eleven falling bands worth twenty five 
 shillings, seven cuffs worth five shillings, a handkerchiefe worth 
 twelve shillings, three other handkerchieves worth seven shillings, 
 two cambric headbands and biggens worth ten shillings, five 
 cross cloathes worth seven shillings, five children's aprons worth 
 eight shillings, three women's bands worth eighteen shillings, 
 two laced handkerchiefs worth six shillings ; two cross clothes 
 worth twelve pence, " duo alia capitalia vocata a Call and a 
 Quoife " worth two shillings, one " diaber starching clothe " worth 
 fourpence and divers pieces of linen worth twenty shillings of the 
 
152 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 goods and chattell of the said Richard Burbage. On his arrayne- 
 ment, Henry Elliot stood mute, and was sentenced to the " peine 
 forte et dure." Emma Elliot put herself " not guilty " and was 
 acquitted. Thomas Pierson was found not guilty of burglary, 
 but guilty of felony. He received benefit of clergy, was branded 
 and delivered." G. D. R. 29th March, 13 James I. See page 113. 
 
 Midd. Co. Sessions Rolls, 2nd Nov., 5 Mary. 
 
 True Bill. That on the said day Robert Burbage gent of Heisse 
 co. Midd. together with 16 others assembled in the close of Roger 
 Green at Heisse, and beat the said Roger Greene ; so that life was 
 despaired of. 
 
 II, 5, 3 Feb., 1 James I. 
 
 ■ Robert Burbage of London yeoman to inform against Margaret 
 Whytten of Finchley. 
 
 II, 158, 18 James I. 
 
 Robert Burbage of Fulham gent, for his appearance at next ses- 
 sions, and in the mean time for good behaviour, tried 12 Jan., 18 
 James I. 
 
 6 April, 34 Eliz. 
 
 Recognizances taken before Sir Owen Hopton Knight, J. P., 
 of Henry Bett of St. Leonards' Shoreditch, gent, and — Burbage 
 in the Strond yeoman, in the sum of £10 each, and James Burbage 
 of Shoredich gent in the sum of £20, for the said James Burbage's 
 appearance at the next Sessions of the Peace for Co. Middlesex, 
 G. D. R., 34 Eliz. p. 47. 
 
 11 September, 35 Eliz. 
 
 Recognizance taken before Richard Young, Esq., J. P., of James 
 Burbage of Hallywell Street yeoman, for the appearance of the said 
 James Burbage at the next session of the Peace at Middlesex. 
 Then and there to answer, etc. G. S. P. R. Michaelmas, 35 Eliz. 
 
 April, 37 Eliz. 
 
 Recognizances for the appearance of John and Edward Burbage, 
 both of London, gents, at the next general Session of the Peace 
 Easter, 37, G. S. P. R. 
 
 1. 259. 
 
 William Hawkins charged with a purse taken at the Curten, with 
 26/6 in it. 11 March, 42 Eliz. 
 
NOTES 153 
 
 Vol. ii., p. 83, 1 Oct. 10 James I. 
 
 An order made at the General Session of the Peace at Westminster 
 " That all Actors of every Playehowse within this citie and Liberties 
 thereof, and in the Countie of Middlesex, that they, and everie of 
 them utterly abolishe all jigges Rymes and Dances after their plays, 
 and not to tollerate permit or suffer any of them to be used upon 
 payne of ymprisonment and putting down and suppressing of their 
 plays. 
 
 (This was specially intended for the Fortune. If after this order 
 the players persevered in dancing their jiggs the offenders were to 
 be imprisoned.) 
 
 NOTE V. — The Queen's Players in 1588. 
 
 " The Subsidies granted 29 Eliz. 
 
 " Sir Francis Knollys, Knight, Treasurer of the Privy Chamber, 
 Sir Thomas Heneage, Knight, Vice Chamberlain, and Gregory 
 Lovell, Cofferer. 
 
 " To certifie the Lord High Treasurer," mention a few officers of 
 the household, gentlemen ushers, trumpeters, etc., .w ho ha ve not paid 
 their subsidies. 
 
 '' Tne~Players, viz., Richard Tarleton, 8s. ^d. ; John Laneham, 
 8s. \d., William Johnson 5s., John Towne, 8s. 4^., John Addams 
 8s. qd., John Garlande 8s. 4^., John Dutton 8s. \d., John Singer, 
 8s. ifd., Lyonell Cooke 8s. ^d. (and another crossed out, who had 
 either died or paid his subsidy.) 
 
 " The Collectors say these have not, nor at any time since the 
 coming of the astrete to their handes have not had which they could 
 come bye to distraine, any landes or tenements, goods or chattells, 
 wages, or fee within the limittes of their collection to their know- 
 ledge," and Sir Francis Knollys and Gregory Lovell sign this declar- 
 ation to free the collectors. 
 
 Lay Subsidies Household, 29 Eliz., 69/97. 
 
 See p. 36. 
 
 A soldier's opinion of plays and players, 1586. 
 
 (I here insert the first half of an unsigned letter to Walsingham 
 on this subject.) Harl. MS. 286, f. 102. 
 
 " The daily abuse of stage plaies is such an offence to the godly, 
 and so great a hindrance to the Gospell as the papists doe exceed- 
 
154 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 inglie reioice at the blemisshe thereof and not without cause, for 
 every daye in the week the players' billes are sett upp ifl sundry 
 places of the Cittie, some in the name of herMajestie'smenne, some 
 the Earl of Leicester's, some the Earl of Oxford's, the Lord Ad- 
 myralles and divers others, soe that when the bells tole to the Lector 
 The Trumpetts sound to the Stages whereat the wicked faction of 
 Rome lauvgheth for ioy, while the Godly weepe for sorrowe. Woe is 
 me, the playhowses are pestered, when the churches are naked, at 
 the one, it is not possible to gett a place, at the other voyde seates 
 are plentie, the profaning of the Sabbaoth is releesed. But as badde 
 a custome entertayned, and yett still our long-suffering God for- 
 baireth to punisshe yt is a wofull sight to see two hundred proude 
 players iett in their silkes, wheare fyve hundred pore people sterve 
 in the Streetes, but yf needes this mischiefe must be tolerated where- 
 at, (no doubte) the highest frowneth, yet " for God's sake sir) let 
 every Stage in London pay a weekly portion to the pore." 
 
 It continues as much again even more in earnest : " I see your 
 honor smyle and saye to yourself theise things are fitter for the 
 pulpit than a souldier's penne. 25th Jan. 1586. 
 
 " To Sir Francis Walsingham." 
 See p. 26. 
 
 NOTE VI. — James Burbage against Mrs. Braynes. 
 
 Burbage v. Braynes. Chancery Proceedings. Bills and Answers, 
 Series II., 222/83. 
 
 (About one-fourth of this is burnt off at left side, date nearly 
 gone, only final 8 remains of the 1588.) 
 
 " To the Rt. Hon. Christopher Hatton, Knt., The Lord Chancellor 
 of England. , 
 
 " Complaineth unto your good Lordship James Burbidge . . . 
 Cuthbert, Richard, Alice and Ellen Burbidge, the children of the 
 said James and Ellen his wief , that whear your said orator . . . one 
 Giles Allen, gent ... of the Queen's most excellent Maiestie that 
 now is in certain decayed barnes, vacant ground, and garden plottes 
 scituat ... for a term of certaine years at a rent of £14 to be quarterlie 
 paied and in the said lease did promise and covenant ... to and 
 with the said Giles Allen, to build in and upon the demised . . . 
 building for tenements to be erected upon the premises, the some of 
 £200 and the same to be done and finished in a certaine tyme . . . 
 
NOTES 155 
 
 for the accomplishment whereof the said James your said orator, 
 was constrayned to borrow divers somes of money, and to impawn his 
 said . . . erecting of a plaiehouse or Theatre, and other the buildings for 
 tenements as is aforesaid, The which one John Brayne late of White 
 . . . practised to obteyne some interest therein presumynge that he 
 might easily compass the same by reason that he was naturall brother 
 . . . somes of money he made meanes to your said orator James Bur- 
 bedge thatie_rnight.haye.Jthe moietie of the above-named Theater 
 . . . that in consideration thereof he would not only beare and paie 
 half the chardges of the said building then bestoed, or thereafter to be 
 bestoed . . .orator aforesaid her children should have the same 
 moitie so to him to he conveyed and assured making semblance that 
 his industrie was ... of his sister as is aforesaid. Whereupon your 
 orator? James Burbedge who did become bound to the said John 
 Brayne in £400 . . . That your said orator should at the request of 
 the said . . . John Braine his executors or assignes convey to him the 
 said John Braine his . . erected upon the premises demysed by the 
 said Giles Allen to your said orator with such covenants and warran- 
 ties as your orator might . . . lease made by the said Giles Alleyn 
 was then or thereafter should be chardged with by any acte then 
 done or thereafter to be done by your . . . money borrowed by 
 your said orator, as by the same obligacion and condicion more at 
 Lardge yt doth and may appeare And after the . . . exceeding 
 chardge about the said building then of habilletie to support the 
 same, and having gotten your said orator to he bound ... to 
 redeem the said lease nor had wherewith to proceed in those manner 
 of buildings wherein he had procured your orator to enter into . . . 
 chardge any somes of monye growen due for the said building, nor 
 paie the moietie of the rent aforesaid, but with your orator's 
 money. The profitts ... of the said Brayne before being con- 
 veyed and weyed with the costs. . . . upon the said Inne by 
 him bestoed after, yt manifestly appeared And . . . the furnishing 
 of the said building, to his gret hinderaunce, as is well to be proved 
 And after for that your said orator James Burbedge had no bond 
 . . . him to be receved out of the premises from thensforthe upon 
 the said building and maintainance thereof he the said Brayne and 
 the said James Burbedge your . . . arbitrament of certain arbitra- 
 tors who thereupon, according to the said submission, did deliver 
 up an Award or Arbitrament in wrightinge dated about the — yere 
 
156 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 . . . Braine should not be comprised within the compasse of the 
 said arbitrament, but that as well by force thereof as by vertue of 
 said Arbitrament your said orator . . . Theatre and buildings and of 
 the moitie of the profits thereof, whensoever Braine would demaund 
 the same, with sutche exceptions of Acts as is aforesaid . . which 
 arbitrament your said orator did content himsealf, and did permit 
 and suffer the said John Braine to receve the moitie of the profits of 
 the said Theatre and ... on his parte. But the said John Brayne 
 being a very subtell person and confederating himsealf with Robert 
 Myles of London, Gouldsmith, — — Tomson of . . might impoverishe 
 your said orator and to depryve hym of his interest and tearme of 
 yeres in the said Theatre and Building, and to bringe him into the 
 damage . . same he the said Brayne, not meaning to gyve the 
 said moietie, nor his interest to your said orators the children afore- 
 said nor the lease of the said Geordg . . . moitie of the profitts 
 of the premises, as is aforesaid, the which promise was made as well 
 before as after the said Arbitrament as is aforesaid, but practising 
 to depryve . . . made a deed of gift to the said Tomson, and thereby 
 did gyve and grant to him all his goods and chattells wherein he was 
 then or thereafter should be possessed. Whereby your . . . for 
 the recoverie of the bond of £200, to hym forfeyted by the said 
 Braine, for the not performynge the said arbitrament, nor|to levie the 
 same out of his goods and chattells . . . against the bodie of the 
 said Brayne for the same, the which during his life he was loathe to 
 do, for that he was his brother-in-law as is aforesaid. The benefitt 
 . . . the said Tomson the said Brayne for the mayntenance of his 
 said fraude and devise, procured the executors or administrators of 
 the said Tomson to convey to the said Robert ... so granted to 
 the said Tomson by the said Braine with the lease of the said Inn 
 called the Geordg, And also at his owne deathe or not long before, he 
 fearing . . . conveyance of all his goods and chattells, which he 
 then had to the said John Gardiner and others, to the intent that he 
 or they by force thereof should or might enter in . . . the premises, 
 or that the said Myles by vertue of the same deed of gift made to the 
 said Tomson should challenge or demand the same or to incur the 
 damage ... in the tyme of his sickness and not long before his 
 death promised, confessed and agreed with your said orator James 
 Burbage and his wief, in the presence ... of the said Myles that as 
 well the moitie of the premises, and all matters whatsoever concern- 
 
NOTES 157 
 
 ing the said Theatre and buildings and his moitie therein to be 
 assuered and . . . receved of and by the premises as namelie the 
 lease of the Geordge in Whitechapel were and should be and remain 
 yf he died, (or that he had no children and for . . . premises to your 
 orators the children aforesaid, whose advancement he then seemed 
 gretlye to tender. And further promised to your said orator that his 
 said bonds should be ... of your said orator James Burbage. And 
 after the said John Braine died in 1586, by meanes whereof. . . . 
 Nowe so yt ys, yf it may please your Honor the . . . Administracion of 
 the goods of her said late husband, (the which she practised then to 
 have) by the said John Gardenor and Robert Myles, by reason yt 
 they claymed the same goods and chattells . . . conveyance under 
 the collour of a will supposed to be made by the said Braine long 
 before the said conveyaunce, so made to the said Gardiner and Tom- 
 son the which is supposed to be rased . . . any sutch will should 
 be mayntayned or produced, yet by vertue thereof, and being there- 
 in nominated to be executor, goeth about to arrest your said . . . 
 that he did not performe the said arbitrament as in truthe he did, 
 and for the said bond of £400, pretending your orator hath also for- 
 feited the same, as in truth he hath not, And . . . husband denying 
 that her said husband made any sutche promise as is aforesaid ether 
 for the cancelling or conveying of the premises to your orator 
 aforesaid. And the said Robert Myles by . . . sue your said orator, 
 James Burbage for the said bonds, but hath entered into and upon 
 the said Theatre and buildings and troubleth your orator and his 
 tenants in the peaceable possession . . . the yssues and profits 
 thereof by vertue of the conveyances made to him thereof and the 
 Administrators of the said John Gardiner, who deceased in 1587 
 to whom the said bond . . . made to the said Gardiner, demand 
 and go about to sue your said orator James Burbage for the said two 
 severall bonds. And amongst them by reason of multiplicitie of 
 . . . conveyances and (sometime denying the same to be good) they 
 all do joyne together to imprison your said orator James Burbage, 
 therby to enforce him to yeld to their requests And . . . accions 
 only to procure him to gret chardge and to his impoverishment for 
 ever, the rather because by thes devices, he cannot have the said 
 £200 due to him by the said . . . Braine. 
 
 In tender consideracione of the premisses And for that the said 
 Margarett Braine, Robert Myles and — Gardiner, the administrator 
 
158 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 of the said John Gardiner, ... so being mortgaged and forfeited 
 as is aforesaid, and have the said lease to them reconveyed, they do 
 demand the same moitie, and will not permit the children aforesaid 
 . . . the said premisses the which now your said orators are unliable 
 to do, by reason that the same premisses were done in secret, and in 
 the presence of the said Robert ... or gone beyond the seas, so 
 that your orators can not have their testimony in the premisses, by 
 which means your orator James Burbage is without . . . the said 
 bonds or to enforce them to cancell the same nor the children afore- 
 said by the ordinarie course of the common law aforesaid can not 
 procure the . . . the premises so promised to them by the said John 
 Braynes, the which to do the said Braine was bound in conscience to 
 see performed and that the said bonds should . . . the said John 
 Braine and by your said orator James Burbedge ioynes them in con- 
 tradiction of the matters conteyned in the said bond and arbitra- 
 ment, so ... be performed yf thei or any of them had lawfull 
 interest therein (as thei have not) Maye it therfore please yor honor 
 to grant to yor said . . . the said Margarett Braine, Robert Myles 
 and — ■ Gardener commaunding them and everie of them personallie 
 to appere in the court of Chancerie . . . and ther to make answer 
 to the premisses. And further to command the said Margarett 
 Braine, Robert Myles and — ■ Gardenor to . . . other their said con- 
 veyances so to them made only to perturbe your said orators as is 
 aforesaid, and to the end the same may be ther . . . suche further 
 order as to your Honor shall be thought to agree that equytie and 
 conscience And all your said ... in all felicitie. 
 
 Francis Morgan. 
 
 (No date.) 1 The answer . . . Margaret Brayne, Wydowe and 
 Robert . . . complainte of James Burbeidge and other . . . that 
 the said Bill of Complaint is very untrue and insufficient in the . . . 
 imagyned of set purpose to put the said defendents to wrongfull 
 ... he the said complaynant wrongfully might shadowe his bad 
 and unconscionable . . . defendants shalbe compelled to make any 
 further answere to . . . and insufficiency thereof now and at all 
 tymes . . . that the said complainants in their tedious and untrue 
 Bill do . . . Gyles Allen unto the complainant, neither what . . 
 
 1 The last numeral of the date is 8, and we know from the book of 
 D ecrees and Orders, the suit took place in 1588. 
 
NOTES 159 
 
 the said complainant as in the said Bill is also set down . . . cer- 
 taine date or tyme of any such bonde wherein he and . . . hun- 
 dreth poundes to abyde a certain awarde and arbitrament . . . 
 when they yielded upp any such arbitrament, And further setteth 
 out . . . with this defendant Robert Myles and John Gardyner, 
 who is not nowe . . . neither doth the said complainant set forth 
 any sufficient consideracion ... of the said leasses in the said Bill 
 mencioned upon the children of the . . . The said Margaret Brayne, 
 the other defendant being his wief without . . . divers other in the 
 said Bill mencyoned. The . . . over tedious to be recyted the 
 ... of this honorable Courte yf they or either of them shall be com- 
 pelled . . . insuffycient bill. And for the insufficiency thereof they 
 pray to be dismissed out of this honorable courte ... so wrong- 
 fullie sustained. 
 
 Scott. 
 (Since I copied these injured papers in fragments, they have been 
 mounted and somewhat restored, so that there may be slight differ- 
 ences at the edge of burnt portions.) 
 
 NOTE VII. — The Litigation between Burbage, Braynes and Myles. 
 
 The cases are not all preserved. But through the Chancery 
 Decrees and Orders (preserved in duplicates in what are called the A. 
 Books and the B. Books) we can have some idea of the hearings in 
 Chancery. 
 
 " Chancery Proceedings, Decrees and Orders, Easter 29 Eliza., 
 6th May, 1586. A. Book, 384. 
 
 Margaret Braynes, Widow, Plaintiff, Robert Miles, defendant. 
 This day sevennight is given to the defendant to make answer or 
 els an attachment is awarded against him. 
 
 The same case in B. Book, p. 372. 
 
 Chancery Proceedings, Decrees and Orders, 1588, A. Book, 30-31 
 Eliz., 454. 22nd Feb., Hilary Term 31 Eliz. 
 James Burbage and others, plaintiffs. 
 Margaret Brayne, widow, Robert Miles and John Gardyner, 
 defendants. " Forasmuch as this Court was this present daye in- 
 formed on the plaintiffs' behalf that the defendants have put in a 
 very insuffycent demurrer to the Plaintiffs Bill of Complaint, with- 
 out showing any good or sufficient causes thereof. 
 
160 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 It is therefore ordered that the consideration of the said Bill and 
 demurrer be referred to Mr. Dr. Carewe one of the M ra . of this court 
 to thend he may reporte unto this court whether the same demurrer 
 be sufficient or not, if not, then a subpoena is awarded against the 
 Defendants, without further money, to answer directly to the 
 plaintiff's Bill of Complaint, and to all the material points thereof 
 and the defendants Attorney to be warned hereof. 
 
 ROBT. POWLE. 
 
 This is practically the same as B. Book, 1588, p. 449, Monday, 
 17th February, except as to the phrase added " without further 
 money." 
 
 D. & O., Book A. 21st May 1589, p. 610. 
 Margaret Brayne, plaintiff, James Burbage, Cuthbert Burbage 
 and Richard Burbage, Defendants. Forasmuch as this court was 
 this present day informed on the plaintiffs behalf that the defend- 
 ants have put in an insufficient demurrer to the plaintiff's Bill of 
 Complaint without shewing any good or sufficient causes thereof, 
 It ys therefore ordered that the consideracion of the said Bill or 
 demurrer be referred to Mr. Dr. Cesar one of the M rs of this Court, 
 to thend he may reporte unto this Courte whether the said demurrer 
 be suffycient or not. If not a subpoena is awarded against the 
 defendants to answer directly to the plaintiff's Bill of Complaint, 
 and to all the materyal points thereof, and the defendant's attorneys 
 to be warned when the premises shall be considered off. 
 
 A. Book, 32 and 33 Eliz., 1590, 4th Nov., p. 109. 
 Margaret Braynes, widow, exor. of John Braynes, deceased, 
 Plaintiff, James Burbage, Richard Burbage and Cuthbert Burbage 
 defendants. Forasmuch as the Court was this day informed by 
 Mr. Scott, plaintiff's councell that having exhibited a Bill against 
 defendant for the moietie of The Theatre and other tenements, for 
 which the said James Burbage had made an agreement with the 
 plaintiff's late husband to assigne to the Executors of her late hus- 
 band, and to suffer him and them to enjoy the moietie during the 
 whole term to come of a lease made to the said James Burbage by 
 one Gyles Allen. But the plaintiff Brayne said that James Burbage 
 hath not only put in an ill demurrer to that bill which hath been over 
 ruled by order of the court, but also doth by himself and the other 
 defendants take away the whole gaynes and benefits of the said 
 
NOTES 161 
 
 Theatre and other premises, albeit shee and her husband have been 
 at very great charges in building the Theatre, to the sum of £500, 
 and did for a time enjoy the moietie of the premises according to the 
 meaning of the said agreement. It is therefore ordered that if the 
 defendants shall not by this day sennight shew good cause to the 
 contrarie the sequestration shall be granted of the moietie of all the 
 issues and profitts of the premises until the matter be heard and 
 determined. 
 
 D. & O., A. Book, 32-33 Eliz., 1590, p. 145, 13th November. 
 Margaret Brayne, widow, plaintiff, James Burbage, joiner, 
 Cuthbert Burbage and others defts. Forasmuch as upon the open- 
 ing of the mater this present day Mr. Sergeant Harrys for the 
 defendant, speaking for stay of sequestration, prayed consideration 
 of a former order on plaintiff's behalf in the cause of Burbage con 
 Braynes. There was an arbitrament made between her husband 
 and Burbage, 12th July 20 Eliz., by one Richard Turner and one 
 John Hill, and that neither of the parties shewed reason why the 
 arbitration should not be performed. The Court finds for the arbi- 
 tration to be truly observed, as well by the plaintiff as by all claiming 
 under her, and also by the defendant, The Sequestration stayed. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, 32 and 33 Eliz., A. Book, 270, 1590-1, 
 20th Jan., 1590-1. 
 
 Margaret Brayne, con James Burbage and others. This day in 
 Court Robert Miles made othe that the said James Cuthbert and 
 Richard Burbage have broken an order made in this court on the 
 13th of November last, therefore an attachment is awarded against 
 the said parties to the Sheriff of Middlesex. Also B. Book, 280. 
 
 D. & O., 32 and 33 Eliz., A. Book, 317, 30th Jan., 1590-1. 
 
 Margaret Braynes con James Burbage, Cuthbert Burbage hath 
 made his personal appearance in this Court upon his letter, for the 
 saving of the bond made to the Sheriff of London. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, Book A., 32-33 Eliz., 1590-1, 23rd March, 
 
 p. 456. 
 Margaret Brayne, plaintiff, Cuthbeard Burbage and James Bur- 
 bage, defendants, Whereas the defendants have been examined upon 
 interrogatories at the plaintiff's suit touching the breach of an order 
 made in this court. It is ordered by the Right Hon. Master of the 
 
 M 
 
162 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Rolls that the consideration of their examination be referred to Mr. 
 Doctor Caesar, one of the Masters of this Court, whether the said 
 defendants or either of them have committed any contempt or not, 
 that further action be taken, etc. See also B. Book, 455. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, A. Book, 33-34 Eliz., 1591-2, 24th April, 493. 
 James Burbage con Margaret Brayne and Robert Myles. The 
 Court is informed that defendant put in a very frivolous and insuffi- 
 cient demurrer to the plaintiff's bill without shewing cause, Both 
 are referred to Mr. Doctor Carew to the end he may consider and 
 report whether the demurrer be sufficient or not, if not, then a 
 subpoena is awarded against the defendant to make a perfect answer 
 to the plaintiff's bill, and to all the materiall points, and defendant's 
 attorney to be warned. Also B. Book, 497. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, A. Book, 1591-2, 15th June, 720. 
 Burbage con Brayne, The Plaintiff appeared this day in court, 
 forasmuch as the insufficient demurrer of the defendants referred to 
 Mr. Dr. Carew has not yet been satisfied. He asks a subpoena that 
 the material facts be answered. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, 1591, A. Book, p. 818. 
 20th July. Margaret Brayne v. Cuthbert and James Burbage. 
 The defendants appeared in Court this day. The master into whose 
 hands the case was given for contempt, cannot attend, and prays 
 that the Master of the Rolls might give his opinion of the contempt. 
 It is put into the hands of another, and he decides that Mr. Dr. 
 Hone of this court shall consider and report on it. See also B. Book, 
 831. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, 33-34 Eliz. 1591, p. 16 A. Book, 18 B. Book. 
 12th Oct., 1591. 
 
 That they had committed no contempt. 
 
 Margery Brayne, compl., James Burbage, Joiner, and Cutbart 
 Burbage and others, defendants. Upon the opening of the matter 
 this present day Mr. Sergeant Harris, council for the defendants com- 
 ing to shew cause wherefore an attachment should not be awarded 
 against them, from a report made by Mr. Dr. Hone, one of the M re . 
 of this Court on a contempt supposed to be committed. Ordered by 
 this court, that no advantage or further proceedings shall be had 
 upon that report, but that Mr. Dr. Stanhope and Mr. Dr. Legge 
 
NOTES 163 
 
 shall consider and report to this court whether the defendants or 
 either of them committed any contempt in breach of a former order 
 laid to their charge upon whose reporte order shall be peremptorily 
 taken without further delay. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, A. Book, 1591-2, p. 151 ; B. Book, 163. 
 
 13th November. Margaret Brayne con. James Burbage, joiner, 
 and Cuthbert Burbage and others. Upon the opening of the matter, 
 the Right Hon. Master of the Rolls, by Mr. Scott for the plaintiff 
 stated that it appeared that before this time it had been referred 
 to Mr. Dr. Stannop and Mr. Legge who have heard cause and council 
 on both sides. By order of 12th Oct. last, and entering into the 
 consideration of the contempt alleged to have been committed. 
 We do finde that we could not well proceede to examine them, before 
 John Hyde of London, grocer, and Ralph Myles of London, sope- 
 maker, were examined touching the cause, and one Nicholas Bushop 
 and John Allen, upon the contempt in the interrogatories, against 
 the defendant pretended. Therefore both sides agreed that the 
 court should give us power to give othe to the parties to answer the 
 interrogatories, that upon the depositions, we could better proceed 
 to examine the contempt, that the matter be again referred to Mr. 
 Dr. Stanhope and Mr. Dr. Legge to call all persons concerned and 
 to examine them. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, A. Book, 36-37 Eliz. (1594), 14th March, 857. 
 James Burbage con. Robert Myles. 
 
 The plaintiff states by Mr. Borne that they have cross cases, and 
 the plaintiff Burbage now appears to state that the plaintiff Myles 
 has his case down for hearing on the 28th day of May next at the 
 Rolls Chapel. He desires to know if he and his witnesses may be 
 heard first, Their cause was first, and they are ready. 
 
 Agreed, if the defendant does not shew cause to the contrary. 
 
 Decrees and Orders, A. Book, 36-37 Eliz., f. 274, 7th June. 
 Burbage con. More. 
 
 James Burbage, plaintiff, con. Gregory More defendant. The 
 defendant presents an insufficient answer, and plaintiff gives suffi- 
 cient proof of his surmise of the truth of his bill for the maintenance 
 of his certiorari, for removing of his action out of London into this 
 court. It is ordered that the consideration of this proof and the 
 
164 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 answer be referred to Mr. Dr. Carew to report upon ; and if the answer 
 be insufficient then the defendant to answer directly. 
 B. Book, f. 277. 
 
 Decrees and Orders Chancery, 1595, A. Book, 150, 28th May. 
 
 Robert Miles, Plaintiff, James Burbage and Cuthbert Burbage 
 defendants. The matter in question between the saide parties, 
 touching the moytie of the lease of the Theatre in the Bill men- 
 tioned, and the profit thereof comming. This present day to be 
 heard in the presence of the Councill learned in the law, on both 
 parties. It was alleged by the defendant's council that the said 
 plaintiff had not only a bond of £400 made unto him by the defend- 
 ant for the assigning over of the same moytie unto him, whereupon 
 demurrer ys now joynde at the Common Law, but also another 
 bond of £200 made for the performance of an arbitrament made 
 between the said parties, which the said plaintiff pretendeth to be 
 also forfeited by the defendant. And therefore, as the said Counsell 
 alledged, the plaintiff hath no need of the ayde of this court for the 
 said lease and profitt. 
 
 It ys therefore thought fit, and soe ordered by this court that 
 the said plaintiff shall proceed at the Common Law against the 
 defendant upon the said bonde, to thend it may be seen whether 
 the plaintiff can relieve himself upon the said bondes or not. 
 
 But if it fall out that the plaintiff cannot be relieved upon the 
 said bondes, then the matter shall receive a speedy bearing in this 
 court, and such order shall be given thereupon, as the equity of the 
 cause shall require, and in the mean time the matter is retained in 
 this court. 
 
 Myles v. Bishop. 
 
 Chancery Proceedings Ser. II, Bundle 245, 85 {much faded). 
 
 Complaint of Robert Myles of the George Inn in Whitechapel, 
 
 13th Nov. 1594. {A resume.) 
 That Nicholas Bishop, a very poor man and greatly indebted 
 asked for his stables to make a boyling house for sope, and he said 
 it would utterly waste his inn. But the said Bishop having 
 his son Raulph Myles to join him, he was persuaded of the great 
 profit to come of the making of sope, and he provided timber and 
 
NOTES 165 
 
 other materials to the value of £7. 18s. with workmen, to make 
 the said Office or workhouse. George Harrison backed up 
 this Bishop, but they did not succeed. 
 
 Now " so it is, etc." his Inn is spoiled and they give him no 
 redress. 
 
 The answer of the defendants Nicholas Bishop and Ralph Myles, 
 22nd November, 1594. 
 They said that the complaint was uncertain and insufficient, and 
 of malice and set purpose to injure the defendants. Nicholas 
 Bishop said that it was true that the complainant was possessed 
 of the tenement, and did keep an Inne for some small time, but 
 he never profited much by it and was not of abilitie to stock and 
 furnish the Inn, and for that and other causes the guests did so 
 leave and forsake the house so that he did not long continue that 
 course of housekeeping. It is true that the defendant was not 
 rich, but he had been apprentice for 7 years to a master for soap- 
 boiling, who was willing to lend him money. There was familiarity 
 between him and Ralph Myles because they had been servants 
 together, but he never made proposals to Ralph to get rooms in 
 the Complainant's house, but Ralph proposed it, and there was a 
 lease for a term of years, but it was between the father and son. 
 The complainant did not find timber and material, nor did he find 
 the workmen meate, and the complainant came into the Sope house 
 and took sope to the value of over £7 to pay the chief Landlord. 
 Complainant said the said shop was convenient to sell soape and 
 other things, but he had not used it to do so, and Nicholas Bishop 
 prays to be dismissed. 
 
 Replication of Robert Myles, complainant. 
 
 That it was true that he was in possession of the tenement or 
 Inne called the George in Whitechapel for a number of years to 
 come and that Nicholas Bishop and Raulph Myles his son begged 
 him that they might have some rooms in the Inn for an office and 
 to make sope. That he had agreed on hearing so great promise of 
 success, so that he had the 3rd part of the profits, and he spent much 
 money in timber, brick and building chambers to make sope in. 
 He entreats consideration of his case. 
 
 See p. 51. Scott. 
 
i66 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 NOTE VIII. — Edmund Peckham against Giles Alleyn. 
 
 Hil. 30 Eliz. B. 29. Court of Wards and Liveries, 1589. 
 Peckham v. Alleyn. 
 
 9th June, 1589. An Information was laid before the Court by 
 Richard Kingsmill, Esq., the Queen's Attorney-General for Wards 
 and Liveries on behalf of George Peckham, son and heir of Edmund 
 Peckham, Esq. and her Majesty's Ward. (All much contracted.) 
 
 That whereas Henry Webbe sometime of Hallowell Co. Middle- 
 sex was seized in fee of the dissolved priory of Hallowell with its 
 lands tenements and hereditaments by the grant of King Henry 
 VIII, and he had only one daughter Susan his heir, And after Henry 
 Webbe died, and the lands descended to her, she took to husband 
 George Peckham, now called Sir George Peckham one of the sons of 
 Sir Edmund Peckham, which marriage was solemnised about 
 All Hallowtide 1554, and she had issue Edmund Peckham late 
 deceased, father of your Highness' Ward, and the said Susan died 
 in December 1555, leaving her son Edmund her heir, he being not 
 above one day old. 
 
 And the said Sir George Peckham in the lifetime of Susan did 
 bargain and sell the site of the said Priory to one Christopher 
 Bumpstead and his heirs, which Bumpstead did continue the pos- 
 session thereof until the said Edmund Peckham came to his full 
 age, and then, understanding of the sale of the lands and of his 
 title in the same which descended to him, did, within 5 years after 
 coming to his full age, that is in 22 Eliz. enter into the said Priory 
 which was lawful to do, and did commence this action against Giles 
 Allen, then tenant and occupier of the same, and by verditt re- 
 covered the same, and died, leaving his said son George of tender 
 years, after whose death the right came to the said George, your 
 Majesty's Ward. 
 
 But so it is, may it please your Majesty that the said Gyles Allen 
 by pretence and colour of some fayned and unlawful title, and 
 having by some sinister means obtained the deeds and writings 
 concerning the premises, and the assurance of the estate of the site 
 and Priory of Hallowell to your Majesty's Ward, into his hands, 
 has now, of late, by that colour, entered into the Priory and expelled 
 your Majesty and her Ward from the possession thereof, pretend- 
 ing not only to defraud her Majesty of the Wardship and custody 
 
NOTES 167 
 
 of the Priory, but to disinherit the said George Peckham and his 
 heirs of the inheritance of the Priory, etc. 
 
 May it therefore please your good Lordship to grant a writ of 
 Privy Seal directed to the said Gyles Allen Esq. to appear and 
 answer the premises, etc. 
 
 This is granted. 
 
 Hil. 30 Eliz. 20th Oct., 
 1589. The answer of Gyles Allen. (Very long.) 
 
 It is true that Henry Webbe, Gentleman Porter of the King's 
 Tower of London, in an indenture bearing date 28th Feb. 6 Ed. VI 
 in consideration of a marriage to be had between his daughter Susan 
 and George Peckham son of Sir Edmund Peckham, did make an 
 agreement that he, the said Webbe, should, before Easter following 
 make a grant to certain persons to be named by Sir Edmund, of a 
 good estate of the site of the Priory, to the use of the said Henry 
 Webbe, during his natural life, and after his decease to the said 
 George and Susan, and their heirs, and for lack of these to the heirs 
 of Susan and for lack of these to the heirs of George, and after that, 
 namely on the last day of February 6 Ed. VI, he confirmed to 
 Thomas Mynd and Francis Dorrell, by the Act of Parliament 4th 
 Feb. 27 Hen. VIII for the transferring of uses, the said estate. And 
 after this Webbe died and George and Susan married. And so 
 being seized, by their deed, dated 16th August 2 & 3 Philip and 
 Mary, by an agreement between the said George and Susan, and 
 one Christopher Bumpstead, citizen of London, for the sum of 
 £533 6s. 8d. sold the said site and afterwards there was a fine levied 
 in the Court of Common Pleas, in the Michaelmas Term 2 & 3 Philip 
 and Mary, before the Justices of Peace, between Christopher 
 Bumpstead, and the said George Peckham and John Raignolds 
 and Christian his wife deforciants of the said site, 22 messuages, 
 40 cottages, 4 Barns, 4 dove houses, 20 gardens, six orchards, and 
 2 acres of pasturage, with appurtenances and acknowledged all 
 these to be the right of Christopher, and proclamations made 
 thereof, to the sole use of Bumpstead and his heirs. 
 
 Within six months thereafter, in consideration of £600 payed 
 to him by Christopher Allen Esq. deceased, late father to this de- 
 fendant, and by this defendant well and truly paid, the said Bump- 
 stead did bargain and sell to them to hold forever and the said 
 Christopher, about 34 years past died and the defendant did receive 
 
168 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the premises by right of survivorship, and he has held himself owner. 
 About 23 Eliz., Edmund Peckham, hoping by sinister means to 
 oppress the defendant, or to wrest from him some piece of money, 
 did pretend to the premises, and did execute an action of trespass, 
 and by reason of the great partiality of the jurors through their 
 being suborned and also by reason that they did not understand the 
 nature of the fine, which was levied by George without Susan, but 
 was sufficient to bar the said Edmund ; the jury found the defen- 
 dant guilty of trespass but it was of no force to bind defendant to 
 any loss in the suit. Neither did the said Edmund proceed to 
 any further trial with the defendant, as he neither could nor did 
 have any right or title touching the estate. Gyles Alleyn denied 
 any claim of the Peckhams altogether resting on his clear right and 
 prayed to be dismissed from further answer in the case. 
 
 Smaixman. 
 31st Oct., 1589. 
 Replication of James Morris Esq. Attorney-General of the Court 
 
 of Wards and Liveries, to the answer of Giles Alleyn, gent., 
 
 defendant. 
 James Morris, in right of George Peckham her Majestie's Ward 
 maintains all the points filed in the Bill of Information. He be- 
 lieves it true that indentures were made bearing date 28th Feb. 
 6 Ed. VI between Sir Edmund Peckham and Henry Webbe, con- 
 cerning the limitation of uses for the said Priory of Hallowell, and 
 the landes belonging thereto, but there was a proviso, that if the said 
 marriage between Susan, the daughter and heir of Henry Webbe, 
 and the said Sir George Peckham, then called George Peckham, 
 do not take effect by the disagreement or refusal of Sir George Peck- 
 ham, that the lands should be assured to the persons assured at 
 the death of the said Henry Webbe, to the use of Susan and her heirs 
 with remainder to the heirs of Elizabeth Trudge, and if the lady 
 refused the marriage, then Peckham's heirs were to succeed to the 
 property after her death. Now Sir George Peckham misliked 
 the marriage, and only by the persuasions of his father fulfilled it, 
 and he did not marry before the feast of St. Michael as agreed; 
 the deed supposed to be granted to Francis Darrell and Thomas 
 Mynde to the uses aforesaid, with a letter of attorney to the said 
 John Ward and Nicholas Clark to deliver possession, was not sealed 
 by Henry Webbe, nor was any seisin given to the feoffees, as by 
 
NOTES 169 
 
 depositions of the persons sworn at the Examination remaining of 
 Record proveth, so that neither of the bargains mentioned in the 
 answer, nor yet the fine, supposed to be levied of the lands by the 
 said Sir George Peckham unto the said Christopher Bumpstead, 
 whereunto the said Susan was not made party, the said Edmund 
 Peckham her son (father to George Her Majesty's now Ward), then 
 being within the age of one and twenty years, and having made his 
 claim to same lands within five years after he came to his full age 
 so it is untrue to say that the delay shall or may bar the said George 
 Peckham her Majesty's Ward to demand the said lands or exclude 
 her Majesty's title. 
 
 And James Morris further saith, that the verdict mentioned in 
 the Bill, in the Court of Exchequer, against the defendant, concern- 
 ing some parte of the lands in question, was delivered by Jurors 
 then sworn upon full process of the matters, and upon other special 
 processes for the maintaining of the issue on behalf of the said 
 Edmund Peckham against the said defendant, as also through 
 default of sufficient matter provided by defendant to maintain 
 his title, which verdict was without any subornation, or evil practise 
 by or to the jurors, as in the answer is most falsely and untruly 
 suggested. 
 
 Ja. Morris. 
 28th Nov., 1589. 
 The Rejoinder of Giles Alleyn gent, to the Replication of James 
 Morris Esq., her Majesty's Attorney of the Court of Wards 
 and Liveries. 
 
 The defendant, not confessing anything in the Replication con- 
 tained, maintained his answer. The Replication is uncertain and 
 insufficient. He denied that Sir George Peckham utterly refused 
 to take to wife the said Susan, and was only enforced to it by his 
 father ; he denied that the marriage did not take place before 
 Michaelmas ; denied that the facts surmised were proved by oaths 
 of credible witnesses or by Sir George ; denied that the deed of 
 Henry Webbe containing a grant to Francis Dorryll, and Thomas 
 Mynd to the uses mentioned, was not sealed and delivered, or that 
 possession was not granted ; denied that there was any insufficiency 
 in "the bargain nor sale, nor fine levied of the land by Sir George 
 Peckham unto Christopher Bumpstead ; or that anything material 
 should enable the said George Peckham, her Majestie's ward to 
 
170 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 demand the lands ; denied that Edmund Peckham his father made 
 a claim 5 years after coming of age, or that it is anything material 
 if he had so done, as he had not any title to the same, or that the 
 said verdict had in the Court of Requests against the defendant 
 concerning part of the lands, did pass, on such causes as the Replica- 
 tion surmises, and denied anything else in the same replication 
 to be true. See p. 52. 
 
 Smalman. 
 
 NOTE IX. — James Burbage's Purchase of Blackfriars, 1596. 
 
 Endorsed. Sir William More to James Burbage. 
 James Burbage touching houses in Blackfriars. 
 
 This Indenture made 4th Feb. 38 Eliz. (1595-6) betwene Sir 
 William More of Loseley in the county of Surrey, Knt., and James 
 Burbage of Hollowell in the County of Midd., gentleman . . . 
 witnesseth that the said Sir William More for and in consideracon 
 of the some of Sixe Hundreth Poundes . . . att and before then- 
 sealinge of these presents truly paid wherewith he the saide Sir 
 William More doth acknowledge and confesse himself fully satisfied 
 and paied . . . and doth fully and clerelie Bargayne sell alyen, 
 enfeoffe, and confirme to the said James Burbage his heirs and 
 assignes for ever, All those seaven great upper Romes as they are 
 now devided being all upon one flower, and sometyme beinge one 
 great and entire rome with the route over the same covered with 
 Leade. . . . And also all the stone staires leadinge upp unto the 
 Leades or Route . . . and also all the greate stone walls and other 
 walls which do enclose devide and belonge to the same seaven great 
 upper romes, And also that great paire of wynding stairs with the 
 staircase thereto belonging which leadeth upp into the same seaven 
 great upper romes out of the greate yard there which doth lie next 
 unto the Pipe Office which saide seven great upper roomes were 
 late in the tenure or occupacion of William de Lawne Dr of Phisicke 
 or of his assignes, and are scituate lyeinge and beinge within the pre- 
 cincte of the late Blackfryers Preachers near Ludgate . . . (and all 
 appurtenances) Together with the easiament and comodite of a 
 vaulte being under some part of the said seaven great upper romes, 
 or under the entrey or voide rome lyinge betwene those seaven 
 great upper romes and the saide Pipe Office by a stoole (sic) and 
 Tonnell to be made into the same vaulte in and oute of the greate 
 
NOTES 171 
 
 stone wall in the ynner side thereof nexte and adioininge to the 
 said entry or voide rome being towards the south. And also all 
 those romes and lodgings with the Kitchen thereunto adjoining 
 called the Midle Romes or midle stories late being in the tenure or 
 occupacion of Rocco Bonnetto and nowe beinge in the tenure and 
 occupation of Thomas Bruskett, gentleman, or of his assignes, con- 
 teyning in length fiftie and two foote of assize more or lesse and in 
 bredith Thirty and Seaven foote of Assize more or lesse, lyeinge and 
 beinge directly under parte of those of the saide Seaven great upper 
 romes which lye westwarde, which saide midle romes or midle stories 
 do extende in length southward to a part of the house of Sir George 
 Cary, Knight . . . together with the dore and entry which do 
 lye nexte unto the gate enteringe into the house of the said Sir 
 George Cary, and used to and from the said midle roomes or midle 
 storyes oute of a Lane or waye leadinge unto the house of ye said 
 Sir George Cary, with free waye ingres egres and regres, into and 
 from the said Midle romes or midle stories in by and thorough the 
 wayes nowe used to the saide house of the saide Sir George Cary, 
 And also all those two vaults or Cellers late beinge in thoccupacion 
 of the saide Rocco Bonetto, lyeing under parte of the said midle 
 romes at the north end thereof, as they are now divided and are nowe 
 in the tenure or occupacon of the saide Thomas Bruskett, and of 
 John Favor and are adjoyning to the two little yards nowe in thoccu- 
 pacions of Peter Johnson and of the saide John Favor, Together 
 also with the staires leading into the same vaulte or cellers oute 
 of thaforesaid kitchen in thoccupacion of Thomas Bruskett, And 
 also all those two upper Romes or Chambers with a little Buttery 
 att the north ende of the saide seaven greate upper Romes and on 
 the west side thereof nowe beinge in thoccupacion of Charles Brad- 
 shawe, Together with the voide rome waye and passage, nowe there- 
 unto used from the saide seaven greate upper romes. And also all 
 those two romes or Loftes nowe in thoccupacion of Edward Merry, 
 thone of them lyeinge and beinge above or over the saide two upper 
 romes or chambers in thoccupacion of Charles Bradshawe and on 
 the est and Northe parte thereof, and having a chymney in it, And 
 thother of them lyinge over parte of the forsaide Entry or voide 
 rome next the forsaid Pipe Office, Together with the staires leading 
 from the roomes in thoccupacion of Charles Bradshawe up unto the 
 two roomes in thoccupacion of the said Edwarde Merry. And also 
 
172 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 all that little Rome nowe used to laye wood and coles in being aboute 
 the midle of the saide staires, westwarde which saide little Rome is 
 over the foresaide buttery nowe in thoccupacion of Charles Bradshaw 
 and is in thoccupacion of the said Charles Bradshaw, And also all 
 that Rome or garrett lyeing and beinge over the said two romes or 
 loftes last before mencioned in thoccupacion of Edward Merry to- 
 gether with the dore entry void ground waye and passage and 
 staires leadinge or used to with or from the said romes in thoccupa- 
 cioo of the said Edward Merry up unto the said Rome or garrett 
 over the said two roomes in thoccupation of Edward Merry And 
 also those two lower Romes nowe in thoccupation of the saide Peter 
 Johnson Lyeinge directlie under parte of the saide seaven greate 
 upper Romes And also all those two other lower romes or chambers 
 nowe being also in the tenure of Peter Johnson beinge under the 
 forsaide Romes or chambers in thoccupacion of the saide Charles 
 Bradshawe, And also the dore entry way voide grounde and passage 
 leadinge and used to and from the said great yarde nexte the saide 
 Pipe Office into and from the saide fowre lower romes or chambers 
 And also all that little yarde adioininge to the said Lower romes as the 
 same is nowe enclosed with a bricke wall and nowe being in thoccu- 
 pacion of the said Peter Johnson which said fower Lower Romes 
 and little yarde, do lie between the saide great yarde nexte the saide 
 Pipe Office on the north parte, and an entry leading into the Messuage 
 which Margaret Pooley, Wydowe, heldeth for terme of her life, 
 nowe in thoccupacion of the said John Favor on the west parte, and 
 a wall devidinge the said yarde now in thoccupacion of the said 
 Peter Johnson, and the yarde nowe in thoccupacion of the said 
 John Favor on the South parte, And also the staires and stairecase 
 leading from the said little yarde in thoccupacion of Peter John- 
 son, up to the romes in thoccupacion of Charles Bradshawe, And 
 also all that little yarde or peice of voide grounde with the bricke 
 wall thereunto belonginge lyinge next the Queen's highwaye leading 
 unto the River of Thames, wherein an olde pryvie nowe standeth, 
 as the same is now enclosed with the same brick wall and with a 
 pale, next adioyning to the house of Sir William More nowe in 
 thoccupacion of the Rt. Hon. Lord Cobham on the este parte, and 
 the strete leading to the Thames there on the west parte, and the 
 saide yarde next the said Pipe Office on the southe part, and the 
 house of the said Lord Cobham on the north parte, All which pre- 
 
NOTES 173 
 
 mises before in theis presentes mencioned to be hereby bargayned 
 and solde . . . Together with all Liberties, priviledges, Lightes, 
 watercourses, easiamentes, comodities and appurtenance. . And 
 also the said Sir William More hath confirmed unto the saide 
 James Burbage his heirs and assigns free and quiet ingres egres 
 and regres from the strete leading from Ludgate over uppon 
 and through the said great yard next the Pipe Office by the 
 waies nowe thereunto used into and from the said seaven great 
 upper romes and all other the premyses . . . together with libertie 
 for James Burbage and his heires to discharge his and their wood 
 cole and all other carriage necessaries and provisions in the same 
 greate yarde ... for convenient tyme . . . until the same may 
 be carried unto the premysses . . . and at all tymes hereafter 
 the said James Burbage, his heirs, . . . leaving convenient waies 
 to and from the gardeyn and other houses and romes of Sir William 
 More ... so that the wood and cole be voided within three dayes 
 next after it shall be brought. . . . And Sir William More grants 
 the reversions and remaynders of all and singular the premises by 
 theis presents mencioned . . . except and reserved to Sir William 
 More and his heires one Rome or stole as the same is now made in 
 and oute of the foresaid wall next the saide entry adjoyning the 
 Pipe Office into the foresaid vault. . . . All which . . . premises 
 Sir Thomas Ca warden, Knt., deceased late had to him and his 
 heirs ... of the gift of Edward Sixth ... as by his letters patent 
 . . . Westminster (12th March, 4th Ed. VI . . . and in his last will 
 and testament . . . bearing date on the day of St. Bartholomew 
 thapostle 1559 ... his executors should have full power to alyen 
 for the performance of his last will and testament . . . and made 
 Dame Elizabeth his wife and the said Sir William More, of Loseley 
 . . . Executors . . . and Thomas Blagrave and Thomas Hawe 
 Overseers . . . and they bargained and sold unto John Birch, 
 gentleman, John Austen, and Richard Chapman and their heirs 
 forever ... on 20th Dec. 2 Eliz. . . . enrolled in Court of Chan- 
 cery ... all which premises the said John Birch John Austin and 
 Richard Chapman did on the 22nd Dec. 2 Eliz. sell to the said Dame 
 Elizabeth Cawarden and Sir William More and their heirs for ever. 
 . . . The said Dame Elizabeth Cawarden is long sythens deceased 
 ... the premises have accrued to Sir William More and his heir by 
 right of survivorshippe , . . and he has bargained and sold, with 
 
174 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the exception aforementioned ... to the onelie use and behoufe 
 of the said James Burbage and his heirs for evermore ... Sir 
 William More standeth . . . lawfullie and absolutely seased of all 
 the premises ... in fee simple . . . and the said James Burbage 
 and his heirs shall be saved and kept harmless . . . from all former 
 bargains, chardge, arreradge . . . fees, fines, amerciaments . . . 
 and from all other chardges, titles, trebles, and incombrances what- 
 soever . . . and may from henceforthe forever peaceablie and 
 quietlye have hold occupie and enioye all the said roomes . . . 
 (excepte above excepted) without any lett treble veXacion, interrup- 
 tion or contradiction ... of Sir William More ... or any other 
 person . . . and within three years ... to execute all and every 
 such further acte . . . assurance in the Lawe whatsoever ... Be 
 it by deed indented or inrolled. . . George Austin gent, and Henry 
 Smyth, Marchantaylor his deputies. 
 
 In witness whereof the parties firste above-named to theis Inden- 
 tures sounderly have sett their seales the daye and yeare above 
 written. James Burbadge. 
 
 (From original in Loseley Papers only a few phrases cut out 
 and a few words worn off.) 
 
 His seal is a griffen. 
 (Endorsed). 
 
 " Sealed and delivered in the presence of the persons whose names 
 been (sic) hereunder subscribed. George Austin. 
 
 William Serche Scryvener." 
 
 The other part of this indenture was sealed by Sir William More 
 before a M r - in Chancery same day. No bond for performance of 
 the covenants within mentioned." See p. 63. 
 
 NOTE X. — -Petition of the Inhabitants of the Blackfriars. 
 
 To the right Honble. the Lords and others of her Majesties most 
 honorable Privy Councell, 1596. 
 Humbly shewing and beseeching your honors, the inhabitants of 
 the precinct of the Blackfryers London, That whereas one Burbage 
 has lately bought certaine roomes in the same precinct neere adioyn- 
 ing unto the dwelling-houses of the Rt. Honorable The Lord Chamber- 
 lain and the Lord of Hunsdon, which roomes the said Burbage is 
 now altering and meaneth very shortly to convert and turn the 
 same into a common playhouse which will grow to be a very great 
 
NOTES 175 
 
 annoyance and trouble, not only to all the noblemen and gentlemen 
 thereabout inhabiting but allso a generall inconvenience to all the 
 inhabitants of the same Precinct both by reason of the great resort 
 and gathering together of all manner of vagrant and lewde persons, 
 that under cullor of resorting to the Playes will come thither and 
 worke all manner of mischeefe and allso to the greate pestering and 
 filling up of the same precinct, yf it should please God to send any 
 visitation of sicknesse as heretofore hath been, for that the same 
 Precinct is allready growne very populous And besides that the same 
 Playhouse is so neere the Church that the noyse of the Drumms 
 and Trumpets will greatly disturbe and hinder both the Ministers 
 and parishioners in tyme of devine service and sermons. In tender 
 consideracion whereof As allso for that there hath not at any tyme 
 heretofore been used any comon Playhouse within the same Precinct 
 But that now all Players being banished by the Lord Mayor from 
 playing within the Cittie, by reason of the great inconviences and 
 ill rule that followeth them they now thincke to plant themselves 
 in Liberties. That therefore it would please your honors to take 
 order that the same Roomes may be converted to some other 
 use and that no Playhouse may be used or kept there. And 
 your suppliants as most bounden shall and will dayly pray for your 
 Lordships in all honor and happiness long to live. 
 Elizabeth Russell, Dowager John Robbinson 
 
 1 Hunsdon Thomas Homes 
 
 Henry Bowes 2 Ric. Field 
 
 Thomas Browne Will. Watts 
 
 John Crooke Henry Boice 
 
 Will Meredith Edward Ley 
 
 Stephen Egerton John Clarke 
 
 Richard Lee Will Bispham 
 
 Smith Robert Baheire 
 
 William Paddy Ezechiell Major 
 
 William de Lavine Harman Buckholt 
 
 Francis Hinson John le Mere. 
 
 John Edwards John Dollin 
 
 Andrew Lyons Ascanio de Renialmire 
 
 Thomas Nayle John Wharton. 
 
 Owen Lochard Dom. Ser. State Papers, Eliz. cclx. 11 6, (in 
 
 extenso.) 
 
 1 Burbage's Master, afterwards Lord Chamberlain, died 9th Sept., 1603. 
 
 2 Shakespeare's fellow-townsman and publisher. 
 
176 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 By papers in the year 1619 and in those of 1631 undated, vol. 205, 
 No. 32, iv., reference is made to this petition as presented in Novem- 
 ber, 1596. 
 
 Following this is an opposing petition of the Players, certified by 
 all authorities but Mr. Lemon to be a forgery. Any one may be 
 satisfied that it is so, by the list given of the players, and by 
 their reference to their " ordinary place of playing at the Globe," 
 which was not founded until two years after. Also the players 
 speak of their expense, whereas, at the time of the petition, the 
 building and all expenses concerning alterations referred to James 
 Burbage alone, and afterwards to his sons. 
 
 Blackfeiars. 
 
 Guildhall MSS. (Repertory 34, f. 386.) 21st Die Jan., 1618-9. 
 Item this day was exhibited to the Council the petition by the 
 Constables and other officers and inhabitants within the precinct 
 of Blackfryers, London, therein declaring that in Nov. 1596 divers 
 honorable persons and others then inhabiting in the said precinct 
 made knowne to the Lordes and others of the Privy Councell what 
 inconveniences were likely to fall uppon them by a comon Play- 
 house then preparing to be erected there, and that their Honors then 
 forbad the use of the said howse for playes. And in June 1600 
 made certaine orders by which for many weightie reasons therein 
 expressed it is limited there should be only two playhowses tolerated 
 whereof the one to be on the Banckside, and the other in or near 
 Golding Lane, exempting thereby the Blackfryers. And that the 
 Letter was then directed from their Lordships to the Lord Maior and 
 Justices strictly requiring of them to see these orders put in execucion 
 and so to be continued. And nowe, for as much as the said Inhabit- 
 ants of the Blackfryers have in their said peticion complayned to 
 this court that, contrarie to the said Lordes orders, the owner of the 
 said Playhouse within Blackfryers, under the name of a private 
 howse hath converted the same to a publique Playhowse unto which 
 there is daily soe great resorte of people and so great multitudes of 
 coaches, whereof many are hackney coaches bringing people of all 
 sortes, that sometimes all their streets cannot conteyn them that 
 they endanger one the other, breake downe stalls, throwe downe 
 men's goods from their shoppes, hinder the passage of the inhabit- 
 ants there to and from their howses, lett the bringing in of their 
 
NOTES 177 
 
 necessary provisions that the Tradesmen and Shopkeepers cannot 
 utter their ware, nor the passengers go to the common water staires, 
 without danger of their lives and lyms, whereby many times quarells 
 and effusion of blood hath followed and the minister and people 
 disturbed at the administracion of the Sacrament of baptisme and 
 publique prayers in the afternoones, wheruppon and after reading 
 the said order and letter of the Lordes showed forth in this court by 
 the aforesaid inhabitants, and consideracion thereof taken, this court 
 doth thinke fitt and soe order that the said playhowse be suppressed 
 and that the players shall from thence forth forbear and desist 
 from playing in that howse in respecte of the manifolde abuses and 
 disorders complayned of aforesaid. (Copy.) See p. 65. 
 
 NOTE XL— Rose and Swan. (Full abstract in " The Stage " Jan- 
 
 6, 1910.) 
 Court of Requests, Elizabeth, Uncalendared Papers. S. 2. 
 
 To the Queen. 
 Robert Shae, Richard Johns, Gabriell Spenser, William Birde 
 alias Bourne, and Thomas Dounton, servants to the Rt. Honorable 
 the Earle of Pembroke, complaining, That whereas your Highness' 
 subjects, together with others their accomplices and associates, 
 have of a long tyme used and professed the arte of Stage-playing, 
 being lawfully allowed and authorized thereunto, during which 
 tyme, your Highness' said Subjects being familiar and acquainted 
 with one Francis Langley, citizen and gouldsmith of London, about 
 February last in this 39 yeare of your Highness' reygne, fell into 
 conferences and communications with the said Langley about the 
 hiring and taking a playhouse of the said Langley situated in the old 
 Parris Garden in the parish of St. Saviour, in the County of Surry, 
 commonly called and known by the name of the signe of the Swanne, 
 which said speeches took such effect, in respecte of the said Langley 
 his forwardness as they fully concluded and agreed together and 
 among divers other agreements between them in and about the 
 same, the said Langley craftily and cunningly intending and going 
 about to circumvent and overreache your said subjects in Law, about 
 the taking of the said house, moved and required that your said 
 subjects would become bound to him the said Langley in some great 
 penalltie with the condicion that they should not absent themselves 
 nor playe elsewhere, but in the said place now called the Swanne as 
 aforesaid, wheruppon your Highness said subject, never suspecting 
 
178 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the said Langley, his purpose and dishonest dealing, and craftie 
 complot, which nowe appeare soe verie palpable, soe accordingly 
 did concede to that his request, in or about the monthe of 
 February last in this said 39th yeare of her Majesties reigne, became 
 bound accordingly by himself and for himself and others in five 
 severall obligacions in one hundred poundes a piece with conditions 
 hereupon indorsed, among the other things to this or the like effect, 
 that yf yor Highness said subject Robert Shaa one of the said 
 obligors should, until the 20th day of February now next ensuing, 
 in good sorte and manner, and from tyme to tyme continewe and 
 attende as one of the Companie of players which then were agreed 
 to plaie in the said playhouse of him the said Langley, in oulde Parris 
 Garden, aforesaid, called the Swann, without absenting himself at 
 any tyme from the companie when they shoulde plaie there, unles 
 the said Robert Shaa your Majesties subject, should in his place and 
 stead bring in or procure a sufficient person such as he the said 
 Langlie or his assignes should like of, whiche, as one of the saide com- 
 panie, should plaie there until the said twentieth daie of February 
 now next ensuing as beforesaid, and further it was conteined in the 
 said conditions, among diverse other things therein conteined, that 
 yf your said subject Robert Shaa or this other sufficient person so by 
 him to be procured and appointed should from tyme to tyme until 
 the said 20th February, plaie in the said plaie house, as one of the 
 said companie, and not in any other place or places within fyve 
 miles distant from the city of London, except private places only, 
 or then the companie of players should not in the mean tyme plaie 
 within the citie of London and so allwaies should plaie in the said 
 plaiehouse in manner and forme aforesaid without fraude or covin, 
 that then the said obligacion to be voyd. And so consequentlie 
 eache of your highness' subjects became solue ? and severally bounde 
 by a like obligacion in the some of one hundred pounds, which condi- 
 tion was to the effect before mentioned. 
 
 But nowe soe yt ys most gracious Sovereign, that sithence that 
 tyme, as well your Highness' said subjects, as all other the Companies 
 of Plaiers in and about your Highness' said Citie of London, have 
 been prohibited and restrained from their libertye of playing for 
 some time together, and allso the said Francis Langlie, being of a 
 greedy ? desire and dishonest disposicion indevouring and seeking by 
 all underhand and indirect meanes to bringe your said subjects into 
 
NOTES 179 
 
 the danger and forfeiture of everie said several! obligacions by seaver- 
 inge of their Companie he, the said Langlie, by meanes as aforesaid 
 hathe procured from your said subjects two of their Companie, so as 
 they cannot continue there to play and exercise as they should nor as 
 the condition of the severall obligacions require, whereby the same 
 are become forfeyted, and now the said Langlie, shewing his lewdity 
 and dishonestie to procure your said subjects to incurre the penaltie 
 of their said severall obligacions, and effect all thinges to his owne 
 mischievous mind, hathe of late published and given oute, and still 
 doth threaten to commence suit at the common lawe against your 
 Majesties subjects, meaning by the rigor and strict course thereof 
 to recover the penaltie of £500 of one and all of your said subjects 
 against all right, equity and good conscience. In tender considera- 
 tion whereof, and forasmuch as by reason of the restraint lately 
 published, as well against your said subjects, as against all others, as 
 also by the cunning and craftie complotting of the said Francis 
 Langley, thereby causing some seavering of your subjects' Company 
 to be sequestered from the rest, whereby they could not continue in 
 the condition their several bonds requireth, by means whereof the 
 same are become forfeyted by course of the Common Law and no 
 remedy or relief given, (may it please your Majesty to make the said 
 Francis Langley to appear in this court and answer this complaint). 
 
 Reynolds. 
 
 24th Nov. 40 Eliz. 
 
 The answer of Francis Langley defendant, unto the bill of com- 
 plaint of Robert Shawe and others complainants. 
 
 The bill is insufficient and untrue. The said Shaw and the rest 
 of the complainants his complices and playfellows, about the time 
 stated in the bill were earnest suitors to the defendant, to have his 
 house to plaie in, whereuppon it was agreed they should play for a 
 year in defendant's house, and he was to allow such benefits as are 
 usually given, and the defendant giving credence unto their faithful 
 promises disbursed and laid out £300 and upwards, in making the 
 playhouse ready, and in preparing rich apparel fit and necessary for 
 playing, and they became bound to play there for a year, but Shaw 
 and the others, not regarding their said promises, but being resolute 
 to defraud the defendant, and make him lose most of the charges, 
 they have departed and so severed themselves from the rest of their 
 
180 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 company without any just cause, and so have ever since absented 
 themselves from his house, and now, since their libertye to pleye 
 they have played in the house of one Phillipp Henslow commonly 
 called by the name of The Rose on the Bankside. 
 
 True it is, there was a restraint upon players for a tyme, but the 
 defendant saith that the players were at liberty, ever since the feast 
 of All Saints last, and they might have played if it had so pleased 
 them, in the defendant's house as other of their fellows have done, 
 but they have refused ever since to play in the defendant's house 
 and thereby have wilfully forfeited their said bonds, for and in 
 respect of the great cost and charges he hath laid out at and by 
 their appointment and direction for the furnysshing of the playhouse 
 and such attire as they needed, of which he hath had but little use 
 since being bought and provided for them to play with. He denied 
 having " craftily and cunningly, intending to circumvent the com- 
 pany, or that by greedy and dishonest disposition, he sought to 
 bring them into the danger of the forfeyture, or that he severed the 
 company from their companions, or that he had procured two of 
 their companions from them." He denied that he had lewdly and 
 dishonestly procured the company to incurre the penaltie of their 
 forfeiture, or that he hath of late published and given out that he 
 doth threten to commence suite at Common Lawe or otherwise than 
 is lawful to doe, as they have wilfully come into danger, in withdraw- 
 ing and absenting themselves from his house, and continuing of 
 their playes in other houses the defendant having disbursed for pro- 
 vision of their apparel etc., £300. True it is that it was concluded 
 and fully agreed between the defendant and the said Shawe and the 
 rest of the complainants, with their fellow-players, that they should 
 playe in the defendant's howse for a year next immediately ensuing, 
 and the defendant was to allow to the complainants and the rest of 
 their fellows such benefits as was then lykewise agreed between them, 
 and the defendant, upon the said agreement, giving creditt unto their 
 faithful promises, disbursed and laid out for the making of the said 
 house ready and providing of apparell fytt and necessarie for their 
 playing, the sum of £300 and upwards, and thereuppon true yt is 
 that they became bounde to the defendant as in the bill ys alledged. 
 But the said Shawe and the Rest of the complainants, not regarding 
 their said promises and agreement but contrariwise being resolute, 
 and as yt seemeth meaning to defraude and deceive the defendant, 
 
NOTES 181 
 
 left his house, and went to play at another. Therefore he prays to be 
 dismissed from this case with his reasonable costs. 
 
 5th Feb. 40 Eliz. 
 The Replicacion of Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriell Spenser 
 William Byrd, alias Bourne, and Thomas Downton, com- 
 plainants, to the answer of Francis Langley. 
 They aver and maintain their said bill and every the matters 
 therein contained. The answer is very untrue, and insufficient in 
 law, and by protestation, they do not acknowledge any material 
 thing contayned in it to be true, otherwise than what is hereby con- 
 fessed ; they all say that the defendant upon agreement between 
 him and two of the company they were imboldened to depart from 
 the society of these complainants, because they would not continue 
 in the same society or company in the said house of the defendant, 
 and as touching the departure of the complainants from the house, 
 the cause thereof was well known to him as to others, for by Her 
 Majesty's authority and commandment a restraint was publickly 
 made of all companies in any of the playhouses in the city, and the 
 owners of the said howses likewise prohibited to suffer plays, from 
 about the feast day of St. James the apostle, until about All Saints 
 last, whereupon, when the complainants had obtayned licence to 
 play again, they resorted to the said defendant and offered themselves 
 to play again in his house, yf the defendant would bear them out. 
 But he said he had let to them his house, and bade them do what they 
 would. The complainants then replied that they durst not play in 
 his house without lycense, and that it was to their undoing to con- 
 tinue in idleness and that Phillipp Henslowe, (in the sayd answer 
 named,) had obteyned a license for his house, and would beare the 
 complainants out if they would go to him. Then the defendant 
 said the complainants were best to go to him, which the complain- 
 ants conceived and toke for a lycense of the said defendant, and that 
 he meant well to the company that they should healpe themselves 
 to gett their living. Since which tyme their company have exer- 
 cised their playing at the howse of Phillip Henslow, as lawfully they 
 might, and these complainants are now persuaded that the said de- 
 fendant used the said words videlicet that then the said company 
 " might goe play in the house of the said Phillipp Henslow " of policy 
 to drawe them into the penalties and danger of the forfayture of 
 their obligations, and not for any other purpose. They deny that 
 
1 82 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the complainants and their playfellows were earnest suitors to the 
 defendant to play in his house, as the answer untruely alleges, for 
 the said complainants say that the defendant desyred them to play 
 in the house and thereuppon the said agreement was made ao in 
 the Bill of Complaint is truly declared. They also denied that the 
 defendant, giving credit to the faithful promises of the complain- 
 ants, disbursed and laid out for the making ready of the house and 
 the apparell for them to play in, the sum of £300 and upwards, as is 
 very untruely aUedged. The said complainants say that for the 
 making of the said house ready and fitt for the complainants to play 
 in the defendant was at no cost at all, for the said house was then 
 lately often used to have plaies in it. And if the defendant were at 
 charge for the providing of the apparel, the complainants say that 
 the same was of his own offer and promise, that he by the agreement 
 was to provide the same and afterwards to acquaint the complain- 
 ants with the value therof out of the complainants moytie of the 
 gaines for the severall standings in the galleries of the same house, 
 which belonged to them, which the said complainants have faithfully 
 performed from tyme to tyme, and they further say that the said 
 house of the defendant might have been longe or it would have been 
 employed without the gaines, if they, the said complainants had not 
 upon request of the said defendant exercised their playing therein, 
 wherby the defendant hath gained at least a hundred pounds and 
 above out of their company, and hath also received for apparell 
 which he in his answer provided for the complainants a hundred 
 pounds out of their moitie which was due to the complainants and 
 yet he hath all the apparel to himself, part whereof the complainants 
 have truly paid for, and therefore ought to have a consideration for 
 the same. They deny that Shaw and the other complainants did 
 not regard their promise and agreement and resolved to defraud and 
 deceive the defendant and make him lose most of the charges of 
 disbursement about making ready the house and providing apparel 
 as the answer untruely alledges. These complainants desired to 
 let the defendant have his money he had disbursed as agreed, which 
 he refused, and took the apparell, and converted it to his best profit, 
 by lending the same for hire whereby he hath receaved great gaynes ; 
 or that the complainants have departed and severed themselves 
 from the rest of their company without any just cause unto them 
 by the defendant given, in such manner and form as in the said 
 
NOTES 183 
 
 answer is untruely alledged. And without that the defendant hath 
 sustained any losse by reason of the complainants, for he, the said 
 defendant hathe ever since had the said house continually from tyme 
 to tyme exercised with other players to his great gains. They 
 denied that the complainants have ever since refused to playe in the 
 defendant's house, and thereby have wilfully forfeited their bonds, as 
 the answer untruely alledges, for as they before have truly declared, 
 the cause was for that the said defendant did advise them to goe to 
 the said Henslowe's house, and also because the defendant, in very 
 subtle sort procured some of their company to be separated from 
 them. They denied that the defendant in law, equity or conscience 
 may lawfully sue and implead them upon their bonds in respect of 
 the great costs and charges he hath disbursed and laid out by their 
 appointment, for the supposed making ready of the playhouse and 
 furnishing such attire for them to playe in, or that he had little use 
 of it, being bought and provided for them, for the defendant hath 
 from tyme to tyme, let out the apparel to his great advantage and 
 the complainants ought to have had part, for that they had truely 
 paid for part and the defendant made no little gaines through them, 
 and therefore the complainants pray this honourable court to take 
 some order whereby the defendant may be compelled to deliver some 
 of the said apparell to the complainants, or to have their said obli- 
 gations delivered up. They can aver and prove that the defendant 
 of a greedy disposition, did endeavour, by indirect or undewe means 
 to bring the complainants into danger of forfeyting their bonds. The 
 defendant hath procured their companions to continue their playe, 
 and they were bound by several obligations to continue their playing 
 in his house and did not. But they deny that they have wilfully 
 forfeyted them but by the cunning policy of the defendant by pro- 
 curing some of their company from them whereby they could not 
 play. They deny that the defendant hath disbursed the full sum of 
 £300 and all that they have stated in their complaint is true. p. 72. 
 
 NOTE XII. — What Meres said of Burbage's Play-writer. 
 
 The History of Literature published in 1598, by Francis Meres, 
 Professor of Rhetoric in Oxford, shews how the cultured literary 
 man of the period looked at Shakespeare's works. In his " Wit's 
 Treasury," second part of " Wit's Commonwealth," he says : — 
 
 " As the Greeke tongue is made famous and eloquent by Homer, 
 
184 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Hesiod, etc., and the Latine tongue by Virgil, Ovid, Horace, etc., 
 so the English tongue is gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and 
 resplendent habiliments by Sydney, Spenser, Daniell, Drayton, 
 Wamer, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chapman. 
 
 "As the soul ofEuphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so 
 the sweet wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and hony-tongued 
 Shakespeare. Witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his 
 sugred Sonnets among his private friends, etc." " As PJautus and 
 Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the 
 Latins, so Shakespeare among ye Englishe is the mjst excellent in 
 both kinds for the Stage, for Comedy witness his Gentlemen of 
 Verona, his Errors, his Love's Labour Lost, his Love's Labour 
 Wonne, his Midsummer's Night's Dream, and his Merchant of 
 Venice ; for tragedy his Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, King 
 John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet, As Epius Stolo 
 said that the Muses would speak with Plautus' tongue if they would 
 speak Latine ; so I say that the Muses would speak with Shake- 
 speare's fine-filed phrase if they would speak English." 
 
 This list alone must somewhat discount the judgment of the railers 
 at the Theatre, and its contents shew the advance made in the tone 
 of Dramatic Literature since Shakespeare entered the field. 
 
 NOTE XIII. — Cuthbert Burbage's suit for Atteyn. 
 
 Coram Rege Rolls, Hil. Term, 41 Eliz., f. 320. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage v. Roger Ames and others. 
 Memorandum that in Trinity Term 38 Eliz. Cuthbert Burbage 
 presented Roger Ames, John Powell, Richard Robinson, all in 
 the custody of the marshal, saying by his attorney John Tanner, in 
 a plea of trespass that the said Roger John and Richard, entered 
 upon the Close in the tenure of Cuthbert between the parcel of land 
 belonging to the dissolved priory of Holywell and the great barne 
 formerly called the Oatbarn, in the occupation of John and Richard 
 Walker Vi et armis on the 1st of May 38 Eliz., while the grass was 
 growing, and trampled and consumed it to the loss of the said Cuth- 
 bert of 40s. ; and from the 1st of May they took and kept the close, 
 until the 27th of June of the same year, in their own custody, and 
 committed other enormities, the damage of which in all was £20. 
 The case had been postponed until this day, Tuesday in the Octaves 
 of Hil. ; these defendants or their attorney having power to answer 
 
NOTES 185 
 
 to Cuthbert's plea. They deny the force and injury, and say they 
 are not guilty of trespass, and put themselves on the country, and 
 request a jury. 
 
 (It is not appointed, so this does not give the end of it, being in- 
 terrupted by the Earl of Rutland's case. See p. 68.) 
 
 NOTE XIV. — The Earl of Rutland against Alleyn and 
 Burbage. Mich. 42 Eliz., 1599. 
 Exchequer Bills and Answers, Elizabeth, 369. 
 
 In Michaelmas, 41 Eliz., Roger now Earl of Rutland complained 
 to Lord Buckhurst, Lord High Treasurer, etc., pleading that his father 
 Edward, Earl of Rutland, was lawfully possessed by lawful convey- 
 ance of and in the capital Mansion House of the late dissolved 
 priory of St. John the Baptist in Holiwell in the Countie of Middle- 
 sex:, and of one garden and divers buildings, yards, courtes and 
 waste and void ground and all their appurtenances, for divers years, 
 yet enduring by lease, from the Queen's most excellent Majestie, 
 whereuppon there is a yearly rent of £9 6s. /\d., payable to her 
 Majesty the reversion thereof being to her Majesty, her heirs and 
 successors in the right of the crown. But so it is that of late to 
 the great hindrance of the said Earl, and disinheritance of the 
 Queen one Cuthbert Burbage hath wrongfulhe entered into one 
 piece of voide grounde or yarde, parcel of the said House, 
 adjoining a certain building now in the occupation of John 
 Powell, Richard Robinson, two undertenants of the said Earl, 
 and not so satisfied, but also by the procurement and abetment of 
 one Richard Allen, hath pursued severall actions of Eiectione fermi 
 against John Powell, Richard Robinson, and one Roger Amyes in 
 the Queen's Bench, not onlie to the great veXacion trouble and 
 molestacion of the said pore tenants, but also the great hindrance 
 and damage of the said Earle now complainant and also to the disin- 
 heriting of the Queen's most excellent Majesty's and her inheritance 
 and that without all right and equity the recordes whereof remain- 
 eth in this honourable court and thereby the Queen's Majesties title 
 may best appeare, to graunte unto your said complainant the Queen's 
 Majesties writ of Subpoena to be directed to the said Richard Allen 
 and Cuthbert Burbage commanding them on a certain paine and at 
 a certaine daie therein to be limited to appeare personallie before 
 your Good Lordship, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, as well 
 
186 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 to answer the premises and to abide to such further order as shall 
 stand with right and equity and also to grant her Majestie's most 
 gracious injunction to be directed to them for stay of proceedings 
 in the Court of the King's Bench. 
 
 (At foot is written) — 
 
 Let Subpoena and Injunction be granted as is sought. 
 
 James Saviixe, 1599. 
 
 22nd Oct., 42 Eliz. 
 The answer of Gyles Allen gent, defendant to Roger Earl of 
 
 Rutland. 
 He thinks the bill exhibited by the procurement of Thomas 
 Scriven, servant to the said Earl of Rutland, uppon a fained colour 
 of title, which Thomas Scriven hath untruely surmised on behalf of 
 the Earl of Rutland to delaie the just and lawful suites which the 
 said Cuthbert Burbage in the said Bill named under the title of the 
 defendant hath commenced against Powell, Ames and Robinson. 
 It is utterly insufficient in law, not being set forth on any matter of 
 equity and he demurs. Nevertheless he answers that under a coven- 
 ant made between Sir Edmund Peckham, Knight, deceased and 
 Henry Webbe, Esq., gent porter of the King's Majesties Tower of 
 London, in consideration of a marriage to be solemnized between Sir 
 George, then Mr. Peckham, younger son of the said Sir Edmond 
 and Susan Webbe, daughter of Henry Webbe, who promised he 
 would make to certain persons, named by Sir Edmund, a good 
 sufficient estate in the premises to have and to hold for the use of 
 Henry Webbe during his natural life, and after his decease, and the 
 marriage between George and Susan to them, and to their heirs, 
 and in default of her heirs to his heirs, and Henry Webbe by another 
 deed dated the last of February, 6th Ed. VI, did grant the premises 
 to Thomas Mynd and Francis Darell gents appointed by Sir Edward 
 Peckham, to have and to hold for the uses above ; by force whereof, 
 and of the act of Parliament made 4th Feb. 27-28, Hen. VIII for 
 the transference of uses, Henry Webbe was seized, with remainder 
 to George and Susan, who, being so seized by their deed dated 6th of 
 Aug. 2 & 3 Ph. & M., made between Sir George Peckham and Susan 
 Peckham and Christopher Bumpstead, citizen and Mercer of Lon- 
 don, that in consideration of £533 6s. 8d., paid by Christopher Bump- 
 stead, they did sell in law to him and to his heirs, and he, by deed 
 indented 1st Nov. 2 and 3 Ph. & M., and enrolled in the court of 
 
NOTES 187 
 
 Chancery, in consideration of £600 paid him by Christopher Allen 
 deceased and Gyles Allen his son, the now defendant, the said Chris- 
 topher Bumpstead sold and assured the demesne to the said Chris- 
 topher and the defendant, and they were lawfully seized of it, as of 
 fee. Christopher Allen long since died, and the defendant was 
 seized as of fee and held the premises by right of survivorship, and 
 he and his undertenants received the rents peaceably and without 
 disturbance until of late, namely, about the 1st of Maie, 38 Eliz., 
 the said Powell, Robinson and Amys, by command of Thomas 
 Scriven, did wrongfullie enter into the said piece of ground, and 
 thence did eiecte the said Cuthbert Burbage, then the defendant's 
 farmer thereof, and enclosed the same with a mudd wall, and hath 
 so kept the defendants from occupying it and from its profits, which 
 piece of ground was never inclosed but lay always open to the inner 
 court, as being a part and angle thereof, for the which wrongful entry 
 and eiectment of the said Cuthbert Burbage, and against the tres- 
 pass under the title of this defendant, the said Cuthbert Burbage did 
 sue and commence an action of trespass against the said John Powell, 
 Richard Robinson and Roger Amys in her Majesties Bench, as he 
 supposeth he had a good and just cause to doe, which action being 
 then depending Thomas Scriven in the Trinity Term following with- 
 out the knowledge of the said Earl of Rutland (he then being beyond 
 the seas) caused an information to be exhibited in her Majesties Court 
 of Wards and Liveries in the behalf of the said Earl, being then in 
 Ward to her Majesty against the said Cuthbert Burbage, the defend- 
 ant's farmer and against the defendant, by the name of Riphard 
 Allen, misnaming him of purpose, as it seemeth, that the defendant 
 should not theare make his answer for the setting forth both of the 
 defendant's title and of the injurious dealings of the said Thomas 
 Scriven, in whose informacion it was wrongfullie surmised that 
 the said Cuthbert Burbage had wrongfullie entered into a piece of 
 voyd ground or yard, parcell of the Capitall House of the said Priory, 
 wherein it was supposed the said Earl was interested by virtue of a 
 lease made by her Majestie, and that by procurement of the defend- 
 ant, the said Cuthbert Burbage had pursued several actions against 
 the said Roger Amys, Richard Robinson and John Powell, the under- 
 tenants of the said Earl in her Majestys Bench to the prejudice of 
 the said Earl and disinheritance of her Majesty, and thereupon, be- 
 fore an answer made or injunction awarded to stay the suit com- 
 
188 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 menced by the said Cuthbert Burbage against the said Ames, 
 Robinson and Powell, commenced this countersuit in this court 
 against the now defendants which suit depended in her said Majesty's 
 Court of Wards about two years, at which time the said Earl being 
 come to his full age and having sued his livery the power of that court 
 ceased further to hould plea thereof, whereupon the said Cuthbert 
 Burbage, after such long delay proceeded in that suit which he had 
 formerly commenced in the Queen's Bench against Ames, Robinson 
 and Powell, who only acted by the direction of Thomas Scriven, who 
 managed the said proceedings, and paid all the charges thereof and 
 procured many delays praying in aid of her Majestys inherit- 
 ance, whereby the defendant, to his great trouble and cost, was 
 enforced oftentimes to move the Judges of her Majestie's Bench, 
 and to show them the great delays which had been used, and the 
 great wrongs and vexacion which the unjust and indirect dealings 
 of the said Thomas Scriven had made him sustain, wherupon in 
 Hilary Term, 41 Eliz., they ordered that Ames, Robinson and 
 Powell should forthwith plead to the action of the said Cuthbert 
 Burbage and in the same term, Ames, Robinson and Powell pleaded 
 not guiltie, wheruppon issue being joynd between them, and the 
 matter ready to be tried in Easter term, it was then, by means of 
 the said Thomas Scriven, delayed and put off until Michaelmas, the 
 now defendant expecting trial and being then to his great charges 
 prepared, having retained his Counsel for trial, and the attorney 
 being ready. 
 
 The said Thomas Scriven a day or two before the matter should 
 have been tried, exhibited his said Bill of Complaint to your Lordship 
 in this honorable court, in the name of the Earl of Rutland, without 
 his Lordship's privity and consent, as the Earl hath himself con- 
 fessed unto the defendants, all which wrongs and injuries, offered to 
 the said defendants he prays to be taken into consideration. The 
 defendant Gyles Allen denied that the late Earl was possessed of the 
 capital Mansion House of the dissolved priorie, or that any estate 
 in it has come to the present Earl, and denying everything else 
 material in the complaint, is ready to aver and prove all that he has 
 stated. 
 
 The Replicacion of the Rt. Hon. Roger, Earl of Rutlande, com- 
 plainant (undated further than Michaelmas, 42 Eliz.) 
 
 The Earl said that the answer is all frivolous, uncertain, insuffi- 
 
NOTES 189 
 
 cient, and untrue, and that his complaint is sufficient, just and true. 
 The said piece of void ground which Cuthbert Burbage entered, was 
 for this 50 or 60 years used with the part of the site of Holywell 
 mentioned in the Bill, and denied everything, even that Giles Allen 
 and his undertenants since the death of the said Christopher Allen 
 had taken the proceeds to his own use, till 1st May, 38 Eliz. 
 Giles Alleyn's " Rejoynder." Michaelmas, 42 Eliz. 
 He said he can bring his grants and indentures and support all his 
 points concerning the capital messuage. The piece of void ground 
 did belong to the capital messuage but the House of the Earl of 
 Rutland was not the Capital Messuage, but it was a smaller house, 
 which had been enlarged by the late possessors. He denied that the 
 piece of void ground had been used by the Earl of Rutland, during 
 the last 50 or 60 years, and he traversed every point in the com- 
 plaint, the land does not belong to the Earl of Rutland at all, and 
 there is no reversion of it to the Queen. 
 
 Exchequer Decrees and Orders, Vol. 27, p. no, Midd., Hil. 43 
 Eliz., 30th January. 
 Whereas in the matter depending in this court by English Bill 
 and answer betweene the Rt. Hon. Earl of Rutland, plaintiff, and 
 Giles Allen, gent and others defendants, it was ordered the 19th 
 November that the said Earle should forthwith reply to the answer 
 of the said Allen and proceede to examynacion of their witnesses 
 this last Vacacion, as by the said orders at lardge it doth and 
 may appeare. Nowe the Courte being this daye informed on behalf 
 of the said defendant that the said Earle hath not ioyned in com- 
 mission for examinacion of witnesses according to the said order 
 and therefore prayed that the matter might be dismissed this court. 
 It is this daie ordered by the Court, that if the said Earle doe not 
 ioyne in commission with the defendants for examynacion of their 
 witnesses before the end of this present Hillary term, that the said 
 matter shall be dismissed out of this court. 
 
 Exchequer Depositions, 44-45 Eliz., No. 18. 
 
 A Royal Commission appointed to hear witnesses, dated 23rd June, 
 44 Eliz. 
 
 The Interrogatories appointed to be put are undated. The chief 
 interrogatories are — 
 
 1 and 2. How long have you known the site, part of the monastery 
 of Holywell, formerly in the tenure of the late Earls of Rutland, 
 
igo BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Thomas, Henry, Edward, John and now in the tenure of complain- 
 ant Roger, Earl of Rutland ? 
 
 3. Do you know John Powell and Richard Robinson, undertenants 
 of the void ground ? 
 
 8. Do you know another barn among the new buildings of Giles 
 Alleyn ? When was the old one pulled down ? 
 
 9. Whether were they in the said great yeard, and nea re and 
 along the late great Howse called The Theatre ? 
 
 10. Whether the said Allen, his servants and tenants, before the 
 Theatre was builded had their ordinary way of going to the Fields ; 
 only against the place, where late the Theatre stood ? 
 
 11. Do you know that the Lane from the Great Street of Shore- 
 ditch along before the Gate of the late dissolved monastery was 
 chained by the late Earl Thomas or Henry or their assigns ? 
 
 Depositions of Witnesses taken at Shoreditch co. Middlesex at the 
 Church House there the twelveth daie of October in the 44th year 
 of Elizabeth, etc. before Francis Goston and Richard Thekesdon, 
 Esq., by virtue of a commission out of her Majestie's Court of Ex- 
 chequer at Westminster unto them and others directed for the 
 examining of witnesses as well on the parte and behalf of the right 
 Hon. Roger Erie of Rutland complainant, as on the part and behalf 
 of Gyles Allen and Cuthbert Burbage defendants. 
 
 The name of the first deponent is worn off, but it is evidently Mrs. 
 Farrar, aged 57. 
 
 1. She knows the whole site of the monastery, and hath known it 
 for 42 years, and the part that the late Earls had occupied, for her 
 husband Robert Farrar deceased was Steward, and secretary and 
 survayor to Henrie late Earl, and the only dealer for him in such 
 business, and dwelt within a part of the monastery as tenant for the 
 most part of 42 years and there remaineth. The house in which the 
 Earles used to dwell is let to divers persons whose names she doth 
 not know. She knew the piece of void ground by the Stable and 
 Barn, part of the monastery. She did not know Thomas late Earl, 
 but she knew Henry late Earl, and that he did inhabit and keep 
 house there, and he held the said farm and the plot of ground for his 
 necessary service, sometimes for his own horses, sometimes for the 
 horses of his son Edward Lord Roos, and their servants, and she 
 knew a great ponde near unto the stable, where they watered and 
 washed the horses of the Earl when they inhabited the mansion. 
 
NOTES 191 
 
 Those who had occupation of the Stable and farm had the piece 
 of void ground, she had known it 40 years. She had heard that one 
 Robinson who held the barn held also the piece of void ground as 
 tenant to the now Earl of Rutland compl. She knows it had been 
 the same piece of ground as the Late Earl had who had horses in the 
 stable and the use of the yard ; and one Roger Woode, having the 
 use of the barne as tenant had the use of the void ground, to carry 
 his hay to the barne. She never knew it used for a slaughter- 
 house. She did not know at whose costs and charges the new houses 
 built in the great yarde near and along the great house called the 
 Theatre, nor whether those other new builded houses that were on 
 the other side of the great yard and against the former mentioned 
 great House, were erected by Giles Allen by his direction or at his 
 cost, or any other, and she doth not remember how long it is since 
 they were built. But before the building of the House she remembers 
 there was standing in the same place a Brew House, occupied by one 
 Wood, which was afterwards converted to an oaten meal mill. 
 
 She can not remember that Allen and his servants and tenants 
 had before the new buildings or before the Theatre was builded their 
 ordinary way of going and coming through that place where the 
 Theatre stood into the Fields. But she hath heard that since the 
 Theatre was builded there is a way made into the fields, and that 
 Allen^and his tenants for a long time hath held another way out 
 oTthe site of the Priory to the High Street of Shoreditch. 
 
 She knows that the Earls and their assigns have heretofore at 
 their pleasure, chayned and barred the lane called Holywell Lane 
 leading from the great Street of Shoreditch all along before the great 
 gate of the Monastery towards the Fields, and kept the same chained 
 and a private way and would suffer no cart or caryage or wain to 
 pass that way but for their licence. 
 
 Anne Thornes, of Shoreditch, aged 74, supports her evidence. 
 
 Nicholas Sutton of Haggerston co. Midd. — 
 
 1. Aged 61, said that he knew the site. 
 
 2. But he did not know how much belonged to the Earl. 
 
 4. He knew the void ground, parcel of the house adjacent to the 
 barn, in possession of Roger Wood, tenant of the Earl, but he knew 
 no more personally. He said he had heard it credibly reported that 
 the'piece of void ground hath been used by the Earls and their ten- 
 ants, and he heard that, because he was to have hired the barn, and 
 
192 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 the neighbours told him that the piece of void ground did belong 
 to the said barn. 
 
 7. One of the Earls 40 years since did keep house there. He does 
 not remember whether he used the barn, but heard it credibly 
 reported he used it for a slaughter-house. 
 
 Mary Hobblethwayte, of Shoreditch, 76. She hath known the 
 site for 54 years. She knew that one of the Earls held the Monas- 
 tery, but does not remember how much. 
 
 One of the Earls of Rutland kept house in Holywell, she does not 
 remember the uses of the barn, but she remembers that one Sir 
 Henry Capell, Knight, did use a stable and barn near to a great 
 pond which she well knew and the Earl's servants washed their horses 
 there, and so did many of their neighbours, and the barn and the 
 stable belonged to the priory and lay on the left hand and south-west 
 side. 
 
 8. She did know another barn standing in the great yard of the 
 new building of Gyles Allen, in the west part of the yard, which stands 
 still, and has been converted into tenements within 30 years, by 
 whom she knows not. 
 
 9. She does not know whether the new houses in the great yard 
 along by the great House called the Theatre, and those on the other 
 side were built by Gyles Allen or at his direction, but they were built 
 about 26 years past and where they were built was a brew-house 
 converted into an oatmeal mill. 
 
 10. That Allen and his servants and tenants before the new build- 
 ings, and before the Theatre was builded had their ordinary way of 
 going and coming only by a way directly towards the north, enclosed 
 on both sydes with a brickwall, leading to a crosse neere unto the well 
 called Dame Agnes a Cleere's Well, and that the way made into the 
 field from the Priory was made since the Theatre was builded, as 
 she remembers. And that the said Allen his servants and tenants 
 had not any other way leading to the High Street at Shoreditch. 
 
 John Rowse, of Shoreditch, 55, 
 says the same as the above. He hath known the place for 44 years 
 and hath known many tenants. He remembers John Powell and 
 John Robinson two late undertenants of the Earl for 2 or 3 years. 
 He knew that John Robinson and Powell held the piece of void 
 ground between the stables, and occupied it and the barn and that 
 Robinson made in the barn saltpetre and had no other way to carry 
 
NOTES 193 
 
 it but over the void ground. For all his remembrance of 44 years 
 he knew the stable and the void ground held by Earl and tenants. 
 7. He knew that the Earl Henry inhabited it, and kept the barn, 
 and stable and ground for his own service (and confirmed the deposi- 
 tions of the others). He never knew the barn used for slaughter, 
 but knew that the pond was used to wash horses, and generally 
 called the Earl's horsepond. He knew the other barn of Giles 
 Allen. It was occupied and the west end used by Robt. Stoughton, 
 a butcher, for a slaughterhouse, and the east end by the Innholder 
 of the Blew Bell in Coleman Street to lay in hay, and it stands east 
 and west by the common sewer. It stands unpulled down, but 
 altered into tenements by one James Burbage, but he does not know 
 the names of the inhabitants. He does not know whether the new 
 houses were built at the cost of Giles Allen or one Burbage. 
 
 8th. The said Allen his servants and tenants, before the new 
 buildings were set up, took their ordinary way against where the 
 Theatre stood into the fields, and none of them came out by the 
 great gate, and he remembers this to be true, because Allen now and 
 then coming from Holliwell did give the eXaminate's father (he 
 being appointed Porter of the House of the said Earl) for his pains 
 sometimes 3s. and sometimes 4s., and he hath known Allen use 
 another way through his long orchard into Shoreditch Street some 
 30 years since. He knew that Henry Earl of Rutland did ordinarily 
 chayne and barre at his pleasure the Lane leading from the High 
 Street of Shoreditch, all along the gate of the Late Priory into the 
 fields, and kept it barred, not suffering any horse or cart that way 
 to pass but by his licence. 
 
 Leonard Jackson of Shoreditch, 80. 
 
 He has known all these parts for 54 years. He knew that Powell 
 and Robinson hired the Barn, not to inhabit but to make salt- 
 petre. 
 
 He knew the piece of void ground. 
 
 The new houses were not built by Giles Allen, but by James Bur- 
 bage about 28 years agoe. Allen had an exit into the Fields, near 
 the Theatre and he and his tenants had also another way through 
 his great orchard into the High Street at Shoreditch, and that he hath 
 used that way 30 or 35 years. 
 
 (Note at the end.) " Delivered in Court by the hand of Richard 
 Theckston gent., one of the Commissioners 18th October, 44 Eliz. 
 
194 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Exchequer Decrees and Orders, Vol. 28, p. 270. 
 18th Oct. Mich., 44 Eliz. Midd. 
 Whereas a commission hath been heretofore awarded out of this 
 Court for the Examinacion of witnesses in a matter depending in 
 this court by English Bill between the Right Honorable Roger Earl 
 of Rutland and Gyles Allen and others defts., for as much as the 
 Courte was this daye enformed by Mr. Chibborne of Counsell with 
 the defts. that the said Commission hath beene executed on the 
 parte of the said Earle, and that the Plaintiff hath not examined 
 any witnesses by reason he could not have his commission readie at 
 the tyme appoynted for the executinge of the said commission, and 
 therefore moved the Courte that he might be at libertye to examine 
 his witnesses in this courte and that the deposicions of witnesses 
 retourned might in the meantyme staye unpublisht. It is this 
 day ordered by this Court that each partie shall be at libertie to 
 examine such witnesses as they have in that matter, before 
 one of the Barons of this court before All Souls day next and 
 ymediately after they shall have examined their witnesses then 
 each parties to deliver to the others attorney the names of such wit- 
 nesses as shalle be soe examined to the ende thay maye be now ex- 
 amined, and then all deposicons taken in that matter to be pub- 
 lished ; And whereas it is alleadged that the plaintiff by vertue of 
 the said commission hath examined witnesses upon matters not 
 concerned in the bill and Answer ; It is further ordered by the 
 courte, that, if upon hearing of the said cause it shall appear to the 
 court that the plaintiff hath examined witnesses upon matters not 
 contayned in the said Bill and answer, then such deposycons to be 
 suppressed. 
 
 NOTE XV.— Subsidy Rolls 
 
 Hadley. Thomas Hemming, Esq. 
 
 Hendon . Richard Allen in goods 
 
 Thomas Allen 
 Popler. John Gardiner 
 
 Hackney. Robert Hyde 
 
 John Smith of Clopton . 
 Hoxton. My Lady Seamer. 
 
 Whitechapel. Humfrey Aleyn . , 
 
 , 23 Ed 
 
 VI, 
 
 142 
 167 
 
 
 £50 
 
 assessed 50 s. 
 
 
 £14 
 
 14s. 
 
 
 £*3 
 
 13s. 
 
 
 £16 
 
 16s. 
 
 
 £20 
 
 20s. 
 
 
 £20 
 
 20s. 
 
 
 £80 
 
 £4 
 
 
 £10 
 
 ,, IOS, 
 
NOTES 
 
 195 
 
 Subsidy Roll, Ed. VI, — 
 
 179 
 
 Hoxton. My Lady Seamer 
 
 Richard Haddon 
 
 Church-end. John Hall Junior 
 
 Holywell Strete. Thomas Page 
 
 Humphrey Underhill 
 John Hall the Younger 
 
 Subsidy Roll, Edward VI, 
 
 Holywell Street. Thomas Price. . 
 Humfrey Underhill 
 
 Subsidy Rolls, Middlesex, 12th Jan. 
 
 Shorediche in Land. 
 
 Whitechapell. 
 
 Bromley 
 
 Giles Allen, gen. 
 Robert Alleyn . 
 George Allen 
 
 £60 assessed £3 
 
 £30 „ 30s. 
 
 £25 „ 25s. 
 
 £60 „ £3 
 
 £60 „ £3 
 
 £30 „ 30s. 
 142 
 
 177 
 
 £60 assessed £3 
 £60 „ £3 
 
 5 Eliz., ^ 
 123 
 
 £67 assessed £8 i6s.~8d. 
 
 £3 ., 6s.-8d. 
 
 £5 „ 8s.-4d. 
 
 Subsidy Rolls, Eliz., -^-, 29 Eliz 
 
 Shorediche. 
 
 Thomas Tressam 
 Edward Bassano 
 Jeronymy Bassano 
 Andrew Bassano 
 Thomas Haddon, Sen 
 142 
 
 142 
 223 
 
 £90 assessed £4 10s. 
 
 £20 
 
 £20 ' „ 
 
 £20 
 
 £20 
 
 20s. 
 20s. 
 20s. 
 20s. 
 
 234 
 
 39 Eliz - 
 
 East Smithfield 
 
 Whitechappell. Goods, Robert Miles . 
 
 Ratcliffe. George Street. . 
 
 Holywell Street. Cuthbert Burbage 
 Richard Burbage 
 
 Shorediche Land. Sir Thomas Tresham 
 
 rent. Edward Bassano, The Queen's 
 
 Man .... 
 
 Jeronymo Bassano, The Queen's Man £20 
 
 — Brown, The Queen's Man. . £5 
 
 Marmaduke Dorrall, gent. £20 assessed 
 
 £3 
 
 fA 
 
 £4 
 
 £3 
 
 £100 
 
 £20 
 
 £4 
 
 8s. 
 
 10s. 8d. 
 
 10s. 8d. 
 
 8s. od. 
 
 £20 
 
 53s- 4^- 
 53s. ^d. 
 13s. 4d. 
 
 142 
 
 Subsidy Roll, Middlesex, 39 Eliz., — 
 
 239 
 
 Whitechapel. John Gardiner . . £4 assessed 10s. 8d m 
 
 Robert Myles „ , £3 „ 8s. 
 
196 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Ratcliffe. John Gardiner . . £10 assessed 2,6s. 8d. 
 
 Mile End. 
 
 
 Edward Hemming 
 
 ■ £™ 
 
 Holywell ! 
 
 Street. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage 
 
 £4 
 
 
 Subsidy Roll, -J-, 39-40 
 
 2^0 
 
 Eliz. 
 
 Holywell 
 
 Street. 
 
 Goods, Richard Burba 
 
 •ge £3 
 
 
 
 Lionel Field 
 
 £4 
 
 Shoredich Lands. 
 
 Sir Thomas Tresham . 
 
 £100 
 
 
 
 Mr. Humble 
 
 • £™ 
 
 Ratcliffe. 
 
 
 Robert Pope, Esq. 
 
 • £40 
 
 Hackney. 
 
 
 John Street Monyer . 
 
 • £3 
 
 26s. 
 
 8d. 
 
 10s. 
 
 8d. 
 
 
 8s. 
 
 IOS. 
 
 8d. 
 
 
 £20 
 
 
 40 s. 
 
 £8 
 8s. 
 
 NOTE XVI.— Site of the Globe. 
 
 The site of the Globe is evidently that given by comparing old 
 maps and papers, opening upon Globe Alley, a passage rectangularly 
 leading from Dead Man's Place on the East to Maiden Lane on the 
 North. It is true that Professor Wallace (Times, 2nd Oct., 1909) 
 places it to the north of Maiden Lane and south of the Park, on the 
 strength of a Coram Rege description of the extent of the property 
 sold to the Burbages and others for the Globe. The whole con- 
 sensus of opinion and of proof is against this. The Park certainly 
 lay to the south as given in Sir Matthew Brend's lease to Memp- 
 rise (nth Dec, 2 Car. I). There was not space for it on the north, 
 beside the rows of houses and gardens proved to have been there. 
 
 The land brought by the daughter of Thomas Brend to Timothy 
 Cason, lay at this point, where a Workhouse was later built, referred 
 to in later title deeds as all within the site of Barclay's brewery. 
 
 The whole depends upon the Clerk's rendering of " abutting on " 
 or " adjoining to," and whether he is thinking of the site or its 
 boundaries when he talks of North and South. Dr. Martin has 
 written a pamphlet on " The Site of the Globe " which preserves 
 many deeds and maps illustrative of its position. 
 
 Enrolment 3 Charles I. Part 23, No. 22. No. 2,713. Close 
 Rolls. An indenture inrolled. (Contracted.) 
 Brend mil et Memprise This indenture nth Dec. 2 Car. I 
 between Sir Matthew Brend of West Moulsey co. Surrey and Hilary 
 Memprise citizen and Haberdasher of London in consideracion of 
 £633 paid by the said Memprise exonerates and discharges Mem- 
 
NOTES 197 
 
 prise for the purchase of " All that tenement and garden, or little 
 plott of ground thereto belonging, divided into three tenements 
 in the occupation of Widow Lugg, John Gates and John Holdges, 
 as it was, or lately was divided into the 2 severall tenures of Joane 
 Garret Widow and Roger Asbourne, and also that other tenement 
 and other gardens devised by John Godly, Esq., to Francis Carter 
 20th Feb. 1615, for 31 years, and the tenement called The Gunne, the 
 tenement called The Blew Bore, and that called The Gatehouse, etc." 
 The premises are bounded by the King's High way called Dead 
 Man's Place on the east, and upon the south, by the brook or 
 Common Shewer, deviding them from the parke of the Lord Bp. of 
 Winchester on the south, and the garden commonly called The 
 Lumbard's Garden on the west, and the Alley or way leading to 
 the Gloabe Playhouse, commonly called Gloabe Alley on the north, 
 and containing in length from the King's High way called Deadman's 
 place, on the East, to Lumbardes garden on the west 317 foot or 
 thereabout and in breadth from the path called Gloabe Alley on the 
 north, to the Common Sewer on the south, 124 feet. See p. 77. 
 
 NOTE XVII.' — The flayers at the Globe and the Essex conspiracy. 
 
 " The Examination of Augustine Phillipps, servant unto the 
 Lord Chamberlayne and one of his players, taken the 18th of Febru- 
 ary, 1600-1, upon his othe. 
 
 " He seyeth that on Fryday last was sennyght, or Thursday Sir 
 Charles Percy, Sir Jostlyn Percy, and the Lord Montegle with some 
 three more spake to some of the players in the presence of this 
 examinate, to have the play of the deposing and killyng of Kyng 
 Rychard the Second to be played the Saturday next, promising to 
 give them 40s. more then their ordynary to play yt, wher this 
 examinate and his fellows were determyned to have played some 
 other play, holding that play of King Richard to be so old and so 
 long out of use, as that they shold have small or no company at yt. 
 
 " But at their request this examinate and hys fellowes were content 
 to play yt the Saterday, and hadd their 40s. more than their ordinary 
 for yt and so played yt accordingly. 
 
 by ye "Augustine Phillipps." 
 
 J. Popham, (a good signature). 
 
 Edward Fenner. 
 
 Dom. Ser. St. Pap. Eliz. 278 (85). (See p. 88.) 
 
198 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 NOTE XVIII. — Giles Alleyn against Peter Street. 
 
 Coram Rege Roll. Trinity Term, 42 Eliz., 1362, R. 587, Middlesex, 
 
 Before C. J. Popham. 
 
 Memorandum that in Easter Term, 41 Eliz., in the Court of the 
 Queen at Westminster, Gyles Alleyn, Armiger, brought in a bill of 
 complaint, by his attornejf, John Tanner against Peter Street, 1 who 
 was brought up in the charge of the Marshal, by Thomas Petre his 
 attorney, on a plea of trespass, it was put off until Friday the next 
 after Trinity and is now heard. 
 
 Gyles Alleyn, by his attorney John Tanner affirmed that on the 
 20th day of Jan., 41 Eliz., 2 the said Peter Street Vi et armis broke 
 the Close of the said Gyles called The Inner Courtyard, parcell and 
 formerly part of the disused Monastery of Holywell in the county 
 aforesaid, entered it, trod down and consumed the Herbage belong- 
 ing to the said Gyles, and did other enormities, and pulled to pieces, 
 destroyed, took, and carried off a structure belonging to the said 
 Gyles Alleyn called " the Theatre," which was of the value of £700, 
 and committed other enormities against the peace, and committed 
 damages, to the amount of £800 in all. 
 
 Peter Street, by Thomas Petre his attorney, appeared this day 
 and defended his case against the said complainant. Pie denied 
 the use of force and arms, or any wrong-doing except treading do wn 
 the grass. He acknowledged having taken away and removed the 
 Theatre. But he is not to blame for he acted only as the servant of 
 Cuthbert Burbage, and Gyles Allen ought not to have brought the 
 action against him. Because long before Giles Alleyn and Sara his 
 wife were seized as of fee in this land of the disused Priory of Holy- 
 well, and on the 13th day of April, 18 Eliz., the said Giles and Sara 
 had demised granted and let it to James Burbage, the father of 
 Cuthbert, for a term of years to have and to hold. They had entered 
 into an indenture with him the said James Burbage, one part of 
 which was signed and sealed by the said Giles and Sara, and the 
 other part signed and sealed by the said James Burbage, was bj' 
 mutual consent produced in court. The Indenture gave the extent 
 of the property, on which there was no dispute ; and the conditions. 
 James Burbage was to pay £14 a year rent on the four quarter days, 
 
 1 Mich. 41 &42 Eliz. Coram Rege Roll, a case in which Peter Street is 
 entitled carpenter. 
 
 2 Evidently wrong date, see pp. 74-76. 
 
NOTES igg 
 
 and £20 on the sealing in the nature of a fine ; to hold the lease for 21 
 years, and if he had, before the end of the first ten years, in consider- 
 ation of the value of the wood, stone, tile, and stuff of the old houses 
 on the property, he had spent the sum of £200 in repairing and re- 
 building the other tenements on the estate he was to be enabled to 
 take down and carry away the Theatre to his own use. Further, he 
 was then at his own expense, to be allowed to draw, up a new lease 
 fqrjin_ extended term of 21 years, i.e. thirty-one years in all (there- 
 fore due to end in 1607). James Burbage had so entered, had ful- 
 filled the conditions, had spent £200 on the repairs and rebuilding 
 of the tenements, and on the 1st Nov. 27 Eliz., before the ten 
 years had expired James Burbage had retained William Daniell 
 now Sergeant at Law, and he had drawn up the new Indenture. It 
 was in English and is recited in full following the old Latin one, with 
 the exception that it had no clause for the extension of lease. 
 
 The said Giles Alleyn was always to have a free seat in the house 
 for himself and his wife and family, on condition that he came in 
 time, and took them before, they were otherwise taken up. But 
 this the said Giles had refused to sign. And further the said Peter 
 Street says that on the 1st Nov. 21 Eliz. aforesaid, the said James 
 Burbage so possessed, before the time of the trespass, assigned the 
 Theatre to John Hyde, citizen and grocer of London, who on 7th June 
 31st Eliz., assigned the same to Cuthbert Burbage. Wherefore the 
 same Peter as servant of Cuthbert and at his command, did enter 
 into the close, took down the tenement, called the Theatre, as was 
 lawful for him to do, as in the aforesaid Indenture, and in the inden- 
 ture drawn up by William Daniell, having spent the £200 in repairs, 
 it was lawful for him to do. He therefore seeks judgment, that Giles 
 Allen should have no plea. 
 
 Giles Allen says that for all Peter Street alleges, he should have 
 his plea, because Peter Street's defence is insufficient in law, nor is 
 it necessary for him to answer, when the plea is insufficient in law. 
 
 He therefore seeks judgment in his cause, for damages and costs. 
 
 Peter Street says that his plea is good and sufficient in law to pre- 
 clude Giles Allen from any action, and he is prepared to verify his 
 statements. 
 
 Giles Allen does not answer, nor deny, therefore Peter Street 
 prays that Giles may be precluded -from continuing his action. 
 
 Because the Court of our Lady the Queen is not yet fully informed 
 
200 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 of the cause, a day is given therein to both parties, on Thursday next 
 before the Octaves of Michaelmas. 
 
 Let a jury be summoned for that day. 
 
 (The Jury is not summoned because meanwhile the case in the 
 Court of Requests came on, a Royal Commission was appointed, 
 and a decision given that Alleyn was not to continue his suit.) 
 
 (A free translation, and much curtailed, of the Latin abstract.) 
 
 NOTE XIX. — Burbage v. Allen, Court of Requests. 87/74. 
 26th January, 42 Eliz. 
 To the Queen. 
 In all humbleness complayninge, sheweth unto your most excel- 
 lent Majesty your Highness' faithful and obedient subject Cuthbert 
 Burbage of the city of London, gent, that whereas one Gyles Alleyn 
 of Haseley in the Countie of Essex, gent, was lawfullie seized in his 
 domain as of fee in certein garden growndes lying and being near 
 Hallewell in the parishe of St. Leonard's in Shoreditch, in the Countie 
 of Middlesex and being so seized, together with Sara his wife, did 
 by their Indenture of Lease bearing date 13th day of April (18 
 Eliz.) for good consideracions therein expressed, amongst other 
 things demised, and to fearme lette the said gardein growndes, and 
 all profitts and commodities thereto belonging unto one James Bur- 
 bage, father of your saide subject, to have and to hould to him the 
 said James Burbage, his heirs, assigns and executors, from the feast 
 of the Annunciation of our Ladie then last past, before the date of 
 the said Indenture, for the term of 21 years from thence, yealding 
 and paying therefore yearelie during the said tearme unto the saide 
 Gyles Alleyn and Sara his wife, their heirs and assignes, £14 of lawful 
 money of England. Among other agreements, the said James for 
 him and his heirs granted to the said Gyles and Sara and their heirs 
 that in consideracion of the said lease and of certain bricks, tyles, 
 lead, and other stuffe coming of other tenements, mentioned in the 
 said indenture, should and would at his own costes and charges 
 within tenne yeares next ensuing the date of the saide Indenture 
 imploie and bestowe upon the said buildings, altering and amending 
 of certain houses and buildings on and upon the premises the some 
 of £200, the value of soe much of the said old Stuffe and tymber, as 
 should be imploied thereabout to be accounted part of the said £200, 
 and the said Gyles and Sara did covenant with the said James 
 
NOTES 201 
 
 that the saide Gyles and Sara should and would anie tyme within 
 ten years next after the date of the agreement upon the lawfull 
 request of the said James or his executors at their costes in law, 
 make, or cause to be made to the said James and his heirs, 
 etc., a newe lease or grant like to these same presents of all 
 the foresaide gardens — growndes and soile, and of all other thinges 
 graunted by the said Indenture for the term of one and twentie 
 years more, to begin from the date of making the said lease 
 yielding therefore the rent reserved in the former indenture, and 
 under such like covenauntes expressed,~(excepte this said Covenant 
 for making a new lease within 10 yeares), and the foresaid covenant 
 for employing the some of £200. And further, the said Gyles and 
 Sara, and their heirs, etc., did thereby covenant to James Burbage 
 that it should be lawful to the said James that in consideracion of 
 employing and bestowing of the foresaid £200 in forme aforesaid, 
 at anie time before the end of the first terme of 21 yeares, granted by 
 the said Indenture or before the end of the said 21 years after by ver- 
 tue of the covenant to be granted, tojiave, take downe, and carrie 
 away to their own proper use for ever, all such buildings as should 
 be built or set upp upon the gardeins and voide grounds by the said 
 Indenture granted, or any part of them by the said James, etc., 
 either for a Theatre or playing place or for anie other lawfull use for 
 his commodities, without anie stoppe, clayme, lett, trouble, or 
 interruption of the said Gyles and Sara, or anie other person in their 
 behalf. By vertue of which lease the said James did enter into the 
 premises and was thereof possessed accordingly and did performe 
 all the covenants on his part to be performed, and did also, to his 
 great charge erect and builde a playing House called The Theatre in 
 and upon the premises. Afterwards the said first tearme of 10 years 
 drawing to an end the said James did oftentymes in a gentle manner, 
 solicit and require the said Gyles Alleyn for making a new lease of 
 the premises according to the purporte of the first indenture, and 
 tendered unto the said Alleyn a new lease, devised by his cownsell 
 readie written and engrossed with labels and waXe thereto affixed, 
 agreeable to the covenant before recited, which the said Allen made 
 shew that he would deliver, yet by subtill devices and practices did 
 from tyme to tyme shift off the fynyshinge thereof. After which and 
 before the terme of 21 yeares were expired the interest of the said 
 terme, and all benefit and profit that might growe by the said inden- 
 
202 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 ture of lease, came by good conveyance of the same to your said sub- 
 ject by virtue whereof your saide subject was thereof possessed or 
 demised and being possessed your said subject did often require the 
 said Allen and Sara his wife to make unto him the said new lease of 
 the premises, according to agreement in the first indenture, which the 
 saide Gyles Allen woulde not denie, but for some causes which he 
 feigned, did differe the same from tyme to tyme but yet gave hope 
 to your subject and affirmed that he would make him such a lease. 
 By reason whereof your subject did forbear to pull downe and carie 
 awaie the tymber and stuffe ymploied for the said Theatre and play- 
 ing house at the end of the said first terme of 21 yeares as by the direct 
 covenant expressed he might have done. But after the said first 
 tearme of 21 years ended, the said AUen hath suffered your subject to 
 continue in possession of the premises for divers years, and hath ac- 
 cepted the rent reserved by the said Indenture from your subject. 
 Whereuppon your said subject having occasion to use certain tymber 
 and other stuff which were ymploied in makinge and errecting the 
 said Theatre, uppon the premises (being the chiefest profitt that your 
 subject hoped for in the bargaine thereof did to that purpose), by 
 the consent and appointment of Ellen Burbage, Administratrix: of 
 the goodes and Chattells of the said James Burbage, take downe and 
 carie away parte of the saide new building, as by the true meaning of 
 the said Indentures and Covenants was lawful for him to doe, and 
 the same did emploie to other uses. 
 
 But nowe soe it is, may it please your Majestie, that the said 
 Gyles Alleyne minding to take advantage of his own wrongfull and 
 unconscionable dealing in not making the said new lease, finding 
 the wordes of the said covenant to be that the said James, etc., 
 might before the end of the said terme of 21 years, of the first inden- 
 ture, or before the end of the said 21 years to be granted by new lease, 
 take down and carrie away the said tymber and stuffe used for the 
 making of the said Theatre, that therefore (in regard that your sub- 
 ject, trusting his promises to have a new lease, did not take the same 
 away at the end of the first term granted, and that noe newe tearme 
 being granted by the said Alleyne to the said James, etc., by the 
 wordes of the said covenant) he hath not libertie to take the same 
 away afterwards in strictness of law. Thereuppon he, the said 
 Gyles Alleyn, hath brought an accion of Trespass in your Highness' 
 Court at Westminster, called the Queen's Bench, against Peter 
 
NOTES 203 
 
 Street, your subject's servante, who, by your subject's direction 
 and commandment, did enter upon the premises, and take down the 
 said building, mynding most unconscionablie to recover the value 
 of the building in damages (which must in the ende light uppon 
 your said subject if he should therein prevayle), and there doth pro- 
 secute the same with all rigour and extremitie which will tende to 
 your subject's great losse and hinderance excepte your Majesties 
 favour and ayde in such cases used be to him herein extended. In 
 tender regard whereof, for as much as it is against all equitie and 
 conscience that the said Giles Alleyne shoulde, contrarie to his coven- 
 ant and agreement aforesayde through his owne wronge and breache 
 of covenant hinder your subject, to take the benefit of the said agree- 
 ment in the foresaid Indenture expressed to take awaye the said 
 Tymber and buildings before the end of the saide 21 yeares, and for 
 that your said subject or his servants can mynyster noe perfect plea 
 at the Common Lawe in barre of the saide accion, And yet in all 
 equitie and conscience ought to be releeved according to the true 
 meaning, And the sayd Gyles Alleyn ought to be stayed of his saide 
 suite. Maye it therefore please your most excellent Majestie, the 
 premises considered to grant unto your said subject your Highness' 
 writ of Privie Seale to be directed to the said Gyles Alleyne, com- 
 manding him thereby, at a certaine daye, and under a certain payne, 
 therein to be lymytted to be and personallie to appeare before your 
 Majestie in your Highness' Court of Whitehall at Westminster, then 
 and there to answer to these premises and to abide such further order 
 and direction therein as to the Masters of the said Courte shall be 
 thought meet and convenient, And also to grant your Majesty's sub- 
 ject most graciously a writte of Injunction to be directed to all the 
 Councillors, Attorneys, Sollicitors, and factors of the saide Alleyn, 
 commanding them to cease all proceedings in the said Accion untill 
 the matter in Equitie (wherein your poor subject humblie prayeth 
 to be releeved) be first heard before the Masters of your Highness' 
 said Courte, And your poor subject will, according to his bounden 
 duty, daylie pray to God for the preservacion of your Royal Majestie 
 in all health and happinesse longe to reigne over us. Walter. 
 
 Endorsed 26th Jan., 42 Eliz. 
 Burbage versus Allen, gent. 
 The answer of Giles Allen, gent, 6th February, 42 Eliz. 
 
 That the Bill in the material part is very untrue and uncertaine in 
 
204 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 law, for divers faults and imperfections, and exhibited to this honor- 
 able Court of malice and evil will, without any just cause, and to the 
 intent unjustly to vexe and molest the defendant with tedious 
 travell, being an aged man, and to putt him to great trouble and 
 chardges, Yet if it should appeare to this hon. Court that the de- 
 fendant shall be compelled to make any further answer to the untrue 
 and insuffycent Bill, then he claims the advantage of exception now 
 and at all future time for further answer. The said defendant saith 
 that it is true that he and Sara his wife did by their indenture of 
 lease bearing date 13th April 18 Eliz. ( ) 1576, for and in considera- 
 tion of the some of £20 in hand to be paid by James Burbage for, 
 and in the name of a fine, let and lease all the following property in 
 Holywell — the 2 houses and tenements with appurtenances then 
 being in the tenure of Joan Harrison, widow, and John Draggon ; 
 and the tenement and garden, lying behind them, in the tenure of 
 William Garnett, gardener, and thehowse called, or knowne by name 
 of The Mill-House and the garden lying behind, in the tenure of Ewin 
 Colefoxe, weaver, and the three upper rooms with appurtenances 
 next adjoyning the Mill House, in the tenure of Thomas Doncaster, 
 shoemaker. And also all the nether rooms with appurtenances, lying 
 under the same upper rooms next adjoining to the Mill Howse then 
 in the possession of Alice Dotridge widdow, and Richard Braken- 
 burye and the garden and also one great Barne with appurtenances, 
 then in the occupation of Hugh Richards Innholder and Robert 
 Stoughton Butcher (except the defendant or his wife or assignes 
 should inhabit the capital messuage there, late in the occupation of the 
 defendant, and to and for the tenants of the said defendant if he 
 should dwell in Hollowell, free libertie to fetch and drawe water from 
 the well there from time to time during the said terme) , to have and 
 to hold by James Burbage, his heirs or executors, from the feast of 
 our Lady last past before the date of the Indentures to the full end of 
 21 years to be fully completed, yielding to the defendant or his wife 
 Sara, or their heirs or assignes £14 by the year at the 4 terms of the 
 year within 28 dayes of the feasts in even porcions, and James Bur- 
 bage agreed at his own proper cost to keep up reparacions, repair, 
 susteyn and amend the buildings as required till the end of 21 
 years, and so leave them repaired ; that it should be lawful for James 
 Burbage or his heirs at any time within the first ten yeares of the 
 lease to alter, change, take down or remove anie of the houses, 
 
NOTES 205 
 
 barnes or walles or Buildings and the same to alter and frame into 
 whatever houses seemed good to the said James Burbage or his heirs 
 for bettering thereof, in what form he pleased, and that the new build- 
 ings should be sett at more value and greater rent, and that it should 
 be lawful for James Burbage or his heirs to take to his proper use, 
 all the timber, tile, brick, and stuff whatsoever of said ould houses 
 and Burbage agreed that in consideration of the lease and the grant 
 of the timber and stuff coming from the old tenements, he would at 
 his proper cost, within the ten years next ensuing the date of the 
 indentures, employ on the buildings altering and mending of houses 
 and bettering thereof the sum of £200 for the value of so much old 
 timber and stuff that should be employed in making the said new 
 buildings during the term repaired and that they should be left and 
 yielded up at the end. It was further agreed that if the rent of 
 £14 be left unpaid and noe sufficient distress be in the premises by 
 which rent might be found, or if £200 should not be employed on the 
 buildings the defendant should be empowered to re-enter. It was 
 further covenanted that at any time within the first ten years, upon 
 lawful request of James Burbage and at his own costs, a new lease like 
 the former one might be drawn up for 21 years to begin and take 
 commencement from the date of making the new lease, yielding £14 
 for the rent thereof, and it should be lawful for James Burbage, if he 
 had spent £200 before during the term, at the end of the 21 years to 
 take down and carry away to his own use all such buildings as had been 
 set up on the gardens and voide ground by him either for a Theatre or 
 playing place, or for any other lawful use for his and their commodity. 
 It is true that James Burbage asked him to make a new lease, and 
 did tender a draught written and engrossed, which he the defendant 
 did- not seal nor promise that he would deliver it, nor by subtle 
 devices in the delaying thereof, as the complainant most untruly 
 alledged, but contrariwise, the defendant did, upon manie and very 
 just and reasonable causes, utterlie refuse to seale and deliver to the 
 complainant for the plaine and true declaracion whereof, that, as 
 he taketh it, the lease so tendered by James Burbage, differed in 
 many material points from the first and therefore in respect that 
 the second lease should be made like to the former, he did not think 
 he was bound by law to seale the same and for the further manifest- 
 ation of which variance the defendant referreth to the Indenture 
 and the draught of the new Lease. But if soe it were that the defend- 
 
206 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 ant had acted contrary to his covenant, yet had the complainant 
 noe cause to seeke relief in this Honorable Court, for the Complain- 
 ant hath divers times said unto the defendant, that he the said de- 
 fendant was bound unto him the said James Burbage by the some 
 of £200 for the performances of covenants and that he would sue 
 him at the Common Law ; and the Defendant saith that by the 
 bad dealing of the said James, there is nothing in favour of the said 
 James. He hath been a troublesome tenant unto the defendant, 
 and did not perform his covenants further than by the law he was 1 
 compelled to do, for whereas the said James Burbage was bound to 
 pay £20 for a fine for the lease, he neglected the payment thereof at 
 the time appointed and long after, and hardly could the defendant, 
 after much delaie and trouble by sute-in-lawe, obtaine the same. 
 And further the said James continually failed in the payment of his 
 rent, and never duelie paid the same, whereby the defendant was 
 often driven to his great trouble, to go about to distraine for the 
 same, and yet could not the defendant manage that way to help him- 
 self, for either the dores and gates were kept shut so that he could 
 not enter to take any distresse, or otherwise, the matter soe handled 
 that the defendant could not finde sufficient distress to satisfie him 
 for the arrerages, and at the time of the said new lease tendered, he 
 the said James, did then owe £30 for rent for the houses and gar- 
 dens which as yet remayne unpaid, notwithstanding the said James 
 in his life time, and the complainant hath, before divers credible 
 persons as the defendant can prove, oftentymes confessed the same 
 to be due. And further touching the repairs which the said James 
 ought to have done, he neglected, for one great barne of fourscore 
 feet of assize in length, and 24 in breath very substantially built, 
 for which defendant formerly had a rent of good value, the said 
 James did divide it into eleven several tenements and did let out 
 the same to poor persons for the severall rentes of twenty shillings 
 by the year to be paid by every tenant, who were unable to do any 
 reparacions uppon them, for such is their poverty they usually begg 
 in the fields and in the streets to get money for the paiement of their 
 rent, whereof the defendant hath been much blamed and censured 
 by the parishioners that he should be the cause of bringing so many 
 beggars among them and annoyance to others. This proceeded not 
 from any fault of the defendant, but from the covetous humour of 
 
 1 The writing is much worn off in this passage. 
 
NOTES 207 
 
 the said James, who respected more his own commoditie, than the 
 good report and credit of the defendant or himself, and the like 
 evill disposition is in the complainant who, since his father's death, 
 hath continued the poor people there and doth continue, and doth 
 not repair their tenements, where in they are growen in great decay, 
 and are almost utterly ruinated, and are now by the complainant, 
 underpropped with stones to keepe them from falling down, instead 
 of repairing them as by the covenant he ought to have done, and 
 regards not credit, but seeking to enrich himself only by the rents 
 and other profits, which he unconscionablie receaveth for the same, 
 and they have placed other poore people in other tenements, which 
 still continue there, and the tenements decay so that the defendant 
 seeth he will not be answered of the old rent of £14, by the tenants 
 as are able to pay ; so that however the complainant hath surmised 
 that the said £2,00 came to be bestowed by his father, and that the 
 tenements were greatly amended and bettered, as they ought to have 
 been, the defendant will make it appear that they are rather impaired 
 and in worse plight than they were when the said James first took 
 them. At the time of the second lease tendered, nor ever after hath he 
 expended the some of £200 or more than that in bettering the tene- 
 ments, the said second lease being tendered a very short time before 
 the tenure of 10 years, therefore the defendant did refuse to seal the 
 said lease with just cause, both in law and conscience, and after- 
 wards, a little before the death of James Burbage through great 
 labour and entreatie of the said James, and the complainant and 
 " other their frendes, who often moved the defendant in their 
 behalf," and the saide James Burbage pretending and making 
 shewe to the defendant with many faire speeches and protestacions 
 that he would duly pay his rente and repaire the houses and perform 
 his covenant, as a good and honest tenant ought to do, and that he 
 would pay the arrears of £30, and there grew a new agreement that 
 he would have a new lease of the premises contained in the former 
 lease, for the terme of 21 years to begin after thend of the former 
 lease, for the yearly rent of £24, for the said James Burbage in 
 respecte of the great profit and commoditie which he had made, 
 and in time to come was further likely to make of the Theatre and the 
 other buildings and grounds and was very willing to pay the £10 
 yearly more than formerlie and it was agreed further between them 
 that as he the said defendant hopes he will sufficiently prove the said 
 
208 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Theatre should continue as a playing place for the space of 5 yeares 
 only after the expiration of the first lease and no longer, by reason 
 that the defendant saw that many inconveniences and abuses did 
 growe thereby, and that after the said 5 years it should be converted 
 by the said James Burbage and the complainant to some other use, 
 and be employed upon the grounds demised, whereby the benefit 
 and profit should after the term be unto the defendant. 
 
 But before that agreement was perfected, because the said James 
 had not obtained such security for the performance of his covenants 
 which the defendant required, James dyed, After whose death the 
 complainant did often move and entreate the defendant that he 
 might have a new lease of the premises like the former one, and he 
 would put in good security for payment of rent and repairing, etc. 
 There were often communications between the complainant and 
 defendant, who was contented to have made the same lease with 
 the complainant who seemed very willing to have it, under the same 
 agreement as were formerly agreed on by the said James Burbage, 
 and the matter was at last concluded. The complainant drew it up, 
 yet found means by colorable shiftes and delays to deferre the execu- 
 tion thereof. The defendant, hoping the complainant had honestly 
 and faithfuUy meant to have taken the lease whereby defendant 
 would have received the arrearages of £30, and had the houses re- 
 paired, and that he should have had security, and not such disquiet- 
 ude and trouble as formerlie, wheruppon the defendant was con- 
 tented to suffer the complainant to enjoye the premises after the 
 first lease expired for the space of a year or two paying onelie the 
 old rente of £14, which the defendant did the rather because the 
 said James and the complainant had placed soe many poor people 
 there, who were not able to paie their rent, that yf the defendant 
 had taken the same, he would have through pitty and compassion 
 have forborne their rente to his great losse, and would have been 
 forced to have turned them out because the buildings were so 
 decayed, he must pull them down and erect new. 
 
 But now by the dealing of the complainant, it appeareth that he 
 never in truth meant to take the lease as he pretended, but onlie 
 sought to take occasion when he might privilie, and for his best 
 advantage pull down the said Theatre which, about the feast of the 
 nativitie of our blessed Lord in the fortieth year of Eliz. he caused 
 to be done, without the privity or consent of the defendant, he being 
 
NOTES 209 
 
 then in the countrie, for the which the said defendant hath brought 
 ah action of trespass in her Majesty's Bench against him, who by the 
 commandment of the complainant performed the work, for which 
 action the defendant thinketh he had verie good and just cause in 
 law and conscience, for that the libertie which the said James had 
 by the same lease to pull down the said Theatre at anie time of his 
 lease was granted only in consideration that £200 had been spent on 
 the houses and buildings which summe not having been spent on 
 them, there was no Colour to take away the same, and further the 
 defendant could not see by what means he should receive satisfac- 
 tion for the £30 due unto him and for the losse by lack of repairs, a 
 very great losse, which amounteth to a very greate value not onelie 
 by the said Theatre which the defendant intended to convert to his 
 own use, and thereby to be recompensed, seeing himself otherwise 
 lost without remedie by reason that the wife of the said James, whom 
 the said complainant supposeth to be administratrix:, is neither will- 
 ing nor able for aught the defendant can prove, to yield him any satis- 
 faction at all, for the complainant (so the defendant is informed) 
 having gotten the greatest part of the goods and substance of the 
 said James into his hands, and the said Ellen Burbage the wife of 
 James being apoore woman, " the defendant " (sic) " very subtillie 
 caused her to take the administration of the goods of the said James " 
 so that they might be able to trouble and molest the defendant, 
 and avoid paiment of the debts of the said James and performance 
 of his covenants, and further whereas the complainant supposeth 
 that the said James did to his greate charges erect the said Theatre 
 and thereby pretended that there should be greater cause in equitie 
 to relieve him, The defendant says in return, that considering the 
 great profit and benefit which the said James and the complainant 
 in their lives have made, which the defendant is crediblie informed 
 doth amount to the sum of £2,000 at the least, the defendant taketh 
 it they have been very sufficiently recompensed for their chardges 
 which they have bestowed upon the Theatre, or upon any other 
 building had they been much greater than they were. 
 
 And further the defendant hath crediblie heard that the said 
 Theatre was not built at the alone chardges of the said James, and 
 that one John Braynes did defray the greater part of the chardges, 
 and was therein defrauded by the said James Burbage, as the de- 
 fendant hath heard, that there was an agreement that the said John 
 
 P 
 
210 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Braynes should have the moyetie of the lease, and the profitts, which 
 the said John Braynes did not enjoy, according to the covenant, but 
 was therein defrauded by the said James, as the defendant hath 
 heard one Robert Myles executor to the executors of the said John 
 Braines, did exhibite in a bill into her Majesty's High Court of Chan- 
 cery, against the complainant and the said James, and the defend- 
 ant saith that the said complainant, subtillie intending to de- 
 fraude both the said Robert Miles and this defendant, hath pulled 
 down the said Theatre, in great contempt of the said Honorable 
 Court, and to the great wrong and injury of the said defendant, 
 he saith that the said complainant nor the said Ellen Burbage, hav- 
 ing no colour in law and conscience, unless he the said James had 
 performed the covenants in manner and form, and did to his great 
 chardges erect the Theatre. And without that all benefit of the 
 interest of the said tenure, and all benefit and profits by lease and 
 good conveyance came unto the complainant, or that he was law- 
 fullie possessed thereof and without that the complainant did often 
 require the defendant and Sara his wife to make him the said new 
 lease, and that the defendant on any fained cause defferred from time 
 to time, as the complainant most untruely hath alledged, and with- 
 out that the said Ellen is the lawful administratrix, and did consent 
 and appoint that the said complainant should pull down the said 
 Theatre, or that, in virtue of the lease, the Complainant might law- 
 fullie pull down the same, and without that the defendant intendeth 
 to take advantage of his own wrongful! and unconscionable dealing 
 as the complainant hath untruelie surmised, &c. 
 
 The defendant hopes this honourable Court will see the defen- 
 dant's just and honest claims and thinks the complainant's bill is 
 sufficiently answered, and prayeth to be dismissed with reasonable 
 costs. 
 
 Burbage v. Allen, 27th April, 42 Eliz. 
 
 The replicacion of Cuthbert Burbage. Reserving to himself 
 all future advantage of the uncertain and insufficient answer of the 
 defendant, the complainant will aver and prove all and every matter 
 contained in the said Bill to be just and true, that the said new 
 Lease tendered by James Burbage to the defendant, was the same 
 as the old one, and he did not behave badly nor was the said James 
 such a troublesome tenant to the said defendant as he says ; that 
 there was no cause in conscience to move the said defendant to 
 
NOTES 211 
 
 yeald to anything in favour of the said James, except by law he 
 might be compelled as in the said answer is most untruely alleged ; 
 nor that he failed in paying his rent duely, nor that the defendant 
 had to go about to distraine for the same, nor that the doors and 
 gates of the said James Burbage were kept shut that the defendant 
 could not enter in any distress ; nor that the defendant could not 
 find sufficient distress to satisfy him for the arrearages of the rent 
 (if any were) as in the said answer is alleged. There was much 
 variance between the defendant and one Edmund Peckham through 
 the title of the premises in the said answer mentioned. James Bur- 
 bage, the plaintiff's father, was very much troubled, and often 
 chardged to provide men to kepe the possession of the said premises 
 from the said Edmund Peckham, neither could the plaintiff's said 
 father enjoy the lease of the said premises to him made by the said 
 defendant, for which cause it was that part of the rent was left un- 
 paid. It may be that the said plaintiff's father detained the rent in 
 his own handes, and did not paie the same at the daies lymitted for 
 payment thereof, the certainty whereof the complainant does not 
 know, but that the said James Burbage, at the time of the said new 
 lease tendered, owed the defendant £30 for rent, or that the com- 
 plainant, since the death of the said James Burbage did confess the 
 sum to be due to the defendant, as in the said answer untruely is 
 alleged ; the complainant doth not acknowledge, nor the debt. How- 
 beit the complainant had said to the defendant that if he would use 
 him kindly and deale justly with him, that he for quietness and 
 friendship to be had would satisfie the defendant of all such rent as 
 the said defendant could reasonably demand ; and whereas the said 
 defendant said that James Burbage had neglected to do reparations 
 in the house and buildings, or that the said James did divide the said 
 barne into eleven separate tenements and did let the same to poor 
 persons, and did take severall rents of 20s. by the year. It is true 
 that he divided the barne, which laye empty then at his own great 
 charge. He was not restrayned by the said lease to build or con- 
 vert any of the premises to his immediate use, and he can prove that 
 he disbursed for and spent a great sum in reparacions. 
 
 Without that the said tenants are so poore that they usually begge 
 in the fields and streetes for money to pay their rents, or that there 
 were any cause the said defendant should be much blamed or 
 hardly censured by the parishioners or that the said James re- 
 
212 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 spected more his own commoditie than the good repute and credit 
 of the defendant as in the answer is slanderously alleged ; without 
 that the complaynant since the death of his father hath not repaired 
 the tenements, or that they are grown in great decay and ruin, or 
 that the said tenants should complain that they were ready to fall, 
 as in the said answer is untruely surmised, as the complainant can 
 prove thatjhe hath disbursed this very last year the some of 20 markes 
 and better ; without that the said James Burbage had not at the time 
 of the second lease expended two hundred pounds or more for the 
 bettering of the houses and buildings, or that there was not anie like- 
 lihood that the said James Burbage should perform the same during 
 the limited time. He can prove that the said James Burbage did 
 so by the evidence of divers good workmen who performed the work, 
 and others, that the said James, before tendering the second lease did 
 disburse for the bettering of the said houses above £200, and there- 
 fore the defendant had no just cause to refuse to seal the second 
 lease and dischardge the new agreements. And the complainant 
 saiththat true it is, that the said James was very willing to have a new 
 lease for 21 years from the defendant, under such rent and reasonable 
 covenants as in the former lease were conteyned and that therefore 
 speeches and communications were often had between the defendant 
 and the said James, but the defendant according to his own will and 
 discretion did cause a draughte of a lease to be drawn wherein were 
 inserted many unreasonable covenants on the part of the said James 
 for the performance thereof, that the said James utterlie refused to 
 proceed any further in the said bargain. And the said James with- 
 in a short time after died. Without that the said James was will- 
 ing to pay the said defendant £10 more rent than he had formerly 
 done, or that it was agreed that the said Theatre should continue for a 
 playing place for the space of five years only after the first term of 21 
 years, no longer, or that the same, after 5 years should be converted 
 by the said James to some other use and bee emploied upon the 
 ground demised, whereby the benefit and profit thereof, after the 
 terme, should remain to the defendant, as in the answer is alledged, 
 without that the complainant did often move and intreate the said 
 defendant that he might have a new lease, according to the former 
 one, or that the complainant did promise to pay the defendant £30, 
 or that the complainant seemed very willing to have the lease in such 
 manner as the defendant proposed, or a new lease should be drawn 
 
NOTES 213 
 
 up for the sum of £24 rent, or that the matter was so concluded or 
 that there was a new lease drawn accordingly by this complainant, or 
 that the defendant was content to suffer this complaynant to enjoy the 
 premises after the first lease expired for the space of a yere or two, 
 paying onelie the old rent of £14, for such reasons as in the answer is 
 most untruely suggested ; without also that the complainant never 
 meant to take the lease of the premises, but merely sought occasion 
 when he might privilie and for his best advantage pull downe the 
 Theatre, for the complainant said he was very willing to have had a 
 new lease of the said_ premises from the defendant, so as the same 
 lease might have been made reasonable and according to the former 
 lease made by the defendant and his wife to this complainant's 
 father. He doth not denie that he hath pulled down the said Theatre, 
 which he thinks it was lawful for him to do, being covenanted in the 
 former lease to the complainant's father ; without that the com- 
 plainant hath gotten most part of the substance and goods of the said 
 James Burbage into his owne hands, or hath subtilly caused the 
 said Ellen Burbage to take the administration of the goods of the 
 said James Burbage thereby to trouble and molest the said defend- 
 ant, and themselves to avoide payment of the debts of the sayd 
 James, and the performance of his covenants and other duties, as 
 the said James, his executors and administrators ought, both in 
 law and conscience, unto the said defendant ; or that the said 
 James or this complainant hath made £2,000 profitt and benefit by 
 the said Theatre, as in the said answer is also alleadged ; and with- 
 out that any other clause in the said answer contained material or 
 effectual in lawe to be replied unto by this complainant, or not 
 sufficientlie replied to and traversed, is true. All which matters 
 the complainant will be readie to aver and prove as this honorable 
 Court shall award, and prayeth as before in his said bill of complaint 
 he prayed. 
 
 Burbage v., Allen, Privy Seal Mandate. 5th June 42 Eliz. 
 " By the Queen, — 
 
 " Trustie and well beloved we greet you well ; " and send on articles 
 on behalf of Gyles Allen defendant against Cuthbert Burbage 
 Complainant " whereuppon, in your approved wisdoms, learning 
 and indifference, will and desire you by Authoritie calling before 
 you such witnesses as shall be nominated by said defendant, and 
 duly and sufficiently examine them by their oaths in form of law, 
 
2i4 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 not only uppon the content of the said articles here enclosed, but 
 upon all such other articles which shall be exhibited," that you 
 endeavouring by all means possible to search and try out the verytie 
 of the premises and thereupon to certifie us and our Counsell by 
 your writing, at our Court of Whitehall in Westminster, in the 
 Octaves of St. Michael the Archangel next coming ; and of the true 
 depositions of the witnesses, that we by thadvice of our said courte, 
 may further therein deale as the case shall require. " As you do 
 tender our pleasure and thadvancement of justice." Privy Seal, 
 Greenwich, 5th June, 42 Eliz. 
 
 (Endorsed.) " The execution of the commission appeareth by 
 the schedule annexed." 
 
 Interrogatories on behalf of Giles Allen, 5th June. 
 
 I. Do you know both the parties ? 
 
 II. " Whether was there not an agreement made between com- 
 plainant and defendant that the defendant should make a new lease 
 of the houses and grounds demised to James Burbage, father of 
 complainant, from 21 years from and after the expiration of former 
 lease, and that the Complainant should pay £24 yearly and whether 
 it was then agreed that the Theatre there erected, should continue 
 for a playing place, by the space of 5 years only, and that it should be 
 converted to some other use for the benefit of the complainant dur- 
 ing his terme, and afterwards, for the benefit of the defendant, and 
 whether K did not the complainant, upon that agreement, promise the 
 defendant to pay him the sum of £30, which was due the defendant 
 as arrearages for rent, and to put the houses and buildings in good 
 reparacion, and how long is it sithence such agreement was made ? 
 
 III. Whether was it agreed that the complainant should take a 
 new lease of the said houses and grounds for the term of 10 years, 
 and that the plaintiff should give £100 for the said lease, and £24 
 rent yearly and whether there was any such agreement made between 
 the defendant and James Burbage, and at what time was it made, 
 and how do you know ? 
 
 To Robert Sandford, Arthur Breather and John Sammes. (The 
 names of those on the Commission written on the back signed Julius 
 Caesar, and dated also 5th June 42 Eliz.) 
 
 Depositions taken at Kelvedon, Essex, 14th August 42 Eliz., 
 before Arthur Breather, Gent, and John Sammes, gent. 
 
NOTES 215 
 
 First witness, Robert Vigerous of Langham in Essex, 47 years of 
 age who had known Giles Allen for five years, and Cuthbert Burbage 
 for four years. 
 
 He cannot answer the second question. 
 
 To the third he says that about four years past the complainant 
 and his father James Burbage were in communication with the 
 defendant about a new lease of the houses and grounds of the 
 Theatre, and it was concluded and agreed that there should be a new 
 lease for ten years for the rent of £24, which was an increase of £10 
 on the former lease expired, or near to be expired, and that at the 
 conclusion, the plaintiff should pay certain arrearages of rent on the 
 previous lease, amounting to £30. This deponent was of counsell 
 with them, and was especially named to draw up and write the lease 
 and he wrote the draught of the lease, and he gave it to the plaintiff 
 when he came to the deponent's chamber to see it, and paid him his 
 fees, with promises of further rewarde for his paynes about the 
 effecting of the lease, which should be a satin doublett. Howbeit 
 he never had it. But whether the complainant should give £100 
 for the lease, he knew not, by reason of his discontinuance from the 
 Temple. But he saith that he hath seen a draft purporting to be a 
 lease of the same premises, wherein the £100 are mentioned, made 
 by complainant, and brought by him to defendant's house in the 
 country. He did not remember for what consideration, but that 
 the defendant had said that the said James had not spent £200 in 
 the buildings or reparation of the said houses according to the con- 
 tract mentioned in the former deed, nor half so much, or words like 
 that, and whether the £100 was inserted in that consideration he 
 could not tell. 
 
 Deposition of Thomas Neville of Bricklesea, gent, in the County of 
 Essex, 35 years of age. 
 
 I. He knew both of the parties. 
 
 II. There was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant 
 for the houses and grounds, with the Theatre, formerly demised to 
 the said James Burbage, with rent increased from £14 to £24 which 
 should begin at the expiration of the old lease, and continue 21 
 years ; and the defendant was at first very unwilling that the said 
 Theatre should continue one day longer for a playing place, yet 
 nevertheless he yealded that it should continue as a playing place 
 
216 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 for certayne years, and that the complainant after these years should 
 convert the said Theatre to his own benefitt for the residue of the 
 term, and that afterwards it should remain to the sole use of the 
 defendant. Further the said James Burbage did acknowledge the 
 sum of £30 mentioned to be due to defendant for rent behind, and 
 the said complainant Cuthbert Burbage did often since promise the 
 paying of the same, at the sealing of the new lease. And this agree- 
 ment was made 2 years since or thereabouts at Michaelmas terme 
 now next coming. And further he cannot depose. 
 
 Ill To the third he cannot depose. 
 
 (This case little contracted.) 
 
 (The depositions on behalf of Burbage have been lost.) 
 
 From the uncalendared proceedings of the Court of Requests, 
 Elizabeth, Bundle 372, I secured a fragment of a volume (Decrees 
 and Orders), nth June 42 Eliz. 
 
 Seeing Giles Allen contemned the order of Council made in the 
 cause between Cuthbert Burbage gent, plaintiff, and the said Giles 
 Allen, defendant, bearing date 31 May ult. past. It is therefore 
 decreede now, that letters of Attachment be made, directed to the 
 Sheriff of the County of Essex, and also to Hugh Barbon 1 gent, to 
 attach the body of the said Giles to return immediately, etc. 
 
 Jul. Cesar. 
 
 Allen v. Burbage, Court of Requests, Witness Book, Easter 42 
 Eliz., gth April. 
 
 , r / % Philip Baker, Gent. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage Henry Johnson. 
 
 plaintiff. J J° hn Gobourne. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage ~\ William Smyth, gen. 
 
 pi. (2) I Richard Hudson. 
 
 Giles Allen j Thomas Osborne. 
 
 def. J Thomas Brymefield. 
 
 Trinity Term, 42 Eliz., 23rd May. 
 
 Cuthbert Burbage \ Oliver Lilt. 
 
 gent., pi. I Randall Maye. 
 
 Giles Allen j John Goborne. 
 
 gent., def. / Henry Johnson. 
 
 1 From another case I find that Hugh Barbon is proved to be one 
 of the Messengers of her Majesty's Chamber, sent on a similar Mission. 
 
Giles Allen 
 
 gent., def. 
 Cuthbert Burbage 
 
 gent, pi. 
 
 NOTES 217 
 
 Robert Myles, gent. 
 
 Raff Myles, gent. See pp. 78-84. 
 
 NOTE XX. — Giles Alleyn against Cuthbert Burbage. 
 
 Coram Rege Roll, Easter, 44 Eliz., No. 1,373. R. 257. Midd. 
 Breach of Covenant. 
 
 " Memorandum that in the Hilary term previous, 43 Eliz., there 
 came Giles Alleyn and Sara his wife by John Tanner their attorney, 
 in the court of the Queen's Bench at Westminster, before J. Popham 
 versus Cuthbert Burbage in the custody of the marshal in a plea of 
 broken agreement. Giles and Sara on the 13th day of April 18 Eliz. 
 drew up an indenture and signed it at Holywell in the parish of St. 
 Leonard's, Shoreditch, with James Burbage, Joiner. The other 
 part, sealed, dated and signed and sealed by the said James was 
 produced in court by their mutual consent, wherein it was shewn 
 that for a rent of £14 a year, paid quarterly and the sum of £20 at 
 the sealing of the Indenture, by the name of a fine they should let 
 and lease certain lands in Holywell for a period of 21 years. These 
 included two houses and tenements ; another house or tenement 
 with appurtenances and the garden ground behind, which extended 
 from the great stone wall there which enclosed it, to the garden 
 tenanted by Ewin Colefox, and from the house in Colefox's 
 garden to the brick wall next unto Finsbury Fields, the house or 
 tenement called the Mill-house and its garden extending to the brick- 
 wall by the said fields. Three upper rooms adjoining the mill- 
 house and the nether roomes in the same tenement and the garden 
 ground extending in length from these rooms to the brickwall, and 
 the ground from the outward part of the houses to the pond next the 
 barn or stable then in occupacion of the Rt. Hon. Earl of Rutland, in 
 breadth from the millhouse to the midst of the well before the said 
 tenements ; and also all that great barne with the appurtenances 
 once in occupation of Hugh Richards, Innholder ; and also a little 
 piece of ground there inclosed with a pale next the barne ; with the 
 ground from the nether rooms and the great barn and the pond, to a 
 ditch beyond the brick wall next the fields. And the said Giles and 
 Sara let demised and granted to James Burbage and to farm let all 
 their right and title in all the grounde and soil lying between the 
 
218 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 said great barne and the barn of the Earl of Rutland— extending 
 in length from the pond and stable or barne of the Earl of Rutland 
 down to the brick wall next the fields and all the void ground 
 lying betwixt the ditch and the brick wall, extending in length 
 from the brick wall which enclosed the garden then in the occupa- 
 tion of Gyles and Sara, unto the barn of the Earl of Rutland, with 
 all the liberties to other free persons coming to the said James Bur- 
 bage by any ways made or that were to be made through the brick 
 wall during the term of years, without hindrance by the said Gyles 
 and Sara, except for their right of drawing water, and of all the other 
 tenants the liberty of drawing water from the aforesaid well or 
 fountain, upon lawful requeste and to pay one moitie in and about 
 the repairs to the said fountain, with free egress and ingress to the 
 said Gyles and Sara, to and for the Rev. Father John Scory the 
 Bishop of Hereford, his wife, and servants, with ingress and egress 
 from the garden into the fields by the bridge and way. To have and 
 to hold from the Feast of the annunciation, March 25th, before the 
 date of the Indenture, paying £14 yearly at the 4 terms of the year 
 or 28 days after. The repairs to be done by the said James Burbage 
 when needed, and everything to be handed over at the end of 21 
 years to the said Giles Alleyn. 
 
 James Burbage on this agreement entered the premises, and 
 afterwards, on the 17th Sept. 21 Eliz., at Holywell, he assigned all 
 his interest therein to a certain John Hyde, citizen and grocer of 
 London, by virtue of which, John Hyde entered on the premises, 
 and afterwards, on the 7th June 31 Eliz., handed them back to 
 Cuthbert Burbage, son of James Burbage who became thereof 
 possessed. And Gyles and Sara say that they well and truly per- 
 formed their covenant and all agreements, till the end of the 21 
 years, protesting that James Burbage during the time when he was 
 so possessed, and the time when John Hyde was possessed, by the 
 assignment of the said James and when Cuthbert Burbage was so 
 assigned did not hold, keep, nor perform any of the before men- 
 tioned agreements made to be observed ; and Gyles and Sara say 
 that before the expiration of the said term of 21 years, i.e. on 
 1st Oct. 36 Eliz., the great Barne, and all the houses mentioned as 
 assigned to them had become greatly ruinous, were deficient in 
 covering and roofing, tiling as well as daubing, and that the barn 
 remained thus ruinous from the 1st of Oct. 36 Eliz., till the end of the 
 
NOTES 219 
 
 term of 21 years, by which was caused gross damage of the bam 
 and houses, by reason of rain and tempest faUing upon them, so 
 that the great timber thereof became entirely decayed, and rotten, 
 and so Gyles and Sara say he and they did not keep their agreement ; 
 and after the assignment by Hyde to Cuthbert at his and their 
 proper cost and charges, they should have repaired the houses, and 
 should have relinquished the same, cleaned and repaired. This 
 they were often required to do, and entirely broke their covenant 
 to do so and have refused to pay the damage of £200 ; and they join 
 suit to be heard on Wednesday next after the Quindene of Easter 
 this same term, till which day Cuthbert has been given time to 
 imparle the Bill and answer. 
 
 The said Cuthbert defends the case and says that Gyles Allen 
 and Sara his wife ought not to maintain this case, because the said 
 House, barn, and edifices in tenure, leased to James, were well and 
 sufficiently repaired, and being so repaired, were handed over not 
 ruinous. He is also prepared to seek judgment whether the said 
 Gyles and Sara should have brought their case in this court 
 seeing judgment had been found against them. The said Giles and 
 Sara say that for all the said Cuthbert Burbage alleges, they 
 should not be precluded from bringing their case, and they seek to 
 have it enquired into, and throw themselves upon the country, 
 demanding a jury. 
 
 Jury not fixed, see pages 76-83. 
 
 (The information given above, a rough translation from the Latin, 
 is repeated so often it need not be quite full.) 
 
 Immediately after the latter case Coram Rege Roll., Easter 44 
 Eliz. f. 257 comes another f, 260. 
 Giles Alleyne v. John Knapp. 
 
 Memorandum. That in Hilary Term last came Giles Allen by his 
 attorney John Tanner, who said that the said John Knapp had 
 broken the close on the Inner great Court pertaining to the said Giles 
 Allen on 28th Jan. 44 Elizabeth, and fixed and erected a door, by 
 which Giles Allen and his dependents could not use some of their 
 property, and trampled and crushed the grass of the said close to the 
 loss of 40s., and committed other enormities, to the damage and 
 cost of £10. 
 
220 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 NOTE XXI. — Star Chamber Case Alleyn v. Burbage. 
 XII. 35. Endorsed 23rd Nov., 44 Eliz. 1601. 
 
 To the Queen's most excellent Majestie. 
 
 In most humble wise complaining sheweth unto your most excel- 
 lent Majestie, your Highness' obedient and faithful Subject, Gyles 
 Alleyn of Haseleigh in co. Essex, gent, that your subject, with Sara 
 his wife by Indenture 13th April 18 of your M. reign &c, demised to 
 James Burbage, late of London, Joiner, " certain housing and void 
 groundes lying in Hallywell " at the rent of £14 by the year, and it 
 was covenanted by your said subjects to make a new lease if at any 
 time within the first ten years, the said James Burbage or his assigns 
 should bestow £200 in building and repairing the old tenements in 
 the property, which £200 was to include the value of the old stuff, 
 bricks, tiles, etc. In the new lease it would be granted him to take 
 down and take away the said new Building Theatre or Playing Place, 
 which he had built on the void ground, at the end of the first lease, 
 or at the end of the added term. A Theatre being then and there 
 erected at the cost not of Burbage, but of Braynes to the value of 
 1,000 marks Burbage tendered a new lease, which he the said Alleyn 
 refused to sign because it was different from the first, and also because 
 Burbage had assigned the Theatre to John Hyde, and had also been 
 a very badd and troublesome tenant to your orator, who was there- 
 fore in noe wise bound to sign it. Hyde conveyed the lease to Cuth- 
 bert son of James, who, desirous still to make gayne, suffered the 
 same to remain till after the expiry of the lease, whereby the right 
 and interest of the said Theatre was vested in your said orator, who, 
 seeing great and grievous abuses grew by that said Theatre intended 
 to pull it down, to convert the wood and Timber thereof to some 
 better use for his own benefit, whereby he might be relieved from the 
 £30 arrearages of rent, which the said James Burbage, in his lifetime 
 did owe him, and also for the breach of divers covenants in not re- 
 pairing the houses on the property, and for that the said James had 
 made in his life time, a deed of gift of all his goods to the sayd 
 Cuthbert and Richard, who, after the death of James, procured 
 Ellen, his widow, a very poor woman to take the administration 
 upon her to the intent, to defraud your said subject and other 
 creditors. But the said Cuthbert, having intelligence of your said 
 subject's purpose, and unlawfully combining and confederating him- 
 self with Richard Burbage, Peter Street, William Smith, and divers 
 
NOTES 221 
 
 others to the number of twelve to your subject unknown, in and 
 about the 28th day of December 41 Eliz., and sythence your High- 
 ness last and general pardon, did riotouslie take downe and carry 
 away the said Theatre by confederacy with others armed with unlaw- 
 ful! and offensive weapons, as namely swords, daggers, bills, axes, 
 and such like, and soe armed did enter, and in very riotous and out- 
 ragious manner did attempt to pull down and carry away the said 
 Theatre, divers of your said subjects servants and farmers, peace- 
 ably going about to procure them to desist, they violently resisted, 
 to the great disturbing .of the peace, and terrifying of your said 
 subject's servants. 
 
 Whereupon your subject in Hilary term following did commence 
 an action of trespass in the King's Bench, for wrongfull entry into 
 your subject's land, and taking away the Theatre, but Cuthbert 
 Burbage, maliciously intending to vex and molest your subject, in 
 the Easter term following, exhibited a bill in the Court of Requests 
 for stay of your subject's suit at Common Law, and he appeared, 
 and made answer. And afterwards in Trinity term afterwards, 42 
 Eliz., an order was published that your subject's suit should stay 
 till the cause in Equity were heard, which was appointed to be in 
 Michaelmas Term 42 Eliz. Your subject's demurrer was made 
 up, which was formerly joined in the said suit between your subject 
 and Peter Street, which was expressly granted, whereuppon your 
 subject gave orders to his attorney to cause the demurrer to be made 
 up. But Cuthbert Burbage, further to entrap your subject, did 
 very maliciously and fraudulently combine and practise, with one 
 John Maddoxe, then his attorney, and one Richard Lane the Regis- 
 trar 1 of the Court of Requests who, by confederating together, got 
 John Maddox to draw up an order which did not appertayne to 
 him to do, directly contrary to that which was delivered by your 
 Highness' Counsel that your subject should not proceed to the 
 making of the demurrer, therein abusing your Highness' Court, and 
 injuring your Subject. However, being ignorant of this fraudulent 
 confederacy, and sinister practice, he gave orders to make a demurrer 
 and repaired home to the country, thinking everything should rest 
 till the hearing of the cause. But Cuthbert Burbage pursuing his 
 former wicked and ungodlie devices, and seeking to plunge your 
 Subject in very grievous trouble and in mischief, did, on the last 
 
 1 He was the Deputy Registrar; Henry AUington was Registrar then. 
 
222 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 day of Trinity Term, by practise and confederacy with the said John 
 Maddox make oathe in the Court of Requests that your subject had 
 broken order by making that demurrer, wheruppon your subject, for 
 supposed contempt, was in the Vacation tyme then next following, 
 by privity of Cuthbert, and by the confederacy aforesaid, 1 fetched 
 up to London by a pursevant, to his great vexation and annoyance, 
 a man very aged, and unfitt to travell, to his excessive chardges in 
 journey, and otherwise to his great discredit and disgrace in the 
 country. 
 
 And your subject being brought by the Pursevant before one of 
 the Masters of the said Court, did by the said Master's order, become 
 bound to Cuthbert Burbage in a bond of £200 to appear in the said 
 Court in Michaelmas following to answer the said contempt, and 
 stand to the order. And he appeared at the said Court accordingly 
 and was discharged of the supposed contempt and afterwards, on 
 the day appointed, your said subject appeared at the court, and 
 having divers witnesses then present to testifie viva voce on his 
 behalf, the said Cuthbert and Richard Burbage, still persisting in 
 their unlawful and malicious courses against your said Subject by 
 the confederacy, did very shamefully and unlawfully revile with 
 many reproachful terms your said subjectes witnesses, and said they 
 had formerly testified untruths, concerning the same lease, and said 
 they would Stab some of your subject's witnesses, because they had 
 testified to the fraudulent deed of gift of James Burbage to the said 
 Cuthbert and Richard. By which furious and unlawful threats 
 your said subject's witnesses were then soe terrified that they durst 
 not testifie the truth on behalf of your subject. Further so it is, 
 if it may please your Majestie, Cuthbert very maliciously and cor- 
 ruptly suborned and procured one Richard Hudson of S. Albons in 
 London, Carpenter, and Thomas Osbome of Fanchurch in London, 
 Carpenter, to commit very grievous and wilful perjury in the said 
 suit in your Highness Court of Requests in material points on be- 
 half of Cuthbert. Hudson said that he was present at an estimate of 
 the Costes bestowed by James Burbage in his life time, upon the 
 houses demised unto him by your Said Subject, on 18th July, 
 1586, when it was said that James Burbage before that time had 
 spent upon the repairs £240 ; and Osborne said the same, that it ap- 
 peared that 4 or 5 yeares before that view £240 had been spent on the 
 
 1 See page 87. 
 
NOTES 223 
 
 houses, Whereas Richard Hudson was not present at any view in that 
 year, but only present at a view taken in 33 Eliz., as by deposition of 
 Richard Hudson himself heretofore made in your Highness Court 
 of Chancery and there remaining of record, it doth evidently appeare, 
 whereas James Burbage had not bestowed anything near that sum 
 at that time, as your subject can make very sufficient proof. •' By 
 which unlawful practises of the said Cuthbert Burbage, your sub- 
 ject did then lose his said cause." Further, so it is, if it may please 
 your majestie as well the said sute between your subject, and Peter 
 Street, as also the said sute between your subject and Cuthbert 
 Burbage, was prosecuted against your subject by the malicious pro- 
 curement and unlawful maintenance of the aforesaid William Smith, 
 unlawfully laying out divers sommes of money on behalf of the said 
 Cuthbert . . . wherefore ... for that the ryot rout, forcible entries 
 confederacies, abuse of justice . . . maynt . . . and other the 
 misdemeanours contrary to your Highness' Lawes and ordinances 
 established for the happy governance . . . arose . . . and example 
 (the gaps here caused by worn holes in membrane) of misdemeanour 
 worthy of condigne punishment, wherefore he prays a subpoena 
 may be directed to Cuthbert Burbage, Richard Burbage, Peter 
 Street, William Smith, Richard Lane, Richard Hudson, and Thomas 
 Osborne to appear in the court of Starchamber to answer to their 
 misdemeanours . 
 
 Jeffreys. 
 
 (Put off till Hilary Term, then to Easter.) 
 28th April, 44 Eliz. 
 
 The joynt and several Demurrers of Cuthbert Burbage, Richard 
 Burbage, Peter Street and William Smith fyve 1 (sic) of the defend- 
 ants, By protestation, not acknowledging nor confessing any of 
 the matters contained in the complaint. The Bill is insufficient in 
 Law, the defendants are not tied to answer it, for divers and sundry 
 faults and manifest imperfections. 
 
 Whereas the said complainant charges them with a riott by them 
 committed in pulling down the said playhouse called The Theatre, 
 and for carrying away the wood and stuff, True itis that the play- 
 house was built upon the said void ground demised by the complain- 
 ant to James Burbage, the complainant having for that cause in 
 Hilary Term next foUowing the supposed riot commenced an accion 
 
 1 It is probable that John Maddox the attorney was intended as the fifth. 
 
224 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 of trespass against Peter Street and Cuthbert Burbage two of the 
 now defendants in the King's Bench at Westminster, the said 
 Cuthbert being assignee, and well able in good conscience and equity 
 to Justine the pulling down though in strictness of law (by the com- 
 plainant's own wrong and breach of convenant) he had no sufficient 
 matter to allege in barre of the said accion. Cuthbert Burbage 
 did for his relief, and stay of the unjust proceedings of the said com- 
 plainant, exhibit his Bill of Complaint before your Majesties Council 
 in your Majestie's Honorable Court at Whitehall, at which the now 
 plaintiff appeared and answered and the said Cuthbert replied and 
 divers witnesses were heard on both sides and publication granted, 
 and several days appointed for the hearing of the cause, and upon 
 the open hearing, and full deliberate 'debating of the cause it plainly 
 appeared unto your Majesties Council that the said James Burbage 
 had well and truly on his part performed and kept all and singular 
 the covenants contained in the said indentures, and the now com- 
 plainant in refusing to seal the new lease of the premises tendered 
 unto him by James Burbage according to covenant on his part to be 
 performed contrariwise to his own covenant, through his own wrong 
 and breach of covenant, by not sealing the new lease sought to hin- 
 der your subject Cuthbert Burbage in receiving the interest of the 
 premises, and to take the benefit of the Indentures, in taking away 
 the said Playhouse erected by James Burbage at his chardge, accord- 
 ing to covenant. Therefore it seemed to the Council that there was 
 a good cause in equitie to staie the complainants action at the Com- 
 mon Law, and it appeared to council that the said Cuthbert Bur- 
 bage had just cause to be relieved in the premises. It was therefore 
 by your Majesties Council the 18th day of Oct. 42 Eliz., ordered 
 and decreed that the now complainant, his councillors, attorneys and 
 solicitors should from thence surcease and stay, and no further 
 prosecute at Common Law the trespass, and that the said complain- 
 ant should not at any tyme after, commence or cause to be com- 
 menced by any other any action or suit, against the said Cuthbert 
 or his servants for the pulling down or carrying away of the timber 
 of the theatre, and that Cuthbert Burbage should be at Libertie to 
 take his remedy against Alleyn, the now complainant, at Common 
 Law, for not agreeing to seal the new Lease according to Covenant 
 more at large expressed in the said Judicial decree and sentence of 
 that court, as it doth and may appeare, For which cause, and for 
 
NOTES 225 
 
 that the complainant if he had suspected, or had shewed any cause 
 of grief for any fraud or indirect practises or dealings by him sup- 
 posed to be practised, by any of the officers of your Highness' 
 Court, in drawing or entering orders contrarie to those your Counsell 
 had before pronounced or delivered by any of the other defendants, 
 as by the Complainants Bill he falsely and untruly surmises, the 
 said Honorable Court might at any time while the Bill was pending, 
 have been told by complainant and the said Council would have had 
 such faults and misdemeanours redressed and finished and justice 
 ministered in that behalf. 
 
 And for the Complainant offers great scandal and abuse to your 
 Majestie's said Councill by calling the same matter again into ques- 
 tion, and to have the said cause, after such judiciall sentence and 
 decree passed against the complainant to bring it again into court 
 to be again examined before your Majesty in this Court, wherefore, 
 and for divers other defects, faults and imperfections the defen- 
 dants demur in Law, demand the judgment of this court, and pray 
 to be dismissed with their reasonable costs. 
 
 Jo. Walter. 
 28th April 44 Eliz. (same date as above). 
 
 The answer of Richard Lane, one of the defendants to the untrue 
 and slaunderous bill of complaint of Giles Alleyn complainant. 
 
 This defendant saving to himself hereafter all advantages and 
 exceptions to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of the Bill. 
 
 For answer and plain declaration of the truth of so much as con- 
 cerneth him. 
 
 True it is there was a sute in the Court of Requests concerning 
 the stay of Alleyn's suits against Burbage in the King's Bench touch- 
 ing the Playhouse called the Theatre, commenced at Whitehall 
 by Burbage against Alleyn, this defendant then and yet acting as 
 deputy Register in the Court of Requests, did on the hearing of the 
 case, and to the best of his understanding, and with as much know- 
 ledge and diligence as he could he did attende and took such brief 
 notes of orders as from tyme to tyme by her Majesties Council 
 were pronounced in the Court, without any affection to either parties. 
 
 Amongst which, on the 31st May 42 Eliz. was the matter moved 
 in presence of Mr. Sergeant Harris and Mr. Walter, being severally of 
 Counsel learned in the Law, and agreed to by all. To the best of 
 this defendant's remembrance an order was issued that the matter 
 
 Q 
 
226 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 should be set over to be heard in the said Court on the 5th day of the 
 next term, and in the meantime the defendant should stay his suit 
 at Common Law, and no further proceed therein, And it was also 
 then further ordered that Alleyn making oath that he was not privie 
 to the said deposicions published and setting down the names of 
 the deponents he intended to examine, should be at liberty to examine 
 them until the 2nd day of the next term, and then the same to be 
 published as by a note to that effect then taken and set down in the 
 Book of Remembrance kept by the defendant appeareth, uppon 
 the copie of which note so conceived and delivered by this defendant, 
 the said John Maddox (being attorney for the said Burbage) or some 
 of his clerks, or some other on behalf of Burbage's cause did draw up 
 an order at large touching the same cause, and brought the same 
 subscribed and confirmed by one of her Majesties Councel of the 
 said Court, and brought the same to be entered into the Register's 
 Office, which was done as by the same is ready to be showed unto 
 this Court. If Maddox or any other did add or diminish anything 
 material in the words of the said notes it concerned them and their 
 oaths and credit not the defendant, who did nothing therein more 
 than he had good warrant to do as aforesaid. Further the attorneys 
 being sworne to observe orders, have for the 30 years last past to 
 the knowledge of the defendant (as so long he has served) used to 
 draw their clients' orders sworn to deal indifferently therein, and 
 not the Register as the said Allen in his said Bill hath untruly 
 alledged especially such as doe concern decrees and orders made for 
 the graunting of Injunctions for stay of proceedings at Common Law, 
 dismissions of causes, delivering out of money or delivery of writings 
 for possession . . . are usually confirmed by the hand of one of her 
 Majestie's Counsell of the Court before being entered into the Register. 
 And for thother short order, they are usually entered by the Register 
 or Deputy without any contradiction. The said Alleyn hath in his 
 Bill untruly alledged concerning the decree which the defendant 
 entered, and slanderously and untruely alleged that the said Bur- 
 bage combined with his attorney Maddox and the defendant the 
 Deputy Register and by confederacie procured John Maddox for a 
 consideracion to draw an order not appertaining to him to do but 
 unto the Register, and likewise procuring the same to be set down 
 directly contrary to that which was done and procured that the 
 said Allen should not proceed to the making of the demurrer in the 
 
NOTES 227 
 
 Bill mentioned therein, very highly abusing her Majestie's said 
 Honorable Court, and greatly injuring the said Alleyn now plaintiff. 
 
 The said defendant for plea and answer thereunto and to every 
 other matter of misdemeanour confederacie and combynacion laid 
 to his chardge in the said Bill sayeth that he is not guilty, and that 
 every other part of the Complainant's bill is untrue. 
 
 " Without that this defendant did at any time directly or indirectly 
 practise, combyne, or confederate with the said Cuthbert Burbage 
 and John Maddox or with any other about the drawing or procuring 
 the order to be entered. But did faithfully and sincerely take the 
 note of the said order as the same was pronounced." 
 
 Without that any other matter contained in the Bill concerning 
 the defendant is true All which matters this defendant is ready to 
 aver and prove, as this honorable Courte shall award, And humblie 
 prayeth to be dismissed out of the same with his costs and chardges 
 in this behalf most wrongfully had and susteyned. 
 
 Jur. 12th June 44 Eliz., per Richard Hudson. 
 17th June 44 Eliz., per Thomas Osborne. 
 
 The joynte and severall demurrers of Richard Hudson and 
 Thomas Osborne defendants. By protestation not acknowledging 
 nor confessinge anie of the matters conteyned in the said Bill that 
 they are charged with are true. 
 
 The Bill of Complaint brought against them and others is very 
 untrue, slanderous and uncertain and insufficient in Lawe to be 
 answered and they are not tied to make any answer for divers faults 
 and namelie for that the matters and supposed perjury in the said 
 Bill, in which they are charged, are so uncertainly layed, these 
 defendants cannot make any answer and the other defendants having 
 been served with a process, and having appeared and demurred 
 " which demurrer being referred by the Orders of the Court to the 
 right worshipful Francis Bacon Esquire, he uppon perusal and 
 consideration had of the said Bill of Complaint hath already re- 
 ported that the said Bill is very uncertayne and insufficient, and 
 that no further answer nedeth to be made thereto." 
 
 For which causes and for divers other matters and defects in the 
 said Bill appearing, they the said defendants do demur in Law 
 upon the said Bill and pray to be dismissed from this honorable court 
 With costs. 
 
228 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 NOTE XXII.— The players' patents, 1603. 
 
 Pro Laurentio Fletcher and William Shakespeare et aliis 1603. 
 Pat. 1, James 1, p. 2, m. 4. 
 
 " James by the grace of God, etc., to all Justices, Maiors, Sheriffs, 
 Constables, Hedboroughs, and other our Officers and loving sub- 
 jects, greetinge. 
 
 Knowe ye that Wee of our speciall grace, certaine know- 
 ledge and mere motion, have licensed and authorized and by- 
 these presentes doe licence and authorize theise our servaunts 
 Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbadge, Augus- 
 tyne Phillipps, John Hemings, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert 
 Armyn, Richard Cowley, and the rest of their associates, freely 
 to use and exercise the Arte and Faculty of playing Comedies, 
 Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Morals, Pastoralls, Stage Plaies, 
 and such others like as theie have alreadie studied or hereafter shall 
 use or studie as well for the Recreation of our lovinge Subjects, as 
 for our solace and pleasure, when Wee shall thincke good to see 
 them, duringe our Pleasure ; and the said Commedies, Tragedies, 
 Histories Enterludes, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stage playes and suche 
 like, to shewe and exercise publiquely to theire best Commoditie when 
 the Infection of the Plague shall decrease, as well within theire now 
 usuell House called the Globe within our Countie of Surrey, as also 
 within anie Toune Halls or Moute Halls, or other convenient Places 
 within the Liberties, and Freedom of anie other Cittie, Universitie 
 Town or Boroughe whatsoever, within our said Reahnes and 
 Dominions. 
 
 Willing and commanding you and everie of you, as you tender our 
 Pleasure, not onelie to permit and suffer them therein, without anie 
 your Letts, Hindrances or Molestations, during our said Pleasure, 
 but also to be aiding and assistinge to them if anie Wrong be to them 
 offered, and to allow them such former curtesies as hath been given 
 to men of their place and qualitie ; and also what farther Favour 
 you shall shewe to theise our Servaunts for our sake Wee shall take 
 kindlie at your handes. 
 
 In witnesse whereof, etc. 
 Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the nyneteenth daye of May 
 
 Per Breve de Privato Sigillo. 
 
NOTES 229 
 
 The Players' Patent, 1619. 
 James to all Justices, Mayors, Sheriffs, etc. 
 
 Knowe yee that wee of our speciall grace, certaine knowledge and 
 meere mocion, have lycensed and authorized, and by theis presents 
 doe lycense and authoryze theis our welbeloved Servants John Hem- 
 mings, Richard Burbadge, Henry Condall, John Lowen, Nicholas 
 Tooley, John Underwood, Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, Robert 
 Gough, William Ecclestone, Richard Robinson, and John Shancks 
 and the rest of their associates, freely to use and exercise the Art 
 and facultie of playing &c. 
 
 In witness whereof, etc. Signed, Pembroke, 
 
 27th March, 1619. 
 
 Endorsed by Windebanck. 
 
 Sign. Man., vol. 8, 56, No. 1. 
 
 The Confirmation of their patent by Charles is in practically the 
 same words, though some of the names of the " fellows " are new. 
 
 " John Hemmings, Henry Condall, John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, 
 Richard Robinson, Robert Benfield, John Shanck, William Rowley, 
 John Rich (or Rice) Elliart Swanston, George Birch, Richard Sharpc, 
 and Thomas Pollard." 
 
 Pat. I, Car. I, n. 5. 24th June, 1625. 
 
 NOTE XXIII. — The Actors in Shakespeare's Plays. 
 
 The List of the Chief actors in Shakespeare's Plays taken from the 
 list in first folio, classified and approximately dated. New Shake- 
 speare Society, Transactions, 1886. 
 Armin Robert, dead by 1615. 
 Benfield Robert, last heard of 1647. 
 Bryan George, 1600. 
 Burbage Richard, bur. 16th March, 1619. 
 Condell Henry, bur. 29th Sept., 1627. 
 Cooke Alexander, bur. 25th Feb., 1614. 
 Cowley Richard, bur. 12th March, 1619. 
 Crosse Samuell, alive 1612. 
 Eccleston William, alive 1622, bur. 1652 ? 
 Field Nathan, bur. 20th Feb., 1633. 
 Gilburne Samuel, after 1605. 
 Goughe Robert, bur. 19th Feb., 1625. 
 Hemings John, bur. 12th Oct., 1630. 
 
2 3 o BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Kempe William, d. before 1609. 
 Lowen John, bur. 18th March, 1659. 
 Ostler William, d. (1615). 
 Phillipps Augustine, d. May, 1605. 
 Pope Thomas, 1603-4. 
 Rice John, after 1622. 
 Robinson Richard, 23rd March, 1647. 
 Shakespeare William, bur. 23rd April, 1616. 
 Shancke John, bur. 27th Jan., 1635. 
 Slye William, bur. 16th Aug., 1608. 
 Taylor Joseph, (?) 1653. 
 Tooley Nicholas, bur. 5th June, 1623. 
 Underwood John, 1624-5. 
 See p. 136. 
 
 NOTE XXIV. — The Complaint of the Young Players against 
 
 the Old. 
 Lord Chamberlain's Books, Class V, vol. 94, p. 45. 
 Petition — 
 
 To Ye Right Honourable Philip Earle of Pembroke and Mont- 
 gomery, Lord Chamberlaine of his Majestie's Houshold. 
 
 Robert Benefield, Heliard Swanston, and Thomas Pollard 
 humbly represent their grievances, ymploring his Lordships noble 
 favor towards them for their reliefe. 
 
 That the petitioners have a long time with much patience, ex- 
 pected to bee admitted Sharers in ye Playhouses of the Globe and 
 the Blackfriers wherby they might reape some better fruit of their 
 labours then hitherto they have done, and bee encouraged to proceed 
 therein with cheerfulness. 
 
 That those few, interested in ye Houses have (without any defalca- 
 tion or abatement at all) a full moyety of the whole gaines arising 
 therby, except the outer dores. And such of the said housekeepers 
 as bee Actors doe likewise equally share with all the rest of the 
 Actors both in the other moiety and in the sayd outer dores also. 
 
 That out of the Actors Moiety, there is notwithstanding, defrayed 
 all wages to hired men, Apparel, Poetes, lightes, and other charges of 
 the Houses whatsoever, soe that between the gaynes of the Actors, 
 and of those few interested as Housekeepers, there is an unreason- 
 able inequality. 
 
NOTES 
 
 231 
 
 That the House of the Globe was formerly divided into 16 partes, 
 whereof Mr. Cutbert Burbidge and his sisters had 8, Mrs. Condell 4, 
 and Mr. Hemings 4. 
 
 That Mr. Tailor and Mr. Lowen were long since admitted to pur- 
 chase 4 partes betwixt them from the rest (viz.), 1 part from Mr. 
 Hemings, 2 partes from Mrs. Condell, and half a part a piece from 
 Mr. Burbidge and his sister. 
 
 That the 3 partes remaining to Mr. Hemings were afterwards, by 
 Mr. Shankes, surreptitiously purchased from him, contrary to the 
 petitioners' expectation who hoped that when any partes had beene 
 to bee sold they should have beene admitted to have bought and 
 divided the same amongst themselves for their better livelyhood. 
 
 That the petitioners desire not to purchase or diminish any part 
 of Mr. Taylor's or Mr. Lowen's shares (whose deservings they must 
 acknowledge to bee well worthy of their gaines), But in regard 
 the peticioners labours (according to their severall wages and 
 abilityes) are equall to some of the rest, and for that others of the 
 sayd Houskeepers are neither Actors, nor His Majestie's servants, 
 and yet the peticioners profit and meanes of livelyhood soe much 
 inferior and unequall to theirs, as appeares before, They therefore 
 desire that they may be admitted to purchase for theire moneys, at 
 such rates as have beene formerly given, single partes a peece, only 
 from those that have the greatest shares, and may best spare them 
 (vizt.) that Mr. Burbadge and his sister having 3 partes and a halfe a 
 peece may sell them two parts, and reserve two and a halfe a peece 
 to themselves, And that Mr. Shankes having three may sell them one 
 and reserve two, wherin they hope your Lordship will conceave their 
 desires to be just and modest ; the rather for that the peticioners, 
 not doubting of beeing admitted sharers in the sayd house The Globe, 
 suffered lately the sayd Houskeepers, in the name of His Majesty's 
 servants, to sue and obtaine a decree in the Court of Requests against 
 Sir Matthew Brand, for confirmation of a lease paroll for about 9 or 
 10 years yet to come, which they could otherwise have prevented, 
 until themselves had been made parties. 
 
 That for the House in the Blackfriers, it being divided into 8 partes 
 amongst the aforenamed Housekeepers and Mr. Shankes having 
 two partes thereof, Mr. Lowen, Mr. Taylor and each of the rest having 
 but one part a peece which two parts were by the said Mr. Shankes 
 purchased of Mr. Heming together with those 3 of the Globe as 
 
232 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 before, the peticioners desire and hope that your Lordship will con- 
 ceave it likewise reasonable, that the sayd Mr. Shanks may assign 
 over one of the sayd parts amongst them three, they yielding him 
 such satisfaccion for the same as that hee bee noe looser thereby. 
 
 Lastly, that your Lordship would to that purpose bee nobly 
 pleased, as their onely gracious refuge and protector, to call all the 
 said housekeepers before you and to use your Lordship's power with 
 them to conforme themselves therunto, the rather considering that 
 some of the sayd Housekeepers, who have the greatest shares, are 
 neither Actors nor his Majesty's servantes as aforesaid, and yet reape 
 most, or the chiefest benefitt of the sweat of their browes, and live 
 upon the bread of their labours, without taking any paynes them- 
 selves. 
 
 For which your peticioners shall have cause to bless your Lordship, 
 as however, they are dayly bound to do with the devotions of most 
 humble obliged Beadsmen. 
 
 H CondeU 2 ^ 
 .S Shankes 3 
 <S Taylor 2 
 
 j^ Lowen 2 
 
 ;2 Burbadge 3%) of a lease of 9 years (i ha ? k * 2 
 <2 Robinson 3 V i™™ ^dy Day last g Burbadge 1 
 
 1635 >> j Robinson 1 
 
 Not yet confirmed | VTaylor 1 
 
 by Sir Matthew Brand £ J^™, 1 
 
 to be taken to feoffees ffl 1„ , X 
 
 (.Underwood 
 
 From the Court at Theobalds, 12th July, 1635. 
 
 Haveing considered this petition and the severall answeres and 
 replyes of ye parties, the merites of the petitioners and the dispro- 
 portion of their shares, and the interest of his Majesties service, I 
 have thought fitt and doe accordingly order that the peticioners 
 Robert Benefield, Eyllardt Swanston, and Thomas Pollard bee each 
 of them admitted to ye purchase of the shares desired of the severall 
 persons mentioned in ye petition for the fower yeares remayning of 
 the Lease of the House in Blackfriers, and for five years in that of 
 the Globe, at the usuall and accustomed rates, and according to 
 ye proportion of the time and benefitt they are to injoy, and heereof 
 I desire the Housekeepers and all others whome it may concerne to 
 take notice and to conforme themselves therein accordingley. 
 
 The which, if they or any of them, refuse or delay to performe if 
 they are Actors and His Majesties servants I doe suspend them from 
 
NOTES 233 
 
 the stage, and all the benefitt thereof, and if they are only interested 
 in ye Houses, I desire my Lord Privy Seale to take order that they 
 may bee left out of the Lease, which is to bee made upon the Decree 
 of the Court of Requests. 
 
 P. and M. [i.e. Pembroke and Montgomery. .] 
 
 Robert Benefield, Eyllardt Swanston and Thomas Pollard doe 
 further humbly represent unto your Lordship — 
 
 That the Housekeepers being but six in number (vizt.) Mr. Cut- 
 bert Burbage, Mrs. Condall, Mr. Shankes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lowen 
 and Mr. Robinson (in ye right of his wife) have amongst them the 
 full moiety of all the Galleries and Boxes in both houses, and of the 
 tireing house door at ye Globe. 
 
 That the Actors have the other Moyety with the outer dores, but 
 in regard the Actors are halfe as many more (vizt.) nine in number, 
 their shares fall shorter, and are a great deal lesse then the House- 
 keepers; And yet notwithstanding out of those lesser shares the 
 sayd Actors defray all charges of the House whatsoever (vizt.) wages 
 to hired men and boyes, musicke, lightes, etc., amounting to £900 
 or £1,000 per annum or thereabouts, being £3 a day one day with 
 another, besides the extraordinary charges which the said Actors 
 are wholly at for apparell and Poetes, etc. 
 
 Whereas the said Housekeepers, out of all their gaines have not 
 till our Lady Day last payed above £65 per annum rent for both 
 houses, towards which they rayse between £20 and £30 per annum 
 from the Taphouses and a Tenement and a garden belonging to the 
 premises, etc., and are at noe other charges whatsoever, except the 
 ordinary reparations of the houses. 
 
 Soe that upon a medium made of the gaynes of the Housekeepers 
 and those of the Actors, one day with another throughout the yeere, 
 the petitioners will make it apparent that when some of the House- 
 keepers share 12s. a day at ye Globe, £he actors share not above 3s. 
 And then what those gaine that are both Actors and Housekeepers, 
 and have their shares in both, your Lordship will easily iudge and 
 thereby finde the modesty of the petitioners' suite, who desire only to 
 buy for their money one part a peece from such three of the House- 
 keepers as are fittest to spare them, both in respect of desert and 
 otherwise (vizt.), Mr. Shankes one part of his three, Mr. Robinson 
 and his wife one part of their three and a half, and Mr. Cuthbert 
 
234 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Burbage the like. And for the House of the Blackfriers, that Mr. 
 Shankes, who now inioyes two partes there may sell them likewise 
 one, to bee divided amongst them three. 
 
 Humbly beseechyng your Lordship to consider their long sufferings 
 and not to permit the said Housekeepers any longer to delay them 
 but to put an end to and settle the sayd business, that yr peticioners 
 may not bee any further troublesome or importunate to your Lord- 
 ship, but may proceede to doe their duty with cheerfulness and 
 alacrity. 
 
 Or otherwise in case of their refusall to conforme themselves that 
 your Lordship would bee pleased to consider whether it bee not rea- 
 sonable and equitable that the Actors in generall may inioy the benefit 
 of both houses to themselves, paying the sayd Housekeepers such a 
 valuable rent for the same as your Lordship shall think iust and 
 indifferent. 
 
 And ye peticioners shall continue their dayly 
 prayers for your Lordship's prosperity and 
 happiness. 
 
 The answere of John Shankes to ye Peticion of Robert Benfield, 
 Eyllardt Swanston and Thomas Pollard lately exhibited to the 
 Right Hon. Philip Earle of Pembroke and Montgomery, Lord 
 Chamberlain of his Majestie's household 
 Humbly sheweth — 
 
 That about almost 2 yeares since your suppliant, upon offer to him 
 made by William Hemings, did buy of him one part that he had in 
 the Blackfriars for about 6 yeares then to come, at the yerely rent 
 of £6 5s., and another part hee then had in ye Globe for about 2 
 yeares to come, and payd him for the same two parts in ready money 
 £156 ; which sayd partes were offered to your suppliant, and were 
 as free then for any other to buy as for your suppliant. 
 
 That about 11 months since, the said William Heming, offering 
 to sell unto your suppliant the remaining parts, hee then had (viz.) 
 one in the Blackfriars, wherein he had then about 5 yeares to come 
 and 2 in the Globe wherein he had but one yere to come. 
 
 Your suppliant likewise bought the same and payd for them in 
 ready moneys more £350. All which moneys soe disbursed by your 
 suppliant amount to £506, the greatest part whereof your suppliant 
 was constrayned to take up at interest and your suppliant hath 
 
NOTES 235 
 
 besides disbursed to the said William Hemings diverse other small 
 somes of money since he was in prison. 
 
 That your suppliant did neither fraudulently nor surreptitiously 
 defeat any of the petitioners in their hope of buying the said parts, 
 neither would the said William Hemings have sold the same to any 
 of the petitioners, for that they would not have given him any such 
 price for the same, but would (as now they endeavour to doo) have 
 had the same against his will and at what rates they pleased. 
 
 That your suppliant, being an old man in this quality, who in his 
 youth first served your noble father and after that the Queen Eliza- 
 beth, then King James, and now his Royal Majesty and having in 
 this long time made noe provision for himself in his old age, nor for 
 his wife, children and grandchild for his and their better livelyhood, 
 having this opportunity, did at deere rates purchase these partes, 
 and hath, for a very small time as yet receaved the profits thereof, 
 and hath but a short time in them, and is without any hope to renew 
 the same, when the termes bee out, hee therefore hopeth hee shall not 
 bee hindred in ye inioying the profitt thereof, especially when as the 
 same are thinges very casuall, and subject to bee discontinued and 
 lost by sickness and diverse other wayes, and to yield no profit at all. 
 
 That whereas the petitioners in their complaint say that they have 
 not meanes to subsist, it shall by oath (if need bee) bee made appar- 
 ent that every one of the three petitioners, for his own particular, 
 hath gotten and receaved this yeare last past of the sum of £180, 
 which, as your suppliant conceaveth, is a very sufficient meanes to 
 satisfie and answere their long and patient expectation, and is more, 
 by above the one half than any of them ever gott, or were capable 
 of elsewhere, besides what Mr. Swanston, one of them who is most 
 violent in this business, who hath further had and receaved this 
 last yeer about £34 for the profit of a third part of one part in the 
 Blackfriers, which hee bought for £20, and yet hath inioyed the 
 same 2 or 3 yeers allready, and both still, as long time in ye same as 
 your suppliant hath in his, who, for soe much as Mr. Swanston 
 bought for £20, your suppliant paid £60. 
 
 That when your suppliant purchased his partes he had noe cer- 
 tainty thereof more than for one yeer in the Globe and there was a 
 chargeable suit then depending in the Court of Requestes between Sir 
 Matthew Brend Knt., and the lessees of the Globe and their assignes, 
 for the adding of nine years to their lease, in consideration that they 
 
236 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 and their predecessors had formerly been at the charge of £1,400 in 
 building of the sayd house upon the burning downe of the former, 
 wherein if they should miscarry, for as yet they have not the assur- 
 ance perfected by Sir Matthew Brend your suppliant shall lay out his 
 money to such a losse as the peticioners will never be partners with 
 him therein. 
 
 That your suppliante and other the lessees in ye Globe, and in the 
 Blackfriers, are chargeable with the payment of £100 yearely rent 
 besides reparacions, which is daily very chargeable unto them, all 
 which they must pay and beare whether they make any proffytt or 
 not, and soe reckoning their charge in building and fitting the sayd 
 houses yeerly and reparations, noe wise man will adventure his 
 estate in such a course, considering their dealing, with whome they 
 have to doe, and the many casualties and dayly troubles therewith 
 that in all the affayres and dealinges in this world between man and 
 man it was and is ever held an inviolable principle that in what thing 
 soe ever any man hath a lawfull interest and property, hee is not 
 to bee compelled to depart with the same against his will, which the 
 complainantes endeavour. And whereas John Hemings, the father of 
 William Hemings, of whom your suppliant made purchase of the 
 sayd parts inioyed the same 30 years without any molestation, being 
 the most of the said yeers both Player and Housekeeper and, after 
 hee gave over playing diverse yeers, and his son William Hemings 
 foure yeeres after, though hee never had anything to doe with the 
 stage, inioyed the same withoutt any trouble, notwithstanding the 
 complainants would violently take from your petitioner the sayd 
 parts who hath still of his owne purse supplyed the Company for the 
 service of his Majestie with boyes, as Thomas Pollard, John Thomp- 
 son deceased (for whom hee payd £40) your suppliant having payd 
 his part of £200 for other boyes since his coming to ye company, John 
 Honiman, Thomas Holcome, and diverse others, and at this time 
 maintains 3 more for the said service. Neither lyeth it in ye power 
 of your suppliant to satisfie the unreasonable demandes of the com- 
 plainants, hee being forced to make over the sayd partes for security 
 of moneys taken up as aforesaid of Robert Morecroft of Lincoln his 
 wife's uncle, for the purchase of the sayd parts, untill hee hath made 
 payment of the sayd moneys which hee is not able to doe unless he 
 be suffered to inioye the sayd parts during the small time of his lease, 
 and is like to bee undone if they are taken from him. 
 
NOTES 237 
 
 All which, being considered your suppliant hopeth that your Lord- 
 ship will not inforce your suppliant, against his will to departe with 
 what is his owne, and what hee hath deerely payd for unto them that 
 can claime noe lawfull interest thereunto. And your suppliant 
 (under your Lordship's favour) doth conceave that if the peti- 
 tioners by those their violent courses may obtaine their desires, your 
 Lordship will never bee at quiet, for their daily complaints, and it 
 will be such a president to all young men that shall follow hereafter 
 that they shall allwayes refuse to doe his Majesty's service, unless 
 they may have whatsoever they will though it bee other men's 
 estates, and soe that which they pretend shall tend to the better 
 government of the Company, and inabling them to doe his Majesty's 
 service, the same will bee rather to the distruccion of the company 
 and disabling them to doe service to his Majesty. And besydes the 
 benefitt and profitt which the petitioners doe yearly make without 
 any charge at all is soe good, that they may account themselves to 
 bee well recompensed for their labours and paines, and yet when any 
 partes are to be sould, they may buy the same if they can gett the 
 bargaine thereof, paying for the same as others doe. 
 
 The humble suite of your suppliant is that your honour will be 
 pleased that hee may inioy that which hee hath deerly bought and 
 truly payd for, and your suppliant (as in duty hee is bound) shall 
 ever pray for your Lordship. 
 
 To the Rt. Honorable Philip, Earle of Pembroke and Montgomery, 
 Lord Chamberlaine of His Majesties Household. 
 
 Right Honourable, and our singular good Lord, Wee your humble 
 suppliants, Cutbert Burbage, and Winifred his brother's wife, and 
 William his sonne, doe tender to your honorable consideration for 
 what respectes and good reasons wee ought not in all charity to bee 
 disabled of our livelyhoode by men soe soone shott up, since it hath 
 beene the custom that they should come to it by farre more antiquity 
 and desert, then these can justly attribute to themselves. 
 
 And first, humbly shewing to your Honour the infinite charges, 
 the manifold lawsuites, the lease's expiration, by the restraintes in 
 sickness times and other accidentes, that did cutt from them the best 
 part of the gaines that your Honor is informed they have received. 
 
 The father of us, Cutbert and Richard Burbage, was the first 
 builder of Playhouses and was himself in his younger yeres a Player. 
 The Theater hee built with many hundred pounds taken up at inter- 
 
238 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 est ; the Players that lived in these first times had only the profits 
 arising from the dores, but now the players receve also the cominge 
 in at the dores to themselves, and halfe the galleries from the 
 Housekeepers. Hee built this house upon leased grounds, by which 
 meanes the Landlord and hee had a greate suite in law, and by his 
 death, the like troubles fell on us his sonnes. We then bethought us 
 of altering from thence, and at like expense built the Globe, with 
 more summes of money taken up at interest, which lay heavy on us 
 many yeares, and to ourselves we joined those deserving men Shake- 
 spere, Hemings, Condall, Phillipps and others, partners in ye profitts 
 of that they call the House, but making the leases for 21 yeares hath 
 been the destruction of ourselves and others, for they dying at the 
 expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres be- 
 came dissolved to strangers, as by marrying with their widdowes 
 and the like by their children. 
 
 Thus Rt. Honorable, as concerning the Globe, where we ourselves 
 are but lessees. Now for the Blackfriars, that is our inheritance, our 
 father purchased it at extreame rates, and made it into a playhouse 
 with great charge and troble, which after was leased out to one 
 Evans that first sett up the Boyes, commonly called the Queen's 
 Majesties children of the Chappell. In processe of time, the boyes 
 growing up to bee men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler and 
 were taken to strengthen the King's service, and the more to 
 strengthen the service, the boyes daily wearing out, it was considered 
 that house would bee as fitt for ourselves and soe purchased the lease 
 remaining from Evans with our money and placed men players which 
 were Hemings, Condell, Shakespeare, etc. And Richard Burbage, 
 who for 35 yeares pains, cost and labour, made meanes to leave his 
 wife and children some estate (and out of whose estate soe many of 
 other Players and their families have been mayntained) these new 
 men that were never bred from children in the King's service, would 
 take away with oathes and menaces that wee shall bee forced, and 
 that they will not thank us for it, soe that it seems they would not 
 pay us for what they would have, or wee can spare, which, more to 
 satisfy your honor then their threatening pride we are for ourselves 
 willing to part with a part between us, they paying according as ever 
 hath beene ye customary number of yeeres the lease is made for. 
 
 Then to shew Your Honour against their sayinges that wee eat the 
 fruit of their labours, wee referre it to your Honour's judgment to 
 
NOTES 239 
 
 consider their profitts, which wee may safely maintain, for it appear- 
 eth by their owne Accomptes for one whole year last past beginning 
 from Whitson Munday 1634 to Whitson Munday 1635, each of 
 these complainants gained severally, as he was a player and noe 
 Housekeeper £180. Besides Mr. Swanston hath receaved from the 
 Blackfriers this yeare as he is there a Housekeeper, above £30, all 
 which accompted together may very well keepe him from starving. 
 Wherefore your honours most humble suppliants intreate they may 
 not further bee trampled upon then their estates can beare, seeing 
 how dearly it hath been purchased by the infinite cost and paynes 
 of the family of the Burbages, and the great desert of Richard Bur- 
 bage for his quality of playing that his wife should not starve in 
 her old age, submitting ourselves to part with one part to them for 
 valuable consideracion, and let them seeke further satisfaction else- 
 where, (that is) of the heires or assigns of Mr. Heming and Mr. Con- 
 dall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for nothing, it is only wee 
 that suffer continually. 
 
 Therefore humbly relying upon your Honour's Charity in dismiss- 
 ing their clamour against us, we shall as we are in duty bound still 
 pray for the dayly increase of yor honor health and happiness. 
 
 John Shankes. 
 A petition of John Shankes to my Lord Chamberlain shewing that 
 according to his Lordship's order, he did make a proposition to his 
 fellows for satisfaccion upon his assigning of his partes in ye several 
 houses unto them but they not only refuse to give satisfaccion but 
 restrain him from the Stage, that therefore his Lordship would order 
 them to give satisfaction according to his propositions and computa- 
 tion of 
 
 M d . all concerning \ Answered. Vizt., I desire Sir Henry 
 
 this and here entered > Herbert and Sir John Finett, and 
 
 were delivered annexed. J my solliciter Daniell Bedingfield 
 to take this petition and the several papers herewith annexed into 
 their various considerations and to speake with the severall parties 
 interested and thereupon and upon the whole matter to sette down a 
 proportionall and equitable summe of money to bee payde unto 
 Shankes for the two parts which he is to passe unto Benfield, Swan- 
 ston and Pollard, and to cause a finall agreement and conveyance 
 to be 'settled accordingly [and to give mee an account of their 
 whole proceedings in writing, 1st August, 1635. (P. and M.) 
 
240 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 (These are published in Halliwell's Outlines, all but the table, 
 but of course without reference to the original copy which I give, 
 after having spent many weeks searching for it among the Lord 
 Chamberlain's books, before they were fully catalogued. And this 
 case had never been asked for. I print them in the order they 
 occur, which is not, I think, the correct order. See p. 133. 
 
 NOTE XXV. — Unpublished Records from Privy Council Register. 
 
 The register during the reign of Elizabeth has been printed. The 
 succeeding records were destroyed by the fire in Whitehall from the 
 beginning of the reign of James I till 1613. 
 
 The earliest reference to the King's players is on 29th March, 
 1615 : " Warrant to John Sentie Messenger of his Majesties Cham- 
 ber. . . . Whereas John Hemming, Richard Burbage, . . . with 
 other Stage Players . . . have presumed, notwithstanding the com- 
 mandment of the Lord Chamberlain, signified unto them by the 
 Master of the Revels, to play this prohibited time of Lent, These 
 are therefore to will and command you to make your repayre unto 
 the persons abovenamed to charge them in his Majesties name to 
 make their appearance here before us of his Majesties Privie Coun- 
 cell on Friday next at 8 of the Clock in the forenoone, without any 
 excuse or delay. And in the meantime, that neither they, nor the 
 rest of their company presume to present any playes or interludes, 
 as they will answer the contrary at their perils." 
 
 " 21st August, 1624, To Mr. Secretary Conway. 
 
 "According to his Majestie's pleasure signified to this Board by 
 your letter of the 12th of August, touching the suppressing of a 
 scandalous comedie, acted by the King's Players. We have called 
 before us some of the principal actors and demanded of them by 
 what licence and authoritie they have presumed to act the same, in 
 answer whereunto they produced a booke, being an originall and 
 perfect copie thereof (as they affirmed) seene and allowed by Sir 
 Henry Herbert, Knight, M r . of the Revells, under his own hande 
 subscribed in the last page of the said booke. Wee demanding 
 further whether there were noe other partes or passages represented 
 on the stage then those expressly contained in the booke, they 
 confidently protested they added or varied from the same nothing 
 at all. The poett they tell us is one Middleton who, shifting out 
 of the way, and not attending the board with the rest, as was ex- 
 
NOTES 241 
 
 pected, wee have given Warrant to a Messenger, for the apprehension 
 of him. To those that were before us wee gave a round and sharp 
 reproof, making them sensible of his Majestie's high displeasure 
 therein, giving them straight charge and command, that they pre- 
 sume not to acte the said comedie any more, nor that they suffer anie 
 plaie or enterlude whatsoever to be acted by them, untill his Majesty's 
 pleasure be further known. Wee have caused them likewise to enter 
 into bonds for their attendance upon the board, whensoever they 
 shall be called. As for our certifying to his Majestie (as was inti- 
 mated by your letter) what passages in the said comedie we should 
 finde to be offensive and scandalous, wee have thought it our duties 
 for his Majestie's clearer informacion to send herewithall the booke 
 itself subscribed as aforesaid by the Master of the Revells, that soe, 
 either yourself or some other whom his Majestie shall appoint to 
 peruse the same may see the passages themselves out of the originall, 
 and calling Sir Henry Herbert before you to know a reason of his 
 licensing thereof, who (as we are now given to understand) is now 
 attending at Court. So having done as much as wee conceived 
 agreeable with our duties in conformitie to his Majestie's Royal 
 Commandments, and that which we hope will give him full satisfac- 
 tion, wee shall continue our humble prayers, etc." 
 
 August 27th, 1624. A warrant directed to Robert Goffe, one 
 of the Messengers of his Majestie's Chamber, to bring one Middleton 
 sonne to Middleton the poett before their Lordships to answer, etc. 
 
 " August 30, 1624, This daie Edward Middleton of London, gent, 
 being formerly sent for by warrant from the Board, tendered his 
 appearance, wherefore his indemnity is here entered into the Regis- 
 ter of Counsell Causes, nevertheless he is enjoyned to attend the Board 
 till he is discharged by order from their Lordships." 
 
 " 17th May, 1626. Letter to the Justices of Peace of the Countie 
 of Surrey, whereas we are informed, that on Thursday next, divers 
 loose and idle persons, some saylors and others, have appointed 
 to meete at the Playhouse called The Globe to see a play (as it is pre- 
 tended) but their end is thereby to disguise some routous and riotous 
 action, we have therefore thought fit to give you notice of the infor- 
 mation which wee have received concerning this their purpose, and 
 doe likewise hereby will and require you to take very careful and 
 strict order, that no play be acted on that day, and also to have that 
 strength about you, as you shall think sufficient for the suppressing 
 
 R 
 
242 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 of any insolencies or other mutinous intentions that you shall per- 
 ceave, and to take with you the under Sheriff of that County for 
 the further assisting of you, if there be cause. And so, not doubting 
 of your care therein, etc." 
 
 (They also write to the Lord Mayor in similar strain.) 
 " 14th April, 1630. All Stage plays stopped because of the Plague." 
 " 10th May, 1636, Order. His Majestie being this day present that 
 the Lord Chambelain of his Majestie's Household should be hereby 
 prayed and required to cause all Stage Playes, Enterludes, Showes 
 and Spectacles whatsoever to be forthwith suppressed until further 
 notice (because of the Plague)." 
 
 " 17th Sept., 1637. His Majesty's servants ye Players having by 
 reason of the Infection of the Plague in and neare London, been for 
 a long time restrained, and having now spent what they got in 
 many years before, and soe not able any longer to subsist and 
 maintain their families, did by their petition to his Majesty most 
 humbly desire leave to be now at libertye to use their quality. 
 
 It was thereupon ordered, his Majestie present in Councell that 
 the said Actors should be at libertie to practice at Michaelmas next, 
 if by that time there be not considerable increase of the sickness, or 
 that there dye not of the Infection in and about London, more than 
 there dyed last week." 
 
 The commencement of the Civil War closes the records of the 
 Privy Council about 1640. 
 
 NOTE XXVI.— The Censorship of Plays. 
 
 The Privy Council at the Star Chamber, 12th Nov., 1589. 
 A letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, that whereas 
 there hathe growne some inconvenience by comon playes and enter- 
 ludes in and about the Cittie of London, in that the players take 
 uppon them to handle in their plaies certen matters of Divinytie 
 and of State unfitt to be suffered, for redresse whereof their Lordships 
 have thought good to appointe some persones of judgement and 
 understanding to viewe and examine their playes before they be 
 permitted to present them publickly. His Lordshipp is desired 
 that some fytt persone, well learned in Divinity be appointed by 
 him to joyne with the Master of the Revells and one other to be 
 nominated by the Lord Mayour, and they joyntly with some spede 
 to viewe and consider of such comedyes and tragedyes as are and 
 
NOTES 243 
 
 shalbe publickly played by the companies of players in and aboute 
 the Cyttie of London, and they to geve allowance of suche as they 
 shall thincke meete to be plaied and to forbidd the rest. 
 
 A Letter to the Lord Mayor with a similar instruction. 
 
 A Letter to the Master of the Revels on the same subject, continu- 
 ing, " and to call before them the severall companies of players 
 (whose servauntes souever they be) and to require them by authory- 
 tie hereof to delyver unto them their bookes, that they may con- 
 sider of the matters of their comedies and tragedyes, and thereuppon 
 to stryke oute or reforme suche partes and matters as they shall 
 fynd unfytt, and undecent to be handled in playes, both for Div'ini- 
 tie and State, comanding the said companies of players, in her 
 Majestie's name, that they forbeare to present and playe publickly 
 anie comedy or tragedy other then suche as they three shall have 
 seene and allowed, which if they shall not observe, they shall then 
 know from their Lordshippes that they shalbe not onely sevearely 
 punished but made (in) capable of the exercise of their profession 
 forever hereafter. See p. 52. 
 
 NOTE XXVII.— Burbageana. 
 
 (1) At the Council Meeting on 16th November, 1576, " a licence 
 was given to one Burbaige to arrest such shippes and goods as 
 should come from Brest and Conquest, for the recompense of such 
 damages as he had sustained by them." I should not have noted 
 this, but that, for the first time, in the accounts of the year before 
 there is the reference to " Burbage and his players " without a 
 Christian name. It is possible James had ordered some of his 
 supplies from Brest and Conquest, seeing he was building his 
 theatre that very year. But there were other prosperous Burbages 
 tradesmen in London. 
 
 The Privy Council of July 30th, 1581, refers to a Ninion Burbage, 
 Keeper of Northallerton House, a seat of the Bishop of Durham. 
 
 (2) Francis Bacon had a case in Chancery against a William 
 Burbage, about property left to his brother Anthony Bacon. 
 See Chancery D. & 0., Book 1590, 32-33 Eliz. f. 533, 621, 626, 
 684, 691. 
 
 (3) " Tarlton's news out of Purgatorie," published about 1590, 
 speaks of one " who would needs to The Theatre to a play, where 
 when I came, I found such concourse of unruly people, that I thought 
 
244 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 it better solitary to walk in the fields than to intermeddle myself 
 amongst such a great presse." 
 
 (4) Sir George More conveyed to James Burbage's sons Cuthbert 
 and Richard, property adjoining the Blackfriars Theatre. Inden- 
 ture 20th June, 1601. Appendix to 7th Report Hist. Man. Com., 
 
 P- 597- 
 
 (5) The gossip concerning Burbage and Shakespeare preserved 
 in John Manningham's Diary has always been read in an evil sense. 
 This is not necessary, nor probable. It was frequently noted that the 
 rich citizens' wives invited the actors to go home for supper with 
 them, and to rehearse some of their parts. There would not have 
 been the publicity described had there been any evil meaning in the 
 incident. The joke lay in the names of the plays " William the 
 Conqueror came before Richard the Third." Shak. Soc. Publications 
 Manningham's Diary, p. 39. 13th March, 1601. 
 
 (6) In regard to the Players and the Royal Procession we may 
 find in MS. 34, 218, Brit. Mus. f. 31b, " A list of the King's Majesties 
 proceedings through London on the 15th March." The " Gentle- 
 men and Esquires, the King's servants " are put first. Would 
 not the Players, as Grooms of the Chamber come then. 
 
 (7) There is only one poem which connects Burbage with Shake- 
 speare as an actor, written by their friend John Davies of Hereford, 
 in his " Microcosmos. The discovery of the little World," etc. 1603. 
 
 " To W. S. and R. B. 
 Players, I love you and your quality 
 As you are men that pass time not abused, 
 Simonides saith And some I love for painting poesy 
 
 poetry is a speak- . , , ., _ c ° L J 
 
 tag painting. And say tell fortune cannot be excused 
 
 That hath for better uses you refused ; 
 Wit, Courage, good shape, good parts and all good. 
 As long as all these goods are no worse used ; 
 And though the stage doth stain pure gentle blood, 
 Yet generous ye are in minde and mood . . 
 
 Stage-plaiers. Some followed her by acting all men's parts. 
 
 These on a stage she raised in scorn to fall 
 And them mirrors by their acting parts 
 Wherein men saw their faults though ne'er so small, 
 
 W.S. and R.B. Yet some she guerdoned not to their deserts, 
 But other some were but ill action all 
 Who, while they acted ill, ill stayed behind 
 By custom of their manners, in their mind. 
 
 (From "The Civil Warres of Death and Fortune.") 
 
NOTES 245 
 
 (8) Chamberlain writes to Carleton : " Lord Coke and his Lady 
 have great wars. At the council table she declaimed so bitterly 
 against him, it was said that Burbage could not have acted better." 
 Dom. Ser. St. Pap. James I, 92 (42). 
 
 (9) Ben Jonson in "Bartholomew Fair" (v. 3) refers to Richard 
 Burbage as " Your best actor." 
 
 (10) And in his " Masque of Christmas," 1616 he introduces Venus 
 as a deaf tirewoman seeking her son Cupid. 
 
 " Venus. Ay forsooth, he'll say his part, I warrant him, as well 
 as e'er a play-boy of 'em all ; I could ha' had money enough for him, 
 an I would have been tempted, and ha' let h m out by the week, 
 to the King's Players. Master Burbage has been about and about 
 with me, and so has old Master Hemmings too, they ha' need of 
 him." 
 
 (n) Sir Thomas Overbury speaks of Burbage in " The character 
 of an excellent actor," 1616. 
 
 (12) Webster writes an Induction to Marston's " Malevole," in 
 which he brings on the stage the King's Players by their own names, 
 to explain why they are performing a play that belongs to another 
 company. Therein Richard Burbage hurries off, as he has to take 
 the part of " Malevole " in the play which follows. 
 
 (13) When Richard Burbage died the Churchwardens of St. 
 Saviour's recorded in their books, " Mr. Burbage died, 1618." 
 
 (14) In Middleton's epitaph upon Burbage there is an allusion 
 to the Comet that " foretold " the Queen's death and also in another 
 elegy. The King himself writes the following elegy upon his wife. 
 
 Upon Queene Ann by King James. 
 
 Thee to invite ye Great God sent a starr 
 
 Whose friends and nearest kinn great princes are. 
 
 What though they runne the race of men and dye, 
 
 Death seems but to refine their Majesty. 
 
 Soe did the Queene her court to heaven remove 
 
 And left of earth to bee enthroned above. 
 
 Then shee is gone, not dead, noe good Prince dyes 
 
 But only with the Day-Starr, shutts their eyes. 
 
 "Robert Killegrew's Notebook," Sloane MS., 1792, p. 222. 
 
 I have collected many other facts, more than there is space for, 
 concerning Cuthbert's opponent Giles Alleyn of Holywell. But 
 some of them were published in "Notes and Queries," 10 S. XII 
 341, Oct. 30th, 1909. 
 
246 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 I have also found a good many papers about Burbages whom 
 I cannot fit, at present, into any connection with our Burbages. 
 
 NOTE XXVIII. — The Performances of the Burbages' Company at 
 Court for 80 years. 
 
 We collect our information from many different sources, the chief 
 of which are the declared accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, 
 which exist in duplicate in the Pipe Office and the Audit Office. 
 These are nearly complete, though there are a few gaps. In the 
 earlier years of Elizabeth, there are notices of the official Interlude 
 Players. The most interesting are in the Accounts of the Audit 
 Office Various 1213, among which we find a few preserved in a way 
 that makes us wish there were more. These are the " particular ac- 
 counts," which when they are complete give details, and even the 
 names of the plays. It is from these we glean the names of some of 
 the early performances of Lord Leicester's Company. There are 
 the gravest doubts however about the reliability of the later lists 
 of plays. Other papers which give some information are the Privy 
 Council Register, which records the warrants they issue during 
 Elizabeth's reign, to the Treasurer of the Chamber to pay many 
 Royal Servants, players included. The Lord Chamberlain's Books 
 and warrants take their place in James' reign. Additional informa- 
 tion may be gleaned from contemporary correspondence and history. 
 
 Dec. Ace. Treas. Chamb. Aud. Off., Bundle 380, Roll 2, 2 to 3 
 Eliz. " The Lord Robert Dudeley's Players and to Sebastiane 
 Wescott, M r - of the Children of Polles by the Councelles Letter 
 dated the 21st January, 1560-, in waye of the Queen's Majesties 
 reward for playing of Enterludes before her Highness at Christmas 
 to eyther of them £6 13s. /\d." (Also in Pipe Office, 541, R. 29.) 
 
 " 38°. 3. 3 to 4 Eliz. " The Lord Robert Dudeleyes playors, and to 
 Sebastian Westcott . . . Warrant 6th Jan., 1561-2 ... for Inter- 
 ludes at Christmas . . . either of them £6 13s. ^d. (Pipe Office 541, 
 38.) A year of this series is awanting here, but there may be found 
 in the Privy Council Register — " A warrant issued 10th Jan., 1562- 
 3 ... to pay Lord Robert Dudley's playors for playing an Inter- 
 lude ... at Christmas £6 13s. ^d." This is duly entered in Pipe 
 Office, Roll. 541, f. 46b, as " The Players of Lord Robert Duddeley, 
 and the M 1 " of the Children of Poles . . . warrant . . . 10th Jan., 
 
NOTES 247 
 
 1562-3, ... for playing before the Queen's Majestic in Christmas, 
 £13 6s. &*." 
 
 Nothing is entered concerning them for ten years, and then they 
 appear again. 
 
 Aud. Off., 382, 12, 14 to 15 Eliz. " Therle of Leicesters plaiers, 
 . . Warrant 1st January, 1572-3, for three severall plaies, in Christ- 
 mas last ... for every play £6 13s. 4^., and for a more reward £10 
 in all £30." (Pipe Office, R. 541, f. 150.) The Revels' accounts 
 shew that they were on St. Stephen's Day and the next two days. 
 (Audit Office Accounts Various, 1213 2). 
 
 This is all the more important as the following year, 1573-4, is 
 amissing from the Declared Accounts of this Department. The 
 Revels' Book records, among other expenses, " A Waggon for the 
 first play of my Lord of Leicester's men, x8s.," and " A waggon for 
 cariage to the courte of the second play of my Lord Leicester's 
 men, 18s." The same account gives among " Inventions," " Pre- 
 dor and Lucia, played by Therle of Leicester's servauntes upon 
 Saint Stevens Day at night at Whitehall. ... " Mamillia, 
 played by Therle of Leicester's servauntes on Innocents daye at 
 nighte there ... all fitted and furnished from the store of this 
 Office." These performances, evidently of unusual interest, were 
 recorded in the Pipe Off. Roll. 541, f. 166 (15 to 16 Eliz.). " To 
 Therle of Leicester's players . . . Warrant 9th Jan., 1573-4 . . • 
 for two severall playes ... in the Christmas hollydays last past 
 £13 6s. 8^., and by waye of especiall rewarde for their chardge, 
 cunnynge 1 and skyll shewed therein £6 13s. 4^., in all £20." 
 
 The same Roll enters another, " To Therle of Leicester his plaiers 
 . . . warrant 22nd February, 1573-4 ... for presenting of a playe 
 before her Majestie the 21st February anno predicto, £6 13s. \&., 
 rewarde 66s. 8d. in thole £10." 
 
 The revels book tells us its name was Philemon and Philecia, 
 and that it was "fitted from the Office" during the Shrovetide 
 season. 
 
 Aud. Off. 382, 13, 16 to 17 Eliz., has for the following year, " To 
 Therle of Leicester's players . . . warrant ... 9th Jan., 1574-5 
 ... for playe uppon St. Stephen's daie then laste paste the some 
 of £10. 
 
 1 Dr. Wallace in his list of the period, makes a queer blunder here, reading 
 this word as " Cumynge." 
 
248 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 "To the said Erie of Leicester's players, Warrant 9th January, 
 1574-5, for a playe upon Newyeres daie at night then laste paste 
 £6 13s. 4d." 
 
 The second was evidently a less popular play than the first, 
 which from the Revels Book we know to have been " Panecia." 
 There is no list of that year's " inventions " ; but under date 18th 
 December for " peruzing and reforming of playes," Blagrave gives, 
 " The expenses and charges wheare my Lord of Leicester's menne 
 showed their matter of Panecia, 10s." and 27th December, " Gloves 
 for my Lord of Lesters boyes yt played at the coorte is. ; for cariage 
 of their stuff and for the carter's attendance that night, z6d. Re- 
 wards to the carpenters and painters, 2s. 6d." Under the ex. 
 penses of 1st Jan., 1574-5, there is : " Long poles with brushes for 
 chymney sweepers in my Lord of Leycester's Mennes playe and for 
 Mosse and styckes and other implementes for them." 
 
 These accounts are not available for the following year, but Audit 
 Office 382, 14, 17 to 18 Eliz., has, " The Erie of Leicester's players 
 . . . upon Warrant . .30th Dec, 1575 . . a play . . . uppon 
 St. Innocente's day at night anno xix Eliz (sic), ^io. 1 
 
 " To Burbage and his companye, Servauntes to Therle of 
 
 Leicester . . warrant 14th March, 1575-6 for play . . . uppon 
 Sondaie before Shrovetyde last, £10." Pipe Office, 541, 197. 
 
 382, 15, 18 to 19 Eliz. '' To the Erie of Leycester's servaunts . . . 
 warrant . . . 20th Jan., 1576-7, play presented before her Majestie 
 in Christmas holidayes last past, £6 13s. 4a!. and further by way of 
 especiall reward . . . £10 in all the some of £16 13s. 4^." 
 
 This is a rather surprising account of " Reward," and I believe 
 the entry must have given rise to heart-burnings and heart-search- 
 ings among many officers involved. 
 
 Because the warrant was loosely and carelessly drawn up in the 
 Council Chamber just in head lines, and though it could bear this 
 meaning, I do not think it was intended to do so, but just to involve 
 the treasurer in the usual £10 each. The warrant in the Register 
 reads, " Hampton Courte, 20th Jan., 1576-7, Fower warrants to the 
 Treasurer of the Chamber for 4 plaies represented before her Majestie 
 in the Christmas holidaes last past, by the players of thearle of 
 Warwicke, thearle of Leicester, the Children of the Chapell and of 
 
 1 This evident slip may have referred to the date of payment. 
 
NOTES 249 
 
 Powles, to pay to each of them £6 13s. 4^. for the playe, and by 
 waye of reward £10 more." 
 
 The Revels Book for that year mentions the " Histories and Inven- 
 tions shewn within the time " — and gives, " The Historie of the 
 Collyer " shown at Hampton Court, on the Sunday following St. 
 John's daie by therle of Leicester's menne." 
 
 Aud. Off., 383, 16, 19 to 20 Eliz. "To the Erie of Leicester's 
 Servants . . . warrant 9th January, 1577-8 . . . playe upon St. 
 Stephen's daye dicto Anno, £6 13s. ^d. by her Majestie's special 
 reward, 5 marks — in all £10." (Pipe Office, 541, f. 210.) 
 
 " The Earle of Leicester's Players . . . Warrant 18th Feb., 1577-8, 
 for making their repair to the courte, with theire whole Companie 
 and furniture to present a play before her Majestie upon Shrove 
 Tewsdaie at night, in Consideracion of their Chardges for that 
 purpose, although the plaie by her Majesties commandment was 
 supplyed by others, £6 13s. /\d." (Pipe Office, 541, 210.) (This 
 year is omitted from Revels Books.) 
 
 "383, 17, 20 to 21 Eliz. "To therle of Leicester's players . . . 
 warrant 16th Jan., 1578-9 . . . play on Sunday, 4th January, 
 1578-9, £6 13s. 4^., . . . especiall reward, 66s. &d., £10." (Pipe 
 Office, 541, 223.) 
 
 The Revels Book, among " Histories and Inventions shewen " in- 
 cludes, " A pastorall or history of a Greeke Maide, shewen at Rich- 
 mond on the Sondaie after New Yeares daie enacted by the Earl of 
 Leicester his servantes, 1 furnished with some thinges in this office." 
 And among expenses, " Three yardes of gray cloth to make my Lord 
 of Leicester's men a fisherman's coat, 5s." 
 
 " 4th of January, 1578-9, for the hier of a horse 2 daies to the 
 courte to furnishe my Lord of Leicester's players, the frost being so 
 great no bote could goe and come back againe at X2d. the daie, 
 3s. 4d. For his meate those two daies, zs. 8d. ; for holly and Ivie 
 for my Lord of Leicester's servaunts, i2d." 
 
 Aud. Off., 383, 18, 21 to 22 Eliz. " To the Players of the Lord of 
 Leicester . . . warrant . . . 25th January, 1579-80 . . . playe 
 before her Majestie on Twelfe Daie laste paste, £6 13s. 4^. more by 
 way of rewarde, 66s. 8d., in all, £10." (Pipe Office, 542, 9.) 
 
 The Revels Accounts give us a special note of another day fixed 
 this year before this date, seeing the charges were as great " to the 
 
 1 It has struck me, this might be an early draught of " Pericles." 
 
250 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Office " as if it had been played, " A Historye of provided to 
 
 have been shewed at Whitehall on Innocents' Daie at nighte by the 
 Earl of Leicester's servauntes, being in Readynes in the place to have 
 enacted the same, wholly furnyshed with sondry thinges in this 
 Offyce. But the Queenes Maiestie coulde. not come forth to heare 
 the same therefore put of." As the men are paid nothing by the 
 Treasurer of the Chamber, it is to be supposed that the same play 
 was produced later that season for the entry follows, "The history 
 
 of she wen at Whitehall on Twelve daye at night by the Earle of 
 
 Leicester's servauntes furnished in this offyce with many garmentes, 
 utensells and properties, some made newe, some translated and made 
 fitt, whereon was ymployed for Head Attyers scarfes and garters 
 
 ells of Sarcenett, A citie, a Countrie House, and 7 paire of 
 
 gloves." 
 
 Aud. Off., 383 19, 22 to 23 Eliz. " To Therle of Leicester's players 
 warrant 14th January, 1580-1 ... a playe ... on Shrove Tews- 
 daye laste paste, £6 13s. 4^., by waie of especiall rewarde, 66s. 8d. 
 in all £10. (Pipe Office, 542, f. 21.) To them more . . . warrant 
 14th Januarie, 1580-1 playe on Stephen's day at night last paste, 
 £6 13s. 4<l. . . . rewarde, 66s. 8d. in all, £10." 
 
 The Revels Book gives " The Earle of Leicester's men. A 
 comedie called delighte ... St. Stephen's daye at nighte whereon 
 was ymploied newe, one cittie, one battlement, and 12 paire of 
 gloves." 
 
 " A Storie of . . . shewed on Shrove Tuesday at night in the 
 Hall whereon was ymploied one great citty, and 12 paire of gloves." 
 
 During the following year, 23 to 24 Eliz., the Earl of Leicester's 
 servants were not called on to play, but during the following year 
 they played, and also the Lord Hunsdon's servants (the first 
 time they are mentioned). 
 
 Aud. Off., 384, 21, 24 to 25 Eliz. " To the servauntes of the Earl 
 of Leicester . . . warrant . . . 17th February, 1582-3. play. . . 
 uppon Shrove Sunday last . . . £6 13s. ^d. and by way of Rewarde 
 towardes the chardge of theare preparacion and attendaunce in that 
 behalf, 66s. 8d. in all £10. To the Servauntes of the Lord of Huns- 
 don . . . warrant . . . 17th Februarij, 1582-3, play, on St. John's 
 Day ... ^6 13s. 4^., rewarde, 66s. 8d., £10." (Pipe Off., 542, f. 45.) 
 
 The Revels Book adds, " A Comodye of Bewtie and Huswyfery 
 . . .St. John's Daie at night by the Lorde of Hundesdon's servauntes 
 
NOTES 251 
 
 for which was prepared newe one Cloth and one Battlement of 
 canvas, 3 Ells of Sarcenet and eight paire of gloves, with sondry 
 other things out of this office. 
 
 " A historie of Telomo on Shrovesondaie at night enacted by the 
 Earle of Leicester's servauntes, for which was prepared and imployed 
 one Citty, one Battlement of Canvas, 3 Ells of Sarcenet and 8 paire 
 of gloves. And furnished with sondrey other garments of the store 
 of the office." Then comes the note, " Edmond Tylney Esquire 
 Master of the Office being sente for to the Courte by Letter from Mr. 
 Secretary dated 10th Marche, 1582-3. To choose out A companie of 
 players for her Majestie " (his travelling expenses came to 20s.). 
 
 The following year no plays were put forth by Leicester's men. 
 
 Aud. Off., 384, 22, 25 to 26 Eliz. " To divers plaiers . . . warrant 
 12th March, 1583-4 . . . her maiesties servants 3 plaies . . . M r - 
 of the Children of the Chapel two plays ; . . . the Erie of Oxford's 
 servants two plaies in all £55." In the Revels Book their names 
 are given. There is no mention of Burbage's players the following 
 year. 
 
 Pipe Office, 542 f. 79. In 27-28 Eliz. there, is an entry 
 "To the Servants of the Lord Admiral and the Lord Chamberlaine, 
 Warr. January, 1585 . . . plaie . . . Twelfe day laste paste, 
 £6 13s. 4^., . . . rewarde, 66s. 8d. . . . in all £10." 
 
 Pipe Office, 542, f. 94, 28 to 29 Eliz. " To the Erie of Leicester's 
 players, warrant, last of Marche, 1587, for a play ... on St. 
 John's day at nighte, £6 13s. 4^., 66s. M., in all £10." 
 
 There is a gap in the Revels Book here, indeed it records no future 
 names of the plays, by Leicester's company. 
 
 During a period of silence and seclusion from court of Burbage's 
 men, a period during which Leicester died, and a new distribution of 
 his new company took place, William Shakespeare came to town 
 and joined Burbage's Company, then the Lord Chamberlain's. 
 (Lord Hunsdon was appointed 1584). And the first notice of him 
 records his being in the prominent position of one of the payees. 
 It was in the account drawn up after date by Mary Countess of 
 Southampton, after the decease of her second husband, Sir Thomas 
 Henneage who had left his accounts rather in a muddle. But this 
 entry is clear enough, and means much. 
 
 Pipe Off., 542, f. 208, 36 to 38 Eliz. " To William Kempe, 
 William Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, Servants of the Lord 
 
252 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Chamberlain, Upon the Councells warrant dated at Whitehall 15th 
 March, 1594-5, for two several comedies or Interludes shewed by 
 them before her Majestie in Christmas tyme last past on St. Stephen's 
 Daie and on Innocent's daie ... in all £20." 
 
 (Note that both are Day, not night performances.) 
 
 The next entry following, in the account of 38 to 39 Eliz. " To John 
 Hemynge and George Bryan, servants to the late Lord Chamberlain, 
 and now servants to Lord Hunsdon . . Warrant at Whitehall on 
 21st Dec, 1596, For five Interludes or playes, viz., on St. Stephen's 
 daie at night last, the Sondaye following, Twelfthe Daye at night, 
 on St. John's Day, and on Shrove Sonday at night ... in all £50." 
 Shortly afterwards Lord Hunsdon became Lord Chamberlain and 
 Burbage's Company by the help of William Shakespeare and 
 Richard Burbage, at last became more popular than the Lord 
 Admiral's Company, who had so long preceded them. 
 
 In the same Roll, 542, at the end of 1597-8 a warrant was issued 
 for payments evidently long overdue. 
 
 " To Thomas Pope and John Hemynges, Servants of the Lord 
 Chamberlain . . . warrant 27th November, 1597, for six Inter- 
 ludes or playes ... on St. Stephen's day at night, St. John's Day 
 at night, New Year's Night, Twelfe Night, Shrove Sonday at night, 
 Shrove Monday at night ... in all £60. 
 
 Aud. Off. Bundle, 387, R. 38, 41 to 42 Eliz. 
 
 " To John Hemming and Thomas Pope, ser vaunts to the Lord 
 Chamberlain, . . . warrant 2nd Oct., 1599, for three Enterludes 
 or playes . . . upon St. Steven's day at night, New Yeare's Daye 
 at night, and Shrove Tuesday at night last past, in all £30. . . . 
 To John Hemyng, servant to the Lord Chamberlain . . . Warrant, 
 17th February, 1599, f° r three interludes or playes, on St. Stephen's 
 daye at night, Twelfth day at night, Shrove Sunday at night last 
 past ... in all £30." 
 
 Aud. Off. Bdle., 387, R. 39, 42 to 43 Eliz. 
 
 " To Richard Brackenbury, for making ready Westminster Hall, 
 against the arraignment of the Erles of Essex and Southampton, 
 February, 1600-1." 
 
 "To John Hemmings and Richard Cowley, servants to the Lord 
 Chamberlain . . . warrant, 31st March, 1601 ... for three plays 
 ... St. Stephen's day at night, Twelfth day at night and Shrove 
 Tuesday at night— in all, £30." (A year is then missed.) 
 
NOTES 253 
 
 Bundle 387, R. 40, 44 Eliz. to 1 James I. " To John Hemming 
 and the servants of the Lord Chamberlain . . . warrant dated 20th 
 April, 1603 ... for presenting before the late Queen ... 2 plaies 
 on St. Stephen's daye at night, and the other upon Candlemas day 
 at night . . . £20." 
 
 Bundle 388, Roll 41, 1603-4. 
 
 " To John Hemming one of his Majesties Players, Warrant at 
 Wilton, 3rd Dec, 1603, forthepaines and expenses of himself and 
 the rest of his Company in cominge from Mortlake in Co. Surrie 
 unto the Court aforesaide and there presenting before his Majestie 
 one play on 2nd Dec. last £30. 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majestys players, warrant, 18th Jan., 
 1603-4 • ■ • 6 severall plays on St. Stephen's day at night, St. 
 John's day at night, Innocents day, and New Year's day at night, 
 in all £53. 
 
 To Richard Burbage, one of his Majesties Comedians, warrant 8th 
 Feb., 1603-4, for the maintenance and Reliefe of himself and the 
 rest of his company being prohibited to present anie plaies publiquely 
 in or near London, by reason of the great peril that might grow 
 through the extraordinary concourse and assemblie of people to a 
 newe increase of the plague till it shall please God to settle the cyttie 
 in a more perfect health by way of his Majesties free gift, £30. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majestys Players . . . warrant 
 28th Feb., 1603-4, f° r 2 pl a y s performed before his Majesty, the 
 one on Candlemas daye at night, the other on Shrovesundy at 
 night, in all £20. 
 
 Bundle 388, Roll 42, 1604-5. "To John Hemmings warrant 
 2 1st Jan., 1604, for 6 interludes or plays on All Saints day at 
 night, the Sonday at night following being 4th Nov., 1604, St. 
 Stephen's day at night, Innocent's day at night and the 7th and 8th 
 day of Januarie, for everie play 20 nobles, and for his majesties 
 reward 5 nobles, in all £60. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majesties players warrant 24th 
 February, 1604-5, for 4 Interludes on Candlemas day at night, 
 Shrove Sunday at night, Shrove Monday at night, Shrove Tuesday 
 at night, £40. 
 
 To the said John Hemmings one of his M. Players . . . warrant 
 dated 28th day of April, 1605 ... for an enterlude or play . . . 
 3rd Feb., 1604 ... in all £10. 
 
254 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Bundle 388, 43, 1605-1606. 
 
 To John Hemyngs one of his Majesties players warrant 24th 
 March, 1605 . . . tenne several plays in Christmas last and since 
 uppon a schedule annexed, in all £100. 
 
 Bundle 388, R. 44. To John Hemmyngs one of his Majesties 
 players warrant 14th Oct., 1606 for three plays presented before 
 his Majestie and the King of Denmark in all £30. 
 
 To John Hemynges one of his Majestie's players . . . Warrant 
 30th March, 1607, for nyne plays presented 26th and 29th Decem- 
 ber, 1606, the 4th, 6th and 8th of January, the 2nd, 5th, 15th and 
 27th of February, in all £90. 
 
 Bundle 388, Roll 45, 5 to 6 James I, 1607-8. 
 
 To John Hemynges one of his Majesties Players on the Counsells 
 Warrant dated 8th Feb., 1607, for 13 plays . . . viz., on St. Ste- 
 phen's day at night, St. John's day at night, Childermas day at 
 night, 2nd January at night 2 plaies, 7th January, 9th January, 
 17th January (2 plaies) 26th January, Candlemas night and Shrove 
 Sunday at night ... in all £130. 
 
 Bundle 389, Roll 46, 1608-09. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majesties Players upon the Coun- 
 sels Warrant dated 5th April, 1609, for 12 plaies ... at severall 
 times in Christmas 1608 . . . £120. 
 
 To John Hemynges one of his Majesties players warrant 26th 
 April, 1609 in the behalfe of himself and the rest of his Majesty's 
 players by way of his Majesties reward for their private practise 
 in the time of infeccion that thereby they myghte be inhabled to 
 perform their serveice in the Christmas hollidays, 1609, £40. 
 
 Bundle 389, R. 47, 1609-1610. To John Hemyngs . . . war- 
 rant 10th March, 1609, for himself and the rest of his companie 
 being restrained from public playing within the Citty of London 
 in the tyme of infection, during the space of six weeks, in which time 
 they practised privately for his Majestie's service, £30. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of the King's Majesties players, upon the 
 warrant 2nd March, 1609, for performing 13 plaies before the King, 
 etc., before Christmas of the previous year 1609, and in the tyme of 
 the holidaies afterwards on severall nights, £130. 
 
 Bdle. 389, R. 48, 1610-11. To John Hemynges, one of the King's 
 Majesties players . . . warrant 12th Feb., 1610 ... for 15 plays 
 ... in all, £150. 
 
NOTES . 255 
 
 t Bdle 389, R. 49, 1611-12. To John Hemmings for himself and 
 his fellows, the King's Majesties servants . . . warrant . . . 1st 
 June, 1612, for 6 several playes, one on the last October, one on the 
 first of November, one on the 5th of November, one on the 26th 
 Dec, and one on the 5th of January, and one on Shrove Sunday at 
 night being the 23rd February at 20 nobles for every play, and 5 
 marks for a reward for every play, in all £60. 
 
 To the said John Hemmings . . . Warrant 1st of June, 1612, 
 for himself and his fellows for 12 several plays before the Prince and 
 the Duke of York, one on the 9th November last, one on the 19th of 
 the same, one on 16th December, one on the last daie of the same 
 month, one on 7th January, one on 13th of same, one on 19th Feb., 
 one on 20th of the same, one on 28th February, one on 3rd April, 
 and another upon 16th of the same at 20 nobles a play . . . £80. 
 
 To the said John Hemmings . . . Warrant 1st June, 1612, for 
 himself and his fellows for 4 severall playes before the Prince and 
 the Duke of York, one on 9th Feb., one on 20th of the same, 
 one on 28th March, and one on 26th April, alter the said rate, 
 £26 13s. 4d. 
 
 Bdle. 389, 50, 1612-13. To John Hemmings. Warrant . . . 
 9th July, 1613, for himself and his fellows the King's players . . . 
 play before the Duke of Savoy's Ambassador, 8th June, 1613, 
 £6 13s. 4d. 
 
 To him more, warrant 20th May, 1613, for presenting 14 several 
 plays before the Prince, the Lady Elizabeth, and the Prince Palatyne, 
 £93 6s. 8d. x To the said John Hemmings on a warrant dated 20th 
 May, 1613, for 6 several plays before his Majesty, £40, reward £20 — 
 in all £60. 
 
 Bdle. 390, R. 51. To John Hemynges, and his fellows his 
 Majesty's servants, Warrant 21st June, 1614 ... 7 severall playes 
 before the Prince ... on 4th November, 16th November, 10th 
 January, 4th Feb., the 8th, the 10th, and the 18th of the same 
 month, £46 13s. 
 
 To the said John Hemings and his fellows, Warrant 21st June, 
 1614 ... 9 severall playes before the King, on the 1st, 5th, and 15th 
 Nov., 161/, the 27th December, the 1st and 4th January, the 
 2nd February following, and the 5th and 8th March, £90. 
 
 1 See Rawlinson MS., A. 239, Bodleian Library, the same as above expanded, 
 naming the plays. 
 
256 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Bdle. 390, R. 52. 
 
 To John Hemmings for himself and his fellows the King's players, 
 upon the Lord Chamberlain's Warrant 19th March, 1615, for 8 
 several plays before the King . . . £80. 
 
 Bdle. 390, R. 54, 1616, 1617. To John Hemmings and the rest 
 of his Majesties players warrant 29th April, 1616, for 14 severall 
 playes from the feast of All Saints', 1615, to the 1st of April, 1616, 
 
 To John Hemmings . . . warrant nth March, 1616, forhimselfe 
 and his fellows the King's Majesty's players for 13 severall playes 
 . . . from 1st Nov., 1616, to the 2nd February following, £130. 
 
 Bdle. 390, R. 55, 1617-18. To John Hemmings, for himself and 
 the rest of the K. M. Players for 15 several plays . . . warrant 24th 
 Feb., 1617 . . . £150. 
 
 To John Hemmings for himself and fellows K. M. Players . . . 
 warrant . . . 20th April, 1618, for 2 plays on Easter Monday, and 
 Monday Twelfe Night the playe so called, and on Easter Tuesday 
 the Winter's Tale. . . . £20. 
 
 To the said John Hemmings for himself and fellows. . . War- 
 rant 15th May, 1618, for presenting before his Majesty the 3rd of 
 May the Merry Divell of Edmonton, £10. 
 
 Bdle 391, R. 56, is a Roll about Progresses. 
 
 Bdle. 391, R. 57, 1618-19. To John Hemmings in behalf of 
 himself and the rest . . Warrant 19th Aprill, 161 9 ... 8 playes, 
 at Allhallowtide and Christmas, 1618, £73 6s. 8^. 
 
 Bdle. 391, R. 58, 1619-1620. To John Hemynge for himself and 
 the rest ... for 10 severall plays . . . the time of this account, 
 warrant 23rd March, 1619 . . £100. To him more in the behalf 
 of himself and his fellows, for one other play . . . 30th April, 1620, 
 warrant 20th May, 1620. £10. 
 
 Bdle 391, R. 59, 1620-1621. 
 
 To John Hemmyng for himself and fellows . . . Warrant 17th 
 March, 1620 . . . for 9 playes . . . £90." 
 
 Bdle. 391, R. 60, 1621-2. To John Heminge, in the behalfe of 
 himself and the rest, for 6 severall playes . . Warrant 27th March, 
 1622, £60. 
 
 Bdle. 392, R. 61, 1622, 1623. 
 
 To John Hemynges in the behalf of himself and his fellows, a 
 warrant, 14th March, 1622, for 9 severall plays . . . £90. 
 
NOTES 257 
 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majesties players, a warrant, 
 17th Feb., 1623 . . . ten plays ... in all, £100. 
 
 Bdle. 392, R. 62, 1623-4. To John Hemming one of his Majes- 
 ties players, Warrant 17th Feb., 1623 . . . 10 severall plaies, £100. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of his Majesties players, warrant 22nd 
 March, 1624, for himself and the rest of his fellows for presenting 
 five several plaies . . . £50. 
 
 Bdle. 392, R. 63, 1623-4. Duplicate of last. 
 
 Bdle. 392, R. 64, 1624-5. To John Hemmings, Warrant 20th 
 Feb., 1624, play 12th Jan., 1624 . . . £10. 
 
 Bdle. 392, R. 65, 1625, 1626. To John Hemmings one of his 
 Majesty's players, warrant 30th May, 1626, for 10 plaies, £100. 
 
 Bdle. 393, R. 66, 1627, 1628 (year evidently lost). To John Hem- 
 mings one of his Majesties players; warrant 10th Aprill, 1628, 10 
 playes, between Michaelmas, 1627, and the last of Jan. following 
 £100. 
 
 To him more upon like warrant 20th April, 1628, for one play . . . 
 Easter Tuesday at night, 1628, in all £110. (No other players 
 mentioned.) 
 
 This series goes on further but at this date we may turn to the 
 Lord Chamberlain's Books. 
 
 The volumes of the Lord Chamberlain's Warrants supply much 
 information concerning plays and players. Unfortunately they 
 are missing for the most important years in Shakespearean History. 
 The only exception is the volume which records the preparation for 
 the Royal Progress through the City of London on March 15th, 
 1603-4. In view of the fact that many writers think that the Players 
 would not attend the Royal procession it may be noted, that after 
 the greater officers are dealt with, there follow pages of the names 
 of the dealers entitled to be paid for " Red clothe bought of sundrie 
 persons and given by his Majestie to divers persons against his 
 Majesty's said royall proceeding through ye cittie of London." 
 Among the* persons to whom that red cloth was given, were the 
 players, beginning as I noted in the text with " William Shake- 
 speare, \\ yards." 1 (L. C, II, 4, 5.) 
 
 The earliest volume of Warrants preserved for that period is V., 
 93, 1628-1634. The first special entry is one grant ng to " John 2 
 
 1 See my " Shakespeare of the Court," "Athenaeum," March 12, 1910. 
 
 1 I published the series in full in the " Shakespeare J ahrbuch ' ' under the title 
 of " Shakespeare's Fellows »nd Followers," 1910. 
 
 S 
 
258 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 Hemmings, John Lowen, and Joseph Taylor, on behalf of their 
 fellows the King's Servants the Players . . . the sum of £100, being 
 at the rate of £10 a play, viz., twenty nobles for their charges, and 
 5 marks by way of reward for tenne playes by them acted before his 
 Majestie at several times between Michaelmas last 1627 and the 
 last of January following, the names whereof particularly appear 
 by this annexed Schedule, 10th April, 1628." (Unfortunately 
 the schedule is lost.) 
 
 " A warrant for payment of £160 to John Hemings, etc., for 16 
 plays acted before his Majesty between Christmas and Candlemas, 
 1628, 27th Feb., 1628-9." 
 
 " A Warrant for payment of £10 unto John Hemings, etc., for a 
 play called ye Love-Sicke Maid acted before his Majesty on Easter 
 Monday, May 6th, 1629." 
 
 " A warrant for Players Liveries ... to be delivered to John 
 Hemings, John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, Richard Robinson, John 
 Shank, Robert Benfield, Richard Sharp, Eillard Swanson, Thomas 
 Pollard, Anthony Smith, Thomas Hobbes, William Pen, George 
 Vernon, and James Home, to each the several allowance of 4 yards 
 of Bastard Scarlet for a Cloak, and a quarter of a yard of crimson 
 Velvet for a cap, their usual allowance every second year. May 6th, 
 1629." 
 
 " A warrant for payment of £120 to John Hemings for 12 plays 
 played before his Majesty at Christmas 1629. April 3rd, 1630." 
 "A warrant for suppressing stage plays and Bear and Bull-baiting 
 on account of the plague, April 17, 1630." 
 
 " A warrant to pay to John Lowen for himself and the rest of 
 the King's Company £260 that is to say Twenty pounds a piece 
 for foure playes acted at Hampton Court, in respect of the travail 
 and expenses of the whole company in Dyet and Lodging during 
 the time of their attendance there And the like sum of £20 for one 
 play which was acted at Whitehall in the daytime, whereby the 
 players lost the benefitt of their house for that day. .' . . And £10 
 a piece for 16 other plays acted before the King at Whitehall . 
 between the 30th Sept. and 21st Feb. last past. ... As it may 
 appear by Schedule (also lost). March 17, 1630-1." 
 
 " A warrant to deliver to Joseph Taylor and 13 others his Ma- 
 jesty's players, 4 yards bastard Scarlet and a quarter of a yard of 
 Velvet for liveries (as above). April 27, 1631." 
 
NOTES 259 
 
 " A warrant to pay £120 to John Lowing, Joseph Taylor and 
 Eilliard Swanston for themselves and the rest of their fellows his 
 Majestie's Comedians for n plays (one whereof was at Hampton 
 Court) by them acted before his Majesty at Christmas, 1631. Feb. 
 22nd, 1631-2." 
 
 " A warrant to pay £270 to John Lowen, Joseph Taylor and 
 Eillard Swanston, his Majesty's Comedians for playes by them 
 acted before his Majesty viz — £20 for the rehearsal of one at the 
 Cockpitt by which means they lost their afternoon at the House, 
 and £20 a piece for two at Hampton Court. . . . And £10 for 21 
 more at Whitehall and Denmark House acted between 3rd May, 
 1632, and 3rd of March following. March 16th, 1632-33." 
 
 " A warrant, Whereas the late decease, infirmity, and sickness 
 of divers principal Actors of his Majesty's company of players, 
 hath much decayed and weakened them, so that they are disabled 
 to do his Majesty's service in their quality, unless there be some 
 speedy order to furnish them with new Actors, his Majesty having 
 signified his royal pleasure ... to you to choose, take, and receive 
 into your company any actor belonging to the licensed companies 
 in or about London, as you shall think fit or able to do his Majesty 
 service, etc. To John Lowen and Joseph Taylor. May 6th, 1633." 
 
 Vol. 95 of the same series runs from 1634-1641. It begins with 
 " A warrant for payment of £220 to John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, 
 and Eillard Swanston for 22 plays by them acted . . . within a 
 whole year ending 27th April, 1634." 
 
 " A warrant for liveries to be delivered to John Lowen and 14 
 others of his Majesty's players as usual. April 3rd, 1635." This 
 is the year in which the Lord Chamberlain gave the decision in 
 favour of Eillard Swanston, see page 232. 
 
 " A Warrant to pay £250 to John Lowen for himself and the rest 
 of the King's players, for 20 plays whereof 5 at £20 a piece being 
 at Hampton Court by them acted between 13th May, 1634, and 
 30th March, 1635, signed May 24th, 1635." 
 
 " A warrant for paying £80 unto the King's players for plays 
 acted before his Majesty in 1635." May 10th, 1636. 
 
 " Players passes, William Pen, Thomas Hobbes, William Tregg, 
 William Patrick, Richard Baxter, Alexander Gough, William 
 Hart, Richard Hanly, and ten of their fellows ' his Majesty's Come- 
 dians of the peculiar company of Players in the Blackfryars, Lon- 
 
260 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 don, are commanded to attend his Majesty and be nigh about the 
 Court this somer progresse in readiness when they shall be called 
 on to act before his Majesty/ that either in going or coming they 
 can go to any town they please, and perform in ' any common 
 halls, moothalls, schoolhouses ' or other convenient places, and 
 act plays, ' without lett or hindrance,' and they are to be ' treated 
 and enterteyned with such due respect and curtesie, as may become 
 his Majesty's loving and loyal subjects towards his servants.' To 
 all Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Justices of the Peace, Constables and 
 Headboroughs, etc' May 17th, 1636." 
 
 " A ticket of privilege was also granted to the attendants of the 
 players, Richard Bagstare, Richard Halley, William Hart, William 
 Patrick, Henry Pettington, Richard Bowers, Rowland Dowle, 
 John Bacon, Edward Collins, John Allingham and William Soyles, 
 ' employed by his Majesty's servants the players of the Blackfriars, 
 and of special use to them both on the stage and otherwise for his 
 Majesty's disport and service.' They are to ' be freed from all 
 molestacion or arrest whereby they may be withdrawn from their 
 Company.' If any man had anything against them, due consideration 
 would be had of his complaint in this office. 12th Jan., 1636." 
 
 " Warrant to pay £240 to his Majesty's Players, viz. £210 for 21 
 plays acted by them at £10 a play, and £30 more for the New Play 
 called the Royall Slave. March 16th, 1636." 
 
 This is the payment on which some one has exercised his in- 
 genuity in contriving a list of the plays and names and dates of 
 their performance preserved by Cunningham among his " Extracts 
 from the Books of the Master of the Revels." See "Athenaeum," 
 July 22nd, 29th, Oct. 7th, 1911 ; April 27th, August 10th, 1912. 
 
 " Warrant to swear Mr. Christopher Beeston his Majestie's ser- 
 vant in ye place of Governor of the new Company of the Kings and 
 Queenes boyes. Feb. 21, 1636." 
 
 " Warrant to King's Players. Whereas ye charge of ye altera- 
 tions, reparations and additions which were made unto ye scene, 
 apparell, and propertyes that were employed for ye setting forth 
 of ye new play called The Royall Slave ... at Hampton Court . . . 
 together with the charge of Dancers, and composers of Musique 
 . . . amounteth to £154 appearing by the bills of the several per- 
 sons imployed therein . . . £50 to the property maker, £50 to the 
 painter, and to Estienne, Nau, and Sebastian La Pierre for them- 
 
NOTES 261 
 
 selves and twelve dancers the sum of £54. April 4th, 1637." 
 " Warrant for liveries of the King's Players, to John Lowen, 
 Joseph Taylor and Eillard Swanston, (as above) . April 22nd, 1637." 
 The printing of plays restrained. Philip, Earl of Pembroke 
 and Montgomery, Lord Chamberlain, refers to a complaint made 
 " to his dear brother and predecessor, by his Majesty's Servants 
 the players, that some of the company of Printers and Stationers 
 had procured published and printed diverse of their books of 
 Comedyes, Tragedies, Cronicle-Historyes and the like . . . which 
 they had bought and provided at very deare and high rates. By 
 meanes whereof not only they themselves had much prejudice 
 but the books much corruption, to the injury and disgrace of the 
 authors." Thereupon " The Masters and Wardens of the Com- 
 pany of Stationers were advised by my brother to take notice 
 thereof and to stay any further impression of any of the playes or 
 Interludes of his Majesty's servants without their consents. . . . 
 Notwithstanding which I am informed that some coppyes of plays 
 belonging to the King's and Queen's servants the players, and 
 purchased by them at deare rates, having been stolen or gotten 
 from them by indirect means are now attempted to be printed 
 . . . which would directly tend to their apparent detriment, and 
 great prejudice, and to the disenabling of them to do their Majestie's 
 service." The Lord Chamberlain desires the Master and Wardens 
 of the Stationer's Company to inquire if any such play has been 
 entered and to let the Players know, so that it may be proved to whom 
 they belong, and that none may be printed, except such as th» 
 players assent to "by some certificate in writing under the hands 
 of John Lowen and Joseph Taylor for the King's Company and of 
 Christopher Beeston for the King's and Queen's young company 
 . . , which is a course which can be hurtful to none but such as 
 goe about unjustly to prevayle themselves of others' goods without 
 respect of order or good government. June 10th, 1637." 
 
 " A warrant to pay £150 to John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, and 
 Eillard Swanston for themselves and the rest of his Majesty's 
 players for 14 plays acted before his Majesty between the 30th of 
 September and the 3rd of February following 1637-8, whereof 
 one was at Hampton Court, for which £20 is allowed. March 15th, 
 
 1637-8." 
 " A warrant to Players on the King's side for £300. His Majesty's 
 
262 BURBAGE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S STAGE 
 
 servants the Company at the Blackfriars have by special command 
 at divers times within this year 1638 acted 24 plays, six whereof 
 have been performed at Hampton Court and Richmond by means 
 whereof they were not only at ye losse of their day at home but 
 at extraordinary charges. . . Wherefore they are to have £20 
 a piece for those plays . . . and £10 a piece for the other 18 acted 
 at Whitehall. . . . These are to pray you to pay to John Lowen, 
 Joseph Taylor, and Eillard Swanston for themselves and the rest 
 of the Company of £300." March 12th, 1638. (Same page, same 
 date, grant of liveries as usual.) 
 
 William Beeston, now governor of the King's and Queen's young 
 company, claims many plays among which are "The Spanish 
 Gipsie," " The Rape of Lucrece." Aug. 10th, 1639. 
 
 " A warrant to swear Mr. Joseph Taylor yeoman of the Revells 
 to his Majesty in ordinary in ye place of William Hunt deceased 
 Sept. 29, 1639." Hunt had succeeded Edward Kirkham. Patent 
 follows, 2nd Dec, 1639. 
 
 " A warrant for payment of £230 to John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, 
 and Eillard Swanston, and the rest of the King's players for 21 
 plays acted before their Majesties. Whereof two were at Rich- 
 mond, for which they were allowed £20 a piece, for the rest £xo a 
 piece, all these being acted between the 6th of August, 1639, an ^ 
 the nth February following. April 4th, 1640." 
 
 " A Warrant for swearing six persons as ' Grooms ' of his Ma- 
 jestie's Chamber in ordinary without fee to attend his Majesty 
 in the quality of players, and to be of the company of his Majestie's 
 servants at ye Blackfriars, viz. Michael Bowyere, William Robins, 
 William Allen, Hugh Clarke, Theophilus Bird, Steven Hamerton, 
 Jan. 22nd, 1640." 
 
 " Tickets of privilege " are issued to all these men " Whereof 
 I advise all such as it may concern to take notice, and to be very 
 cautious how they do any act to the prejudice of the said Theophilus 
 Bird," etc. 
 
 " A Warrant for payment of £160 to the King's Players, for plays 
 acted before his Majesty . . . between 10th Nov., 1640, and 22nd 
 Feb., 1640, to be paid to John Lowen, Joseph Taylor, and Eillard 
 Swanston," etc. March 20th, 1640. 
 
 Same date warrant for liveries to the same. 
 
 Vol. 96, 1641. The Earl of Essex, now Lord Chamberlain, 
 
NOTES 263 
 
 writes, To my very loving friends the Master and Wardens of Sta- 
 tioners' Company : " The players which are his Majesty's servants 
 have addressed themselves to me, as formerly to my predecessors 
 in office complaining that some printers are about to print and 
 publish some of their plays, which hitherto they have been usually 
 restrained from by the authority of the Lord Chamberlain. Their 
 Request seems both just and reasonable as only tending to preserve 
 them masters of their proper goods, which in justice ought not to 
 be made common for another man's profitt to their disadvantage. 
 Upon this ground therefore I am induced to require your care, that 
 no playes belonging to them be putt in print without their know- 
 ledge and Consent. The particulars to which they now lay claime 
 are contained in a list enclosed, and if any of those playes shall 
 bee offered to ye presse under another name than is in the list ex- 
 pressed I desire your care that they may not be defrauded by that 
 meanes, but that they may be made acquainted with it, before 
 they bee recorded in your Hall, and soe have opportunity to show 
 their right unto them etc. Essex. Aug. 7th, 1641." I have 
 noted this, as illustrative of what would probably have appeared 
 in the lost Lord Chamberlain's Books. They throw light on the 
 views of the players in relation to the publication of their poet's 
 plays. They add a long list which I printed in the "Jahr buch," but 
 omit here. There were none of the old favourites when Shake- 
 speare lived, and Richard Burbage was in his prime. This closes 
 the Records. The Earl of Essex broke his staff and left the King's 
 service and went over to the Parliament. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Aberdeen, go 
 Adams, John, 36 
 Agamemnon and Ulysses, 44 
 Alarum against Usurers, 32 
 Allen of the Cockpit, 137 
 
 John, 51 
 Alleyn, Christopher, 34, 54, 167 
 
 Edward, 57-61, 85, 123, v. 
 
 Giles, 19, 33, 34, 46, 49, 52, 
 64, 65, 67, 68, 73-6, 78-85, 
 99, 130, 154. I 5 8 . 166-7, 185- 
 194, 198, 200-227, xu - 
 
 Sir William, 23 
 All is true, in 
 Ames, Christopher, 45, 141 
 
 Roger, 68, 78, 184, 185 
 Amadis of Gaul, 21 
 Anatomie of Abuses, 37 
 Annes, St., Blackfriars, 64 
 Anne, Queen, 102, 105, 116, 117. 
 Apologie for Poetrie, 32 
 Arden, Edward, 38 
 Armin, Robert, 27, 100, 229 
 Art in England, 3, 4, 108 
 Asbies, 53, 54 
 Aston, Roger, 89 
 Authorities — 
 
 Audit Office, ace. various, 247- 
 
 251 
 Chamber, Treasurer of the, Dec. 
 Ace., Audit Office, 7, 55, 75, 
 101, 103, 246-257 
 
 Pipe Office, 17-25, 60, 99, 
 
 101, 102, 246-257 
 Chamberlain's, Lord, Books, 37, 
 
 99. 130, 133. 136, 230, 257 
 Chancery Proceedings, 49, 51, 
 
 135. 154-9. 164 
 
 Bills and Answers, 106, 107, 
 
 J 54 
 Decrees and Orders, 48, 49, 
 50, 51, 129, 159-164 
 
 Coram Rege Rolls (King's 
 Bench), 54, 75, 77, 78, 79, 
 81, 82, 84, 184, 198, 217 
 
 Court of Requests, 75, 79, 82, 
 
 83, 107, 129, 130, 200, x. 
 
 Uncalendared, 45, 80, 177, 216 
 
 Court of Wards and Liveries, 
 34, 52, 166-170 
 
 EgertonMSS., Brit. Mus.,61, 116 
 
 Exchequer Bills and Answers, 
 78, 185-189 
 
 Decrees and Orders, 189, 194 
 Depositions, 78, 79, 189-193, 
 xii. 
 
 Gloucester Records, 8 
 
 Guildhall MSS. Journal, 34 
 Letter Books, 108 
 Remembrancia, 31, 62 
 Repertory, 8, 12, 14, 34, 52, 
 
 145. *7 6 
 Harl. MS., Brit. Mus., in, 153 
 Lansdowne MSS., Brit. Mus., 
 13. 38, 39, 4°- 4i, H 6 
 
 266 
 
266 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Loseley Papers, 170-174, viii, xii 
 Middlesex Co. Sessions Rolls, 
 
 30, 71, 135, 149, 153 
 Privy Council Register, 17, 24, 
 
 25. 35. 47. i°3. 114. "5. 
 
 126, 127, 128, 240-242 
 SloaneMSS., Brit. Mus., 12, 70, 
 
 118 
 Star Chamber Proc, 75, 80, 220 
 State Papers, Dom. Ser, 88, 103, 
 
 175. 197 
 Scotch Series, 89 
 Subsidy Rolls, 85, 86,153, i94,vi. 
 
 B 
 
 Bacon, Francis, 60, 84, 130, 243 
 Bacon -Shakespeare Question an- 
 swered, 60, 84, ix. 
 Baker, Sir Richard, 132, 133 
 
 William, 127 
 Bankside, 21, 22, 57, 61, 62, 69, 74 
 Bassanos, The, 195 
 Bath, Marquis of, 10 
 Beeston, Christopher, 139, 141, 260 
 
 William, 262 
 Benfield, Robert, 125, 136, 230 
 Biron Tragedy of, 105 
 Bishop, Nicholas, 51, 164, 165 
 Blackfriars, 63, 65, 91, 92, 105, 
 
 106, 170-177, 230, 262, viii., xii. 
 Bottom's Play, 5, 60 
 Brand or Brend, Sir Matthew, 113, 
 129, 130, 135, 196, 232 
 
 Nicholas, 74-6, 113, 129 
 Brayne, Ellen, 134 
 
 John, 18, 21, 28, 29, 30, 45, 47, 
 48, 80, 81, 154, 156, 209 
 
 Margaret, 47-50, 154, 156, 159 
 Bull, The, 137 
 Bumpstead, Christopher, 33, 34, 
 
 166, 186 
 Burbage, Alice, 18, 49, 134, 140 
 
 Burbage, Anne, 141 
 
 Cuthbert, 18, 21, 34, 37, 49, 
 51, 67, 68, 70, 73-83. 85, 87, 
 105, 108, 123, 125-7, I2 9» 
 
 130. 134. I 4°> I 5 1 ' I 54> l6 4> 
 195, 200, 227 
 
 Ellen or Helen, 18, 47, 67-9, 
 81, 139, 209 (Mrs. Burbage) 
 her daughter, 49, 64, 154 
 
 Elizabeth, wife of Cuthbert, 
 124, 126, 134 
 daughter, 134, 140 
 
 Frances, 139, 141 
 
 Henry, 135 
 
 James, 1, 6-10, 12, 16-21, 23, 
 25, 27, 29-31, 33-9, 45, 46, 
 48-52, 54, 56, 59-62, 66, 6% 
 70, 80, 81, 83, 85, 91, 92, 98, 
 105, 134, 139, 152, 154, 164, 
 170, 200, 227, v., vi., xii. 
 his grandson, 68, 139 
 his grandson alias Maxey, 134 
 
 Joane, 139 
 
 John, 6, 18, 152 
 
 Julia, 139, 140, 141 
 
 Juliet, 139 
 
 Richard, 1, 2, 18, 36, 37, 49, 
 53, 56, 60, 67, 73, 77, 81, 82, 
 84, 90-7, 99, 100, 104-9, 113, 
 115-9, 120, 122, 123, 125, 
 126, 130-5, 139, 140, 151, 
 154-164, 195, 196, 240, vi. 
 of Stoke, 134, 135 
 
 Robert, 134, 152 
 
 Sara, 140-141 
 
 William, 115, 127, 134, 135, 141 
 
 Winifred, 124, 134, 140, 141 
 Burleigh, Lord, 57, 58 
 
 Carleton, 103, 245 
 Catiline's Conspiracy, 32 
 
INDEX 
 
 267 
 
 Cawarden, Sir Thomas, 173 
 
 Elizabeth, Dame, 173 
 Cecil, Sir Robert, 83, 88, 102 ; 
 Viscount Cranbourne, 102-3 
 Chambers, E. K., 11, 14, 35, 62, xii 
 Chapman, 92, 105 
 Chariclea, 22 
 Chettle, 96 
 
 Child, William, 126, 127 
 Children of the Chapel, 91, 104, 
 
 ix, x. ; of the Revels, 105 
 Clark, Thomas, 9 
 Clifton Case, The, 92, 104, 107 
 Cobham, Lord, 64, 172 
 Collier, 64, 65, 120, 127, 137 
 Lives of the Actors, 137 
 Forgeries, 65, 176 
 New Particulars, 120, 121 
 Comedy of Errors, 60 
 Condell, Henry, 97, 100, 107, 116, 
 125, 126,132,133,229, 232, 238 
 Cooke, Lyonell, 36 
 Cope, Sir Walter, 102, 103 
 Corbet, Bishop, 116 
 Corporation, 2, 4, 25, 38, 52, 56, 
 
 61, 64, 73, 107, 129, 146 
 Council, Common, 11, 13, 34, 4 1 
 Privy, u-r3, 21-25, 31, 33-35, 
 39, 47, 52, 62, 65, 69, 73, 
 80, 88, 127, 146, 147 
 Cox, John, 134 
 
 Elizabeth, daughter, 134 
 Cowley, Richard, 97- IOO » I 4°. 22 9. 
 
 252 
 Cunningham's Extracts, 102, no 
 Curtain, The, 15, 23, 25-7, 31, 33. 
 36, 61, 62, 69, 70, 85, 152 
 
 D 
 
 Dekker, 73 
 
 Dibdin's Hist. Edinburgh Stage, 90 
 
 Divers Plots and Devices, 60 
 
 Dobson, Austin, 123 
 Dolphin's Back, 17 
 Drama, Romantic School of, in 
 Dramatic Records from Privy 
 Council Register, 114, 240-2 
 Drayton, 96 
 
 Drummond of Hawthornden, 73 
 Duboys, Davy, 36, 
 Dudley, Sir Robert, 7, 246 
 
 Earl of Leicester, 9, 12, 16, 17, 
 19, 29, 38, 247 
 Dulwich College, 108 
 Dutton, John, 36 
 
 E 
 
 Earthquake, The, 31, 33 
 Eastward Hoe, 105 
 Ecclestone, William, 125, 229 
 Edward VI, 6 
 Elizabeth, Queen, 11, 14, 16, 17, 
 
 22, 34. 35. 41. 43-5. 52, 59. 
 
 64, 69, 88, 91, 95, 96, 98, 
 
 130, 136 145, x. ; Princess, no 
 Essex, Earl of, 64, 73, 87, 88, 
 
 90, 95. 96 
 Conspiracy, His, 81, 88, 90 
 Evans, Henry, 91. 92. 104-7, 132 
 Every Man in his Humour, no 
 
 Falstaff, 64 
 
 Feake, James, 71, 72, 139 
 Felix and Philiomena, 45 
 Field, Nathan, Player, 105, 125, 
 
 132, 229 
 Richard, 54. 57. 5§. 65, *75 
 Finsbury Fields, 15, 19, 20, 21, 
 
 26, 27, 42, 70, 191 
 Five PlayS in One, 45 
 Fleay, Mr., 36, 92, 107, xii. 
 Flecknoe, Richard, 12 
 
268 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Fleetwood, Recorder of London, 
 
 38, 60, 146 
 Fletcher, Laurence, 88, 89, 90, 
 
 96, 97, 100, 107, 228 
 Fortnightly Review, The, 53 
 Fortune, The, 136, 153 
 Furnivall, Dr., 16, 62, 94, 135, x. 
 
 Gaedertz, Dr., 62 
 Gardiner, John, 48, 156-9 
 
 Robert, 48, 49, 156 
 Garland, John, 36 
 Gascoigne, George, 16 
 Gentleman's Magazine, The, 120 
 George, The, Inn, 20, 49, 51, 125, 
 
 i5 6 . 157 
 Giles, Nathaniel, 91, 92, 164, 165 
 Giles, St.,Without,Cripplegate,i26 
 Globe, The, 77, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88; 
 
 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 103-5, 
 
 111-3, 123, 129, 132, 135, 137 
 
 196, 197, viii. 
 " Gorboduc," 37 
 Gosson, Stephen, 32, 33 
 Gough, Robert, 125 
 Gowry, The Tragedy of, 103 
 Gray's Inn Revels, 60 
 Green, Robert, 55, 96 
 
 Thomas, 113, 139 
 Greenstreet, Mr., 92, 107, xii. 
 Greville, Fulke, 59 
 Groatsworth of Wit, 55, 56 
 Graves, Elizabeth, 124 
 Grosart, Dr., 65 
 Guilpin, Author of " Skialethia," 
 
 76 
 Gwynn, Matthew, 104 
 
 H 
 Hales, Professor, 86 
 Halliwell Phillipps, J. O., 49, 81, 
 85, 101, 112, 240, x., xi. 
 
 Hamlet, 92, 94, 95, 103, 104, 118 
 Harrison's England, 24 
 Harrys, Mr. Sergeant, 50, 161 
 Hart, 137 
 Harvey, Gabriel, 32 
 
 Sir William, 57 
 Haslewood, 112 
 Hawkins, Alexander, 104-7 ; 
 
 Margaret, 107 
 Hemmings, John, 77, 97-9, 100, 
 
 101, 106, 107, 113, 115, 116, 
 
 125, 126, 229, 231, 252-7 
 William, 129, 130, 132, 133, 137 
 Henneage, Sir Thomas, 59 
 Henry V, 1, 87, vii. ; Henry VI, 
 
 55 ; Henry VIII, 6, in, ix. 
 Henry, Prince, 108, no, 115 
 Henslowe, Philip, 51, 61-6, 72, 
 
 73. 85, 177 ; His Diary, 71, 72 
 Hilliard, 3 
 
 History of the Collier, 22 
 Holinshed, 84, 104 
 Holywell Priory, 19, 23, 30, 33, 
 
 34, 41, 63, 65, 85, 166, 198 
 Lease of, 19, 24, 46, 64, 66, 
 
 67, 86, 154, 201-217 
 Holywell or Halliwell Street, 31, 
 
 37. 49, 55. 67, 71, 85, 125, 151 
 Hope, The, 106 
 Howe's Cont. Stowe, 36, in 
 Hudson, Richard, 83, 84, 227 
 Hunnis, William, 16, 91, viii, ix., x. 
 Hunsdon, Lord, Henry Carey, 36, 
 
 39. 44. 45. 64, 175 
 his son, 64, 65, 66, 68 
 Hunter, Joseph, Rev., 36, 86 
 Huntingdon, Henry, Earl of, 135 
 Hyde, John, 29, 140, 220 
 
 Imagination, 3, 10 
 Impresa, 109 
 
INDEX 
 
 269 
 
 Jackson, Rev. J. E., 10 
 
 Henry, 124 
 James, King, 89, 90, 96, 97, 100, 
 
 I0 3-5. "3. 136,228, x. 
 His coronation, 99, 100, 244 
 Jeaffreson, J. Cordy, 30, 72, 73, 
 
 149-150 
 Johnson, William, 9, 12, 36 
 Jonson, Ben, 72, 73, 92, g6, no, 
 
 in, 123, 136, 245, v. 
 
 K 
 
 Kempe, William, 60, 77, 90, 91, 251 
 
 Kendall Thomas, 104-6 
 
 Kenilworth, 16, 59 
 
 Kennedy's "Memorials of Aber- 
 deen," 90 
 
 Keysar, Robert, 107 
 
 Kingsmill, Richard, 52, 156 
 
 Kirkham, Edward, 104, 105, 106, 
 107 
 
 Lady of the Lake, 16, 17 
 Lambert, Edmund, 53, 54 
 
 John, 53, 54 
 Lane, Richard, 82-84, I2 9, 130 
 Laneham, John, 9, 12, 16, 36 
 Robert's Letter, 16, 17, 59 
 Langley, Francis, 61-3, 72, 78, 142 
 
 177-183 
 Law, Mr. Ernest, 101, x. 
 Lear, King, 51, 118 
 Legg, Mr. Dr., 51, 162, 163 
 Leicester, Earl of , 9, 12, 17, 38, 44 
 Leonards, St., Church, 18, 62, 
 
 66, 68, 70, 71, 85, 109, 116, 
 
 125, 133 
 Lodge, Thomas, 32 
 Lodge's Illustrations, 17 
 
 Long, Maurice, 23 
 Lorkin's Letter, ill 
 " Love's Labour Lost," 102, 184 
 Lowen, John, 125, 136, 137, 230-3 
 258-262 
 
 M 
 
 Macbeth, 88, 103, 104, T2i 
 
 Maddox, John, 82, 84, 221 
 
 Mamillia, 22 
 
 Marlowe, Christopher, 55 
 
 Marston, 92, 151, viii. 
 
 Martin, 89, 90 
 
 Martin Marprelate Controversy, 
 
 52 
 Mary, Queen, 6, 95 
 Maxey, Amias, 134 
 Mayor, Lord, 8, 12, 13, 23, 31, 
 
 34-36, 38, 40-42, 44, 47, 
 
 62, 64, 65, 69, 74, 87, 114, 
 
 127, 129, 146, vi. 
 Meres, Francis, 70, 71, 183-4 
 Middleton, Thomas, 117 
 " Midsummer's Night's Dream," 
 
 6, 17, 59, 60, 184 
 Middlesex Authorities, 24, 25, 30, 
 
 44. 6 9 
 Monasteries, 2, 3 
 More, Sir William, 63, 66, 170-4 
 
 Gregory, 163 
 Munday, Anthony, 31, 108, xii. 
 Myles, Ralph, 51, 164, 165 
 
 Robert, 48-50, 65, 78, 156-165, 
 195 
 
 N 
 
 Nash, 55, 64, 65 
 Neale, Mr. Dr., 100 
 Neville, Thomas, 80, 215 
 News from the North, 29 
 Nicholson, George, 89 
 Notes and Queries, 10 
 
270 
 
 INDEX 
 
 o 
 
 Oberon, 17 
 
 Oldcastle, Sir J., 64 
 
 Ordish, T. F., 14, xiii. 
 
 Orders, 13-15, 17, 20, 26, 33, 40- 
 
 42, 44, 146-149 
 Ovid, 57, 184 
 
 Osteler, William, 105, 115, 132 
 Osborne, Thomas, 83, 84, 227 
 
 Palace of Pleasure, 27 
 
 Petite, ,, ,, 27 
 Painton, Edward, 106, 107 
 Panecia, 22 
 
 Paris Garden, 13, 15, 35, 41 
 Payne, 105 
 
 Thomas, 27 
 
 John, 61 
 Paynter, William, 27 
 Peckham, Sir Edmund, 33, 34, 186 
 
 Edmund, 34, 52, 166, 186, 211 
 
 Sir George, 33, 166, 186 
 
 George, 34, 52, 166, 186 
 
 Susan, 34, 166-70 
 Pembroke, William, Earl of, 98 
 116, 117, 131 
 
 and Montgomery Philip,i3i, 230 
 Perkinne, John, 9, 12 
 Pettie, George, 27 
 Philemon and Philecia, 22 
 Phillida and Choryn, 44 
 Phillips, Augustine, 77, 81, 88, 
 97, 100, 101, 104, 132, 297 
 Plague Restraints, 24, 29, 34, 35, 
 4 2 - 43. 47. 5 1 . 57. 90, 98, 105 
 Play of Playes, 33 
 Players, 4, 5-8, 10, 11, 25, 45, 64 
 
 as grooms of the Chamber, 101 
 
 In Coronation procession, 99 
 Plays, 24, 33, Censor of, 242 
 
 Objections to them, 6, 7, io, 
 13, 16, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 
 32, 38, 41, 42, 69, 154, vi. 
 Their patents, 12, 19, 97, 98, 228 
 Their petitions, 14, 39, 4°-44 
 Their profits, 28, 107, 154 
 Praises of players, 136, 137, 244 
 Their Companies, 
 
 Abergavenny's, Lord, 8 
 Admiral's, Lord, 63, 70, 72, vi. 
 Arundel's, Lord, 38 
 Leicester's, Lord, 13, 16, 25, 
 29, 33. 36, 44. 89, 247, 249 
 His boys, 37, 248 
 King's Company, 97, 99, 102, 
 104, 105, 113, 115, 129, 131, 
 132, 137. 253-263 
 Hunsdon's, Lord, 44, 64, 65, 
 
 66, 68, 250, 251, 252, vi. 
 Chamberlain's, Lord, 60, 68, 
 7°, 73, 74. 85, 88-90, 91-93. 
 251, 252, 253, vi. 
 Oxford's, Lord, Boys, 44 
 Pembroke's, Lord, 63, 72 
 Queen Elizabeth's, 35, 38-40, 44, 
 
 70, 146, 251 
 Queen Anne's Children of 
 Chapel, 132 
 
 Children of Revels, 105, 107 
 Sussex's, Lord, 12 
 Pollard, Thomas, 137, 230 
 Pope, Thomas, 77, 100, 252 
 Powell, John, 68, 78, 184 
 " Predor and Lucia," 22 
 Proclamations, 6, 8, 10, 20 
 
 R 
 
 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 36, 88 
 Rape of Lucrece, 58, 65, 184 
 Rastell, William, 104, 106 
 Religion and politics, 7, 8 
 Renaissance, The, 2, 34, vii. 
 
INDEX 
 
 271 
 
 Retainers, Proclamation of, 9 
 Returne from Pernassus, 90, 91 
 Revels, Master of, 11, 13, 27, 34, 
 
 5 2 , "3 
 Rice, John, 108, 126 
 Richard II, 88, 90, 184 
 Richard III, 116, 184 
 Robinson, Richard, 68, 78, 124 
 
 125, 129, 130, 137, 184 
 Mrs. Winifred, 131, 237 
 " Romeo and Juliet," 120 
 Romish emissaries, 7, 10 
 Rose, The, 61, 62, 85, 177 
 Rosseter, Philip, 114, 115 
 Rudd, John, 135 
 Russell, Dowager Lady, 65, 174 
 Rutland, Roger, Earl of, 68, 73, 
 
 76, 78, 87, 109, 185-194 
 Francis, 109 ; Henry, 193 
 
 Sandars, Lady, 114 
 Saule, Hester, 62, 142 
 Saviour's, St., Church, 74, 105 
 Scriven, Thomas, 68, 78, 87, 108, 
 
 109, 187, 188 
 Schoole of Abuse, 32 
 Scott, Mr. Dr., 50, 160 
 Shakespeare, John, 16, 109 
 Roger, 53 
 Thomas, 53 
 
 William, 1, 7, 51, 53-55, 57, 
 
 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 70-73, 
 
 77, 85, 88-90, 92, 94-97, 100, 
 
 101, 103, 104, 108, 113, 115, 
 
 116, 123, 132, 136, 138, 183 
 
 228, 230, 251, vi., viii. 
 
 " Aunts and Snitterfield," 57 
 
 his correction of plays, 55 
 
 " his Fellows and Followers," 
 
 101, 136 
 " of the Court," 101, 257 
 his Law, 57 
 
 Jahrbuch, 60, 101, 114, 136 
 " Money interest in Globe," 104 
 " Official record of his name," 60 
 Sonnets, 54, 57, 58, 184 
 his Warwickshire Contem- 
 poraries, 54 
 " Mr. Shakspeare about Im- 
 presa," 109 
 Shakespeare New Society, 16, 23, 
 
 62 . 73. !33. v - 
 Shancks, John, 125, 133, 231, 239 
 Shaw, or Shae, Robert, 177 
 Shoreditch, 18, 31, 36, 42, 66, 69, 
 71, 85, 128, 138, 150, 191-2 
 Shrewsbury, Earl of, 7 
 Sidney, Sir Philip, 32, 33 
 Simon, John, 36 
 Singer, John 36 
 Sly, William, 97, 100, 139 
 Smith, Humphrey, 127 
 
 William, 76, 77, 83, 216 
 Snug, the Joiner, 60 
 Somers, Sir George, no 
 
 William, 139 
 Southampton, Countess of, 57-9 
 
 Henry, Earl of, 56, 57, 68, 73, 
 87, 88, 92, 96, 98, 102, 103, 
 109 
 South wark, 61 
 Spenser, Edmund, 32, 184 
 
 Gabriel, 70, 73, 150, 177, 183 
 Stanhope, Mr. Dr., 51, 162, 163 
 Stockwood, John, 26, 28 
 Stopes, Rev. James, 135 
 Stbw's History, 135, 146; Howe's 
 
 Cont., 36, in 
 Stow's Survey, 70 ; Strype's 
 
 Cont., 133, 134 
 Stratford-on-Avon, 6, 53, 54, 100 
 Street, Peter, 26, 74, 75, 77, 78, 
 
 83. 85. H2, 198 
 Stubbes, Philip, 31, 37 
 Swan, The, 61-3, 177 
 
272 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Swanston, Eillardt, 130-3, 139, 
 
 230-3 
 Symons, 44 
 
 Tarleton, Richard, 36, 37, 123, 139 
 
 Taylor, Joseph, 230, 231 
 
 Taylor's Works, 111 
 
 "Tempest, The," no 
 
 Tereus, 37 
 
 Theatre, The, 15, 20-6, 29-33, 
 38, 39, 4 6 , 4 8 -52, 54, 56, 62, 
 64, 68, 69-71, 73, 74, 76, 
 77, 79-81, 85, 132, 154, 164, 
 184, 191, viii. 
 
 Theseus and Hippolyta, 59 
 
 Tilney, Edmund, 34, 52 
 
 Tooley, Nicholas, 124, 125 
 
 Towne, John, 36 
 
 U 
 
 Underwood, John, 105, 125, 132 
 Utrecht Library, 62 
 
 V 
 Vagabonds, 3, 7, 10, 11, 69 
 Vautrollier, Thomas, 57 
 " Venus and Adonis,"57,58, 65,184 
 Vernon, Elizabeth, 73, 87 
 Vigerous,' Robert, 79 
 
 W 
 
 W. T., 24 
 
 Walker, Alice, 126 
 
 Wallace, Prof., 77, 107, 115, 196, 
 
 ix., xi., xii. 
 Walsingham, 32, 35, 36, 38 
 Ward, Roger, 45, 48 
 Watermen of London, 62 
 Webbe, Henry, 33, 166-70, 186 
 
 Susan, 33, 34, 166-70, 186 
 Webster, John, Dramatist, 245 
 Wheatley, H. B., 62 
 Whitacker, Lawrence, 126, 127 
 White, Thomas, 24 
 Whitechapel, 18, 164, 195 
 Whitefriars, 105 
 Wilcox, T., 24 
 Wilkenson alias Tooley, 125 
 Wilkins, George, 139 
 Wilson, Robert, 9, 36, 37 
 
 Thomas, 36 
 Winchester, Bishop of, 87 
 Winwood's Memorials, 87, in 
 Wit's Treasury, 70, 183 
 Witt, John de, 62 
 Witter, John, 104, 115 
 Wood's Athena Oxonienses, 60 
 
 Fasti, n, 134 
 Wotton Reliq., in 
 Wright's Hist. Histrionica, 136 
 
 Printed by Butler & Tanner, Frome and London.