Shrovetide. On the 3d of January, 1639-40, a warrant was issued to Michael Oldisworth for 1400l. towards defraying the charge of the scene, masking habits, and other expences of the mask, to be presented by 6 us, and our dearest consort the Queen, at Twelfthtide 'next.' The King's dress for the mask at Shrovetide cost 1201., as appears by a warrant for that sum to George Kirke, Gent. of the Robes, for masking apparel for our own wearing.' This Privy Seal is dated 17th of January, 1639-40; but there is no account extant of the cost of any other part of the preparations.

Christopher Beeston continued but for a short time at the head of the King's and Queen's young company, for, in August, 1639, he had been succeeded by William Beeston (probably his brother), who was then extremely anxious to secure to himself, and to the juvenile players under him, the sole right of performing a certain number of plays, most of which had belonged to the Queen's players while they continued at the Cockpit. Beeston, on succeeding to the theatre, succeeded to the plays also; but he seems to have feared, that, as the Queen's players no longer acted at the Cockpit, his claim would be disputed. He therefore appears to have had sufficient interest with the Lord Chamberlain to induce him to put forth an order, commanding all governors and masters of playhouses' to refrain from acting all and any of the plays enumerated *.

* The list is valuable, and the document itself, on account of its

About the year 1635, the Prince's players, who had been stationed at the Salisbury Court theatre soon after 1629, were performing at the Fortune in Golding

novelty, is worth subjoining. It is from the MS. in the Lord Chamberlain's office :

'Whereas William Bieston, Gent. Governor, &c. of the King's and 'Queen's young Company of Players at the Cockpit in Drury Lane, ⚫ hath represented unto his Majesty, that the several plays hereafter ' mentioned (viz.) Witt without Money; The Night Walkers; The 'Knight of the burning Pestill; Father's owne Sonne; Cupid's Revenge; The Bondman; The Renegado; A New way to pay Debts; 'The Great Duke of Florence; The Maid of Honor; The Traytor; The Example; The Young Admirall; The Oportunity; A Witty fayre one; Love's Cruelty; The Wedding; The Maid's Revenge; 'The Lady of Pleasure; The Schoole of Complement; The Grateful 'Servant; The Coronation; Hide Parke; Philip Chabot Admiral of 6 France; A Mad Couple well mett; All's loss by Lust; The Changeling; A fayre Quarrell; The Spanish Gypsie; The World; The 'Sunne's Darling; Love's Sacrifice; 'Tis Pitty shee's a Whore ; 6 George a greene; Love's Mistress; The Cunning Lovers; The Rape of Lucrese; A Trick to cheat the Devill; A Foole and her 'Maydenhead soon parted; King John and Matilda ; A Citty Night 'Cap; The Bloody Banquett; Cupid's Vagaries; The Conceited Duke; ( and Appius and Virginia, do all and every of them properly and of right belong to the said house, and consequently that they are all in his propriety. And to the end that any other company of actors, in 6 or about London, shall not presume to act any of them to the preju'dice of him the said William Bieston and his company-His Majesty 'hath signified his royal pleasure unto me, thereby requiring me to 'declare so much to all other companies of actors hereby concernable, 'that they are not any ways to intermeddle with, or act any of the ' above-mentioned plays. Whereof I require all masters and governors ' of playhouses, and all others whom it may concern to take notice and 'to forbear to impeach the said William Bieston in the premises, as they tender his Majesty's displeasure and will answer the contempt. Dated 10th August, 1639.'

Lane; but, prior to September, 1639, they were playing at the Red Bull in St. John's Street: the cause of these changes is unknown*. On the 29th of the month above-mentioned, representations were made against them to the Privy Council, in consequence of their having brought out a piece called The Whore New Vamped, in which personal allusion was made to

*They were not of long continuance, for Sir H. Herbert tells us, that at Easter 1640, the Prince's company returned to the Fortune, and 'the Fortune company' went to the Red Bull. He does not state of whose players the Fortune company at that time consisted, but they were probably the Queen's servants, who had been under Christopher Beeston, until he became Governor of the King's and Queen's young company. See Malone's Shakespeare by Boswell, iii. 241. On p. 79 of the same volume, Malone has quoted, for a different purpose, the following prologue by J. Tatham, 'upon the removing of the late Fortune players to the Bull' from Fancies Theatre, 1640.

'Here, gentlemen, our anchors fixed; and we,
'Disdaining Fortunes mutability,

Expect your kind acceptance: then we'll sing

(Protected by your smiles, our ever spring)

'As pleasant as if we had still possest

'Our lawful portion out of Fortune's breast.
'Only we would request you to forbear

'Your wonted custom, banding tile and pear

Against our curtains to allure us forth.

'I pray take notice, these are of more worth

'Pure Naples silk not worsted. We have ne'er

'An actor here has mouth enough to tear

'Language by the ears. This forlorn hope shall be
'By us refin'd from such gross injury;

'And then let your judicious loves advance

Us to our merits, them to their ignorance.'

Hence we see, that at the Red Bull they had silk curtains, and probably the house was better furnished, and more ornamented in other respects, than the Fortune.

an alderman of London, who had been a blacksmith in Holborn, and some general abuse thrown upon proctors. The State Paper Office contains a singular document upon this subject, in which the objectionable parts of the play are pointed out; but, from the statement there made, it seems very doubtful whether the author (whoever he might be) or the Master of the Revels were at all to blame: the expressions, against which complaint was made, appear rather to have been foisted in by Andrew Cane, the actor, whose name has been before met with in connection with the company called the Prince's players. The commencement of the document in the State Paper Office is considerably damaged, and some words are obliterated; but, as a copy of this portion of it is found in the Registers of the Privy Council, the deficiencies are accurately supplied in the transcript contained in the note below*.

*Order touching the Players at the Red Bull.

'At the Court at Whitehall, 29th September, 1639.

Present; the King's most excellent Majesty.

'Whereas complaint was this day made to his Majesty sitting in 'Council, that the stage players of the Red Bull have lately, for many

days together, acted a scandalous and libellous play, wherein they have

audaciously reproached, and in a libellous manner traduced and personated, not only some of the Aldermen of the City of London, and 'other persons of quality, but also scandalized and defamed the whole 'profession of Proctors belonging to the Court of Civil Law, and re'flected upon the present Government: it was ordered, that Mr. 'Attorney General should be hereby prayed and requested forthwith 'to call before him, not only the poet that made the said play, and the 'actors that played the same, but also the person who licensed it, and 'having diligently examined the truth of the same complaint, to pro

The play which thus attracted the attention of the King and of the Privy Council, has not survived.

In the Autumn of 1639, Davenant was obliged to relinquish the patent granted him in the spring of the same year, for building a theatre behind the Three King's ordinary in Fleet street, or in that immediate neighbourhood: the original letters-patent are recited in an indenture, by which Davenant consented not to erect any such building. Why the royal permission thus given was withdrawn remains unexplained *.

*ceed roundly against such of them as he shall find to have been faulty, and to use such effectual expedition to bring them to sentence,

as that their exemplary punishment may prevent such insolencies 'betimes.'

The ground of offence was stated to be the following.

In the play called 'The Whore New Vamped,' where there was mention of the new duty upon wines, one that personates a justice of the peace says to Cane, Sirrah, I'll have you before the Alderman :' whereto Cane replied in these words, viz., 'The Alderman! The Ålder• man is a base, drunken, sottish knave, I care not for the Alderman; 'I say the Alderman is a base, drunken, sottish knave:' another said, How now, Sirrah, what Alderman do you speak of?' then Cane said, 'I mean Alderman, the blacksmith in Holborn:'—said the other, 'Was he not a vintner?' Cane answered, 'I know no other.'

In another part of the same play, Cane, speaking of projects and patents that he had gotten, among the rest, said that he had a patent for twelve-pence a-piece upon every proctor and proctor's man that was not a knave:—said another, 'Was there ever known any proctor, but he was an errant knave?'

* Chalmers (Suppl. Apol. p. 187,) says, that the project was defeated on some disagreement with the Earl of Arundel, the landlord,' but this fact no where appears, and it seems much more probable, that the growth of puritanical notions regarding the stage, and perhaps the in