Paul's, in their singing school, were suppressed. Malone asserts, unqualifiedly, that this event occurred in 1583-4*; but the earliest authority on the point is dated 1591, viz., the address of the printer before Lyly's 'Endymion,' published in that year. • Since (he says) the plays in Pauls were dissolved, there are <certain comedies come to my hands,' &c., speaking as if it were a recent event. We know, likewise, that several of Lyly's pieces were represented by the children of St. Paul's subsequent to 1584. Malone also quotes Heywood's 'Apology for Actors,' 1612, to show that the performances at St. Paul's were forbidden on account of the personal abuse and scurrility put into the mouths of children;' but this piece of evidence would apply equally to the children of the Revelst. The cause of the suppression must, there

* See note on Hamlet, Act ii. Scene 2.

+ The whole passage in Heywood's Apology for Actors runs thus, and the reader will see that he points at no particular company of youthful performers.

'Now to speak of some abuse lately crept into the quality, as an 'inveighing against the state, the court, the law, the city and their governments, with the particularising of private men's humours, yet 'alive, noblemen and others, I know it distates many; neither do I any way approve it, nor dare by any means excuse it. The liberty 'which some arrogate to themselves, committing their bitterness and 'liberal invectives against all estates to the mouths of children, sup'posing their juniority to be a privilege for any railing, be it never so violent, I could advise all such to curb and limit this presumed 'liberty within the bands of discretion and government. But wise and 'judicial censurers, before whom such complaints shall at any time

fore, remain in doubt, as I am not aware of the existence of any testimony, direct or indirect, upon the point, unless it arose out of the manner in which the children of Paul's had brought Martin Marprelate on their stage in 1589, as before mentioned. In his 'Have with you to Saffron Waldon,' 1596, Nash states that the interdict had not then been taken off, for he expresses a wish to see 'the plays at Pauls up again.' It had been removed prior to 1600, because a piece called The Maids Metamorphosis,' attributed to Lyly, was acted by the Children of Powles' and printed in that year. In 'Jack Drum's Entertainment,' first published in 1601, the following dialogue occurs respecting their audiences and their plays.

'hereafter come will not, I hope, impute these abuses to any trans· gression in us, who have ever been careful and provident to shun the 'like.'

We are to recollect, that at the time when Hamlet was first produced (perhaps late in 1602, or early in 1603), the children of the Revels performed, as an independent and rival body, at the Blackfriars Theatre, as well as the full-grown company to which Shakespeare belonged; and I entertain little doubt, that the poet meant his attack for the children of the Revels, and not for the children of Paul's. Malone says, 'our author cannot be supposed to direct any satire at 'those young men who played occasionally at his own theatre:' why not? especially if they were more the fashion,' 'berattled the common stages,' and attracted larger audiences.

The 4to of 1603, in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and which, I think, was demonstrably published in haste from a short-hand copy, taken from the mouths of the players, was not discovered when Malone fixed the date of the production of Hamlet in 1600.

'Sir Edw. Fortune. I saw the children of Powles last

'night,

'And, troth, they pleas'd me pretty, pretty well:

The apes in time will do it handsomely.

'Planet. I'faith, I like the audience that frequenteth

" there,

'With much applause. A man shall not be choked With the stench of garlick, nor be pasted

To the barmy jacket of a beer brewer.

Brabant, Jun. 'Tis a good gentle audience, and I 'hope the boys

'Will come one day into the Court of Requests.

Brabant, Sen. Aye; and they had good plays, but 'they produce

Such musty fopperies of antiquity,

And do not suit the humorous age's back 'With clothes in fashion.'

Hence we may infer that the performance by the children of Paul's had not long recommenced, because it is remarked that they wanted practice-'the apes in time will do it handsomely:'-they, perhaps, acted before 1601, chiefly 'musty fopperies of antiquity,' because, during their long silence, they had not been able to furnish themselves with pieces, that would 'suit the humorous age's back with clothes in fashion.' Marston, Dekker, and others, soon provided them with more modern and more attractive plays, and the 'Antonio and Mellida' of the first, and the Satiromastix' of the last, were acted in, or before 1602. The conclusion, from all the existing evidence, seems to be, that the interdiction was imposed about 1589 or 1590, and withdrawn about 1600. When, in the

preceding quotation, Brabant, junior, expresses a hope that the boys of Paul's will come one day into the Court of Requests,' he means, that they will again be in request for performances at court, as they formerly had been.

In 1591, Queen Elizabeth paid a visit to Lord Burghley, at Theobalds, where, it seems, she was received with much solemnity, although the Lord Treasurer did not himself make his appearance to welcome her. In March, 1587, he had lost his mother at a very advanced age, and in April, 1589, his wife, to whom he was deeply attached, died: in the interval, also, his daughter, Lady Oxford, had expired, so that in 1591, depressed by these misfortunes, he had resolved to retire from public life, and the visit of the Queen was, perhaps, intended to revive his spirits, and to recall him to her active service. Mr. Nichols, in his Progresses,' under this date, relates all that was known upon this point, and without being able to explain it, inserts from Strype a sort of mock writ or summons, directed to Sir Christopher Hatton, the object of which was, by a little official playfulness, to withdraw Lord Burghley from his seclusion: in that document he is spoken of as a Hermit; and it seems clear, that since the death of his wife, two years and some months anterior, he had quitted his noble mansion in disgust, and, making only occasional visits to court, had resided in some obscure cottage in the neighbourhood of Theobalds.

A MS. poem, in blank verse, has fallen into my hands, which serves to explain the whole proceeding it is a speech supposed to be delivered by a Hermit to the Queen, on her first arrival at Theobalds, the purpose of which was to excuse the absence of Lord Burghley, by stating that he had taken up his abode in the cell belonging to the Hermit, in consequence of his grief, and had enjoined the Hermit to do the honours of the house in his stead. Robert Cecill, knighted just afterwards, was the person who pronounced the speech, and he referred to it when the Queen again came to Theobalds in 1594. It was written by a poet no less distinguished than George Peele, who was employed by Lord Burghley's son to aid the scheme; for the mock writ, before mentioned, which puzzled Strype, and as he says, defied commentary, is besought by the individual in the disguise of a Hermit. The whole piece is in the poet's handwriting, and his initials, G. P., are subscribed at the end. It refers to other points (among them, to the defeat of the Spanish Armada) which will be easily understood by those who are at all acquainted with the public and private history of the times:

* The circumstance of his having been employed, and successfully, on this occasion, may have emboldened Peele, in 1596, to make a charitable appeal to Lord Burghley, when in extreme poverty he sent to his lordship the 'Tale of Troy.' See a fac-simile of Peele's letter, from Lansdown MS., No. 99, in the 2d edition of 'Peele's Works,' by the Rev. A. Dyce. That letter is in the Italian hand, then most fashionable, but Peele also wrote the common English hand: the body of this poem is in the latter, and some corrections in the former.