the city, eight ordinary places, for playing publicly, to the great impoverishment of the people.

No sooner was the drama protected by the wise ministers of Elizabeth, who distinguished, nicely, between the use, and the abuse, of every institution, than plays and players were persecuted by the puritans, whose enmity may be traced up to the publication of The Laws of Geneva, which prohibited stage plays as sinful. In 1574, A Form of Christian Policy was drawn out of the French, and dedicated to lord Burleigh, by Geoffry Fenton. Gosson printed his School of Abuse, in 1578, which was dedicated to sir Philip Sydney, by whom it was disdainfully rejected. In 1579, John Northbrooke published a treatise, wherein dicing, dauncing, vaine plaies, or enterludes, with other idle pastimes were reprooved. Stubbes exhibited his Anatomie of Abuses, in 1583; showing the wickedness of stage playes and enterludes. The churches continually resounded with declamations against the stage. And, in 1592, the vanity and unlawfulness of plaies, and enterludes, were maintained, in the university of Cambridge, by doctor Rainolds, against doctor Gager, the celebrated dramatist. This academical controversy was soon followed by a kind of theatrical rescript in the form of a Letter to the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, from the privy council, dated at Oatlands, on the 29th of July 1593; the same year, in which appeared the first heir of Shakespeare's invention.

From this outcry against the drama, loud as it was, and long as it continued, some good effects resulted; as there did from a similar outcry, which was raised by Col

lier against the stage in more modern times. As early as 1578, the privy council endeavoured, though not with complete success, to prevent the acting of plays during Lent. This solicitude, for the interests of religion, was soon after extended to the preventing of stage plays on Sundays. Yet this care did not extend to the court, where plays were presented, for queen Elizabeth's recreation, during her whole reign, on Sundays. This restriction against acting plays on Sundays was continued, by successive orders of the privy council, till it was at length enacted by parliament, that no plays should be presented on the Lord's day.

The players were also obstructed in the exercise of their profession by orders, which originated from a less pious source, and deprived of their profits by injunctions, which proceeded from a less disinterested motive. The royal bearward found, that the people who are entitled to praise for such a preference, took more delight in stage-playing than in bear-baiting; their second sight foreseeing, no doubt, that Shakespeare was at hand, to justify their choice: accordingly, in July 1591, an order was issued by the privy council, that there should be no plays, publicly, showed on Thursdays; because, on Thursdays, bearbaiting, and such like pastimes, had been usually practised. In this manner were the ministers of Elizabeth, at times, gravely and wisely occupied.

By those various causes were the players, who had no other profession, deprived of their livelihood; by the recurrence of pestilence, by the intervention of Lent, by the return of Sunday, and by the compe

3 E 3

tition

tition of bearwards. On the 3d of December 1581, the players stated their case to the privy council; represented their poor estates, as having no other means to sustain their wives and children, but their exercise of playing; showed, that the sickness within the city were well slacked; and prayed that their lordships would grant them license to use their playing as heretofore: the privy council, thereupon, for those considerations, and recollecting also, "that they were to present certain plays before the queen's majesty, for her solace, in the ensuing Christmas," granted their petition; ordering the lord mayor to permit them to exercise their trade of playing, as usual. On the 22d of April 1582, this order was extended for a further time, and enforced by weightier considerations; for honest recreation sake, and in respect, that her majesty sometimes taketh delight in these pastimes. Yet the privy council did not, in their laudable zeal for honest recreation, depart, in the least, from accustomed prudence; requiring, as essential conditions of removing those restrictions, that the comedies and interludes be looked into for matter, which might breed corruption of manners; and that fit persons might be appointed, for allow ing such plays only, as should yield no example of evil. We shall find, in our progress, that regular commissioners were appointed in 1589, for reviewing the labours of our dramatists; for allowing the fit and rejecting the unmannerly; which appointment seems to be only a systematic improvement of queen Elizabeth's ecclesiastical injunctions in 1559.

Of such players, and such com

panies, that incited honest merri ment, during Elizabeth's days, and were regarded as objects of consideration, by some of the wisest ministers that have ever governed England, who would not wish to know a little more? The children of St. Paul's appear to have formed a company in very early times. At the accession of Elizabeth, Sebastian Westcott was the master of those children. With his boyish actors he continued to entertain that great queen, and to be an object of favour and reward, till the year 1586. He was succeeded, as master of the children of Paul's, by Thomas Giles, who in the same manner tried to please, and was equally rewarded for his pains. Thomas Giles was succeeded, in 1600, by Edward Piers, as the master of the children of Paul's, who was to instruct them in the theory of music and direct them "to hold, as 't were, the mirror up to nature." The establishment of the children of her majesty's honourable chapel seems to have been formed on the plan of the children of St. Paul's. Richard Bower, who had presided over this honourable chapel under Henry VIII, continued to solace Elizabeth, by the singing and acting of the children of the chapel, till 1572. Richard Bower was then succeeded, in his office, and in those modes of pleas ing, by John Honnys. This master was followed by William Hunnis, one of the gentlemen of the chapel; who not only endeavoured to gladden life by the acting of his chil dren, but to improve it by the publication of the penitential psalms, with appropriate music. The children of Westminster had for their director John Taylor, from the

year

year 1565, for a long succession of

theatrical seasons. And the children of Windsor were, in the same manner, employed by Richard Ferrant, during Elizabeth's residence there, to ease the anguish of a torturing hour."

It was from those nurseries that many a cyon was grafted into the more regular companies of players. During the infancy of the drama, the players were driven, by the penalties of the statutes against vagabonds, to seek for shelter under private patronage, by entering themselves, as servants, to the greater peers, and even to the middling sort of gentlemen. At the accession of Elizabeth, the lord Robert Dudley's players became conspicuous. When, by his influence, they were incorporated into a regular company in 1574, their leaders were, James Burbadge, John Perkyn, John Lanham, William Johnson, and Robert Wilson. None of these rose to eminence, or contributed much to the advancement of the stage. When the earl of Leicester died, in September 1588, they were left to look for protection from

a new master.

In 1572, sir Robert Lane had theatrical servants, at the head of whom was Laurence Dutton, who appears to have joined the earl of Warwick's company; but Lane's servants seem not to have long continued, either to profit by pleasing others, or to please themselves by profit.

In 1572, lord Clinton entertained dramatic servants, who, as they did little, have left little for the historian of the stage to record. When the lord Clinton died, on the 16th of January 1584-5, those servants found shelter probably from

some other peer, who, like him, was ambitious of giving and receiv ing the pleasures of the stage.

In 1575, appeared at the head of the earl of Warwick's company Laurence Dutton, who, as they did not distinguish themselves, cannot be much distinguished by the historian of the theatre.

In 1575, the lord chamberlain had a company of acting servants; whether William Elderton, and Richard Mouncaster, were then the leaders of it is uncertain: but Shakespeare was, certainly, admitted into this company, which he has immortalized more by his dramas than by his acting. In 1597, John Heminges and Thomas Pope were at the head of the lord chamberlain's servants, who were afterwards retained by king James; and long stood the foremost for the regularity of their establishment, and the excellency of their plays.

In 1576, the earl of Sussex had a theatrical company which began to act at the Rose, on the 27th of December 1593, yet never rose to distinguished eminence.

In 1577, lord Howard had dra-matic servants, who, as they did not distinguish themselves, have not been remembered by others.

In 1578, the earl of Essex had a company of players, who probably finished their career when he paid the penalty of his treason in 1601.

In 1579, lord Strange had a company of tumblers, who, at times, entertained the queen with feats of activity; and who began to play at the Rose, under the management of Philip. Henslow, on the 19th of February 1591-2; yet were never otherwise distinguished, than like the strutting player, whose conceit lay in his hamstring.

In 1579, the earl of Darby entertained a company of comedians, which had at its head, in 1599, Robert Brown, to whom William Slye devised, in 1608, his share in the Globe.

In 1585, the queen had certainly a company of players, which is said, without sufficient authority, to have been formed, by the advice of Walsingham, in 1581. The earliest payment which appears to have been made to the queen's company, was issued on the 6th of March 1585-6. And, in March 1589-90, John Dutton, who was one of lord Warwick's company, and John Lanham, who belonged to lord Leicester's, appear to have been at the head of Elizabeth's company, which must be distinguished from the ancient establishment of the household, that received a salary at the exchequer without performing any duty at court.

In 1591, the lord admiral had a company of comedians, who began to act at the Rose, on the 14th of May 1594; and who had at its head, in 1598, Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton: Connected with them, in the management and concerns of the company, were Philip Henslow and Edward Alleyn; two persons, who are better known, and will be longer remembered in the theatrical world. At the accession of king James, the theatrical servants of the lord admiral had the honour to be taken into the service of Henry-Frederick, prince of Wales.

In 1592, the earl of Hertford entertained a company of theatrical servants, who have left few materials for the theatrical remembrancer.

sheltered, in the like manner, under his protection, a company of persons, who equally made a profession of acting, as a mode of livelihood, and who were more desirous of profit than emulous of praise. This company began to play at the Rose, on the 28th of October 1600.

The earl of Worcester had also a company of theatrical servants, who, at the accession of king James, had the honour to be entertained by queen Anne in the same capacity.

Thus we see, in this slight enumeration, fifteen distinct companies of players; who, during the protected reign of Elizabeth, and in the time of Shakespeare, successively gained a scanty subsistence, by lascivious pleasing. The demise of the queen brought along with it the dissolution of those companies, as retainers to the great and we shall find, that the accession of king James gave rise to a theatric po licy of a different kind. The act of parliament, which took away from private persons the privilege of licensing players, or of protecting strolling actors from the penalties of vagrancy, put an end for ever to the scenic system of prior

times.

don,

don. This is the most complete of our ancient baronial residences now remaining; and though not at present inhabited, nor in very good repair, is extremely interesting to the antiquary, from the many indications it exhibits of the festive manners and hospitality of our ancestors, and of the inconvenient yet social arrangement by which their mode of life was regulated.

The high turrets and embattlements of this mansion, when beheld from a distance, give it the resemblance of a strong fortress; and even on a nearer approach, it apparently confines the idea, but, though thus castellated, and assuming the forms of regular defence, it was never, even in its original construction, furnished with any means of effectual resistance. It consists of numerous apartments and offices, erected at different periods, and surrounding two paved quadrangular courts. The most ancient part is the tower over the gateway, on the east side of the upper quadrangle; this was probably built about the reign of Edward the Third; but there is no evidence by which its precise date can be ascertained. The chapel is of Henry the Sixth's time: and the tower at the northwest corner, on which are the arms of the Vernons, Pipes, &c. is nearly of the same period. The gallery was erected in the reign of queen Elizabeth, after the death of sir George Vernon: some of the offices are more modern; but not any portion of the building is of a date subsequent to the seventeenth century.

The principal entrance at the north-west angle, is under a high tower, through a large arched gate

way, that leads, by a flight of angular steps, into the great court. Near the middle of the east side of the latter, is a second flight of steps, communicating with the great porch, over the door of which are two shields of arms carved in stone; the one containing those of Vernon, and the other, of Fulco de Pembridge, lord of Tong, in Shropshire, whose daughter, and heiress, Isabella, married sir Richard Vernon, and considerably increased the family estate by her own possessions. On the right of the passage leading from the porch is the great hall, having a communication with the grand staircase, and state apartments; and on the left, ranging in a line, are four large doorways, with great pointed stone arches, which connect with the kitchen, buttery, wine-cellar, and numerous small upper apartments, that appear to have been used as lodging-rooms, for the guests and their retainers. In the kitchen are two vast fireplaces, with irons for a prodigious number of spits: various stoves, great double ranges of dressers, an enormous chopping block, &c. Adjoining the kitchen are various lesser rooms, for larders and other purposes.

The hall must have been the great public dining-room, for no other apartment is sufficiently spacious for the purpose. At the upper end is a raised floor, where the table for the lord and his principal guests was spread; and on two sides is a gallery, supported on pillars. From the south-east cerner is a passage leading to the great staircase, formed of huge blocks of stone, rudely jointed; at the top of which, on the right, is a large

apartment