It is not to be wondered at, that an amusement, thus patronised by the
great, and even by royalty itself, ferocious as it was, should be the
delight of the vulgar, whose untutored taste it was peculiarly
calculated to please. Accordingly, bear-baiting seems to have been
amazingly frequented, at this time, especially on _Sundays_. On one of
these days, in 1582, a dire accident befell the spectators. The
scaffolding suddenly gave way, and multitudes of people were killed, or
miserably maimed. This was looked upon as a judgment, and as such was
noticed by divines, and other grave characters, in their sermons and
writings. The lord mayor for that year (sir Thomas Blanke) wrote on the
occasion to the lord treasurer, “that it gave great reason to
acknowledge the hand of God, for breach of the Lord’s Day,” and moved
him to redress the same.
Little notice, however, was taken of his application; the accident was
forgot; and the barbarous amusement soon followed as much as ever, Stowe
assuring us, in his work, printed many years afterwards, “that for
baiting of bulls and bears, they were, till that time, much frequented,
namely, in bear gardens on the Bankside.” The commonalty could not be
expected to reform what had the sanction of the highest example, and the
labours of the moralist were as unavailing as in the case of pugilism in
the present day.
In the succeeding reign, the general introduction of the drama operated
as a check to the practice, and the public taste took a turn. One of
these theatres gave place to “the Globe;” the other remained long after.
This second theatre, which retained its original name of the
“Bear-baiting,” was rebuilt on a larger scale, about the beginning of
James the First’s reign; and of an octagonal form instead of round, as
before; in which respect it resembled the other theatres on the
Bankside. The _first_ engraving in this article contains a view of it in
this state, from the long print of London by Vischer, usually called the
Antwerp view. In this representation, the slips, or dog-kennels, are
again distinctly marked, as well as the ponds. The _second_ engraving,
from Hollar’s view about 1648, shows it as it was a third time rebuilt
on a larger scale, and again of the circular shape, when “plays” and
prize-fighting were added to the amusements exhibited at it.
In the reign of James I. the “Bear-garden” was under the protection of
royalty, and the mastership of it made a patent place. The celebrated
actor Alleyn enjoyed this lucrative post, as keeper of the king’s wild
beasts, or master of the royal bear-garden, situated on the Bankside, in
Southwark. The profits of this place are said by his biographer to have
been immense, sometimes amounting to 500_l._ a year; and well account
for the great fortune he raised. A little before his death he sold his
share and patent to his wife’s father, Mr. Hinchtoe, for 580_l._
We have a good account of the “Bear-baiting,” in the reign of Charles
II., by one Mons. Jorevin, a foreigner, whose observations on this
country were published in 1672,[122] and who has given us the following
curious detail of a visit he paid to it:--
“We went to see the Bergiardin, by Sodoark,[123] which is a great
amphitheatre, where combats are fought between all sorts of animals, and
sometimes men, as we once saw. Commonly, when any fencing-masters are
desirous of showing their courage and their great skill, they issue
mutual challenges, and, before they engage, parade the town with drums
and trumpets sounding, to inform the public there is a challenge between
two brave masters of the science of defence, and that the battle will be
fought on such a day. We went to see this combat, which was performed on
a stage in the middle of this amphitheatre, where, on the flourishes of
trumpets, and the beat of drums, the combatants entered, stripped to
their shirts. On a signal from the drum, they drew their swords, and
immediately began the fight, skirmishing a long time without any wounds.
They were both very skilful and courageous. The tallest had the
advantage over the least; for, according to the English fashion of
fencing, they endeavoured rather to cut, than push in the French manner;
so that by his height he had the advantage of being able to strike his
antagonist on the head, against which, the little one was on his guard.
He had, in his turn, an advantage over the great one, in being able to
give him the Jarnac stroke, by cutting him on his right ham, which he
left in a manner quite unguarded. So that, all things considered, they
were equally matched. Nevertheless, the tall one struck his antagonist
on the wrist, which he almost cut off; but this did not prevent him from
continuing the fight, after he had been dressed, and taken a glass or
two of wine to give him courage, when he took ample vengeance for his
wound; for a little afterwards, making a feint at the ham, the tall man,
stooping in order to parry it, laid his whole head open, when the little
one gave him a stroke, which took off a slice of his head, and almost
all his ear. For my part, I think there is an inhumanity, a barbarity,
and cruelty, in permitting men to kill each other for diversion. The
surgeons immediately dressed them, and bound up their wounds; which
being done, they resumed the combat, and both being sensible of their
respective disadvantages, they therefore were a long time without giving
or receiving a wound, which was the cause that the little one, failing
to parry so exactly, being tired with this long battle received a stroke
on his wounded wrist, which dividing the sinews, he remained vanquished,
and the tall conqueror received the applause of the spectators. For my
part, I should have had more pleasure in seeing the battle of the bears
and dogs, which was fought the following day on the same theatre.”
It does not appear at what period the Bear-baiting was destroyed, but it
was, probably, not long after the above period. Strype, in his first
edition of Stowe, published 1720, speaking of “Bear Alley,” on this
spot, says, “Here is a glass-house, and about the middle a _new-built_
court, well-inhabited, called _Bear-garden Square_; so called, as built
in the place where the Bear-garden formerly stood, until removed to the
other side of the water; which is more convenient for the butchers, and
such like, who are taken with such rustic sports as the baiting of bears
and bulls.” The theatre was evidently destroyed to build this then _new_
court.[124]
According to an entry in the Parochial Books in 1586, one Morgan Pope
agreed to pay the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, for the Bear-garden,
and the ground where the dogs were kept, 6_s._ 8_d._ arrears and 6_s._
8_d._ for tithes.
The old Bear-garden at Bankside, and the Globe theatre wherein
Shakspeare’s plays were originally performed, and he himself sometimes
acted, was in the manor or liberty of Paris Garden. Near this, and in
the same manor, were the Hope, the Swan, and the Rose theatres. It
appears from “an ancient Survey on vellum made in the reign of queen
Elizabeth,” that “Olde Paris Garden Lane” ran from Bankside, in the
direction of the present Blackfriars-road, to stairs at the river’s-side
near to, or perhaps on the very spot now occupied by, the Surry end of
Blackfriars-bridge, and opposite to this lane in the road of the
Bankside stood an old stone cross, which, therefore, were it remaining,
would now stand in Blackfriars-road, near Holland-street, leading to the
present Falcon glass-house, opposite to which site was the old Falcon
tavern, celebrated for having been the daily resort of Shakspeare and
his dramatic companions. Till of late years, the Falcon inn was a house
of great business, and the place from whence coaches went to all parts
of Kent, Surry, and Sussex. In 1805, before the old house was taken
down, Mr. Wilkinson, of Cornhill, caused a drawing to be made, and
published an engraving of it. “The Bull and Bear Baiting” were two or
three hundred yards eastward of the Falcon, and beyond were the Globe
and the other theatres just mentioned. “The site of the Old Bear-garden
retaining its name, is now occupied by Mr. Bradley’s extensive
iron-foundery, in which shot and shells are cast for the
government.”[125]
The royal officer, called the “master of the bears and dogs,” under
queen Elizabeth and king James I., had a fee of a farthing per day. Sir
John Darrington held the office in 1600, when he was commanded on a
short notice to exhibit before the queen in the Tilt-yard; but not
having a proper stock of animals, he was obliged to apply to Edward
Alleyn, (the founder of Dulwich-college,) and Philip Henslow, then owner
of the Bear-garden in Southwark, for their assistance. On his death,
king James granted the office to sir William Steward, who, it seems,
interrupted Alleyn and Henslow as not having a license, and yet refused
to take their stock at a reasonable price, so that they were obliged to
buy his patent. Alleyn and Henslow complained much of this in a petition
to the king, containing many curious circumstances, which Mr. Lysons has
published at length. Alleyn held this office till his death, or very
near it: he is styled by it in the letters patent for the foundation of
his college in 1620. Among his papers there is a covenant from Peter
Street, for the building at the Bear-garden, fifty-six feet long and
sixteen wide, the estimate of the carpenter’s work being sixty-five
pounds.
The latest patent discovered to have been granted for the office of
master of the bears and dogs is that granted to sir Sanders Duncombe in
1639, for the sole practising and profit of the fighting and combating
of wild and domestic beasts in England, for fourteen years.
This practice was checked by the parliament in 1642. On the 10th of
December in that year, Mr. Whittacre presented in writing an examination
of the words expressed by the master of the Bear-garden, “that he would
cut the throats of those that refused to subscribe a petition:”
whereupon it was resolved, on the question “that Mr. Godfray, master of
the Bear-garden, shall be forthwith committed to Newgate--Ordered, the
masters of the Bear-garden, and all other persons who have interest
there, be enjoined and required by this house, that for the future they
do not permit to be used the game of bear-baiting in these times of
great distraction, till this house do give further order herein.” The
practice, however, did not wholly discontinue in the neighbourhood of
London till 1750. Of late years this public exhibition was revived in
Duck-lane, Westminster, and at the present time is not wholly
suppressed.
[121] Princely Pleasures of Kenilworth, p. 22, quoted by Mr. Pennant,
in his Account of London, p 36.
[122] Republished in the Antiquarian Repertory, Ed. 1806, under the
title of “A Description of England and Ireland, in the 17th Century,
by Mons. Jorevin.” vol. iv. p. 549.
[123] Bear-garden, Southwark.
[124] Lond. Illustrat.
[125] Manning and Bray’s Surry.
* * * * *
~Literature.~