and in convenient places in towns elsewhere, with proviso saving the
authority, power, privilege and profit of the Master of the Revels.
clvii.
[1615, Sept. 26. Minute of Privy Council, printed from
Register in _M. S. C._ i. 372; also in Chalmers, 463;
_Variorum_, iii. 493.]
[Sidenote: Ordered at the Sessions next before.]
Whereas Complaint was made to this Boarde by the Lord Mayour and
Aldermen of the Cittie of London That one Rosseter, and others havinge
obtayned lycense vnder the great Seale of Englande for the buildinge
of a Play house haue pulled downe a great Messuage in Puddle wharfe,
which was sometimes the house of the Ladie Sanders within the Precinct
of the Blackfryers, are now erectinge a Newe Playhouse in that place,
to the great prejudice and inconvenience of the Gouerment of that
Cittie: Their Lordships thought fitt to send for Rosseter to bringe
in his Lettres Patentes, which beinge seene, and pervsed by the Lord
Chief Iustice of Englande fforasmuch as the Inconveniences vrged by the
Lord Mayour and Aldermen were many, and of some consequence to their
Goverment. And specially for that the said Play house would adioyne
soe neere vnto the Church in Blackfryers, as it would disturbe, and
interrupt the Congregacion at divine Service vpon the weeke dayes: And
that the Lord Chiefe Iustice did deliver to their Lordships, That the
Lycence graunted to the said Rosseter did extende to the buildinge of a
Playhouse without the liberties of London, and not within the Cittie.
It was this day ordered by their Lordships, That there shalbe noe
Play house erected in that place, And that the Lord Mayour of London
shall straitly prohibit, and forbidd the said Rosseter and the rest
of the Patentees, and their workemen to proceede in the makeinge, and
convertinge the said Buildinge into a Play house: And if any of the
Patentees or their workemen shall proceede in their intended buildinge
contrary to this their Lordships Inhibicion, that then the Lord Mayour
shall committ him or them soe offendinge, vnto Prison and certefie
their Lordships of their contempt in that behalfe. Of which their
Lordships order the said Rosseter, and the rest are to take notice, and
conforme themselves accordingly as they will aunsweare to the contrary
at their perrilles.
clviii.
[1616, July 16. Warrant by William Earl of Pembroke, Lord
Chamberlain, printed by Murray, ii. 343, from copy recorded in
Mayor’s Court Books of Norwich.]
Whereas Thomas Swynnerton and Martin Slaughter beinge two of the Queens
Maiesties company of Playors hauinge separated themselves from their
said Company, have each of them taken forth a severall exemplification
or duplicate of his maiesties Letters patente graunted to the whole
Company and by vertue therof they severally in two Companies with
vagabonds and such like idle persons, haue and doe vse and exercise the
quallitie of playinge in diuerse places of this Realme to the great
abuse and wronge of his Maiesties Subjects in generall and contrary to
the true intent and meaninge of his Maiestie to the said Company And
whereas William Perrie haueinge likewise gotten a warrant whereby he
and a certaine Company of idle persons with him doe travel and play
under the name and title of the Children of his Maiesties Revels, to
the great abuse of his Maiesties service And whereas also Gilberte
Reason one of the prince his highnes Playours hauing likewise separated
himselfe from his Company hath also taken forth another exemplification
or duplicate of the patent granted to that Company and liues in the
same kinde & abuse And likewise one Charles Marshall, Homfry Jeffes and
William Parr: three of Prince Palatynes Company of Playours haveinge
also taken forthe an exemplification or duplicate of the patent
graunted to the said Company and by vertue thereof liue after the like
kinde and abuse Wherefore to the [end that] such idle persons may not
be suffered to continewe in this course of life These are therefore
to pray, and neatheless in his Maiesties name to will and require you
vpon notice giuen of aine of the said persons by the bearer herof
Joseph More whome I haue speciallye directed for that purpose that you
call the said parties offendours before you and therevpon take the
said seuerall exemplifications or duplicats or other ther warrants by
which they vse ther said quallitie from them, And forthwith to send the
same to me And also that you take goode and sufficient bonds of any of
them to appeare before me at Whitehall at a fixt daye to answeare ther
said contempte and abuses whereof I desire you not to fayle And these
shalbe your sufficient warrant in that behalfe Dated at the Courte at
Theobalds this 16th day of July in the fowertenth yeare of the raigne
of our soueraigne Lord the Kings Maiestie of England ffrance and
Irelande and of Scotland the nine and fortieth 1616.
Pembrook.
To all Justices of peace Maiours Sheriffs Baliffs Constables and other
his Maiesties officers to whome it may appertayne.
clix.
[1616, Oct. 4. Abstract of entries in Process Book for
General Sessions of the Peace for Middlesex, printed by J. C.
Jeaffreson, _Middlesex County Records_, ii. 235.]
Amongst memoranda of process against a large number of persons, charged
with neglecting to work or contribute for the repair of the highways,
appears this memorandum, touching the Red Bull theatre, ‘Christofer
Beeston and the rest of the players of the Redd Bull are behinde
five pounds, being taxed by the bench 40s. the yeare by theire owne
consentes’.
clx.
[1617, Jan. 27. Minute of Privy Council, printed from Register
in _M. S. C._ i. 374; also in Chalmers, 463; _Variorum_, iii.
494.]
A letter to the Lord Mayor of London. Whereas his Maiestie is informed
that notwithstanding diverse Commaundementes and prohibicions to the
contrary there bee certaine persons that goe about to sett vp a Play
howse in the Black ffryaers neere vnto his Maiesties Wardrobe, and for
that purpose have lately erected and made fitt a Building, which is
allmost if not fully finished, Youe shall vnderstand that his Maiesty
hath this day expressly signifyed his pleasure, that the same shalbee
pulled downe, so as it bee made vnfitt for any such vse, whereof wee
Require your Lordshipp to take notice, and to cause it to bee performed
accordingly with all speede, and therevpon to certify vs of your
proceedinges. And so, &c.
APPENDIX E
PLAGUE RECORDS
[_Bibliographical Note._--Early accounts of the vital statistics
of the plague are J. Graunt, _Natural and Political Observations
upon the Bills of Mortality_ (1662, 1665, 1676); _Reflections
on the Weekly Bills of Mortality_ (1665, two eds.); J. Bell,
_London’s Remembrancer_ (1665). Modern studies are C. Creighton,
_History of Epidemics in Britain_ (1891); C. H. Hull, _The
Economic Writings of Sir William Petty_ (1899, with reprint
of Graunt’s _Observations_); W. J. Simpson, _A Treatise on
Plague_ (1905). Murray, ii. 171, discusses _The Relation of the
Plague to the Closing of the Theatres_. The ultimate material
consists largely of the weekly bills of mortality returned
for each London parish and published by the City authorities.
In these the deaths from plague were separately stated. They
were probably prepared throughout our period, at any rate from
the plague of 1563. On 14 July 1593 John Wolf entered in the
Stationers’ Register (Arber, ii. 634) a licence to print ‘the
billes, briefes, notes and larges gyven out for the sicknes
weekly or otherwise’. The only complete bill extant is one for
20 Oct. 1603 (_Political Tracts_, 1680, in Guildhall Library),
but summaries of the weekly totals are available for 1563–6
(J. Gairdner, _Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles_, 123, 144),
1578–83 (Creighton, i. 341, from _Hatfield MSS._), 1593 (Hull,
ii. 426, from Graunt; _vide infra_), 1597–1600 (Hull, ii. 432,
from _Ashmolean MS._ 824), 1603 (Hull, ii. 426, from Graunt;
Scaramelli in _V. P._ x. 33 sqq.), 1604 (Nicolo Molin in _V.
P._ x. 132 sqq.), 1606–10 (Creighton, i. 494, from Bell).
During the sixteenth century the bills appear normally to have
covered 108 or 109 parishes wholly or partly within the City
jurisdiction, but on 4 Aug. 1593 Westminster, St. Katherine’s,
St. Giles, Southwark, Shoreditch, and other suburbs were ordered
exceptionally to make returns to the Lord Mayor (Dasent, xxiv.
442). On 14 July 1603 the normal list was extended to include
eleven suburban parishes, and in 1606 another was added, making
121 in all. But the important areas of Westminster, Lambeth,
Newington, Stepney, Hackney, Islington, and Rotherhithe remained
uncovered. Moreover, the suburban figures seem from the print
of 1603 to have been recorded separately, and those in Bell’s
pamphlet are shown by a comparison of his entry for 12 May 1636
with that in Herbert’s Office-Book (_Variorum_, iii. 239) to
relate only to the City and liberties. The returns for this area
were probably the basis for play restraints in the seventeenth
century (cf. Bk. ii, ch. x). The bills seem to have been issued
on Thursdays, with figures for the seven days ending on the day
of issue.]
I give all facts indicating any epidemic condition of plague such as
would affect the performance of plays. The play restraints cited are in
App. D.
_1560._ Trinity term was adjourned to Michaelmas on 24 May (_Procl._
525), but plague is not named as the reason.
_1563._ Plague was brought about June by English troops from Havre. The
deaths were above 30 from 3 July to 7 Jan. 1564, and reached 1,828 on
1 Oct. Stowe, _Annales_, 656, gives the totals as 17,404 from 108 City
parishes, and 2,732 from 11 suburban parishes; Camden (tr.), 83, as
21,130 from 121 parishes. Michaelmas term was adjourned to Hilary on
21 Sept. (_Procl._ 582), and Hilary term transferred to Hertford on 10
Dec. (_Procl._ 583). Plays were restrained on 30 Sept.
_1564–6._ The bills show no plague deaths over 30.
_1568._ Some precautions were taken in the City and Westminster
against plague (Creighton, i. 318, 338).
_1569._ Further precautions were taken on 27 March (Creighton, i.
338) and plays restrained on 31 May until 30 Sept. There was in fact
plague in September and October (Creighton, i. 338; La Mothe, ii. 249,
287; _Sp. P._ ii. 193, 203). Michaelmas term was deferred on 28 Sept.
(_Procl._ 642) and adjourned to Hilary on 23 Oct. (_Procl._ 644).
Access to court was restrained on 3 Oct. (_Procl._ 643).
_1570._ There was plague in July and August (_Hatfield MSS._ i. 476;
_Sp. P._ ii. 262, 270, 273; Creighton, i. 338). Michaelmas term was
deferred on 24 Sept. (_Procl._ 658).
_1572._ Harrison reports a restraint of plays for fear of plague.
There is no other evidence.
_1573._ Plague appeared in the autumn (Creighton, i. 339). The Lord
Mayor’s feast was suppressed (_Remembrancia_, 38).
_1574._ Michaelmas term was deferred on 1 Oct. (_Procl._ 691). The
plague deaths on 28 Oct. were 65 (Holinshed, iii. 1240). The Lord
Mayor’s feast was suppressed (Dasent, viii. 303). Plays were restrained
on 15 Nov. until Easter.
_1575._ There was plague in Westminster, but apparently none in London
(Creighton, i. 340). Michaelmas term was deferred on 26 Sept. (_Procl._
696).
_1576._ There was plague in the Tower on 13 July (Dasent, ix. 163).
Michaelmas term was deferred on 29 Sept. (_Procl._ 708).
_1577._ There was plague in August, September, and November (Dasent,
x. 22, 35, 40, 86). Plays were restrained on 1 Aug. to Michaelmas.
Michaelmas term was deferred on 16 Sept. (_Procl._ 719), and further on
15 Oct. (_Procl._ 722).
_1578._ The plague deaths were over 30 in nearly every week from 17
April to 18 Dec., reaching 280 on 2 Oct., and totalling 3,568 for the
year. The Lord Mayor’s feast was suppressed and the precautions against
infection revised (Dasent, x. 339, 386, 413). Michaelmas term was
deferred on 22 Sept. (_Procl._ 724) and 20 Oct. (_Procl._ 725), and
adjourned on 14 Nov. to Hilary (_Procl._ 729). Plays were restrained on
10 Nov. and the restraint removed on 23 Dec.
_1579._ The plague deaths were below 30 in each week, totalling 629 for
the year.
_1580._ The plague deaths were not above 8 in any week, totalling 128
for the year, but plays were restrained from 17 April to Michaelmas,
and other precautions taken (_Remembrancia_, 329).
_1581._ There was plague in the latter part of the year, with deaths
over 30 from 17 Aug. to 2 Nov., reaching 107 on 5 Oct., and totalling
987 for the first forty-five weeks of the year; the figures for the
last seven weeks are missing. The precautions were revised (Creighton,
i. 319). Plays were restrained on 10 July and the restraint removed on
18 Nov. Michaelmas term was deferred on 21 Sept. (_Procl._ 760), and
other precautions taken (_Remembrancia_, 331).
_1582._ There was some plague during the year (_Remembrancia_, 332),
with deaths over 30 from 26 July to 27 Dec., reaching 216 on 25 Oct.,
and totalling 2,976 for fifty-one recorded weeks of the year. Plays
were restrained, probably with the assent of the Privy Council,
although the Register is missing. Michaelmas term was deferred on 18
Sept. (_Procl._ 764), and transferred to Hertford on 8 Oct. (_Procl._
765).
_1583._ The plague deaths were over 30 from 3 to 31 Jan., after
which the record fails. But precautions continued (_Remembrancia_,
335). A restraint of plays was terminated on 26 Nov.
_1584._ There is no evidence of plague, but the dispute of this
year suggests that the summer restraint of recent years had been
repeated.
_1585._ There is no evidence of plague or restraint.
_1586._ There is no evidence of plague, other than a precautionary
restraint of 11 May.
_1587._ There was a similar precautionary restraint on 7 May.
_1588–91._ There is no evidence of plague or even of precautionary
restraints.
_1592._ The first notice of plague is on 13 Aug., when it was daily
increasing (Dasent, xxiii. 118), and there is ample evidence of
its seriousness to the end of the year (ibid., 136, 177, 181, 183,
203, 220, 230, 231, 241, 273, 274, 276, 365; Birch, _Eliz._ i.
87; Creighton, i. 351). A new ‘booke of orders and remedies’ was
recommended by the Council (Dasent, xxiii. 203) on 19 Sept. to the Kent
justices. This is doubtless the _Orders Thoughte Meete by her Maiestie
and her privie Counsell to be executed_ of which several prints
(1592, 1593, 1603, N.D.) exist. It is for provincial use, and has no
special reference to the restraint of plays. Plays had been under
restraint for other reasons than plague since 23 June. The mayoral
feast was suppressed on 11 Oct. (Dasent, xxiii. 232). Access to Hampton
Court was restrained on 12 Oct. (_Procl._ 854). Michaelmas term was
deferred and finally transferred for a short session to Hertford on
21 Oct. (_Procl._ 852, 855, 856). There appear to be no statistics of
deaths; those ordinarily given belong to 1593 (_vide infra_). Suitors
were still excluded from court on 13 Dec. (Dasent, xxiii. 365), but
thereafter there was some recovery, and the records in Henslowe, i. 15,
show that plays were permitted from 29 Dec. to 1 Feb. 1593, although no
formal order is extant.
_1593._ This was a year of continuous plague (Creighton, i. 352). The
Privy Council warned the Lord Mayor on 21 Jan. that the increase of
deaths after some weeks of diminution required care (Dasent, xxiv.
21), and the Register shows preoccupation with the subject up to
August, when the record fails (ibid., 31, 163, 209, 212, 252, 265,
284, 342, 343, 347, 373, 400, 405, 413, 442, 443, 448, 472). Plays
were restrained on 28 Jan. Trinity term was deferred on 28 May and
Michaelmas term transferred for a short session to St. Albans on 24
Sept. (_Procl._ 860, 865, 866). Bartholomew Fair (24 Aug.) was strictly
limited (_Procl._ 863). Access to court at Nonsuch was restrained on
18 June and at Windsor on 15 Sept. (_Procl._ 861, 864). The statistics
of deaths are puzzling. Stowe, _Annales_, 766, gives for the period
from 29 Dec. 1592 (Friday) to 20 Dec. 1593 (Thursday) 8,598 in all
and 5,390 from plague within the walls, and 9,295 in all and 5,385
from plague in the liberties, totalling 17,893 in all and 10,775 from
plague. Camden (tr.), 423, gives a corresponding total of 17,890. A
marginal note to the printed bill of 1603 gives for weeks ending 20
Dec. 1592 (Wednesday) to 23 Dec. 1593 (Sunday) 25,886 in all and 15,003
from plague. Here are two divergent computations for the same period,
one of which deserts the Thursdays, to which we know that earlier and
later weekly bills related. Both are more or less contemporary records.
On the other hand, a series of broadsheets (cited in Hull, ii. 426),
followed by a table appended to Graunt’s _Observations_ (ibid.), give
nearly the same figures (25,886 and, not 15,003, but 11,503) as the
totals of weekly figures for the period from 17 March (Friday) to
22 Dec. (Friday), not of 1593, but of 1592, and Graunt adopts these
figures for March to Dec. 1592 in the text of his _Observations_ (Hull,
ii. 363), while he adopts 17,844 and 10,662, which are approximately
Stowe’s figures, for 1593. As a matter of fact, the weekly figures
given do not add up exactly to 25,886 and 11,503; I make them (as
does Hull, ii. 427) 26,407 and 11,106; Creighton, i. 354, makes the
larger figure 25,817. Finally, the anonymous _Reflections on the
Bills of Mortality_ (1665) give 25,886 and 11,503 as the totals for
13 March (Tuesday) to 18 Dec. (Tuesday), not of 1592, but of 1593
again. The authority of these _Reflections_ is not great, and there
is a discrepancy between the period they take and that taken in the
1603 bill. But I do not see how the detailed weekly figures of the
broadsheets can belong to 1592. The plague deaths are 3 on 17 March
and 31 on 24 March. For the rest of the year they only fall below 30
on 31 March, 7 April, 5 May, and finally on 22 Dec. They reach 41 on
28 April, 58 on 26 May, and climb to 118 on 30 June. There is a big
jump to 927 on 7 July; they get to a maximum of 983 on 4 Aug. and
thereafter decline, dropping below 100 from 24 Nov. and ending with 71
on 15 Dec. and 39 on 22 Dec. These figures cannot apply to 1592, when
plague only made its appearance about August. On the other hand, the
figures for 4 Aug. (1,503 and 983) and 29 Sept. (450 and 330) do not
tally exactly, although they do in general effect, with the 1,603 and
1,135 given as ‘the greatest that came yet’ in Henslowe’s letter of
Aug. 1593, or the 1,100 to 1,200 from plague, representing an abatement
in two weeks of 435, in his letter of 28 Sept. (_H. P._ 37, 40). On
the whole, however, I think that all the figures before us relate to
1593 and not 1592, and that the ascription of the detailed tables to
1592 is due to the fact that they begin with 17 March 159–2/3. Graunt
similarly (Hull, ii. 378) quotes 1593 and 1594, where he clearly means
1594 and 1595. The discrepancies between Stowe and the tables are
probably due to the different number of parishes covered by different
computations. If the larger figures relate to an area wider than that
of City and liberties (cf. the P. C. order of 4 Aug. 1593 cited in the
_Bibl. Note_), we perhaps get also an answer to the view of Creighton,
i. 354, and Hull, ii. 427, that they are neither of 1592 nor 1593, but
altogether spurious as representing an impossibly high rate of general
mortality for sixteenth-century London, even when allowance is made for
the unscientific nature of the ‘plague-tokens’ as a diagnosis and the
consequent increase in plague-time of deaths ascribed to other causes.
_1594._ As in 1592–3, the diminution of plague in December allowed
of a short winter play season. Henslowe, i. 16, records plays from
26 Dec. to 6 Feb. A restraint was ordered on 3 Feb. It was still
thought necessary to inhibit access to court on 21 April (_Hatfield
MSS._ iv. 514), but the plague deaths for the year were only 421
(Graunt in Hull, ii. 378; Bell, _London’s Remembrancer_). Plays began
tentatively in April and May and regularly in June (Henslowe, i. 17).
The systematization of City precautions was under consideration in the
autumn.
_1595._ There were only 29 plague deaths (Graunt, in Hull, ii. 378;
Bell, _London’s Remembrancer_).
_1596._ Plays were restrained for fear of infection on 22 July, but
there is no other evidence of plague.
_1597–1600._ The tables show no plague deaths above 4 in any week.
_1601–2._ There is no evidence of plague.
_1603._ Plague broke out during April (_V. P._ x. 33). Precautions were
already being taken on 18 April (_Remembrancia_, 337). Plays had been
restrained during the illness of Elizabeth on 19 March and probably not
resumed. The terms of the patent to the King’s men on 19 May imply an
existing restraint. The epidemic was a bad one; for an account of it,
cf. Creighton, i. 474, and Dekker, _The Wonderful Year_ (1603, _Works_,
i. 100). The coronation was shorn of its entry and other splendours,
and speedy resort to the country enjoined (_Procl._ 961, 964, 967).
Bartholomew and other fairs were suppressed or put off (_Procl._
964, 968). Trinity term was deferred on 23 June (_Procl._ 957) and
Michaelmas term deferred on 16 Sept, and transferred to Winchester on
18 Oct. (_Procl._ 970, 973). Stowe, _Annales_, 857, gives the total
deaths in the City and liberties as 38,244, including 30,578 from
plague. Creighton, i. 478, calculates from the weekly tables that with
the addition of those suburbs for which records are available, these
figures must be increased to 42,945 and 33,347. The report of 60,000
deaths, which Nicolo Molin (_V. P._ x. 126) found hard to believe, was
obviously an exaggeration. The weekly plague bill for the City and
liberties reached 30 on 26 May, 43 on 9 June, and rose very rapidly
from the end of the month, reaching a maximum of 2,495, with 542 for
the recorded suburbs, on 1 Sept. On 22 Dec. the plague deaths for City,
liberties, and the suburbs henceforward included in the City lists (120
parishes in all) was still 74. Nicolo Molin’s statements on 5 Dec. that
the plague had almost disappeared, and on 15 Dec. that it was never
mentioned (_V. P._ x. 124, 126), must have been optimistic.
_1604._ Nicolo Molin (_V. P._ x. 132 sqq.) records the totals of the
bills (probably a week or so late) in despatches from 26 Jan. to 23
Oct. He gives 15 on 26 Jan. and 27 for the City only on 8 Feb., and
thereafter 20 is only reached in a few weeks of May, August, and
September; 30 never. On 23 Oct. there had only been 6 in the last
fortnight, and ‘as that is nothing out of the common, I will not make
any further reports on this subject’ (_V. P._ x. 190). A play restraint
was removed on 9 April, but the reason given was the expiration of
Lent, and it is not impossible that the theatres may have been open
before Lent, which began on 22 Feb. The warrant of 8 Feb., however, for
a special royal subsidy to the King’s men (App. B) suggests that they
were still unable to perform in public on that date.
_1605._ Creighton, i. 493, says there was ‘not much’ plague; but a
letter of 12 Oct. (Winwood, ii. 140) notes a ‘sudden rising of the
sickness to thirty a week’, followed by some abatement, and there was a
restraint of plays for infection on 5 Oct. which was removed on 15 Dec.
_1606._ This was a year of plague. The deaths reached 33 on 10 July and
50 on 17 July, rose to a maximum of 141 on 2 Oct., and remained, but
for one or two weeks, above 40 to 4 Dec. and above 30 to the end of
the year. The total, for 121 parishes, was 2,124. Michaelmas term was
adjourned on 23 Sept. (_Procl._ 1038) and access to court restrained
on 1 Nov. (_Procl._ 1039). There is no record of a specific order for
the restraint of plays; possibly it was automatic as a result of the
play-bill.
_1607._ During the first half of the year the plague deaths were under
30, except for 38 on 1 Jan., 33 on 5 Feb., 30 on 12 March, 33 on 19
March, and 43 on 30 April. They increased in the autumn, passing 30
on 9 July and 40 on 23 July, to a maximum of 177 on 24 Sept. After 19
Nov. they fell below 30. The total for the year was 2,352. As early as
12 April the City, unjustified as yet by the plague bill, asked for a
restraint of plays. Access to court was restrained on 2 Nov. (_Procl._
1050).