in favour of the Cavaliers, and in ridicule of the Parliamentarians, which refers to the Ordinance of Suppression of the 2nd September, and shews that, even thus early in the contest, many of the players had entered the royal service, naming one in particular, William Trig, who had obtained a Captain's commission, and who, we have seen, was one of the King's players in 1636. The tract is called Certaine Propositions offered to the consideration of the Honourable Houses of Parliament, and is without the name of any printer: it contains the following, as its fifth proposition : 'That being your sage counsels have thought fit to vote down stage players, root and branch; but many, even of the well-affected to that reformation, have found, and hope hereafter to find, playhouses most convenient and happy places of meeting; and that now in this bag-pipe, minstrelsy week (I mean this red pack of leizure days that is coming), there must be some enterludes, whether you will or no, you would be pleased to declare yourselves, that you never meant to take away the calling of stage-plays, but reform the abuse of it: that is, that they bring no profane plots, but take them out of the Scripture all (as that of Joseph and his Brethren would make the ladies weep; that of David and his troubles would do pretty well for the present; and doubtless Susannah and the two Elders would be a scene that would take above any that was ever presented). It would not be amiss, too, if, instead of the music that plays between acts, there were only a Psalm sung for distinction sake. This might be easily brought to pass, if either the Court playwriters be commanded to read the Scripture, or the City Scripture readers be commanded to write plays. This, as it would much advantage our part, so would it much disadvantage the King's; for, as by it we should gain a new place of edifying, so Captain Trigg, and the rest of the players which are now in service, would doubtlessly return to their callings, and much lessen the King's army.'1 1 Another proposition is the following, which, though not connected with our subject, may be quoted for its curiosity: it is the first in the list. Another tract, of a character somewhat similar, bearing date 'January 24, 1643', and exclusively devoted to the subject of plays and players, may also be here mentioned. It is called The Actor's Remonstrance, or Complaint, for the silencing of their profession, and banishment from their several Playhouses, where we find the allowance of bear-baiting and puppet-shows, while regular dramatic performances are forbidden. Here also it is urged, that at the 'private houses' of Blackfriars, the Cock-pit, and Salisbury Court, all obscene and scurrilous jests' had been expunged from the plays acted before the suppresion, but nothing is said regarding the public theatres.1 The ordinance of the 2nd September 1642, not having been found effectual for its purpose, another was adopted, and published on the 22nd October 1647, which is thus 'That the time of gaming being now come in, you would be pleased to take into your serious consideration that scandalous pack of cards, which hath upon the coats names unfit for regenerate ears—as Hercules, Alexander, Julius Cæsar, and Hector of Troy, and such like; and that you would change them into Old-Testament names; as the Kings to be David, Josiah, Solomon, Hezekiah; the Queens, Sarah, Rachel, Hester, Susannah; and the Knaves, lastly, Balaac, Achitophel, Tobit, and Bel,' etc. 1 1 In the newspaper called Perfect Occurrences from Sept. 19th to Sept. 26th, 1645, occurs the following notice regarding the King's players. Sept. 22nd.-The King's players have come in, and have thrown themselves on the mercy of Parliament. They offer to take the covenant, and (if they may be accepted) are willing to put themselves into their service.' Perhaps the ordinance of Oct. 22nd, 1647, was produced by what happened at Salisbury Court Theatre on the 6th of the same month. According to the Perfect Occurrences, the sheriffs of London then interrupted the performance of King and no King, when they took 'Tim Reade the fool' into custody, and dismissed the audience; among whom were 'some young lords and eminent persons': it is added that there were 'men and women with the boxes that took the monies', entitled in a tract, in which it was printed for the information of all whom it might concern: 'An Ordnance of the Lords and Commons, assembled in Parliament, for the Lord Mayor of the City of London, and the Justices of the Peace, to suppress Stage-plays and Interludes', etc. It runs as follows: 'Die Veneris, Octob. 22, 1647.-For the better suppression of Stage-plays, Interludes, and Common Players. It is this day ordered, by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, that the Lord Mayor, Justices of the Peace, and Sheriffs of the City of London and Westminster, the Counties of Middlesex and Surrey, or any two or more of them, shall and may, and are hereby authorised and required to enter into all houses, and other places within the city of London, and liberties thereof, and other places within their respective jurisdictions, where stage plays, interludes, or other common plays are or shall be acted or played, and all such common Players or Actors, as they upon view of them, or any one of them, or upon oaths by two credible witnesses (which they are hereby authorised to minister), shall be proved before them, or any two of them, to have acted or played in such Playhouses or places abovesaid; and all person and persons so offending to commit to any common jail or prison, there to remain until the next general Sessions of the Peace, holden within the said City of London or Liberties thereof, and places aforesaid, or sufficient security entered. for his or their appearance at the said Sessions, there to be punished as Rogues, according to law. 'Jo. BROWN, Cleric. Parliamentorum. 'HEN. ELSYNGE, Cler. Parl. Dom. Com.” Even the exercise of this summary power was not found sufficient to put an end to theatrical performances, for which, perhaps, the desire of those not in authority increased in proportion to the difficulty of gratifying it; and on the 22nd of 1 London, printed by Robert Ibbitson, 1647; and Scobell's Coll., Anno 1647, ch. 97. January 1647-8, the House of Commons received information that plays were still acted in different parts of London and Middlesex. The following is given in Rushworth,1 as the course of proceeding upon the occasion : 'Saturday, Jany. 22, 1647.—This day the House was informed, that many Stage-Plays were acted in the several parts of the City, and County of Middlesex, notwithstanding the Ordinance of Parliament to the contrary. The House hereupon ordered, than an Ordinance should be drawn for suppressing all Stage-plays, and taking down all their boxes, stages and seats in the several houses where the said Plays are usually acted, and make it unserviceable for acting any plays in for the future; and for making a penalty for such as shall disobey the said Ordinance: and this Ordinance to be brought in with all convenient speed. 'They further ordered, that the Lord Mayor, and Sheriffs, and Justices of the Peace of the City of London, and the several Militias of the Cities of London and Westminster, and likewise of the Hamlets, should take care for the suppressing of all Stage-plays for the time to come.' By the 31st of January, however, no such ordinance had been presented to the Commons; and the Lords, on this occasion, seem to have been anxious to outstrip in zeal the other branch of the legislature: as if it did not proceed with sufficient dispatch in a matter of such urgency, they sent a message on that day, with a copy of an ordinance they had drawn up, in which they required the Commons to concur. According to Rushworth,2 the matter was instantly taken up and debated in the Commons, but afterwards postponed; and the committee, to which the House had referred the drawing up of the ordinance 'for suppressing stage-plays and punishing stage-players', was ordered to report upon an ordinance Collections, part iv, vol. ii, p. 972. which it seems it had, in fact, prepared, although not presented. It was reported on the same day, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the Thursday following. What occasioned the farther postponement, we have no information, possibly some opposition the measure received but on Thursday, February 3rd, nothing was done in the matter, and in the interval between January 31st and February 9th, the ordinance was recommitted. In the proceedings of the Commons on the latter day (as detailed by Rushworth1), we read the following paragraph. 'An Ordinance was this day reported to the House of Commons, from the Committee to whom it was formerly committed, for the more effectual suppressing of Stage-Plays, by committing and fining such as shall offend herein for the first offence, and for whipping them for the second offence, as being incorrigible: which was read the third time, and assented unto, and sent to the Lords for their Lordship's concurrence: their Lordships concurred accordingly, and for better satisfaction the sum of the ordinance is to this effect.' It is followed by an abridgment of the act, which, two days afterwards, was published, ' for the suppression of stageplays and interludes.' It made five different provisions on the subject. 1. It declared all players rogues within the meaning of 39 Eliz. and 7 Jac. I. 2. It authorised the Lord Mayor, Justices of the Peace, and Sheriffs to pull down and demolish all stage galleries, seats and boxes. 3. It inflicted the punishment of public whipping upon all players, for the first offence, and for the second offence they were to be deemed incorrigible rogues, and dealt with accordingly. 4. It appropriated all money collected from the spectators to the poor of the parish. 5. It imposed a fine of five shillings upon every person present at the performance of a play.2 1 Part iv, vol. ii, p. 991. The Act is set out at length in Scobell's Collection of Acts and ? |