of Lord Ellesmere in 1609, I read the following item, which, taken by itself, does not appear of much importance:

"A Warrant for Robert Daborne and others, the Queene's Servants, to bring up and practise Children in Plaies by the name of the Children of the Queen's Revells, for the pleasure of her Majestie, 4o. Janij Anno Septimo Jacobi.”

I remembered that Philip Rosseter, the lutanist, had obtained a patent of the very same date, and for the very same purpose (vide" History of Dramatic Poetry," i, 372), and it struck me as extraordinary that there should be two concurrent grants. I knew also, whatever might be Daborne's circumstances in 1609, that he was in great want in 1613 or 1614, when he was imploring Henslowe not to forsake him "in his extremity" (Mal: Shakspeare, by Boswell, iii., 336), so that he could not then have been in possession of funds to enable him to enter into such a speculation. I subsequently found, however, that he had, or was to have had, partners in the undertaking, one of them being William Shakspeare, another Nathaniel Field, the celebrated actor and dramatist, and a third Edward Kirkham, whose name had been in a previous warrant for the instruction of the Children of the Queen's Revels, a copy of which is inserted in the "History of Dramatic Poetry," i., 353.

It has hitherto been thought, by every body acquainted with the subject, that Shakspeare confined his efforts, both as author and actor, to the two theatres occupied by the King's Servants, the Blackfriars and the Globe. I still believe that such was the fact, for reasons I shall assign presently, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, afforded by the following document, which came earliest to my hands. It purports to be a draft either for a patent or a privy seal, and runs thus:

"Right trusty and welbeloved &c. James &c. To all Mayors, Sherriffs, Justices of the peace &c. Whereas the Queene our dearest wife hath for her pleasure and recreation appointed her Servaunts Robert Daiborne &c. to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of Children who shall be called the children of her Maiesties Revells, knowe ye that we haue appointed and authorized and by these presents doe appoint and authorize the said Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field and Edward Kirkham from time to time to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of Children, and them to instruct and exercise in the quality of playing Tragedies, Comedies &c. by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, within the

Black fryers in our Citie of London or els where within our realme of England. Wherefore we will and commaund you and everie of you to permitt her said Servaunts to keepe a convenient nomber of Children by the name of the Children of the revells to the Queene, and them to exercise in the qualitie of playing according to her royall pleasure. Provided alwaies that no playes &c shall be by them presented, but such playes &c as have received the approbation and allowance of our Maister of the Revells for the tyme being. And these our Ires. shall be your sufficient warrant in this behalfe. In witnesse whereof &c. 4° die Janij 1609."

After reading this document, several suggestions instantly present themselves. First, that the entry in the official book of Lord Ellesmere, kept by William Tuthill, only mentions the name of Daborne, omitting Shakspeare, Field, and Kirkham; but this might possibly be accounted for by the circumstance that, in the first part of the draft, Daborne only is spoken of, his associates being named after wards this of itself seems a singular irregularity, for the usual course would be first to enumerate all the parties, and then, for the sake of brevity, inserting the first, to imply the rest by the "&c." However, this would be a trifle, if it did not appear, on the face of the draft, that it was never carried into effect, as far as regards Shakspeare, though it might pass the seal in favor of the rest, as it certainly did in favor of "Daborne and others," who are mentioned in the clerk's entry. That entry was not made until the official instrument was prepared and ready for delivery; and at the end of the list of a certain number of them, the name of the person receiving them and carrying them from the office is constantly subscribed. Should we ever recover this document, of course we should see who were Daborne's partners, designated in the entry by the words "and others;" but there can be little doubt that Shakspeare was not one of them. At the bottom of the draft, the word "stayed" has been written, which proves that there was at least some hesitation in passing the warrant.

Then it may be asked, how it happens that the name of Shakspeare is found in the draft. This answer may be given, and perhaps it is the true one-that the destruction of the Blackfriars theatre was, about this date, or a very little earlier, contemplated, and that Shakspeare projected the transference of his interest, or part of it, to a different dramatic concern; because, although the Blackfriars is specifically mentioned, the words "or elsewhere

within our realm of England" are added, so that the Children of the Queen's Revels might in fact perform in any English theatre. When, however, it turned out that the corporation of London could not succeed in their design of expelling the King's Servants from the privileged precinct of the Blackfriars, Shakspeare might resolve, as long as he remained in London, to continue his old connection, as we know that he did, to the last. This is the most plausible conjecture I can form, and it is somewhat supported by the circumstance that, in the privy seal to Rosseter, it was expressly stipulated that the children were to perform at the Whitefriars theatre, which had been erected about the same time as the Blackfriars theatre.

The Whitefriars theatre was likewise in a liberty out of the jurisdiction of the lord mayor. We have no information at all precise when it was built; but I apprehend that it arose out of the persecution of the players by the corporation in 1575. In 1613, Sir George Buc, master of the revels, received a fee of 207. for his permission to rebuild it; and I have in my possession an original survey of some part of the precinct, made in March, 1616, which contains the following paragraph regarding the theatre in the Whitefriars :

"The Theater is situate near vnto the Bishopps House, and was in former times a hall or refectorie belonging to the dissolved Monastery. It hath beene vsed as a place for the presentation of playes and enterludes for more then 30 yeares, last by the Children of her Majestie. It hath little or no furniture for a playhouse, saving an old tottered curten, some decayed benches, and a few worne out properties and peeces of Arras for hangings to the stage and tire house. The raine hath made its way in and if it bee not repaired, it must soone be plucked downe, or it will fall."

This document was not in my hands or I should, of course, have inserted it.

when I printed my book, One of the last plays per

Neither were these theatrical "children" necessarily always young. In the State Paper Office is a letter from Ignatius Jurdain, mayor of Exeter (endorsed "June, 1618"), to Sir Thomas Lake, " Principal Secretary to his Majesty," complaining that John Daniel (of whom I shall have something more to say by and by) had come to that city, and, showing his patent, had claimed a right to perform there. The mayor refused his permission, on the ground that the patent was only for "Children of the Revels," whereas, in the whole company, there were only five youths, and the rest men of thirty, forty, and fifty years old. He had, however, presented them with four angels, with which they seemed content; but, as he afterwards heard that they threatened to write to the privy council, complaining of obstruction, he had determined to be beforehand with them. He annexes to his letter a copy of The patent of the 17th of July, 13 Jac. I.

formed in the Whitefriars theatre was, doubtless, Nathaniel Field's Woman is a Weathercock, printed in 1612, but written before 1611. Field was one of the partners of Daborne mentioned in the draft of the warrant found at Bridgewater House. I explain the apparently concurrent grants to Daborne and Rosseter, dated 4th of January, 1609, by supposing that they were in fact one and the same, and that, Shakspeare having seceded, because the King's Servants were not disturbed, Daborne took Rosseter in his place. Daborne was the author of several plays, two of which only were printed; and in the preface to one of them--A Christian turn'd Turk, 1612--he says, "my own descent is not obscure, but generous;" and it is likely that he obtained the grant in question by some influence at court: his name, as manager or joint manager of a company, is only found among Lord Ellesmere's papers.

But for the entry in the book by William Tuthill, I should have concluded, from the word "stayed" at the bottom of the draft, and from other circumstances, that the intention to grant a patent or privy seal for the purpose stated, had never been carried into execution. At the foot of the same paper is the subsequent enumeration of theatres at that time open in the metropolis and its neighborhood.

"Bl. Fr. and Globe

Wh Fr. and Parish Garden
Curten and Fortune

Hope and Swanne

All in or neare London."

This list seems to show that the number of existing playhouses was taken into consideration, perhaps by the lord chancellor, and that he was deterred from at once complying with the wishes of Daborne and his associates, by the consideration that no more places of dramatic entertainment were required "in and near London." This remark may be partly answered, by recollecting that it was not proposed to open any new theatre, but merely to give an opportunity to the Children of the Queen's Revels to perform at the Blackfriars, in the same way as we know that the Children of the King's Revels did perform there in the beginning of the reign of James I. The juxtaposition of the names of the eight different theatres, as above, leads to the conclusion that the same set of comedians occupied two; and they could, therefore, hardly be said

to be open all at the same time. We are sure that such was the case with the King's Servants at the Blackfriars and at the Globe; and we may, with sufficient safety, presume the same of the rest. The most doubtful in this respect are the two last--the Hope and the Swan-which were both in Southwark, very near each other, and probably both in the hands of Philip Henslowe, the old pawnbroking manager, to whose diary we owe so many particulars regarding old plays, players, and playhouses.

Another observation upon the draft of the warrant to Daborne, Shakspeare, Field, and Kirkham, can hardly have failed to impress you; I allude to the reservation of the authority of "our Master of the Revels for the time being," in inspecting and approving the plays to be represented. "Our Master of the Revels" would, of course, be the king's officer, Edmund Tylney; but it seems strange that his allowance for the performances of the Children of the Queen's Revels should have been required, when it has been clearly shown ("History of Dramatic Poetry," i., 353) that, in 1603, Samuel Daniel, the poet, who perhaps ranks next to Shakspeare, Spenser, and Jonson, had been expressly appointed to supervise the productions intended to be brought out by the Children of the Queen's Revels, under King James's patent to Kirkham, Hawkins, Kendall, and Payne, in 1603. This was certainly an infringement upon the long-established authority of the king's master of the revels; and possibly, in 1609, it was intended to restore his power.

At Bridgewater House are preserved two original letters from Samuel Daniel to Lord Ellesinere, both of them very interesting, but one of them especially so, inasmuch as one paragraph in it refers expressly to Shakspeare, though not by name. They are both without dates, but circumstances enable us, I think, to fix them pretty exactly. Lord Ellesmere seems to have been Daniel's patron, and, if I mistake not, was the means of procuring for him the appointment of master of the queen's revels and inspector of the plays to be represented by the juvenile performers. It seems that Daniel had competitors for this office, one of whom was certainly Michael Drayton, the poet; and the other, in all probability, from the particular expressions used, Shakspeare. The whole of the letter well deserves quotation, and I therefore insert it. It is addressed