xlvii. 66, argues in favour of occasional night performances, and is

answered by W. J. Lawrence in _E. S._ xlviii. 213. Whatever may have been done before 1574 or thereabouts, I find no later evidence which is not to be explained either by private performances or by a loose use of 'night' for the evening hour at which plays terminated in winter. Nor can I go with Lawrence in supposing an exception for Sunday. The Southwark play at 8 p.m. on Sunday, 12 June 1592, cannot have been at a regular theatre, for there was none within the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction. The allusion in Crosse's _Vertue's Commonwealth_ (1603) can quite well be to private plays (cf. App. C), and Henslowe's entry (i. 83) of a loan of 30_s._ 'when they fyrst played Dido at nyght', on Sunday, 8 Jan. 1598, only suggests to me the payment by Henslowe of the shot for a supper after the first performance. Or it may have been a private performance, for Henslowe does not appear (_vide infra_) to have opened the Rose on Sundays.]

[Footnote 890: Cf. App. D, No. xv (1564), 'now daylye, but speciallye on holydayes'; No. xvi (1569), 'on the Saboth dayes and other solempne feastes commaunded by the church to be kept holy'; No. xvii (1571), 'vpon sondaies, holly daies, or other daie of the weke, or ells at night'; No. xxxii (1574), 'on sonndaies and holly dayes, at which tymes such playes weare chefelye vsed'; App. C, No. xxii (1579), 'These because they are allowed to play euery Sunday, make iiii or v Sundayes at least euery weeke'.]

[Footnote 891: There was a disorder at the Theatre on Sunday, 10 April 1580, but by July 1581 the Lord Mayor had made an order against Sunday plays, which Berkeley's men disregarded. The Privy Council letter of 3 Dec. 1581 to the City accepts the exclusion of Sunday. Gosson, _Playes Confuted_ (1582), 167, and Field (Jan. 1583), C. iii, acknowledge the change of day. When therefore Stubbes (1 March 1583), 137, criticizes Sunday plays, he must have the suburbs in mind. Paris Garden fell on Sunday, 13 Jan. 1583. On 3 July 1583 the Lord Mayor told the Privy Council that Sunday baitings were resumed. The documents of the 1584 controversy, however, state that as a result of the accident, letters were obtained to banish plays (and doubtless also baiting) 'in the places nere London' on the Sabbath days. Whetstone (1584) also alludes to a 'reforme' by the 'magistrate' in this matter.]

[Footnote 892: Henslowe, ii. 324.]

[Footnote 893: Cf. Middleton, _A Mad World, my Masters_ (1608), I. i. 38, 'Tis Lent in your cheeks; the flag's down'; T. Earle, _Microcosmography_, char. 64, of a player, 'Shrove-tuesday hee feares as much as the bawdes, and Lent is more damage to him then the butcher'.]

[Footnote 894: _Variorum_, iii. 65, from Sir Henry Herbert's papers, which also record a similar payment in 1618 'for toleration in the holydays'. Herbert himself sold similar indulgences and in a list of customary Revels fees drawn up in 1662 includes £3 'for Lent fee', together with £3 'for Christmasse fee' (_Variorum_, iii. 266). Prynne, _Histriomastix_ (1633), 784, notes the custom of suppressing plays 'in Lent, till now of late'.]

[Footnote 895: Cf. ch. xiii (Lady Elizabeth's). About 1617 Prince Charles's men were complaining to Alleyn that 'intemperate Mr. Meade' had taken 'the day from vs which by course was ours'.]

[Footnote 896: By 1574 the City had offers to farm their licensing rights 'to the relefe of the poore in the hospitalles'; but their regulations of Dec. 1574 provide for direct contributions to the poor and sick by holders of licences for playing-places. A weekly subsidy to the poor from every stage is suggested by Walsingham's correspondent of 1587. Hunsdon, in asking for the use of the Cross Keys in 1594, promised that his men would 'be contributories to the poore of the parishe where they plaie accordinge to their habilities'. In 1600 the Southwark Vestry were negotiating with the players for tithes and contributions for the poor on the basis of an 'order taken before my lords of Canterbury and London and the Master of the Revels'. In the same year the inhabitants of Finsbury recite the 'very liberall porcion' of money promised weekly for the relief of the poor as one of their grounds for assenting to the building of the Fortune. The accounts of the overseers of Paris Garden between 1611 and 1621 show varying sums, amounting to about £4 or £5 a year, as received during several years from the players at the Swan.]

[Footnote 897: The Middlesex records for 1616 show the Queen's men at the Red Bull as in arrear for their contribution, 'being taxed by the bench 40_s._ the yeare by theire own consentes'.]

[Footnote 898: Cf. ch. viii.]

[Footnote 899: As far back as 1549 the City had appointed two Secondaries of the Compters to license plays; but this arrangement doubtless terminated when the King and Council assumed the function; cf. ch. ix. In 1572 the Council were pressing the City to appoint 'discreet persons' for the purpose, and in 1574 suggested the suitability of one Mr. Holmes. But the City, who claimed to have had profitable offers to farm the licensing, repeated a former refusal to commit it to any private person. The regulations of 1574 provide for the appointment by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of persons to peruse and allow plays. But the Council are still urging, and the City promising, the appointment of licensers in 1582.]

[Footnote 900: Cf. ch. iii.]

[Footnote 901: The unauthorized company which stole this licence (cf. ch. xiii, s.v. Worcester's) is probably that which appeared as the Master of the Revels' players at Ludlow on 7 Dec. 1583 and at Bath and Gloucester in 1583-4 (Murray, ii. 201, 282, 325). I do not think that Tilney himself had a company. His predecessor had. Plomer (_3 Library_,