milar action (May 6, 1662,) against Mr. Betterton, of which I know not the event ". In the declaration, now before me, it is stated that D'Avenant's company, between the 15th of November 1660, and the 6th of May 1662, produced ten new plays and 100 revived plays; but the latter number being the usual style of declarations at law, may have been inserted without a strict regard to the fact. Sir Henry Herbert likewise brought two actions on the same ground against Sir William D'Avenant, in one of which he failed, and in the other was successful. To put an end to the contest, Sir William in June 1662 besought the king to interfere. "The humble petition of Sir William Davenant, Knight, "That your petitioner has bin molested by Sir Henry Harbert with several prosecutions at law. 66 That those prosecutions have not proceeded by your petitioners default of not paying the said Henry 5. From a paper which Sir Henry Herbert has intitled "A Breviat" of matters to be proved on this trial, it appears that he was possessed of the Office-books of his predecessors, Mr. Tilney and Sir George Buc; for, among other points of which proof was intended to be produced, he states, that "Several plays were allowed by Mr. Tilney in 1598, which is 62 years since: Sir William Longsword "As The Fair Maid of London Richard Cordelion •} Allowed to be acted in 1598. King and no King, allowed to be acted Allowed by Sir Harbert his pretended fees, (he never having sent for any to your petitioner,) but because your petitioner hath publiquely presented plaies; notwithstanding he is authoriz'd thereunto by pattent from your Majesties most royall Father, and by several warrants under your Majesties royal hand and signet.. That your petitioner (to prevent being outlaw'd) has bin inforc'd to answer him in two tryals at law, in one of which, at Westminster, your petitioner hath had a verdict against him, where it was declar'd that he hath no jurisdiction over any plaiers, nor any right to demand fees of them. In the other, (by a Londen jury,) the Master of Revels was allowed the correction of plaies, and fees for soe doing; but not to give plaiers any licence or authoritie to play, it being prov'd that no plaiers were ever authoriz'd in London or Westminster, to play by the commission of ye Master of Revels, but by authoritic immediately from the crown. Neither was the proportion of fees then determin'd, or made certaine; because severall witnesses affirm'd that variety of payments had bin made; sometimes of a noble, sometimes of twenty, and afterwards of forty shillings, for correcting a new play; and that it was the custome to pay nothing for vising reviv'd plaies. 66 super That without any authoritie given him by that last verdict, he sent the day after the tryall a prohibition under his hand and scale (directed to the plaiers in Little Lincolnes Inn fields) to forbid them to act plaies any more. "Therefore your petitioner humbly praies that your Majesty will graciously please (two verdicts having pass'd at common law contradicting each other) to referr the case to the examination of such honourable persons as may satisfy your Majesty of the just authoritie of the Master of Revells, that so his 1 .h.... fees, (if any be due to him) may be made. certaine, to prevent extorsion; and time prescribed how long he shall keep plaies in his hands, in pretence of correcting them; and whether he can demand fees for reviv'd plaies; and lastly, how long plaies may be lay'd asyde, cre he shall judge them to be reviv'd. "And your petitioner (as in duty bound) shall ever pray," &c. At the Court at Hampton Court, the 30th of His Majesty, being graciously inclin❜d to have a just and friendly agreement made betweene the petitioner and the said Sir Henry Harbert, is pleas'd to referr this petition to the right honorable the Lord high Chancellor of England, and the Lord Chamberlaine, who are to call before them, as well the petitioner, as the said Sir Henry Harbert, and upon hearing and examining their differences, are to make a faire and amicable accommodation between them, if it may be, or otherwise to certify his Majesty the true state of this business, together with their Lord." opinions. EDWARD NICHOLAS. "Wee appoint Wednesday morning next before tenn of the clock to heare this businesse, of which Sir Henry Harbert and the other parties concern'd are to have notice, my Lord Chamberlaine having agreed to that hour. CLARENDONE." 66 July 7, 1662. On the reference to the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chamberlain, Sir Henry Herbert presented the following statement of his claims: "To the R. Honn.le Edward Earle of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England, and Edward Earle of Manchester, Lord Chamberlain of his ties M.es Household. "In obedience to your lordships commandes signifyed unto mee on the ninth of this instant July, do make a remembrance of the fees, profittes, and incidents, belongeinge to ye office of the Reuells. They are as followeth : "For a new play, to bee brought with the booke "For an old play, to be brought with the booke "For Christmasse fee "For Lent fee "The profittes of a summers day play "Besides seuerall occasionall gratuityes from the late K. company at B. fryers. "For a share from each company of four companyes of players (besides the late Kinges Company) valued at a 1001. a yeare, one yeare with another, besides the usuall fees, by the yeare s. d. 6. It is extraordinary, that the Master of the Revels should have ventured to state fifty pounds as the produce of each of the benefits given him by the king's company. We have seen (p. 176) that at an average they did not produce nine pounds each, and after a trial of some years he compounded with that company for the certain sum of ten pounds for his winter's day, and the like sum for his summer benefit. "That the Kinges Company of players couenanted the 11th of August, 60, to pay Sir Henry Herbert per week, from that tyme, aboue the usual fees "That Mr. William Beeston coue } 004 00 00 004 00 00 004 00 00 nanted to pay weekly to Sir Henry Herbert the summe of "That Mr. Rhodes promised the like per weeke "That the 121. per weeke from the three forenamed companyes hath been totally deteyned from Sir Henry Herbert since the said 11th Aug. 60, by il"legal and unjust means; and all usual fees, and Pobedience due to the office of the Revells. "That Mr. Thomas Killigrew drawes 191. 6s. per week from the Kinges Company, as credibly informed. "That Sir William Dauenant drawes 10 shares of 15 shares, which is valued at 2001. per week, cleer profitt, one week with another, as credibly informed. "Allowance for charges of suites at law, for that Sir Henry Herbert is unjustly putt out of possession and profittes, and could not obtaine an appearance gratis. દ Allowance for damages susteyned in creditt and profittes for about two yeares since his Ma.ties happy Restauration. "Allowance for their New Theatre to bee used as a playhouse. "Allowance for new and old playes acted by Sir William Dauenantes pretended company of players at Salisbury Court, the Cockpitt, and now at Portugall Rowe, from the 5th Novemb. 60. the tyme |