Playhouse for the said children of the Revelles, the same Playhouse to be vsed by the Children of the Revelles for the tyme being of the Queenes Maiestie, and for the Princes Players, and for the ladie Elizabeths Players, soe tollerated or lawfully lycensed to play exercise and practise them therein, Any lawe, Statute, Act of Parliament, restraint, or other matter or thing whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. Willing and commaunding you and every of you our said Maiors, Sheriffes, Iustices of peace, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes and all other our officers and ministers for the tyme being, as yee tender our pleasure, to permitt and suffer them therein, without any your lettes, hinderance, molestacion, or disturbance whatsoever. In witnes whereof, &c. Witnes our selfe at Westminster the third day of Iune.
per breve de priuato sigillo &c.
The statements made in the patent as to the objects of the
promoters can be confirmed from other sources. We know
that the lease of the Whitefriars expired at the end of 1614,
that there had been an amalgamation of the Queen's Revels
and the Lady Elizabeth's men in 1613, and that in all probability
this arrangement was extended to bring in Prince
Charles's men during 1615. Unfortunately for Rosseter and
his associates, the patent had hardly been granted before
it was called in question. Presumably the inhabitants of the
Blackfriars, who had already one theatre in their midst,
thought that that one was enough. At any rate the Corporation
approached the Privy Council, and alleged divers inconveniences,
in particular the fact that the theatre, which was
described as 'in Puddle Wharfe', would 'adjoine so neere
vnto' the church of St. Anne's as to disturb the congregation.[1]
The Council referred the patent to the Lord Chief Justice,
Sir Edward Coke, no friend of players, or of the royal prerogative
which expressed itself in patents; and when he
found a technical flaw, in that the Blackfriars, having been
brought within the City jurisdiction by the charter of 1608,
was not strictly within 'the suburbs', ordered on 26 September
1615 that the building, which had already been begun,
should be discontinued. Nevertheless, the work must have
gone so far as to permit of the production of plays, for the title-page
of Field's Amends for Ladies (1618) testifies that it was
acted 'at the Blacke-Fryers both by the Princes Servants
and the Lady Elizabeths'. Moreover, on 27 January 1617
the Privy Council wrote again to the Lord Mayor, enjoining
him to see to the suppression of a play-house in the Blackfriars
'neere vnto his Majestyes Wardrobe', which is said to
be 'allmost if not fully finished'.[2]*
