The First London Theatre 29 
for the company. He wanted 14/. 10S. a year for it—only Ios. 
more than the original rent of the grounds on which the Theatre 
had been built. So they struck a bargain, and Brend agreed to 
lease the grounds to the company for twenty-one years, with term 
to begin on Christmas day, 1598. This arrangement must have 
been very near Christmas time, for the company at once took 
possession, although the lease was not made out and signed until 
after the holidays, February 21, 1599. 
Having decided to remove the Theatre, and having fixed upon 
a site for rebuilding it, the company acted quickly. The holiday 
season, when everybody was making merry, was opportune, for 
they would less likely be interfered with by the land-owner. Ac- 
cordingly the Burbages, having employed Peter Street as their 
superintending carpenter, proceeded with ten or twelve other men 
on December 28, three days after the beginning of their lease on 
the new site, to wreck the Theatre. These were all carpenters 
and laborers, enough to do the work with speed. We are not 
told whether Shakespeare and the rest were present. Probably 
they were, for the occasion was important, and promised some 
excitement. It is not likely that their playing before the Queen 
two nights before, and their preparation of another Court per- 
formance for New Year’s night kept them away. Even Mrs. 
Burbage, mother of Cuthbert and Richard, was there as an inter- 
ested spectator, and a considerable crowd assembled. 
The land owner, Gyles Allen, came to town but occasionally 
from his fine country estate, the manor of Haseley, Essex. But 
he clearly expected some such action by the Burbages, and so had 
left a power of attorney with John Goborne, one of his tenants 
near the Theatre, to stop any action they might take. This rep- 
resentative and Henry Johnson, who likewise acted for Allen, at 
once hastened to the scene of operations and ordered them to stop. 
Perhaps the Burbage faction used a little finesse if not indirection 
with them, or perhaps Goborne and Johnson used a little indirec- 
tion afterwards in their depositions, for they claimed that the 
men in charge explained that they meant only to take the present 
building down and set it up again on the same grounds—which 
is manifestly untrue, for both Goborne and Johnson knew person- 
29 
