:. 
- 
CHAPTER V 
~ 
STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE USE OF THE 
f 
a CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AS ACTORS 
For about three years (1597-1600) the Children of the Chapel 
at Blackfriars, with Henry Evans as theatrical proprietor and 
_ master in play-acting and Nathaniel Gyles as master in music, 
_ presented plays and music entertainments without hindrance. 
But 
- possibly the need for boys of particular excellence as actors and 
certainly the confidence of unquestioned security of privileges led 
to an overreaching of authority in impressing lads against pa- 
rental wishes. Had Evans, who seems mainly at fault, conducted 
himself more circumspectly in this matter, it is likely we should 
lack one of our valuable sources of information as to this chil- 
dren’s company, their theatre the Blackfriars, and how it was 
established and managed. 
In 1600 this indiscretion of impressment on the part of the 
management led to a complaint to the Queen,’ which was later 
acted upon by her Court of Star Chamber. 
On December 13, 
1600, James Robinson, acting as deputy under the Commission 
*Preserved in the Public Record 
Office, Star Chamber Proceedings, 
Elizabeth, Bundle C46, No. 39, 
Clifton vs. Robinson and others. 
Discovered by James Greenstreet, 
and published by him in The Ath- 
 enaeum (10 Aug., 1889), 203-4. Re- 
‘printed from Greenstreet’s 
History 
tran- 
script in F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle 
of the London Stage 
(1890), 127-32. 
*Three times in his petition to 
the Queen Clifton says in connec- 
tion with this date “since your Ma- 
jesty’s last free and general par- 
don.” Fleay (op. cit., 124c) found 
material in this to explain why the 
Children of the Chapel did not play 
at court till 1601,—that is, he says, 
Gyles had offended the Queen “and 
although pardoned, had not been 
received into favor.” [Sic!] 
The statement, put always in 
connection with a calendar date, is 
merely a definite dating event in 
her Majesty’s reign to show the 
offense charged is not barred from 
trial, since it followed the last gen- 
eral pardon,—which in this case is 
not true. The same or similar ex- 
pression is used often in legal doc- 
uments of the time. See for ex- 
ample this dater in the suit con- 
cerning the removal of the timbers 
of “The Theatre” (Dec. 1598—Jan. 
1599) for use in building the Globe 
“about the eight and twentyth daye 
of December in the one and fortyth 
yeere of your Highnes raygne, and 
sythence your highnes last and gen- 
IQI 
