78 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
to Gyles, impressed and carried off to the theatre young Thomas 
Clifton, son and sole heir of Henry Clifton, a gentleman of some 
importance from Norfolk, who was tempcrarily residing in Lon- 
don to educate his boy at a grammar-school in Christ Church. 
Mr. Clifton complains that on the above date Robinson waylaid 
his son on the way to school end carried him off by violence.* 
Even in the presence of the father, who had at once come to take 
his son away, and in defiance of him or any other nobleman whose 
sons they claimed a right to take at will, the boy was turned over 
to Evans, given a scroll of paper containing parts of a play to 
learn, and commanded with threats to set about his task.? 
Failing to secure his son, Clifton immediately appealed to Sir 
John Fortescue,? Chancellor of the Exchequer and member of the 
Privy Council,t probably a personal friend. Upon Sir John 
erall pardon.”—Court of Requests 
Proceedings, Elizabeth, Bundle 87, 
No. 74, Burbage vs. Alleyn, Bill of 
Complaint. In Public Record Of- 
fice. See extracts in J. O. Halli- 
well-Phillips, Outlines of the Life 
of Shakespeare (9th ed. 1890), I, 
360. 
In lieu of a fixed statute of lim- 
itations, it was customary for the 
sovereign at irregular intervals fixed 
at will to wipe out all offenses ex- 
cept the graver ones of treason, 
murder, &c., by a general pardon. 
By such pardon, action against any 
one who had previously committed 
any of the offenses it covered was 
forever barred. But this had noth- 
ing to do with future offenses. 
Hence the declaration in actions in 
court that the offense charged was 
committed “since” the last general 
pardon, to show that action is not 
barred. 
In the latter half of Elizabeth’s 
sovereignty, not to go farther back, 
such pardons were issued in the 
following years of her reign :—23, 
27, 29, 31, 35, 39, 43. James I is- 
sued general pardons in only three 
years of his reign, 3, 7, 21.—See 
Statutes of the Realm, “General 
Pardon,” under the various years 
indicated. 
The case of Burbage vs. Alleyn 
concerning the Theatre and Globe 
(u. s.) refers to the act by which 
all offenses before 4 Aug. 39 Eliz. 
(1597), except treason, murder, &c., 
were pardoned. Similar cases can 
be cited by the hundreds. 
But the case of Clifton is pecu- 
liar in its reference. The offense 
charged was committed 13 Dec, 
1600, the year before the Queen’s 
act pardoning offenses committed 
prior to 7 Aug. 43 Eliz. (1601). 
This pardon by right debarred ac- 
tion. Yet the complaint was filed 
over four months after the pardon, 
1. €., Dec. 15, 1601, with the declar- 
ation three times that the offense 
of Dec. 13, 1600, was committed 
“since” this last pardon. Just why 
this false statement is made is not 
clear. ; 
1... the said James Robinson 
... the sayd Thomas Clifton w™ 
greate force & vyolence did seise 
& surprise, & him w™ lyke force & 
vyolence did, to the greate terror 
& hurte of him the sayd Thomas 
Clifton, hall, pull, dragge & carry 
awaye to the said playe howse in 
the blacke fryeres aforesayd,’ &c.— 
Athenaeum (10 Aug. 1889), 204; 
G.-F., 129. 
* Athenaeum, ibid.; G.-F., 131. 
Thid. 
‘Cf. Public Record Office, State 
192 
: 
4 
J 
; 
; 
~~ se oe ee ee eee 
a. — 
