Commission, which had to examine all pieces that were to be publicly
acted, and to give their approval.

It would be an error to believe that this threefold censorship had any
greater success than the former measures. The contrary was the case;
matters rather became worse. Actors were imprisoned; whereupon they
drew up beautiful petitions to their august protectors who brought
about their deliverance--that is, until they were once more clapped
into prison. Then they were threatened with having their ears and noses
cut off; [11] but still they would not hold their tongues. We know
from a letter of the French ambassador (1606)--who himself had several
times to ask at the Court of James I. for the prohibition of pieces in
which the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil, as well as the Duke
of Biron, were severely handled--that the bold expounders of the
dramatic art dared to bring their own king on the stage. Upon this
there came an ordinance forbidding all further theatrical representations
in London.

In the words of the French ambassador:--'I caused certain players to be
forbid from acting the history of the Duke of Biron. When, however,
they saw that the whole Court had left the town, they persisted in acting
it; nay, they brought upon the stage the Queen of France and Mademoiselle
de Verneuil.... He (the King) has upon this made order that no play shall
henceforth be acted in London; for the repeal of which order they (the
players) have offered 100,000 livres. Perhaps the permission will
be again granted, but upon condition that they represent no recent
history, nor speak of the present time.' [12]

From this sum--a very large one at that time--the importance of the
theatre of those days may be gathered.