If his brother-players fought for the King, they fought no less for themselves, and for the theatre the Puritans had suppressed.

Nor is the contrast Mr.Gifford draws, between the conduct of our actors at the time of the Civil War, and the proceedings of the French players during the first French Revolution, altogether fair.

As Isaac Disraeli has pointed out, there was no question of suppressing the stage in France--it was rather employed as an instrument in aid of the Revolution.

The actors may have sympathised sincerely with the royal family in their afflicted state, but it was hardly to be expected that men would abandon, on that account, the profession of their choice, in which they had won real distinction, and which seemed to flourish the more owing to the excited condition of France.

The French Revolution, in truth, brought to the stage great increase of national patronage.
The Civil War concluded, and the cause of King Charles wholly lost, the actors were at their wits' end to earn bread.