The First London Theatre 45 
tedious and vntrue bill do [7—6] faid Gyles Allen vnto the faid 
Complaynantes neither what [8—6] vnto the faid Complayantes 
as in the faid Bill is alfo fet downe [9—6] Certaine date or tyme 
of any fuch bonde wherein he and [10—6] hundreth poundes to 
abyed a Certaine awarde and arbitrament [11—6] when they 
yeelded vpp any fuch arbitrament. And ffurther fetteth [12—6] 
w® this deft Robert Myles, and John gardyner who is not nowe 
[13—6] neither doth the faid Comp! fet fforth any fufficyent Con- 
fideracion [14—6] of the faid leaffes in the faid Bill mencyoned 
vpon the Children of the [15—-6] The faid Margaret Braine the 
other defendant beinge his wief wout [16—6] and divers other 
in the faid Bill mencyoned over tedyous to be Recyted. The 
[17—6] of this honorable Courte yf they or either of them fhalbe 
Compelled [18—6] fufficyent bill. And for the infufficiency 
therof thei pray to be difmyffed owt of this honorable Courte 
[19—6] wrongfully fufteyned 
Scott [attorney] 
[The preceding Bill and Demurrer, in a badly damaged state, were dis- 
covered by me among the Chancery Proceedings at the Public Record 
Office in the summer of 1908, and on August 7, while still registered as 
“kept out” on my name, they were sent to the official in charge of the 
Repairing department. Before they got back to me, about a fortnight 
later, a Mrs. Stopes learned of their existence, and applied for them. 
(The dates of these events, I may say, are recorded in the official registers 
of the Public Record Office.) I informed her at once that they were still 
at the Repairing department on my name, told her their contents, since 
she was curious to know, referred her to the court orders connected with 
them, and gave her my purpose of complete publication in extenso. 
Fortunately for scholarship, I did not tell her of the more important 
records, the voluminous depositions. Her assumed “discovery” of the 
Bill, Demurrer, and some of the court orders, later referred to in her 
amateurish first effort at theatrical history in the Fortnightly Review, 
July, 1900, is only one of several “coincidences,” some of them of a 
graver nature, that have occurred during the last few years since I opened 
this field of research, as mentioned in the Introductory Survey.] 
45 
