80 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
Clifton cites other specific cases of seizure, and declares that the 
boys so taken could not sing and were not taught to sing. This 
may be true of the particular boys or not. But as applying to 
the whole set of boys it is, as we shall see later, false. He de- 
clares also that the boys mentioned as well as those not named 
were taken up “against the wills of the said children, their par- 
ents, tutours, masters & governours.2—Which seems wholly 
unlikely.® 
Other evidences to be examined later both in Clifton’s own 
Complaint and in other sources only add to the proof that the 
general conduct of the theatre was in accordance with and not 
contrary to authority, as Clifton would here show. It is, how- 
ever, true that from the time Evans enters as a factor in the career 
of the Children of the Chapel, a large actuating spirit is private 
gain-getting.* Clifton has grounds for his charge that the Boys 
were used “to the mercinary gayne & pryvat comoditie of them 
the said Nathaniell Gyles, Henry Evans, James Robinson, & other 
theire said confederates,’® if we temper the animus out of his 
*Amongste w*" nombers, soe by 
the persons aforesaid & theire 
agents soe vniustlie taken, vsed & 
employed, they have vnduly taken 
& soe employed one John Chappell, 
a gramer schole scholler of one M* 
Spykes schole neere Criplegate, 
London; John Motteram, a gramer 
scholler in the free schole at West- 
mister; Nathan ffield, a scholler of 
a gramer schole in London, kepte 
by one M* Monkaster; Alvery Trus- 
sell, an apprentice to one Thomas 
Gyles; one Phillip Pykman and 
Thomas Grymes, apprentices to 
Richard and Georg Chambers; Sal- 
mon Pavey, apprentice to one 
Peerce; being childeren noe way 
able or fitt for singing, nor by anie 
the sayd confederates endevoured to 
be taught to singe, but by them 
the sayd confederates abusively em- 
ployed, as aforesayd, only in playes 
& enterludes—A thenaeum (10 Aug. 
1889), 203-4; G.-F., 128. 
* Thid. 
ST have recently found a contract 
between the Blackfriars manage- 
ment under James I and the mother 
of a certain boy for his employment 
there as an actor, in which it is de- 
clared that the employment is 
agreed to upon the frequent and 
earnest solicitation of the mother. 
(Published in full in vol. III of 
complete work.) This was for 
mere acting. When to that was 
added also the honor of chorister, 
at least by name if not in practice, 
in the Chapel Royal, it may be 
doubted whether all parents felt 
such antipathy to having their chil- 
dren at Blackfriars during those 
brilliant years at the close of the 
reign of Elizabeth, as Clifton here 
declares. 
*The Burbages, father and sons, 
Henslowe, and Alleyn were illus- 
trious examples of commercial suc- 
cesses in managing companies and 
theatres. Such sudden and easy 
wealth may easily explain in a 
measure the present venture and 
the spirit in it so far as Evans the 
lessee and manager of the theatre 
is concerned. 
5 Athenaeum (10 Aug. 1889) 203; 
Cos a re 
194 
