DATING EVENTS—NEW MANAGEMENT 87 
_ case. It seems quite likely that the satire is directed not merely 
at the Decree, but also at Lord Hunsdon’s consequent driving 
_ Evans into the country in May, 1602.1 
It would be comforting to know exactly whether the Queen’s 
attendance at a play at Blackfriars Dec. 29, 1601,? preceded or 
followed the Decree. It was certainly [cf. 84*, 96*] later than the 
Complaint. I should be glad to believe if probabilities would al- 
low, that it was subsequent also to the Decree; for that would give 
an added item in the Queen’s determination with reference to 
Blackfriars. However, as the Queen seems to have been accus- 
tomed to attend plays there, the discovery of the exact date of the 
Decree as antecedent to this single event would probably do no 
more in the present regard than reenforce our knowledge of the 
favor and support she gave in the theatrical use of the Chapel 
Boys. The slight probability that the Decree preceded is out- 
weighed by the stronger probability, as shown above, that it feil 
in Hilary term.° 
After the Decree, the concessions for use of the Chapel Chil- 
dren were apparently granted to Kirkham,* Rastell, and Ken- 
dall.- But Evans still held the lease. So these men came to him 
*See infra, 93. 
*See infra, 95-96". 
®This latter probability is made 
a certainty by the dates of filing 
and trial endorsed on the back of 
Clifton’s Bill of Complaint, discov- 
ered since writing these paragraphs, 
as noted supra, 84', 84*. The last 
line of the endorsement, “p octab 
Hillar,” indicates the trial was in 
Hilary term (Jan.—Feb.). There 
was no postponement. Easter term 
in 1602 did not begin until May 1, 
but the Decree had already been 
rendered prior to April 20, 1602, 
when Evans through consequent ne- 
cessity entered into new arrange- 
ments for the conduct of the Black- 
friars. This settles the Decree as 
in Hilary, i. e., between Jan. 23 
and Feb. 13, 1602. 
‘Edward Kirkham succeeded 
Walter Fyssche as Yeoman of the 
Revels. Fyssche’s name is signed 
for the last time to the report of 
the Master of the Revels, Ed. Tyll- 
ney, Oct. 31, 1581. (Extracts from 
the Revels at Court, ed. P. Cun- 
ningham, Shakes. Soc. Pub., 1842, 
175). Kirkham’s name appears 
thereafter under Tyllney and Buck. 
Its first appearance is to the report 
of [Oct. 31]—Feb. 14, 1582-[3]. 
(Idem, 187.) He was still Yeoman 
under Buck in 1615 (Public Record 
Office, Declared. Accounts of the 
Pipe Office, Roll 2005). He was 
granted letters patent for his office 
28 April, 28 Eliz. (1586). (Pub- 
lished in A Collection of Ancient 
Documents Respecting the Office of 
Master of the Revels, &c., ed. J. O 
Halliwell, 1870. Only 11° copies_ 
printed. Quoted in part, infra, 99°. 
But he had already been occupying 
the place for at least three years, 
as shown above. 
Kirkham was Yeoman during the 
whole existence of the children- 
companies. In their history, he 
through his official position is even 
a more important factor than Evans. 
°From various newly found doc- 
uments touching the managers per- 
201 
