- 
88 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
and ‘earnestly labored with and entreated’? him with the result 
that on April 20, 1602, Articles of Agreement were entered into 
between Evans and his son-in-law Hawkins on the one side and 
these three men on the cther to form a copartnership and share 
expenses ‘and profits half-and-half.? 
That the new partners felt they had valuable concessions which, 
however, were dependent upon a place of acting and which Evans 
as lessee of the theatre might easily injure if not bound in a penal 
sum, is shown by the fact that they exacted of Evans and Haw- 
kins a 200 /. bond® of even date for the faithful performance of 
the contract, but gave none in return. 
the Star Chamber decree, a separate agreement was entered into 
by which the new men were to pay Evans eight shillings a week, 
evidently as salary for managing the theatre,* for the carrying 
out of which they gave Evans a bond under the same date for 
50 1.° 
Evans could not be known openly in the management. So 
by the new arrangement his son-in-law Hawkins and these three 
men became nominally the Masters, while he was their hired ~ 
manager, although he still held chief control—aAnd the Children ~ 
of the Chapel continued at Blackfriars practically as before. 
Since the company was operated under these Articles until its 
termination in 1608, it seems worth while to settle once and for 
sonally as well as in their conduct Kirkham, Bill of Complaint, G.-F., 
Apparently to circumvent 
of the Blackfriars, particularly un- 
der James I, William Rastell was 
a London merchant who, however, 
had no large part in the manage- 
ment, and Thomas Kendall was a 
haberdasher, who later, under James 
I., became the Blackfriars manager. 
See further, complete work, vol. I, 
and vol. III. 
*“And he your said oratour be- 
inge soe possessed one Edward 
Kyrkham of London gent’ William 
Rastell and Thomas Kendall late 
of London deceased ernestlye la- 
bored w‘ and entreated your said 
oratour that he your said oratour 
would suffer them to have and en- 
ioye some parte of the demised 
premisses wherevppon it was agreed 
and concluded,” &c—Evans vs. 
211b. 
That these solicitations came 
from the new men, not from Evans, 
is admitted by Kirkham in replying 
to the above paragraph:—‘“true yt 
is that he this deft® and the said 
William Rastell and Thomas Ken- 
dall in the bill likewise named did 
treate and had communication w* 
the said compl* to such end and 
purpose as in the bill is set forthe, 
and that thervpon it was agreed 
and concluded,” &c—Evans vs. 
Kirkham, Answer, G.-F., 216a. 
* Infra, 89", 92°. 
°Infra, ibid. 
*Cf. infra, 98, 102-4. 
'Infra, 102°. 
°Cf. infra, 93. 
202 
Ee 
ee 
