_ the new partners. 
i 
MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN 103 
The bond is peculiar in that it does not state why the sum of 
eight shillings weekly is to be paid. The fact that the consider- 
ation is left out may not be highly significant. But may it be be- 
cause there was the sense of the need of noncommittal on a vital 
point in this circumvention of the Star Chamber order? 
So long as Evans conducted the theatre alone the problem was 
simple. He and his family lived in apartments or chambers there, 
and the Boys were boarded and lodged by him, allowances there- 
for being made through the Yeoman of the Revels, as above. 
But in the new arrangement under the 1602 Articles, Evans, al- 
though still retaining the lease and maintaining chief control, did 
not dare be known in the management. Hence special provision 
had to be made for this feature. The Boys were still kept at 
Blackfriars at the Queen’s charge, but under the “direction” of 
So Evans was allowed as a part of the agree- 
ment eight shillings a week, presumably for stewardship over the 
Boys, rehearsals, and other duties of theatrical management.? 
saide Henrie or Alexander theire 
Executors or Administrators to be 
one shalbe dyetted kepte or re- 
‘tayned for the exercize of the saide 
enterludes or playes doe and shall 
well & trewlie paye or cause to be 
paide vnto the saide Henrie Evans 
his Executors or assignes att or in 
the saide greate hall the somme of 
eighte shillinges of lawfull money 
of England The first payment 
thereof to begynne and to be made 
on Saturdaye beinge the fower & 
twenteth daye next commynge of 
this instant Moneth of Aprill with- 
in written That then this present 
obligacion to be voide & of none 
effect Or els yt to stande in full 
force and vertue—For document in 
extenso from which this is taken, 
see complete work, vol. III. 
*Supra, 40-41, 71-74, 99-100. 
*This amounts in present money 
to approximately three or four 
pounds weekly. It is nearly twice 
as large a salary as Kirkham was 
allowed by the Queen as Yeoman 
of the Revels. He was to receive 
but “Sixpence by the Day,” besides 
house-rent and perquisites of his 
office.—See Patent to him 28 April, 
28 Elizabeth, in op. cit., u. s., 99%. 
Also, in the same publication by 
Halliwell, pp. 2-3, see Patent to 
“Edmundo Tilney” as Master of the 
Revels for life from 24 July, 21° 
Elizabeth [1579], at a salary of 101. 
per annum. Of course he too, as 
we know-from other sources, had 
house-rent and the perquisites of 
his office. But the actual cash sal- 
ary to him was less than to Evans 
in the present case. 
A still more suggestive contem- 
porary item on salary may here be 
appended. In 1610 one John Fletch- 
er was sued by the brewery firm 
of Rolfe & Thurgood for breach 
of contract. Fletcher was hired as 
“clerk of the drays,” his duties be- 
ing that of solicitor, collector, and 
general overseer of their beer-prod- 
uct. The point of interest here is 
that his contract provides that he 
shall be paid “the some of eight 
shillinges of lawfull money of Eng- 
land every Saturday weekely dur- 
ing the tyme of his service for and 
in respect of his sallarie or wages.” 
—Public Record Office, Court of 
King’s Bench, Hilary, 8 James I, 
membrane mccii. 
217 
