104 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
Kirkham as Yeoman of the Revels would of course and did con- 
tinue? to make disbursements and allowances “weekly,” not to 
Evans, but to himself and partners who in turn were to pay 
Evans as a private not an official arrangement. For this pay- 
ment of eight shillings they gave Evans the 50/. bond just. 
quoted.* How long they kept up the payment, and what came of 
the bond will be noticed later.® . 
This brief paragraph by Evans, treated in the present chapter, 
insofar as it shows the official conduct of the theatre, is one of the 
most important parts of all the eleven documents in the two 
Chancery suits brought to light by Mr. Greenstreet.* 
Five months after the new arrangements in management the 
Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars were still acting with re- 
markable popularity, and were still being abundantly provided 
for by the Queen. Not only this is made clear from the record: 
next to be examined but also how extensive the Queen’s require- 
ments were in the matter cf their training and how the new 
management was carrying out her provisions. 
1Cf. infra, 106-7, 123-24, 178-79, 
184. 
*The paragraph in Kirkham’s 
Bill of Complaint, to which Evans’s 
“eight shillings” paragraph is a re- 
ply, becomes clear in the present 
connection and may here _ be 
quoted :— 
“And for further consideracion 
of said agreem‘ [1602] the said 
Evans, his executors and assignes, 
was weekly to receive of your said 
orator, the said Rastall and Ken- 
dall, and the survivour of them, 
and of the executors of the sur- 
vivors of them, the somme of eight 
shillinges weekely duringe the saide 
terme, the which somme was paid 
to the said Evans accordingly [ef. 
infra, 104°] 
by your said orator, 
the said Rastall or Kendall, or one 
of them; and likwise for the con- 
siderac[ion] of 52/, X.s. paid to 
the said Evans by the said Haw- 
kins” [cf. infra, ibid].—G.-F., 225a. 
*See under “Children of the 
Queen’s Revels at Blackfriars, 1603- 
1608” in complete work, vol. I. 
“The paragraph was omitted by 
the discoverer, Mr. James Green- 
street, from the running extracts in 
The Athenaeum, April 21, 1888, 509. 
A note by the editor says that the 
omissions are unimportant. But un- 
fortunately some of the most im- 
portant parts are in the omissions, 
this among them. F. G. Fleay, op. 
cit., 210-51, printed all eleven docu- 
ments in extenso from Mr. Green- 
street’s transcripts. 
218 
