154 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
would be a tacit admission of the City’s right to full control in ‘ 
Blackfriars in other matters hitherto denied by the Crown. They — 
had long claimed that precinct for their own.t Although they 
failed to establish their claim they kept tenaciously insisting upon — 
it: 
The attitude of the City authorities during these five and a half 
following years seems to be this. They insist upon their claim of © 
control of precinct and theatre. If the Queen denies it, and even ~ 
establishes and maintains a theatre there contrary to their wishes, — 
they will not in turn aid her to regulate the abuses in the public — 
theatres, even after they have asked and received authority to act, — 
and even though to act accordingly would be to their own civic — 
advantage and welfare. They will use the one as a lever against — 
the other.’ 2 
The Queen on the other hand goes ahead with her purposes. — 
She would gladly control the abuses in the public theatres, cut 
off the unworthy, and raise the rest in moral tone to at least the 
rank of select exclusiveness. So she issues orders accordingly. — 
If however the community most immediately concerned does not ~ 
execute the orders even after asking for them, she can hardly — 
*See in Guildhall Record Office 
Letter-Book Z, fol. 23-28. This 
lengthy historical document, dated 
27 January, 1579, has never been 
printed. It is a vigorous brief with 
long arguments and citations on the 
part of the City to prove both 
Blackfriars and Whitefriars parts of 
the City of London, and not inde- 
pendent liberties responsible only to 
the Crown. It gives much of the 
history of both precincts, and is also 
an admirable document in the his- 
tory of the development of munic- 
ipal powers. The attempt at pos- 
session however failed. See further 
infra, 154”. 
For claims on the side of the 
Blackfriars inhabitants in the long 
controversy, see documents cited su- 
pra, 21". 
*Failing of success with Eliza- 
beth, they persisted in their efforts 
under James I. In 1608 they made 
a particularly vigorous effort, with 
failure as the result—See J. P. Col- 
_ Collier’s 4 
folio, 1632; and of certain Shake- ~ 
lier, op. Cit., 
cited a document found at Bridge- 
water House on this effort in which 
the case of 1579 (u. s., 
used as a basis. 
genuine document in the folio of 
six in which it is found. See ex- 
posure in N. E. S. A. Hamilton, 
An Inquiry into the Genuineness 
of the MS. Corrections in Mr. J. P 
Annotated Shakespeare, 
Spearian documents likewise pub- 
lished by Mr. Collier (1860), 109. 
In 1615-17 the City had gained — 
sufficient ground to suppress Rossi- 
ter’s attempt to build another the- 
atre in Blackfriars precincts 
complete work, vol. I), and, em- 
boldened thereby, tried in 1618-19 
to suppress the Blackfriars theatre 
of present interest (u. 7., 161°). See 
Order of Suppression, 1618-[19], 
u. $., 17°=18. 
°Infra, 161’. 
268 
I, 398-99, where is 
Ga 
Se CL 
SA 
154) is 
This is the only — 
