io Charles William Wallace 



estimate as well as others now available, I need not re-present the 

 matter here. It is sufficient now to note that on the basis 

 furnished by the present documents, the cash value of the Red 

 Bull shares was 350/. as a profit-producing concern, its annual 

 rental value was 17/. 10^., and its net profits, 210/. yearly. 



In the 1613 suit, the most important point, for us, concerns 

 " the gatherer's place," the pay for which at the Red Bull was on 

 a percentage of 5% % of the total receipts at each play; or, as 

 here put, the eighteenth part of every penny. On this point there 

 is a palpable error in commissioner Goldsmith's report, 22 June, 

 1613. It is clear that the actual basis of settlement was, not as 

 Goldsmith by hasty error puts it, but, first, that Holland should 

 yield a point and re-grant to Woodford the share or one-seventh 

 part formerly held in succession by Swynnerton, Stone, and him ; 

 and second, that Woodford should, in turn, yield up to Holland 

 the gatherer's place and its profits of one penny out of every 

 eighteen collected or received. Goldsmith has simply confused 

 the share in the theatre and the perquisites of the gatherer in his 

 first two articles. 



We have long known that the contemporary theatres had 

 " gatherers." But this is the first hint of either the amount or 

 method of pay in any one of them. 



The Woodford-Holland documents, with their gaps and inter- 

 ruptions, are here presented in chronological order. 



WOODFORD VS. HOLLAND. 



Court of Requests Proceedings, Uncalendered, James I. 

 [1613-] 



BILL AND ANSWER. 



[Not extant. Date, probably Hilary, 1613, or possibly Easter.] 



Decrees and Orders, Easter Term, 11 James I, Vol. 26, />. J30. 



io° Maij a ii° et 46V 



Towelling the cause at the sute of Tho : Woodford compl 1 againste 



Aaron Holland def 1 , vpon the mocion of M r Dyot of counsaill w th 



the said compl 1 yt is ordered that the said def 1 having convenient 



296 



