3<d Charles William Wallace 



Richard [Robert] Pallant, Thomas Swynnerton, John Duke, 

 Robert Lee, Jacob [James] Hoult, Robert Beeston. During the 

 course of years the membership changed, so that at the time of 

 the Smith-Beeston suit and the Chancery suit before referred to, 

 there are a number of new names. 



In 1612 Thomas Green died. He was one of the chief actors 

 of Shakespeare's time, and was to Queen Anne's company what 

 Burbage was to the Globe company, or Nat Field to the Children 

 of the Revels at Blackfriars, or Joseph Taylor to the various com- 

 panies he associated himself with. With Green's death began 

 those conditions of the Red Bull actors that in the next seven 

 years prepared for the final dissolution that came with the death 

 of the Queen. A portion of their troubles are related in the 

 Chancery suit. Others are here told in the Smith-Beeston 

 controversy. 



"When Green died, the choice of the company fell upon his 

 friend, Christopher Beeston, to take his place as general director 

 and business manager. Beeston was well-to-do, while his asso- 

 ciate actors were not men of any means. Every man in the com- 

 pany, these documents say, had to have some office, and his was 

 one that required a man of business capacity and financial stand- 

 ing to secure the company's credit and existence. How unsatis- 

 factorily he filled his post these records let us know. Possibly 

 from an earlier date, but certainly from 1612 to 1619, he pur- 

 chased all apparel, furniture, and other things necessary for 

 setting forth plays. For this purpose the company allowed him 

 one-half the receipts from the galleries, — an amount which, un- 

 fortunately, is not more definitely stated. 



In 1612, Beeston arranged with John Smith to furnish the 

 companv all tinsel stuffs and other loom stuffs that might be 

 required. Between 27 June of that year and 20 February, 1616, 

 when the company began to break up with dissensions, Smith 

 delivered goods to the value of 46/. 5 s. 8d., which, he claims, 

 were never paid for. This is the immediate cause of the present 

 suit. The larger cause is in the relations of the company, and 



316 



