ham's
management of the troupe prior to 1605].[349] And after that
this replyant and his said partners had received the
foresaid profits [i.e., after Kirkham and his partners had
to give up the management of the Children in 1605], the said
Children, which the said Evans in his answer affirmeth to be
the Queen's Children [i.e., they are no longer the Queen's
Children, for after 1605 they had been deprived of the
Queen's patronage; but Kirkham was in error, for Evans with
legal precision had referred to the company as 'The Queen's
Majesty's Children of the Revels (for so it was often
called)'] were masters themselves [i.e., their own
managers], and this complainant and his said partners
received of them, and of one Keysar who was interest with
them, above the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds per
annum only for the use of the said great hall, without all
manner of charges, as this replyant will make it manifest to
this honorable court.[350]

[Footnote 348: Wallace, _Shakespeare and his London Associates_, p. 80
ff.]

[Footnote 349: That is, L33, more or less, a share. We have
documentary evidence to show that a share in the Red Bull produced
L30, and a share in the Globe L30 to L40 per annum.]

[Footnote 350: Fleay, _op. cit._, p. 249. The yearly rental must have
included not only the playhouse and its equipment, but the playbooks,
apparel, properties, etc., belonging to the Children. These were on
July 26, 1608, divided up among the sharers, Kirkham, Rastell,
Kendall, and Evans.]

Under Keysar's management the Blackfriars troupe continued to act as
the Children of the Revels. But, unfortunately, they had not learned
wisdom from their recent experience, and in the very following year we
find them again in serious trouble. John Day's _Isle of Guls_, acted
in February, 1606, gave great offense to the Court. Sir Edward Hoby,
in a letter to Sir Thomas Edwards,[351] writes: "At this time was much
speech of a play in the Blackfriars, where, in the _Isle of Guls_,
from the highest to the lowest, all men's parts were acted of two
diverse nations. As I understand, sundry were committed to
Bridewell."[352]

[Footnote 351: Birch, _Court and Times of James the First_, I, 60;
quoted by E.K. Chambers, in _Modern Language Review_, IV, 158.]

[Footnote 352: Possibly an aftermath of the King's displeasure is to
be found in the cancellation of