The principal purpose of Appendix 4 is to summarize and guide the user chronologically, case by case, through the prolonged and complex litigation that took place in the courts of Chancery and the Exchequer concerning the ownership and situation of the Bear Gardens in Southwark. This litigation took place between 1616 and 1626, between the death of Philip Henslowe and that of Edward Alleyn. Another purpose of Appendix 4 is to simplify the referencing in the chapter on the 'History of the Properties,' and in the headnotes and endnotes to the transcribed records in the collection. The reader will be able to link from the text to the Appendix.
We are very fortunate in the survival of some, if not all, bills, answers, replications and rejoinders raised by the principals in the suits brought to these courts and also in the survival of supporting court records. Briley, 'Edward Alleyn and Henslowe's Will,' pp 321–30, referred to and used many of the relevant orders and decrees of Chancery (C 33) but we have added to his corpus. Cerasano, 'Master of the Bears,' pp 205-6, pointed the way to some of the records of the court of Exchequer (E 124), and these too we have explored further.
Digital images of the records from the Chancery Entry Books of Decrees and Orders (TNA C 33) cited below along with their indices are available online at the Anglo-American Legal Tradition website. The Exchequer, King's Remembrancer, Entry Books of Orders, Series II (E 124), cited are also available there but the indices are only available at The National Archives.
Note: Philip Henslowe died, 6 January 1615/16. His will survives as TNA: PROB 10/327; see Will of Philip Henslowe, 1615/16. The messuage, mansion house, and lease of the Bear Garden, held from the Bishop of Winchester, were left to his wife Agnes. She died in April 1617, with probate granted on 3 July 1617 to Joan Alleyn.
Chancery was petitioned by 23 January 1615/16; see DC: MS V, ff 40, 42. The bill and any answers, replications and rejoinders of the plaintiff and defendants do not survive, but there are supporting documents in Chancery’s entry books of decrees and orders (TNA: C 33), Reports and Certificates (TNA: C 38), Affidavits (TNA: C 31 or C 41), and Town Depositions (TNA: C 24)
a) 1615–16, 5 February: TNA: C 33/129 A, f 602v; C 33/130 B, f 470: the answer of Alleyn and other defendants was deemed to be insufficient.
b) 1616, 23 April: TNA: C 33/129 A, f 713; C 33/130 B, f 619: John Henslowe was permitted to take out a Subpoena ducens tecum to instruct Alleyn to bring the will and other evidences into the Court; moreover, the court would consider sequestration of the rents and profits of Philip Henslowe’s properties.
c) 1616, 30 April: C 38/25, Master's Report in John Henslowe v. Agnes Henslowe et al, 1616: A report of the Chancery Master on the progress of the case: Richard Moore found the answers of the defendants insufficient firstly, on the value of Philip’s estate, secondly, on the question of whether they had put undue influence and pressure on Philip during the composition of his will and thirdly, on the reasons for the rapid submission of the case through probate.
d) 1616, 5 June: TNA: C 33/129 A, f 912; C 33/130 B, ff 808v, 852: Alleyn had produced the will but wished to take to it to be proved in the ecclesiastical court. That was refused until the case had been fully heard. He had also confessed to having the instructions for the drafting of the will and was ordered to bring them to the court.
e) 1616, 17 June: TNA: C 31/1B Part 2, Item 684; C 41/1, Item 2: all the evidences and writings had not been brought into the court by the defendants.
f) 1616, 25 May–16 October: TNA: C 24/428/48, Chancery Court Interrogatories on behalf of the plaintiff in the case of John Henslowe v. Agnes Henslowe, Edward Alleyn and Roger Cole, 1616: interrogatories taken on behalf of the plaintiff John Henslowe, nephew of Philip, in his Chancery Court suit against Agnes Henslowe, Edward Alleyn, and Roger Cole.
g) 1616, May-October: TNA: C 24/428/48, Chancery Court Depositions in the case of John Henslowe v. Agnes Henslowe, Edward Alleyn, and Roger Cole, 1616: depositions taken on behalf of the plaintiff, John Henslowe. Depositions from twelve deponents also survive on behalf of the defendants in this case; see TNA: C 24/431/48.
h) 1616, 15 October: TNA: C 33/131 A, f 15; C 33/132 B, f 16v: Alleyn had not answered the interrogatories relating to a charge of contempt of court for not presenting to the court certain leases relating to Philip Henslowe’s estate.
i) 1616, 17 October: TNA: C 24/433/5: Alleyn presented his answer to the interrogatories relating to the charge of contempt of court for not presenting to the court leases relating to Philip Henslowe’s estate. These regarded the Fortune playhouse, the purchase by Henslowe of a lease from the King to the Keyes, and two others from Leonard Bilson and James Russell. They also had queries considering the leases from the Bishop of Winchester to Malthouse, Burnaby, one Langworth, and Henslowe. Alleyn replied he had produced all he had in his possession.
Item 1: Interrogatories (1 mb) addressed to Edward Alleyn defendant.
Item 2 Depositions of Edward Alleyn (2 mbs)
j) 1616/17, 7 February: TNA: C 33/131 A, f 398v; C 33/132 B, f 498: it was stated that the question of the validity of the will was more properly decided at Common Law while, pending a decision there, nothing should be done contrary to the meaning of Philip Henslowe’s will, and submitted evidences and leases were retained by the court.
k) 1617, 22 May: TNA: C 33/131 A, f 712; C 33/132 B, ff 828-8v: Alleyn’s counsel, Mr Gerrard, informed the court that John Henslowe had taken the cause to Star Chamber not to Common Law. The court would consider dismissing the case. John was to pay £3 costs to plaintiff.
l) 1617, 20 June: TNA: C 33/131 A, f 900v; C 33/132 B, f 1022: it was affirmed that case was dismissed from Chancery to Common Law; John Henslowe was to pay the £3 costs.
m) 1617, 6 December: TNA:C 41/2, Item 477: an affidavit of Walter Haynes relating that John Henslowe had died mid-September 1617.
n) 1617, 10 December: TNA: C 33/133 A, f 358; C 33/134 B f 368v: after the death of John Henslowe it was agreed that the leases and evidences were to remain in the Court pending further trial at Common Law or until the court was satisfied the case was settled.
o) 1620, 11 April: TNA: C 33/137 A, f 947; C 33/138 B, f 980v: Alleyn was ordered to bring any and all relevant leases and evidences to Court. William Henslowe, William and Ann Parsons, and Mary Addington (Allington) were claiming a right to them according to Philip Henslowe’s will.
p) 1620, 4 December: C 33/140, f 880v: the leases, deeds and evidences of Philip Henslowe were brought into the court and delivered to his heirs or their counsel, except those of Mary Addington (Allington) and six other pieces as it was not known to whom they belonged. Alleyn’s recognizance was delivered back to him.
A bill, which does not seem to have survived, was presented, probably sometime in May 1617, in which Edward Alleyn sued William Henslowe. Supporting documents have been located in Chancery’s entry books of decrees and orders (TNA: C 33) and Reports and Certificates (TNA: C 38). Alleyn claimed that after the death of Agnes Henslowe William had conspired to seize from his control the Bear Garden and its tenements. At this date, the validity of Philip Henslowe’s will was in still dispute and probate had not yet been granted on Agnes’s will.
a) 1617, 6 June: TNA C 33 /131 A f 813; C 33/132 f 938v: One of the masters of the court ordered a consideration of whether William Henslowe’s answer was sufficient.
b) 1617, 16 June: TNA: C 38/27, Chancery Court: Master's Report in Edward Alleyn v. William Henslowe, 1617: A report of 16 June 1617 fills in some of the details of the missing bill and answers.
c) 1617, 5 July: TNA C 33/131, f 972v; C 33/132, f 1126: William Henslowe had presented a second answer, his first being insufficient.
d) 1617, 20 October: TNA C 33/133 A f 51v; C 33/134 B f 54–54v: William Henslowe’s second answer was declared insufficient.
e) 1617, 3 December: TNA: C 33/133 f 332v-333; C 33/134, f 337; Order in Chancery in the case of Edward Alleyn v. William Henslowe, 1617: Alleyn, by request of the court, had presented a second bill laying out his claim to the Bear Garden. William Henslowe was ordered to answer.
The dispute between John Henslowe and Edward Alleyn which had been first heard in Chancery was taken to Star Chamber, TNA: STAC 8/168/18. See Star Chamber Case: John and William Henslowe v. Edward Alleyn et al, 1617 (NB only mb 5 and part of mb 4 have been transcribed for this collection).
a) 1617, 17 May: TNA: STAC 8/168/18, mb 5: bill of complaint of John and William Henslowe.
b) 1617, 21 July: TNA: STAC 8/168/18, mb 4: answer of Edward Alleyn.
This bill also does not seem to have survived. These supporting records have been located in Chancery’s entry books of decrees and orders (TNA: C 33).
a) 1617, 17 November: TNA: C 33/133, f 240v–1; C 33/134, f 245v-246r: this entry summarizes William Henslowe’s petition against Edward Alleyn, accusing him of having drafted a will two hours before the death of Philip Henslowe, and getting him to sign it, and of ‘insinuating’ himself with Agnes Henslowe. On the morning of the funeral he had feigned sickness and caused probate of the ‘pretended will’ while removing from Philip’s house his earlier will and stealing leases and goods to the value of £14000.
b) 1617, 24 December: TNA: C 33/133 A, ff 435v-6; C 33/134 B, f 461: on 24 December 1617, in the case of William Henslowe v. Edward Alleyn, two masters of the court of Chancery were ordered to compare the two bills before finally dismissing William’s bill (further records relating to this comparison have not been located).
Answers, rejoinder, and replications to an Information by English bill raised in May 1616 by relation of Edward Alleyn versus William Henslowe and Meade, who were tenants of the Bishop of Winchester on the property of the Barge Bell and Cock. They were charged with setting false boundaries and encroaching on Crown land when the dual purpose Bear Garden and Hope theatre had been constructed and expanded. They were also charged with non-payment of rent owing to the Crown for this occupation of the land. The Bishop of Winchester was also called as a defendant in 1619. Supporting interrogatories and depositions are extant. See Court of Exchequer: Attorney General v Launcelot, Bishop of Winchester, William Henslowe, and Jacob Meade, 1620 and Exchequer Depositions on behalf of the Attorney General v. Bishop of Winchester, William Henslowe, and Jacob Meade, 1620–21. Entry books of orders in the Exchequer (TNA E 124) offer supporting records.
TNA: E 112/126, no 165: Court of Exchequer: Attorney General v. the Bishop of Winchester, William Henslowe, and Jacob Meade, 1618
a) 1618, [8 May]: TNA: E 112/126, no 165, mb 1: undated bill of complaint.
b) 1618, 8 June: TNA: E 112/126, no 165, mb 2: answer of William Henslowe and Jacob Meade.
c) 1618, before 20 June: TNA: E 112/126, no 165, mb 6: replication of the ‘Attorney-General.’
d) 1618, 20 June: TNA: E 124/26, f 159v: noted that bill is by the relation of Edward Alleyn. The defendants were ordered to give a rejoinder to the attorney general’s replication. It was ordered that a commission should be established to examine witnesses for a survey of lands and boundaries of the Bear Garden.
e) 1618, 25 June: Letters Patent regarding the Dispute between the Attorney General and William Henslowe and Jacob Meade, 1618: commissioners were appointed for the investigation of the boundaries of the Unicorn and other messuages on Bankside conveyed to Henry Polsted in 1552.
f) Between 20 June and 12 September 1618: TNA: E 112/126, no 165, mb 3: rejoinder of William Henslowe and Jacob Meade.
g) 1619, 4 June: TNA E 124/28, f 73: the commission set up to investigate the boundaries had not been executed. It was ordered that it should be returned in the coming Michaelmas term and in the meantime witnesses might be examined.
h) 1619, 12 June: E 124/128, f 95v: at the request of the counsel for the defendants, the court ordered that the bishop of Winchester should be made a party to the bill. As he was new to his office and to give him time to peruse the evidences, it was decided he should be called in following Michaelmas term.
i) 1619/20, 27 January: TNA: E 124/28, f 221v: the bishop was given a week to reply and it was noted that the delay was prejudicial to the Crown.
j) 1619/20, 3 February: TNA: E 112/126, no 165, mb 4: answer of Lancelot, bishop of Winchester.
k) 1620, 30 June: TNA: E 124/28, f 163: It was ordered by the court that both parties might examine witnesses.
l) 1620, between 30 June and 18 September: TNA: E 134/18Jas1/Mich10, Item 2: interrogatories on behalf of the attorney general.
m) 1620, 19/20 September–10 October: TNA: E 134/18Jas1/Mich10, Item 3: depositions of witnesses examined on behalf of the attorney general.
n) 1620, before 26 September: TNA: E 134/18Jas1/Mich10, Item 4: interrogatories on behalf of the bishop of Winchester et al.
o) 1620, 26 September–10 October: TNA: E 134/18Jas1/Mich10, Item 5: depositions of witnesses examined on behalf of the bishop of Winchester et al.
p) 1620, 23 October : Surrey History Centre, LM/1154/2: depositions of Joan Furlong and Ruth Munday on behalf of the attorney general.
q) 1620, 15 November: TNA E 124/30, f 197: An order in the court gave the counsel for the defendants a week to examine two witnesses (Joan Furlong and Ruth Munday) who had been examined by the prosecutors for the Crown before publication of all the depositions taken.
r) 1620, 22 November: E124/29, f 255: It was recorded that the bishop of Winchester and Alleyn had met three times. Alleyn was to examine and deliver the evidences of the boundaries of the lands of the archbishop and the Crown that were in question. Alleyn had not turned up for a fourth meeting the previous Saturday. The Exchequer record continued that further evidence relating to the boundaries had been produced to the court by Chancery and would be distributed to the bishop and Alleyn for their perusal. In the meantime publication of the depositions should be delayed.
s) 1620/1, 24-29 January: Surrey History Centre, LM/1154/2: depositions of Walter Haynes and Lionel Titchborne on behalf of the attorney general.
t) 1620/1, 10 February: E 124/30, f 265v: it was ordered that the prosecutor (Alleyn) should give the defendant the addresses of two further witnesses (Haynes and Tichborne) so that they might be examined on his behalf.
u) 1621, 26 April: E 124/29, f 339: the bishop was given further time as he had not yet received the addresses of the two further witnesses.
v) 1622, 18 May: E 124/31, f 250: it was argued by Mr Ould, counsel on behalf of the Crown, that publication was delayed by motions of the defendants. The court ordered that publication be the following Friday.
w) 1622, 9 July: E 124/32, f 197v: it was ordered the case should be heard the following term. In the margin is inscribed cam{er}a Sc{a}cc{ar}ii suggesting the case might continue there.
Court of Exchequer: Bishop of Winchester v. Edward Alleyn and Jacob Meade, 1621–2
a) 1621/2, Hilary: TNA: E 112/126, no 185: mb 1: the bill of complaint of the bishop of Winchester.
b) 1621/2, 5 February: TNA: E 112/126, no 185: mb 2: the answer of Jacob Meade.
c) 1622, 18 May: TNA: E 112/126, no 185: mb 3: the answer of Edward Alleyn.
Court of Requests Proceedings Alleyn v. Henslowe, 1623/4
Edward Alleyn's bill charged William Henslowe with occupying and detaining from him his house within the Bear Garden at the Barge, Bell and Cock which he held by an agreement with Philip Henslowe dating back to around 1610; see further Wallace, ‘Three London Theatres,’ pp 287–342.
a) 1623/4, 31 January: single membrane: bill of complaint of Edward Alleyn.
b) 1623/4, 5 February: TNA: REQ 1/132: Affidavit of Thomas Mowsehurst in Edward Alleyn v. William Henslowe in the Court of Requests, 1623/4.
TNA: C 8/30/74.
a) 1624, 31 May: mb 1: bill of complaint of Jacob Meade.
b) 1624, 7 June: mb 2: answers of defendants Anne Henslowe, Mary Moushurst and Elizabeth Moushurst.
c) 1624, 29 June: Court of Chancery: Plea and Demurrer of Edward Alleyn in Meade v. Alleyn, 1624, TNA: C 3/368/80: Edward Alleyn entered a plea and demurrer challenging the bill of complaint of Meade on the grounds that a related case in the Exchequer court, brought by the Attorney General against Meade and William Henslowe, was as yet undetermined; see Appendix 4: V.
On 25 November, 1626, Edward Alleyn died, leaving the lease of the Barge, Bell and Cock to Sir Nicholas Carew of Beddington and Sir Thomas Grymes of Peckham; see Honigman and Brock, Playhouse Wills, pp 150–4.