and himself which was to pay twenty pound a year rent, 1 and to bestow a hundred marks upon build- ing, which I said I would rather pull down the play- house than I would do so, and he bad me do, and said he gave me leave, and would bear me out, for it was in him to do it. 2 Henslowe did not renew his lease of the property. On October 4, 1605, the Commissioners of the Sewers amerced him for the Rose, but return was made that it was then "out of his hands." 3 From a later entry in the Sewer Records, February 14, 1606, we learn that the new owner of the Rose was one Edward Box, of Bread Street, London. Box, it seems, either tore down the building, or con- verted it into tenements. The last reference to it in the Sewer Records is on April 25, 1606, when it is referred to as "the late playhouse." 4 ____________________ | 1 | The old rental was £7 a year. | | 2 | Greg, Henslowe's Diary, I, 178. | | 3 | Wallace in the London Times, April 30, 1914, p. 10. In view of these records it seems unnecessary to refute those persons who assert that the Rose was standing so late as 1622. I may add, however, that before Mr. Wallace published the Sewer Records I had successfully disposed of all the evidence which has been collected to show the existence of the Rose after 1605. The chief source of this error is a footnote by Malone in Variorum, III, 56; the source of Malone's error is probably to be seen in his foot- note, ibid., p. 66. | | 4 | For the tourist the memory of the old playhouse to-day lingers about Rose Alley on the Bank. | -160- |