THE GENUINE ARGUMENTS, &c. Trinity Term, 14 GEO. III. B. R. SATURDAY, June 11, 1774. THE KING, On the Proſecution of CHARLES MACKLIN, AGAINST JOHN STEPHEN JAMES, Eſquire, and Others.

THE Rule Niſi obtained in this Cauſe was read, and is as follows, viz.

Chief Juſtice. Who ſhews Cauſe?

I ſhew Cauſe for Aldus.

I ſhew Cauſe for James.

I ſhew Cauſe for Sparks.

I ſhew Cauſe for Clarke.

I am for Miles.

I am for Leigh.

Your Lordſhip is fully apprized of the Charge, and of the Na⯑ture of the Anſwers, here are ſix De⯑fendants, and ſix Council.

I ſee they defend as not knowing each other, and taking the Charge ſeparate.

It is ſo—and it is ſworn in the Affidavits, they never ſaw one another, and were as much Strangers to one another, as I am to them.

There is a Charge a⯑gainſt the Man who brought the Body into the Houſe—Let him begin.

That Man was in Ireland at the Time the Rule was granted, and is not come back.

Then he don't ſhew Cauſe; have they ſerved him in Ireland.

You, upon his Behalf, then enlarged the Rule againſt him; it was enlarged upon his Behalf.

That is enough.

I mentioned there being a Probability of his coming Home, and therefore I enlarged the Rule as to him, otherwiſe it would be impoſſible for him to appear, he being in Ireland long before the Rule obtained it was a Slip—There is an Affidavit of his then being in Ireland.

Mr. Buller ſays it was a Slip, if it was enlarged; as he had then an Affidavit, that Leigh was in Ireland, at the Time the Rule was granted; what do you ſay to that Mr. Dunning?

My Lord, I am not ſa⯑tisfied there was any ſuch Slip—I am not ſatisfied there was any ſuch Affidavit—If your Lordſhip obſerves, the Rule was enlarged by Mr. Wallace for three, he being Council now for one; and it was enlarged by Mr. Buller for three, he being now likewiſe for one; at that Time there was no Diſtinction made between them; the Rule was to be enlarged for all.

You muſt bring an Affidavit of the Fact, and make a ſpecial Caſe to have it argued, why this general Rule ſhould not prevail againſt Leigh among the reſt?

There is no Affidavit of Service upon him—they could not ſerve him.

Then why did you enlarge the Rule?

I had no Brief in the Buſineſs, at the Time the Gentlemen [5] refer to—In the laſt Term I had a Brief brought me, to ſhew Cauſe for Leigh and Sparks—I was aſtoniſhed to find, when I had read it quite through, that there was nothing ſaid of Mr. Leigh, or on his Be⯑half, as there was an Affidavit by his Wife of his Abſence—Upon looking into the Rule, and finding it enlarged generally, I enquired, and did not underſtand any Body was particularly Council for Leigh, at the Time the Rule was enlarged.

Mr. Wallace enlarged the Rule to this Term, for Miles, Clarke and Aldus; and Mr. Buller for Leigh, Sparks and James.

It certainly was ſo.

We can prove it was a Miſtake—A Slip.

I apprehend it was no Miſtake of Mr. Buller's, but of the In⯑ſtructions brought to him.

He muſt have had In⯑ſtructions to enlarge the Rule, as to thoſe three.

I heard Mr. Serjeant Davy ſay juſt now, that his Brief inſtructs him to defend Leigh and Sparks.

I ſent a Letter to Mr. Leigh to inform him of it, he has not re⯑turned me an Anſwer—I have an Affida⯑vit of his being out of the Kingdom, be⯑fore the Rule was granted.

My Lord, That Leigh was in London when the Rule was ſerved can be proved.

We will put the whole upon that Mr. Macklin, if you pleaſe.

Mr. Macklin will be ſo good as to recollect where we are—Your Lordſhip ſees what a Situation we ſhould have been in—we ſhould have loſt the Vacation, which might have been employ⯑ed in ſerving him—the enlarging the Rule upon his Behalf, ſubjects him to ſtand this Day and ſhew Cauſe; and if what has been already done is not to be taken for Servic, he never will be ſerved.

They don't deny it was enlarged with regard to him, and meant to be enlarged upon his Part. Mr. Buller ſays candidly and fairly, he thought Leigh would have been over, and that he got it enlarged upon that Suppoſition.

Certainly I can ſhew no Cauſe for Leigh.

Are you all afraid of beginning, can't you agree who ſhall be⯑gin.

My Lord, I am not a⯑fraid to begin for Mr. James, the firſt in the Rule—In Point of Form, I ought to begin—In Point of Subſtance, I ought to be the laſt; for Mr. James has very little to do in this Buſineſs, in Proportion with ſome of the reſt; but as he is brought upon the Stage in this Character by Mr. Macklin, he muſt perform his Part, and when the Court come to ſee his Behavi⯑our, if they don't diſmiſs him with Ap⯑plauſe, they will diſmiſs him at leaſt with⯑out any Cenſure.—In order to underſtand Mr. James' Caſe, (ſince Mr. Macklin's Af⯑fidavits have not been read) it is neceſ⯑ſary for me ſhortly to ſtate what they con⯑tain upon this Charge, and it is material to attend to the particular Times, in which James is charged to be active in this Bu⯑ſineſs. Mr. Macklin, and his Friend Mr. Kavenhuller Skinner ſay, that upon the 13th of November laſt, Mr. James, toge⯑ther with Mr. Aldus an Attorney at Law, was very violent, at the Head of a Party, [8] in the two Shilling Gallery of Covent Gar⯑den Theatre; that they and their Party were the chief Perſons who made the Diſturb⯑ance; and there is this particular Charge againſt James, that he inſiſted a Mr. Smith, one of the Actors of the ſaid Theatre, ſhould perform the Part of Macbeth, which was to have been exhibited that Evening. Then Mr. Macklin and Mr. Skinner ſay likewiſe, that upon the 18th of ſaid No⯑vember Mr. James appeared again at the ſaid Theatre, in Concert with Mr. Aldus and Mr. Miles, in Conſequence of a Conſpiracy together, and that they made a violent Riot; and it is expreſsly charged that James, among others, called upon Mr. Macklin to kneel down upon the Stage, and aſk Pardon,—Theſe are the Charges againſt Mr. James, for whom I am concerned, with ſome general Alle⯑gations to inflame; and Mr. Macklin aſſerts in his Affidavit, that he, believes the ſole Cauſe of his Diſcharge from the Theatre, was occaſioned by, and owing to theſe riotous Proceedings. I have an Affidavit of Mr. James, which, if I am not very much miſtaken, to⯑tally [9] exculpates him from any Thing of the Sort, charged By the Information in this Cauſe—though perhaps Mr. James was not ſo perfectly quiet, as he could now wiſh he had been, yet your Lordſhips will find, upon his Affidavit, that he did nothing more than is done every Day, when an Auditor does not like an Actor—he tells, you he was there, when Mr. Mack⯑lin himſelf does not introduce him—he has no Reluctance in telling how often he attended the Exhibition of Macbeth, and the whole of his Conduct while there—he tells your Lordſhip, that he went there upon the 6th of ſaid November, when he is not charged with being there—he ſays he went in Company with his Wife, that may ſatisfy your Lordſhip, he meant to be quiet, for to procure Quiet at Home, he took his Wife with him, and went into the two Shilling Gallery; he did not mean to make a Riot, having his Wife with him; and it might be well if every Perſon's Wife was as quiet as Mr. James's. But your Lordſhip will find there was another lady, a Lady Macbeth, who was not ſo quiet in this Buſineſs, for ſhe thought pro⯑per [10] to act in the Character, her Huſband was that Night to perform, therefore ſhe was not quite ſo quiet—and her Huſband, inſtead of performing the Cha⯑racter of Macbeth, choſe to exhibit a great Part of his own Character.—Inſtead of going on with the Play, he produced a vaſt Number of News Papers, with which he was diſpoſed to act his Part in the Cauſe, and appealing to them was his Method of acting, till Mr. Dun⯑ning took the Character from him, who will act much better for him, if he will let him alone; thus the Cauſe was taken from the Audience, which ſeemed to be an Accuſation thrown out againſt Macklin of ſaying, that a Mr. Reddiſh had hiſſed him; it ſeems Mr. Macklin appeal⯑ed to the News Papers, and charged Mr. Reddiſh and Mr. Sparks with having hiſſed him. This Charge Mr. Reddiſh and the other denied in the public Papers, by Af⯑fidavits ſworn before my Lord Mayor, or ſome Juſtice of the Peace. Mr. Macklin was angry, that he had thrown out a falſe Charge, and in order to exculpate him⯑ſelf was prepared with Papers, when he [11] came upon the Stage, and was going to enter upon his Exculpation, and that pro⯑duced the firſt Riot.—Moſt of the Au⯑dience diſapproved of Mr. Macklin's Pro⯑ceedings in this Buſineſs, and tho' it was his own Appeal to the Public, yet he did not chuſe to have Mr. James and the o⯑thers ſhew their Diſapprobation by Hiſſing, which is the uſual manner upon ſuch Ap⯑plications, either Hiſſing or Clapping; that was all that paſſed upon the 6th of November; then upon the 13th, the Time when it is charged, that Mr. James was at the Theatre, the Queſtion then aroſe, whether Mr. Macklin had not been ex⯑tremely wrong in this falſe Charge upon Mr. Reddiſh and others, and it was the Judgment of the Houſe that he had, and Mr. James was in Truth one of thoſe judges who was of Opinion it was impro⯑per Behaviour, and Mr. Macklin was cal⯑led upon for ſome Conceſſions, for that he had been in the wrong.—Mr. James ſays he ſat in the two Shilling Gallery, and that he, with the reſt, called out for a Conceſſion, for this bad Behaviour of Macklin's, which he had no ſooner done, than a Lady, who ſat ſome little Diſtance [12] from him, ſtarted up and immediately ſtruck Mr. James—This Signal it ſeems was to be given, together with the Ex⯑preſſion the Lady made uſe of, "this is one of the Scoundrels who hiſſed," or to that Effect, upon which a Man ſtarted up and ſeconded the Lady, being cloſe by her, and immediately ſtruck Mr. James; upon this a Scuffle and a third Perſon aroſe, and ſtruck Mr. James; this ſeems to be rather unfortunate for Mr. James, for if he did wrong, he was very well puniſhed upon the Spot, without having the Puniſhment of this Court—they tumbled him between two Benches, and one or two got upon him, and beat him: Your Lordſhip may conceive the Conſequences might have been very ſerious to him—He ſays, he had a Suſpicion who this Virago Lady, that be⯑gun the Buſineſs, was, he ſuppoſed her to be a Relation of Mr. Macklin's, and he defined a Friend of his, who appeared in the Gallery, to follow this Lady Home, to ſee who ſhe was; he found out the Houſe ſhe went to, which had the Name Macklin upon the Door. Every one be⯑lieves the Lady, who begun this Aſſault [13] upon Mr. James, was Mrs. Macklin, Wife of Mr. Macklin, who makes this Applica⯑tion. The preſent Queſtion is, whether or no there was a concerted Deſign and Conſpiracy between theſe Parties to hurt Mr. Macklin. This would be a bad Bu⯑ſineſs indeed, and every Perſon muſt feel it ſo.—But Mr. James denies the Charge in theſe Terms, viz. that he had not the leaſt Knowledge before of Mr. Aldus, or any of the reſt, and abſolutely denies, that he called upon Mr. Smith to perform in the Character of Macbeth, inſtead of Mr. Macklin, or for any Purpoſe whatſoever—and though Mr. Macklin has been too hot and haſty in charging Mr. James with making uſe of thoſe Expreſſions, they are material Expreſſions perhaps, and mate⯑rial to be denied, for they enter into the very Purpoſe, ſuppoſed to be a Preface to the Proceedings of the reſt of theſe Per⯑ſons, by calling upon Mr. Smith to per⯑form the Part of Macbeth; this he fully denies.—He is charged with hiſſing, hooting, and abuſing every Perſon near him; but he puts a Negative upon this by his Affidavit, wherein he ſhews the [14] Uſage he received from the Hands of Mrs. Macklin and her Friends.—He ſays, the next Morning he waited upon Mr. Cole⯑man, the acting Manager of the Playhouſe, to procure an Interview with Mr. Mack⯑lin, in order to find out from whom he received thoſe Blows; that he did not mean to proſecute, with reſpect to her, but would put up with the Blows he received from her. Mr. Coleman took a great deal of Pains to procure a Meeting between Macklin and James, to have the Matter explained. But your Lordſhip will find that was diligently avoided by Mr. Mack⯑lin, tho' he had full Notice.—Now ſuppoſing for a Moment, that Mr. James himſelf was at all to blame, will your Lordſhip grant an Information upon the Application of this Mr. Macklin, from whoſe Wife and two of his Friends (for thoſe Men muſt be taken for his Friends) if Mr. James had behaved at all ill, he receiv'd ample Puniſhment from their Hands, ſuch as I have before repreſented; and when Mr. Macklin refuſed to meet him or to aſſiſt him in his Enquiry after theſe Perſons. I ſhould ſubmit, that would be [15] a Ground for refuſing this Information to Mr. Macklin. The Court requires, when an Application is made to them for an In⯑formation, for a Riot or a Breach of the Peace, or other bad Behaviour, that there ſhould be nothing of the Sort on the Part of the Perſon who makes the Applica⯑tion. Another Charge againſt Mr. James is, that he roared out for Mr. Macklin to kneel down upon his Knees, and that he menaced Mr. Macklin with his Stick or Cane; that is a material Charge, and material to be denied, that is denied in the fulleſt Manner in the World. He abſolutely denies in Words, that he roared out to Mr. Macklin to down upon his Knees, or menaced Mr. Macklin with his Stick, as charged in the Affidavit—for Deponent poſitively ſwears he had no Stick or Cane whatever with him that Evening; that is material, the Truth is no more than this; they muſt have taken ſome other Perſon to be him—Now with reſpect to the Conſpiracy between theſe Parties, to do the Miſchief, which is the material Part, there is the moſt abſolute and poſitive Denial that can be in any [16] Form of Words—Mr. James ſays, he was there upon the 18th of November, that he was a perfect Stranger to William Au⯑guſtus Miles, James Sparks, Joſeph Clarke, Ralph Aldus, and Thomas Leigh, or any or either of them, to drive the ſaid Mr. Mack⯑lin from the Stage, nor had any Meeting with any Perſon or Perſons whatever for that Purpoſe, nor deſired any Perſon to expell the ſaid Macklin from the Stage—All this Deponent wanted was for him to anſwer for his Conduct relating to thoſe Charges againſt Mr. Reddiſh and Mr. Sparks, and that was the whole of the Buſineſs, and denies that he was in any Conſpiracy, or knew of any Conſpiracy againſt Mr. Macklin—That with reſpect to himſelf, he has been ſufficiently ill uſed, and more than ſufficiently puniſhed at the Time, through the Behaviour of the Wife of Mr. Macklin, for if there was any Cauſe of Revenge, ſhe and her two Aſ⯑ſiſtants fully revenged the Cauſe, while my Client was down between the two Benches; therefore, my Lord, I conceive this is a full Anſwer to the Charge, and that your Lordſhip will not make the Rule abſolute againſt Mr. James.

The Woman going into the Houſe, with the Name of Macklin over the Door, is no Proof, your Lordſhip ſees, that ſhe was Mrs. Macklin; on the contrary, ſhe is found out to be another Perſon.

It is a Lodging-houſe, where there are ſeveral families.

My Lord, I am of Council likewiſe on the Part of Mr. James; the only poſitive Charge is, that on the 18th of November laſt, he ſtood up in the Pit and with Vociferations called to Mr. Macklin to kneel down, and menaced hin with a Stick; as to the reſt, reſpecting the Charge upon the former Day, it only ex⯑tends to Belief: Mr. Macklin has ſworn and upon his Belief refers to another Fact which really is not ſo, as in the Affidvit it appears to be ſworn, by another Per⯑ſon's Affidavit, that James inſiſted tha [...] Smith ſhould take Mr. Macklin's Par [...] Mr. Macklin's Affidavit does not ſay, tha [...] James was the Man who called upon Mr▪ Smith to act Mr. Macklin's Part; and then is no other expreſs Charge, but that on th [...] 18th of November, againſt James, which i [...] his calling out to Mr. Macklin to knee [27] down, and the menacing him with a Stick or Cane. All the reſt of the Affidavit is nothing to Mr. James, the greateſt Part of it is only ſetting out Mr. Macklin's Merit. Mr. James appears from the firſt Time to be inſulted by People who came there, and the Woman who firſt began the Diſturbance, was traced to Mr. Mack⯑lin's Houſe; he had Notice, and was cal⯑led upon to give an Account, if he knew who the Perſons were who had uſed James ſo ill—But what was Mr. Macklin's Con⯑duct: he refuſes to meet him, and gives no Anwer whatſoever, which was not an implicit reaſon, that he did not know who they were; if he did not know who they were, as I think he muſt know, he might have ſo informed Mr. James, but he had reaſon to ſuſpect who they were. Mr. Macklin is ſaid to have firſt appealed to the Public; I ſhould have thought his Diſcretion would have dictated to him to abide by their Opinion, let it be what it would; but with reſpect to his pre⯑ſent Application to a Court of Juſtice, he is not intitled to the leaſt Fa⯑vour or Countenance whatſoever; for he [28] brought his Complaint in the moſt public and ſolemn Manner he could, againſt two People in the ſame Profeſſion with him⯑ſelf, and which Complaint, if proved muſt have been attended with all the fatal Conſequences to thoſe two Gentlemen that Macklin ſeems to apprehend now the Complaint was made by him to the Audience, they heard it with Patience the Complaint they found was not true but appeared to be falſe; I don't know any more generous Conduct for any Man to have adopted upon this Occaſion, where there was a falſe Charge brought againſt two Men, which, as public Men, muſt have been attended with very injurious Conſequences to thoſe Gentlemen, i [...] found true, than where it was found falſe to expreſs Horror upon the Occaſion It appears, that all that Mr. James deſired was to have an Account of thoſe People who had uſed him ill; James had ſhew his own Opinion, which he had a righ to maintain, and he was juſtified in Hi [...] ⯑ſing to ſhew his Diſapprobation; for whe [...] this Motion was firſt made, before it was furbiſhed up with this Ground of Con⯑ſpiracy, [29] which has been ſince added, at that Time the Court ſaid there was no Ground for an Information. Now they have foiſted in the Ground of Conſpiracy, which they have not made out. It is denied, in the moſt poſitive Terms, reſpecting the Stick being held up in the Pit; it is de⯑nied, in the moſt poſitive Terms, that James knew any thing of the other De⯑fendants; upon the contrary he went as a ſingle Man, neither has he entered into any Conſpiracy or Combination whatever. Mr. Macklin might have put an end to it, if he pleaſed, even after his having made his Appeal to the Public, in the Manner he did; when he was called upon by Mr. James, he might have anſwered him, by giving him an Account of thoſe Perſons from whom he had ſuffered ſo much, when he was knocked down between the Benches, where he was kicked and ſtamp⯑ed upon, which might have been attended with fatal Conſequences to his Perſon; but when called upon, Mr. Macklin re⯑fuſes to give him any Anſwer, or meet him.

[30] Upon the whole it appears there is no kind of Conſpiracy in the Conduct of Mr. James, and therefore no Ground for this Information.

Who is in Support of the Rule?—Go on with them one by one.

Will the Court give Judgment one by one?

Yes, and execute them one by one. If your Lordſhips pleaſe to favour me a few Words upon this Caſe, ſo far as the Rule affects the Perſon, for whom the two Gentlemen have been ſhewing Cauſe: Your Lordſhip will recol⯑lect, what has been ſtated from the Affida⯑vits, containing that Charge which is ſup⯑ported, not by Mr. Macklin only, but in the material Parts of it, by two or three other People, Mr. Macdonnel and his Wife, and Mr. Kavenhuller Skinner.

Mr. Bullet thought good to ſuppoſe theſe People did not ſwear poſitively to the Fact, or at all to it, and that Macklin ſpeaks to Belief only of the Facts that paſſed on the 13th of November laſt. Your Lordſhip, by referring to thoſe Affidavits, will cor⯑rect that Miſinformation; for nothing can [31] be more poſitive to the Facts ſworn to, by the Affidavits, of thoſe people, whoſe Information Mr. Macklin ſpeaks. Of the Facts ſworn to upon the 13th of No⯑vember laſt, Macdonnel and his Wife give this Account; that one of "the Perſons who ſeemed to be at the Head of thoſe who oppoſed Macklin's performing the Character of Macbeth, and ſpoke moſt particularly, was one James—as he called himſelf, whom they believed to be John Stephen James, of Bridge Street, Weſtminſter, ſaid James ſo publicly declaring;" theſe Mr. Buller thought good to repreſent to your Lord⯑ſhip, as Perſons ſpeaking from Informa⯑tion and Belief, and to ſuppoſe Mr. Mack⯑lin ſpoke from Information and Belief reſpecting the Perſon; it is charged to be James by Macdonnel and his Wife, but their Affidavit hardly wants Poſitiveneſs, in the manner of making it, three People ſwear poſitively, Mr. Macklin making the fourth—Mr. Macklin believes James to be the Perſon from whom he received that Treatment, and the Reaſon for his believ⯑ing it is, he has been fo informed by thoſe, who now prove it, concurring with his own Apprehenſions.

[32] The Court will now ſay what is fit to be done upon the Truth of the Caſe, when the Truth is underſtood; Mr. Buller thought good, as did Mr. Bearcroft, who went before him, to ſay Mr. Macklin, who gave certain Provocations, which, by their Argument, they would refer to him, in Conſequence of which Mr. James, was intitled to act in the manner he did, and was not ſo culpable as the reſt, he having received very ill Treatment from the Hands of a Woman, and ſome Friends of Mr. Macklin's. If your Lordſhip looks at the Affidavit of the Gentleman, in his own Exculpation, and of Mr. Lucas, your Lordſhip will ſee upon what Ground theſe People were warranted, in preſum⯑ing that this Woman was Mrs. Macklin. The Ground is this; by the Directions of James, Lucas followed this Woman to the Houſe, upon the Door of which, was the Name of Macklin; Mr. Macklin lives in that Houſe, Part of which belongs to him, upon the Door of which, leading to his Apartments, is his Name, the other Part of it is a Shop; in the Houſe there are various Lodgers, and to what Part of the [33] Hoauſe ſhe went, they have hot thought proper to tell; ſhe might go to a Lodger there, or might be a Lodger herſelf; or poſſibly never heard or knew any thing at all of Mr. Macklin, otherwiſe than as being a Lodger in the Houſe; and diſpoſed to think Mr. Macklin was ill treated. But of this Woman being Mrs. Macklin, there is no Evidence, nor do they affect to ſay ſhe is in any Way ſo, as to induce your Lordſhip to credit, that ſuch is their Belief. Your Lordſhip will give me Leave to ſay, that this Woman, ſo ſaid to be Mrs. Macklin by Mr. James, was not Mrs. Macklin, and it was ſo far from being poſſible for James ſo to believe her, that he charged a Woman of the Name of Macdonnel with being the Wo⯑man who had ſo treated him; he Mr. James therefore, ſo far from being of that Belief, ſtands under the Predicament of having found out his Miſtake, if ever there was a Time, that he really thought ſo, for this ſame Mrs. Macdonnel is the ſame Perſon he fixed upon, as having given him that Uſage, and is not Mrs. Macklin, out Mrs. Macdonnel, a Perſon who has [34] nothing to do with it, but the Fact of being a Witneſs in this Caſe; all the Ar⯑gument founded upon it will be removed, by ſhewing there is ſuch a Miſrepreſenta⯑tion. Then my Lord it remains to ſhew, that the Charge is neither diſputed or de⯑nied; I take Leave to ſay ſo, notwith⯑ſtanding the Gentlemen have ſaid it is both diſputed and denied; theſe Facts, ſuppoſing them to be true, conſtitute the Ground of the Charge againſt this Perſon.

Your Lordſhip will give me Leave to preſume that, of which theſe is undoubt⯑ed Evidence, and which no Perſon is prepared to controvert, viz. with re⯑ſpect to the enlarging of the Rule for Mr. Leigh, Mr. Buller was not ill ad⯑viſed, it was not a Slip upon the Occa⯑ſion, though the Gentleman ſays ſo, but he has it from the Attorney, giving him Inſtructions to enlarge it, without which he would not have enlarged it, therefore it was no Miſtake of Inſtructions, but the Gentleman acted agreeable to the Point of his Inſtructions; the Attor⯑ney, in my Apprehenſion, perfectly un⯑derſtood [35] what he was about, when he gave thoſe Inſtructions; I now, underſtand it, and if the Gentleman had not adviſed he ſhould be defended, they would have given him better Inſtructions. Nobody will doubt the Charge, when there is a Proof of a great Number of People, ſpeaking at a great Number of Times and Places, about it; and Mr. Leigh has been ſeen to give Orders, and to apply that Force, and collect it, which will clearly be found to be the Truth; and when not denied, it muſt be taken for granted; and if that Time never comes of its being denied, it appears in Proof beyond a Doubt, there exiſted in Somebody a determined Purpoſe to drive this Man from the Stage; and though the Gentleman choſe to ſpeak of Mr. Macklin's Apprehenſions being groundleſs, Mr. Macklin at that Time, as well as the Time I am now preſſing his Intereſt for the Conſideration of the Court, if he was in a Situation to apprehend any thing, muſt apprehend he would be diſ⯑charged; and now that he has been diſ⯑charged, if he is not apprehenſive of being diſcharged, it is certain he is not [36] yet reſtored, and not under the Appre⯑henſion he ſhall be reſtored. With reſ⯑pect to their own Safety, for which no Imputation falls upon them, if the Ma⯑nagers of the Theatre attend to ſuch Be⯑haviour as this, it will for ever prevent the Reſtitution and Reſtoration of this Man, to what the People have driven him from. That ſome People are anſwerable for that, I beg Leave to preſume, in this Buſineſs; how far thoſe People are acceſſary to that Deſign, and inſtrumental in carrying it in⯑to Execution, and for the Purpoſe of ob⯑viating the Suſpicion of Colluſion and Conſpiracy, the Circumſtances are ſingu⯑lar enough. When I ſtate Mr. Macklin to be an Iriſhman, he will not be affronted with me, what thoſe others are I cannot learn; I have not made any Inquiry about it; but I find a little Iriſh Blood has found its Way into their Veins, or thoſe that adviſe or appear for them to Day; when the Rule was enlarged, they appeared by two diſtinct Claſſes of Council, each re⯑preſenting Three, and to Day the Partie [...] are Six, and have ſix Council; and the [...] [37] they forget there ſtands my Friend, the common Attorney to the whole Six.

It is not ſo; I am not At⯑torney for the Six, I am Attorney for Mr. Leigh; and Mr. James's Friend deſired me to do Buſineſs for him.

I don't blame Mr. Blake for ſetting me right; on the contrary, I thank him; then it ſeems there are ſix Perſons appearing by two Attorneys, and not one.

I am attorney for ſome of the others.

Then I beg Leave to ſtand again to rectify my Miſtake; we ſhall grow accurate, by Degrees, no doubt; then there is one Attorney for three Par⯑ties, repreſented by three Council; and three Attorneys inſtructing another Coun⯑cil, to be for the three other Parties. The corrected Caſe then is this; three Attorneys employ one Council, upon the Behalf of three Parties, who chooſe to be underſtood, as Parties entirely unconnect⯑ed with each other; another Attorney em⯑ploys three diſtinct Council, repreſenting three Parties, becauſe they chuſe to ſhew [38] thoſe three Parties totally unconnected with each other; therefore, as far as reſ⯑pects the Point of Connection, is to be diſ⯑covered by the Evidentia rei of the Caſe, which your Lordſhip ſees, with reſpect to Mr. James, the preſent Subject in Conſi⯑deration, is, that he is underſtood by his Council, to have acquitted himſelf alto⯑gether; and they have gone particularly through the Charge, in Point of Obſer⯑vation, in order to contradict it.—Give me Leave to go through the Parts of the Anſwer; in the firſt Place, your Lordſhips are told, that this Gentleman went to the Theatre, for the peaceable Purpoſe of ſee⯑ing the Play; perhaps if he had been ſo very peaceable as my learned Friend, he would have had no Occaſion to have taken his Wife with him, to keep him in Or⯑der; I wiſh with all my Heart his Wife could have done ſo the next Time of his going there; but I cannot tell whether it was, that this Gentleman grew ſo unruly, that his Wife choſe to keep out of his Way (it would have been well for the reſt of theſe Defendants, if they had done ſo too) or whether it was for other Pur⯑poſes: [39] It ſeems he returned to the Play⯑houſe; but with what View? Not out of Curioſity, that being fully ſatisfied the firſt Night; for then Mr. James was clearly of Opinion, that Macklin was incompetent for performing the Character of Macbeth; the Gentleman might have ſuppoſed him⯑ſelf inveſted with Authority, to form a Judgment upon the Merits of Mr. Mack⯑lin, as a Performer, and, in Company with his Wife, whoſe Criticiſms concur⯑ring with his, Macklin's Performance of the Character was conſidered, by them, as worth Nobody's while to go and ſee, It was odd, after he had paſſed this Judg⯑ment, that he ſhould chuſe, whenever Mr. Macklin came on again, in that Cha⯑racter, to go and ſee him. This Caſe is too ſtrong, and no Perſon can give this Gentleman Credit for ſaying, he came on Purpoſe afterwards to ſee the Play; and when Mr. Macklin came upon the Stage, in different Characters, in the Play in Shylock, and in the Entertain⯑ment, in Sir Archy Macſarcaſm; I take Leave to ſuppoſe the Town agreed, that in theſe Characters Mr. Macklin always [40] had capital Merit; if there is any Merit in thoſe Characters themſelves, they are underſtood, by all the World, to have been exhibited with all their Advantages by Mr. Macklin; however, if it was Mr. James's Purpoſe to ſhare in the Pleaſures, what drew him to ſee Macklin in the Characters of Shylock and Sir Archy Macſarcaſm?—He was in fear, as he thinks fit to tell us, before Mr. Macklin began the Character, that they would not let him go on, be⯑cauſe they wanted Something elſe; they wanted an Apology, and ſome Explana⯑tion, and God knows what; and that which I ſhall preſently go more minutely into the Enquiry of—that Something—therefore it was, and not ſeeing him in Sir Archy and Shylock, clearly which drew Mr. James to ſee him, in thoſe Charac⯑ters, any more than when he went to ſee him in Macbeth. Nobody can ſuppoſe nor will Mr. James wiſh to be underſtood that ſeeing, applauding, or condemning the Character, were among the Object that drew Mr. James's Attention to the Play-houſe. It ſeems, however, Mr. Jame having ſatisfied your Lordſhips theſe were [41] not his Purpoſes, has left us no Doubt what they were; for he has had the Good⯑neſs to explain them. He ſays, the firſt Time, viz. the Sixth of November, there was a Talk about Reddiſh. His Affidavit ſtates, that, "it appeared to this Depo⯑tent, that there was no ſufficient Proof, of ei⯑ther the ſaid Samuel Reddiſh or James Sparks hiſſing; neither did this Deponent think a mere Relation ſufficient to contradict the Oaths of them, the ſaid Samuel Reddiſh and James Sparks; and this Deponent did therefore diſapprove of Macklin's Behaviour, by the common Mode of Hiſſing."—What other Purpoſe, if any, brought him there that Night? Your Lordſhip ſees how ſoon he forgot—for it ſeems he hiſſes the Actor to prevent his going on; and why? Be⯑cauſe there was not ſufficient Proof to ſa⯑tisfy this ſelf-created, ſelf-erected Judge. He takes upon himſelf to act upon a Charge he had nothing to do with; he had no Connection with either of the Parties; but he, in pure Generoſity, as Mr. Buller tells us, was inclined to take upon him to judge of thoſe Merits, he ſuppoſed himſelf called upon to try, though his Proceedings, [42] in Fact, had no Relation at all to the Me⯑rits of the Performance—But Mr. James was ſo inattentive to the Pleaſure of the Company there, as to think himſelf au⯑thorized to diſturb what they might like.

I am very well ſatisfied, as to Mr. James—You need not go any further—I think what Mr. Buller al⯑luded to, was right; if the Applica⯑tion went therefore in the Way he meant it, to be ſure, this Court would not encourage Complaints of the Diſap⯑probation or Approbation of acting upon a public Theatre; being ſhewn in a man⯑ner in which every Part of the Auditory has a Right to ſhew it—But if from Ma⯑lice, Ill-will, or Reſentment, a Number of People are ungenerous enough to take Advantage of the Situation a poor Actor is in, being at their Mercy upon the Stage, to deprive him of his Bread, and inſult him, not upon any Offence ariſing out of the Play, but from Malice and Conſpiracy againſt the Perſon who is the Actor, to ſtrip him of the Means of Living, that is a ſtrong Ground of Action, which may be brought by him—I rather wiſhed he had— [43] I hinted and recommended to him to have brought an Action—Beſides the Injury done to him, it is moſt indecent to the Public, and a Shame to the Police of the Kingdom—With Regard to Mr. James, he don't deny ſome of the principal Parts of the Charge, and upon his own Affida⯑vit, he gives ſufficient Ground to ſhew with what View, after the Sixth of No⯑vember, he went there, and with what Principle, and for what Purpoſes—As to the Affidavit of Macdonnel and his Wife, he hardly gives an Anſwer to any Part of it—It is the cleareſt, fulleſt, and moſt ex⯑preſs Charge, and he hardly gives an An⯑ſwer to any Part of that Affidavit—It is very remarkable in that Affidavit, which [...]e don't deny, Mrs. Macdonnel ſwears throughout, he took her for Mrs. Macklin, and challenged her with being Mrs. Mack⯑lin, and all along conſidered her as Mrs. Macklin—He was ſo outrageous, ſo vio⯑ [...]ent and ſo mad, that he challenged Men [...]nd Women—Theſe are ſtrong Words of his Affidavit, which are not anſwered [...]y him.

[44] But taking it upon his own Affidavit, which is the faireſt Way—He goes there upon the Sixth of November; whether he went for Amuſement, or other Pur⯑poſes, he don't ſay; but he goes on the Sixth of November; he ſays, before the Beginning of the Play, Mr. Macklin came upon the Stage, with a Parcel of Papers in his Hands, which he began to read, the Purport of which was, to prove Mr. Reddiſh, a Performer of Drury Lane, the firſt Night of his performing the Part of Macbeth, had hiſſed; and upon hearing the ſame read, it appeared to him, there was no ſufficient Proof of either ſaid Red⯑diſh or Sparks hiſſing; neither did he this Deponent think a mere Relation ſufficient to contradict the Oaths of them, the ſaid Reddiſh and Sparks, which they had reſ⯑pectively made, whereby they denied it and he ſays, he therefore ſhewed his Diſ⯑approbation of Macklin's Behaviour, by the common Method of Hiſſing, and he ſays he hiſſed that Evening—There it reſts for that Night—But how comes it upon the Thirteenth of November, that he came there? With what View, and in what [45] Company does he come there? Manifeſtly for Vengeance, not to ſee the Play—He ſays he went, it being the fourth Time of Mr. Macklin's performing the Character—He ſays, that as Macklin had not produ⯑ced any poſitive Proof of Reddiſh and Sparks Hiſſing, as he had pledged himſelf to the Public to do, he this Deponent, as well as others, called for ſuch Proof or Conceſſon; and upon that, a Squabble happened with a Woman (Macdonnel's Wife) whom he ſwore to be moſt out⯑rageous—As to Proofs and Conceſſions, Macklin had nothing to do with it, Macklin was wrong in ſaying any Thing about it; and much more ſo, after they had made their Affidavits, to take Notice of it.

But he goes on Purpoſe, not to ſee the Play, but to call for Proofs and Conceſ⯑ſions—Who was to take them? Was the Court? Or the Pit? Or the Upper Gal⯑lery? They had not defined what the Con⯑ceſſions were to be, or to whom to be made—Then James is outrageous, and makes all this Work for want of Proofs end Conceſſions, that he had no Buſineſs to [46] go to the Play-houſe to aſk for—Then he has made a Slip in one Thing, which I am ſure he was not aware of—It is inſiſted, there was no Conſpiracy—To be ſure no Conſpiracy—The other Perſons joined in the Rule, have no Acquaintance with him—But when he comes to give an Ac⯑count, he ſays, if his Friends that went with him had not done ſo and ſo, they ſhould not have been able to have got the better; therefore it appears he went with a Body of his Friends, to demand Proofs and Conceſſions, by Vociferations and Noiſe in the Houſe—After this he wants to ſpeak with Macklin—I ſuppoſe Macklin took Care not to meet him—He was afraid to ſpeak to him, as he was ſo boiſterous, but to Mr. Coleman he deſires to be excuſed giving him any Satisfaction about this Wo⯑man at all—In Conſequence of this Mr. James ſends a Challenge, and publiſhes it in the News-papers—He writes to him in this Manner.

Then for fear the Court ſhould not be able to perceive it was a Challenge, James takes Care of this, for he declares in his Affidavit, that Mr. Macklin did not dare to anſwer him, either in a public or private Manner.

However, this is not a Conſpiracy. He ſays he is not acquainted with the par⯑ticular Perſons that might be there—There might be Scores or Hundreds concerned in it—Mr. Macklin ſingled out, as well as he could, thoſe he was able to give Evi⯑dence of—James ſays he did not enter into a Conſpiracy to drive Macklin for ever from the Stage—But ſtill he ſhould give Proofs or Conceſſions before he acted again.

Now as to a Conſpiracy, it is not ne⯑ceſſary to prove a parole or written Agree⯑ment, [48] in order to make a Conſpiracy; if perſons concur in Acts to do the ſame Thing, that is Evidence to be left to a Jury, whether it is or is not a Conſpiracy? You all remember the Caſe of the Ghoſt-Several Perſons were there convicted of a Conſpiracy. I believed what they them⯑ſelves ſaid, when they moved the Court for a new Trial, that they had not a pa⯑role Communication, much leſs a written Agreement; but they all concurred in the ſame Impoſition upon the Public, by ſetting up this Ghoſt. I ſaid upon the Trial, if the Jury thought they all con⯑curred towards the ſame End, and upon any bad or improper Principles, took Par [...] in ſetting up that Ghoſt, that it was no [...] neceſſary to prove either a parole or writ⯑ten Agreement to do it; and upon th [...] Motion for a new Trial, the Court was o [...] that Opinion.—But what is this Caſe James denies he entered into a Conſpirac [...] to drive Macklin from the Stage—But wha [...] did he want? All he wanted was a [...] Anſwer to his Queſtion, and an Apolog [...] for Macklin's Conduct towards Samu [...] Reddiſh and James Sparks—What had [...] [49] [...]o with Samuel Reddiſh or James Sparks? Who made him the Champion of Reddiſh and Sparks? Yet he is deſirous it ſhould appear that he was not acquainted with them, or they with him; but ſtill he goes to get this Apology or Anſwer, and will not ſuffer the Play to go on, but inſults the Audience. Acting in this manner was very malevolent to Mr. Macklin. With reſpect to James therefore, let the Rule be made abſolute. Go on with the next.

I am for Mr. Miles, and ſhall trouble your Lordſhip with ſuch An⯑ſwers to the Charge againſt him, as occur to me.

I apprehend there is very little Proof againſt Mr. Miles—He is charged with being preſent in Covent Garden Houſe up⯑on the Eighteenth of November; that he hiſſed, was noiſy, and outrageous, with a great Number of other Perſons in the Pit—He is likewiſe charged with having wrote ſomething upon Paper, and throw⯑ing it out of the Pit upon the Stage—What the Contents of the Paper were, is not ſtated; ſo I preſume your Lordſhips will not conſider it to be ſo ſtated—Then [50] that he had a Conference with Mr. Woodward, and after that Woodward re⯑tired. I think that is the whole of the Charge made upon Mr. Miles. He is not charged with being preſent in the Even⯑ing Mr. Macklin acted Macbeth—I under⯑ſtand there was a ſtrange Diſturbance upon the Eighteenth of November; but he is not charged with any Conſpiracy, except what could be inferred from expreſſing his Diſapprobation at the Time of Acting, by Hiſſing—No Suſpicion can properly fall upon Miles—On his Part I have an Affidavit, by which he declares he went to the Houſe upon the Eighteenth of No⯑vember, for the Purpoſe of ſeeing Mr. Macklin act the Part of Shylock, and the Part of Sir Archy Macſarcaſm, in an En⯑tertainment; in which Parts I underſtand he has always acquitted himſelf with great Applauſe—He ſays the Audience was very noiſy, at the Time of drawing up the Curtain, and he, not approving altogether of Mr. Macklin's Conduct, joined in ſome Degree with the Noiſe of the Houſe; ſo far he admits, but ſays he did it merely becauſe he thought Mr. Macklin ought, [51] after what he ſaid, to make ſome little Conceſſion to the Public—That he did not do it with any View or Intention of driv⯑ing him from his Profeſſion—In ſhort, that he was in no Combination, and had no Malice againſt Macklin. Thus it ſtands upon Mr. Miles's Affidavit. I apprehend therefore, with Deference to your Lord⯑ſhips, from the whole of the Caſe, it ap⯑pears there was no Malice, or Intention of Malice—That Miles went there as a Spec⯑tator—That what be did was no more than expreſſing his Diſapprobation of Macklin, as every Perſon in a Play-houſe generally does, if they diſlike a Performance—That he conſidered himſelf as having a Right to do it, and if any Conſequence aroſe from it, by that Behaviour, Mr. Macklin may have his Remedy by Action—But I truſt, in ſuch a Caſe as this, your Lordſhips will never let an Information go againſt him.

Is the Letter ſet out in the Affidavit?

No, my Lord, we ſay no⯑thing at all about it.

Miles does not deny the Charges; he does not deny his being acceſſary to driving Macklin from his Bread.

It was by Mile's written Order, that Macklin was diſcharged.

Upon the Eighteenth of November, Miles was at the Houſe; he took Part in the Quarrel; they all went on Purpoſe; therefore let the Rule be abſolute, as to him.

I am for Mr. Clarke; ſo far as reſpects him, from the State of Macklin's Affidavit, the Charge is, that upon the Eighteenth of November (the Affidavit not pretending Clarke to be at Covent Garden Theatre upon any former Occaſions) that he ſat in a Box one Story high, over the Stage; that when he made his Appearance, he was ſaluted with the waving of Sticks, and a Noiſe—Then it is charged, that Clarke made a Signal to the Audience; next, that there was a Hiſ⯑ [...]ing, and crying off, off—That he gave ſeveral Signals, which, from their con⯑ſtantly producing the ſame Effect, Depo⯑nent Macklin apprehends were pre-con⯑certed Signals, which Clarke ſometimes made with his Hat, and ſometimes with [...] Piece of Wood he had in his Hand, co⯑ [...]ered with red Cloth; with which he me⯑naced [56] Macklin, and called upon him to kneel down and aſk Pardon. Now in that Mr. Macklin is unconfirmed, and it is de⯑nied by Clarke. Next it is charged, that he cried off, off, and that he beat the Scenes moſt furiouſly with the Board that he threw a Note upon the Stage, and ordered the Actors to go off; that he roar⯑ed out Coleman, Coleman, and deſired him to come upon the Stage; that Clarke ap⯑peared to be one of thoſe Perſons to whom this Riot and Behaviour was imputable. This is the whole of the Charge againſt Clarke. Macklin lumps him with the ſe⯑veral other Perſons, Leigh, Miles, and the others; and ſays, he underſtands it was a Combination by all theſe Perſons, for diſ⯑charging him from the Stage, whence he was afterwards diſcharged: Mr. Clarke is a Gentleman of Surry, lives at Moulſey, and is a Man of Fortune: He gives this An⯑ſwer; that he never was at the Theatre, either of the four Times, when Macklin acted Macbeth. It might be owing to his Misfortune, his not ſeeing the Cha⯑racter of Macbeth ſhine in Mr. Macklin, an [...] no doubt it did, if he had had the Pleaſure [57] of ſeeing him act in that Character, I dare ſay it would have ſo recommended Mr. Macklin to him, that he would not have been induced to do as he did. He went to ſee Mr. Macklin in the two Characters of Shy⯑lock and Sir Archy Macſarcaſm; he denies he is at all conſcious of making any Sa⯑lutations to the Audience, or that the Au⯑dience made any Return to them; he tells your Lordſhips, It is true, that he took up a Piece of Board with a red Cloth, which was in the Box, and that he made as much Noiſe as any Body in the Houſe; that he ſtruck it againſt the Scenes, and againſt the Side of the Wainſcot of the Box; that ſoon after the Curtain was drawn up, there was a prodigious Cry of off, off; that ſoon after Mr. Macklin came upon the Stage in the Dreſs of Shylock; that there was then ſome Talk or Diſpute be⯑tween Macklin and ſome Gentlemen in the Pit; that Macklin retired, and came in his own proper Dreſs; that there was then a great Cry of off, off; that Macklin was called out to, by a great Number of the Audience, to make good the Charge againſt Reddiſh and Sparks, for ſome [58] Offence againſt the People; and Clarke tells your Lordſhip, that finding a Majo⯑rity of the Audience in this, he did con⯑cur in ſaying, off, off, and hiſſing, and ſtriking the Board againſt the Scenes and Box, finding a Majority of the Audience calling to Macklin to ſubmit and beg Par⯑don, he joined with the reſt. That he then ſent a Note to Mr. Coleman, as Mr. Macklin ſtates; he threw the Note upon the Stage, which was a Note to Coleman, to beg he would come upon the Stage to make Peace; to deſire Macklin to quiet the Audience, which he was told he might, if he would beg their Pardon; he ſays, Mr. Coleman did not come upon the Stage; and then Mr. Clarke tells your Lordſhips, he went away and left the Houſe. One of the Affidavits ſtates, that he was upon the Stage afterwards, and Mr. Coleman came there; but he denies that, and ſays he went to Drury Lane directly.

As to preconcerting of Signals, he does, in expreſs Terms, ſwear, he never precon⯑certed Signals with any Perſon whomever—That thoſe Gentlemen, who were taking an active Part and Lead in the Buſineſs, [59] ſtood in the Pit—one was repreſented as holding up a Paper, Mr. Sparks, I believe, and one was threatening with a Stick, they were taking different Parts—he ſays, that he had no more to do with it, than there being a Noiſe of crying off, he did the ſame, and ſtruck the Place with the Board—that he not only had no kind of Preconcert with them at all, but was a total Stranger to them, and never ſpoke to any one of them in his Life, nor to Mr. Macklin, upon any other Subject; the laſt Thing he did, before his going to Drury Lane Theatre was, he met Miles as he was going out, who ſaid ſomething to him, but he does not know what he ſaid—he denies having had any Connection with any Perſon whomſoever—he admits he certainly bore a Part, he hiſſed, and knock⯑ed the Board he had in his Hand, which he had taken out of the Balcony, againſt the Box, in which he was—he ſays, that he had no malevolent Deſign againſt Mack⯑lin, that he wiſhed Macklin would come and beg Pardon; with which the People would be perfectly ſatisfied—If the Buſi⯑neſs of this Court is to conſider, whether [60] a Man hath acted with perfect Decency upon theſe Occaſions, I could not acquit Mr. Clarke moſt certainly; but Mr. Calrke never conceived any Degree of Malice againſt Mr. Macklin at any Time; he had no Altercation with Macklin, he had no other Connection or Concern in the Af⯑frays, than what he has ſubmitted in his Affidavit, which, when your Lordſhips have heard read, you will find no Ground to involve Mr. Clarke in this Information if there is any, it muſt be upon the Ground of Conſpiracy, on the Part of Mr. Clarke to do Macklin an Injury.

There is enough in Clarke's Admiſſion to be ſure; he joins with them moſt outrageouſly, becauſe Macklin did not make out the Charge againſt Reddiſh and Sparks, therefore the Rule muſt be abſolute, as to him.

It would be a Pity if the Standard Bearer did not make one with the Troop, when he held the Trophy; [...] lifted up the Flag, which was the Flag of Death.

After hearing the Rules [...]our Lordſhip hath laid down (tho' I con⯑ceive upon Mr. Macklin's appealing to the Public, he had ſubmitted to their Sen⯑ [...]ence) I ſhall not trouble the Court, on [...]he Part of Mr. Aldus; he went there up⯑ [...]n this Diſpute about Reddiſh and Sparks, [...] doubt, as well as many more; and af⯑ [...] Macklin's Appeal to the Public, they [...]ought to make him appear in that, more [68] ridiculous, than in any Character he at⯑tempted to play.

They certainly did ſo. If they had only whipt him a little, and mortified him, it would not have been ſo much; but when it is carried ſo far, as to adviſe the Managers to diſcharge him, and take his Bread from him, it is then carried too far; and I would adviſe them, now the Rules are gone, inſtead of the vaſt Expence it will be in going on, to make a reaſonable Satisfaction and Com⯑poſition, and to let Part of the Money that would go amongſt you, Gentlemen, be applied towards that Satisfaction.

I am for Sparks.

Sparks is the Man that went to the Antelope Alehouſe with Leigh to get a Party together.

Are you for Sparks and Leigh?

I am for Sparks.

With regard to Sparks, ſuppoſing him (I have not the Particulars in my Mind, but ſuppoſing him) to be charged as the greateſt Aggreſſor, I think there ſhould be no Rule againſt him [69] Macklin was extremely wrong to call in Queſtion, in that public Way, the Vera⯑city of Sparks; therefore I think the Rule ſhould not go, as to him.

Your Lordſhip will give me Leave to mention what the Charge is. It goes preciſely to this Point; Sparks, in Concurrence with Leigh, hires People to drive Macklin away.

Suppoſing it ever ſo ſtrong, Mr. Macklin was in the wrong, with regard to Reddiſh and Sparks, in ap⯑pealing to the Public; and a Man who is in the wrong, ſhould not come for the In⯑terpoſition of this Court, againſt another Perſon, who is in the wrong.

I will tell your Lordſhip how that Matter ſtands, and then your Lordſhip will judge how far Mr. Macklin was wrong, in regard to Sparks. The Fact is, that Mr. Macklin was attacked the firſt Night, and upon his firſt Appearance in Macbeth. He had not been uſed to that Sort of Behaviour during forty Years, and was very much aſtoniſhed what could oc⯑caſion it—Three Perſons informed him (one of whom hath now made an Affida⯑vit) [70] that Sparks and Reddiſh were the Peo⯑ple who occaſioned the Tumult in the Gal⯑lery the firſt Night—Then upon the ſub⯑ſequent Saturday (it was Upon a Saturday he firſt applied) Mr. Macklin finding all the News-papers, Day after Day, Morn⯑ing and Evening, pouring out the moſt virulent Abuſe upon him, calling him Murderer, Villain, and the moſt oppro⯑brious Names of every ſort, and Para⯑graphs deſiring the Public to drive him from the Stage, if he ever appeared again; he went upon the Stage with a large Bun⯑dle of Papers, the Papers of a Week, (as I am informed, I was not there—but I think it is ſo upon the Affidavits) he ſaid he had been long in their Service, and there was his Reward, pointing to the Bundle of Papers of the whole Week, which he held in his Hands, full of every Scurrility that could be inſerted in News Papers, poured out upon him, and Para⯑graph's, deſiring the Public to drive him from the Stage, and ſubmitted to their Judgment, whether they would permit him to play the Characters that Night—that he had been informed Sparks and [71] Reddiſh were the Perſons who begun the Riot. Mr. Macklin agreed with me, that News Paper Paragraphs were odious, and it appeared to me not to be a deſirable Way for Mr. Macklin to refute, even Red⯑diſh upon his Oath—he readily concurred with me; and as he could not get People to prove it upon Oath, he was to procure the Papers, and read the Proof on Sa⯑turday.

How dared Mr. Mack⯑lin attempt to prove a Perjury upon Reddiſh; he charged Sparks and Reddiſh in the News Papers with having hiſſed him.

I fancy your Lordſhip miſtakes the Fact at preſent in Favour of Mr. Sparks; for the Point about which, theſe Parties diſputed, was the Unſatiſ⯑factorineſs of the Proof inſiſted upon; and the Fact to be decided by this ſingular Tribunal was, whether Mr. Reddiſh had hiſſed? Sparks adopts the Charge as far as reſpected him; but, ſays he, though I did hiſs, which I have a right to do, yet, Reddiſh being an Actor, it is Matter of Imputation upon him; and I, as his Cham⯑pion, will make good the Charge; the [72] Point to be tried was, whether they were truly or falſely charged?

That don't vary it; he charges Sparks with hiſſing, and brings the Proof upon the Stage—charging both him and Reddiſh, and appeals in that way; that was wrong, he ſhould have applied to the Laws of the Country; and if he would not, he ſhall not come here for an extraordinary Interpoſition—I go upon the Ground of Sparks's being more guilty than any, againſt whom the Rules are gone—that may be taken to the Grand Jury—but with regard to Leigh, the Rule muſt be made abſolute, as it was enlarged for him; and the Rule muſt be diſcharged as to Sparks.