Immortal Shakespear! Child of Heaven & fire,
The more we sink him rises still the higher:
Ee'n thro'
THIS
Vehicle the Bard can pass
Like
Meccas Prophet—
mounted on an
ASS.
THE GENUINE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ON CAUSE SHEWN, Why an Information should not be exhibited against JOHN STEPHEN JAMES, JOSEPH CLARKE, Esqrs. RALPH ALDUS, Attorney at Law, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MILES, JAMES SPARKS, and THOMAS LEIGH; FOR A RIOTOUS CONSPIRACY, FOUNDED In private premeditated Malice, to deprive CHARLES MACKLIN, one of the Comedians, belonging to the Theatre Royal in COVENT GARDEN, of his Livelihood; by forcibly compelling the acting Manager of the said Theatre, against his Will, to discharge the said CHARLES MACKLIN for ever there-from; formally and publicly, on the Stage of the said Theatre.
Homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum puto.
TER.
BY A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD.
LONDON: Sold by J. WILLIAMS, No. 39, Fleet Street.
MDCCLXXIV.
[Price One Shilling and Six-pence.]
PREFACE.
AS I consider myself (in the Meaning of my Motto)
an humane Man, and that no Act of Humanity is a Stranger to my Heart;
I could not resist a natural Impulse to publish the following Sheets; inasmuch as they will tend, I hope, wish, and believe, to remove the unjust Prejudices, that have been most wantonly and cruelly taken against a Man; and that too with an avowed Purpose, to represent him, as an
"ancient outlawed Felon, who was said to have
Caput lupinum,
and might be knocked on the Head, like a Wolf, by any one who should meet him;
because,
having renounced all Law, he was to be dealt with, as in a State of Nature, when any one, who should find him, might slay him."
But as Mr.
Macklin hath not renounced all Law,
and as
"now (to avoid the Imputation of the Inhumanity above complained of) it is holden, that no Man can kill such Outlaw wantonly or wilfully,"
he seems as well intitled to the Protection of the Law of
England,
as any other liege Subject.
If it was high Treason against the Majesty of the
PUBLIC,
for a poor, ignorant, insulted Player, deluded, by mistaking a
British
Audience, (from their Treatment of him) for Barbarians, hunting down a Beast of Prey, to become indignant, so indignant at such Treatment, and at not being heard in his own Defence; and to happen to be so far lost, in an unguarded Moment, in such a Scene; as to express an improper and imprudent Agitation of Mind, by Looks or Gesture; if such Deportment, in such a Situation, could, I say, be considered as high Treason; what must one think of Gentlemen, who, though liberally educated, and conversant in the Laws of their Country; yet, with these Advantages, and cool and dispassionate; after serious Reflection, and mature Consideration, should assert in the public Papers, that they had been
"ill used, and robbed by Russians, Mr. Macklin's Friends, that they scarcely suffered them to escape with their Lives, and that Mr. Macklin was privy to the Cause of their Complaints;"
and such malevolent Assertion be besides, unsupported either by Proof or Reason; but, on the contrary, alledged merely on
own
self-created Surmises, and the Charges made on Purpose to encrease the public Resentment against an unfortunate and much injured Individual. If nothing but a Dismission from all Employment, an utter Deprivation of Bread, could atone for the
Player
's presuming to doubt or disbelieve the equivocal
I may
safely
swear in
an extrajudicial
Manner, (because no Perjury can be
legally
assigned on
such false
swearing) when I do not
actually
hiss, that
I did not hiss;
and I may as
safely
make a Noise so exactly similar to Hissing, in
Point of Sound,
as not to be distinguished from it; especially when such Attempt becomes necessary, for the Purpose of disturbing an Audience, distressing an Actor, answering a
partilar
End, or making a News-Paper Affidavit; in short,
qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
Affidavits of two ingenious
Participes Criminis, solemnly
declaring to the Public, that they did
not hiss;
What then, I say, can atone for
Gentlemen
riotously conspiring, (induced thereto from private premeditated Malice) to damn, without Redemption, an helpless, exposed Player, by Accusations of capital Felony, as false as they were public.
Macklin
was most grosly and inhumanly abused, insulted, and proscribed; and had it not been for the Laws of
England,
would have been totally ruined. To them he hath appealed; they have heard his Complaint, and declare him entitled to Relief.
The
Town
give out, that a Player hath dared to dispute the undoubted Right of a British Audience, founded on immemorial Custom, to approve or disapprove any Actor or theatrical Exhibition, by the usual Mode of Clapping or Hissing. The Charge is denied; and it is
only
humbly contended, that the meanest Subject, even a Player, a Servant of the Public, or a Vagabond (who being liable to Punishment, is also intitled to Protection) hath a legal Right to be heard against being for ever deprived of his Livelihood; though such Attempt were made by the first Personages in the Kingdom, or by Majesty itself (if that were possible) and that Riots, Conspiracies, and Malice, are all odious to, and punishable by the Spirit, as well as the Letter, of the Laws of
England.
THE EDITOR'S ADDRESS TO THE TOWN
The Reader will be pleased to observe, that I here speak of the
Town,
not of the
Public;
my opinion of whom is, that they are generous, candid, and merit all the Submission, Respect, and Disposition to please them, which the Players profess every theatrical Evening, and that, not by
sawning or cringing,
but by a proper Demeanor, arising from a sincere, conscientious, and grateful Acknowledgment of the
public
Indulgence, Favor, and Protection.
.
THough I care not whether you approve this Publication or not, I have, however, been weak and foolish enough to endeavour to command your Attention. For, to address you in the Language of Friendship, you have appropriated nothing but the Defects of former Times; Trifles light as Air amuse your Infancy; Passions distract your Youth; you think yourselves wise, when at Years of Maturity, because your Folly then becomes more serious; and Dotage marks your old Age; you speak without Thinking, you act without Meaning, and you assume the Authority to judge, because you have the Power to pronounce: To conclude, I respect you much, but esteem you very little; for tho' you require Notice, you are not worthy Regard. These are my Sentiments of you. If you require others,
I am, &c. &c. &c.
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.
Monday
next after
five
Weeks from the Feast Day of
Easter,
in the 14th Year of King
George
the Third.
It is ordered,
That the
fifth
Day of next Term, be peremptorily further given to
John Stephen James, Joseph Clarke,
Esquires,
Ralph Aldus,
Gentleman;
William Augustus Miles, Thomas Leigh,
and
James Sparks,
to shew Cause, why an Information should not be exhibited against them, for certain Conspiracies, Riots, and Misdemeanors, upon the Undertaking of the said Defendants, that if such Information should be granted, they will appear thereto immediately; and it is further
ordered,
that all Affidavits on Behalf of the said Defendants, be filed four Days before the next Term.
On the Motion of Mr.
Wallace.
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 Nature of the Answers, here are six Defendants, 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 against 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 satisfied 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 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 Behalf, 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 Instructions brought to him.
He must have had Instructions 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 returned me an Answer—I have an Affidavit of his being out of the Kingdom, before 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 employed 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 begin.
My Lord, I am not afraid 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 Behaviour, if they don't dismiss him with Applause, they will dismiss him at least without any Censure.—In order to understand Mr.
James'
Case, (since Mr.
Macklin
's Affidavits have not been read) it is necessary for me shortly to state what they contain upon this Charge, and it is material to attend to the particular Times, in which
James
is charged to be active in this Business. Mr.
Macklin,
and his Friend Mr.
Kavenhuller Skinner
say, that upon the 13th of
November
last, Mr.
James,
together with Mr.
Aldus
an Attorney at Law, was very violent, at the Head of a Party, in the two Shilling Gallery of
Covent Garden
Theatre; that they and their Party were the chief Persons who made the Disturbance; 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
November
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 Allegations 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, totally 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.
Macklin
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 proper 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 Character 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.
Dunning
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
appealed 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 Affidavits 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 himself was prepared with Papers, when he came upon the Stage, and was going to enter upon his Exculpation, and that produced the first Riot.—Most of the Audience disapproved of Mr.
Macklin
's Proceedings in this Business, and tho' it was his own Appeal to the Public, yet he did not chuse to have Mr.
James
and the others shew their Disapprobation by Hissing, which is the usual manner upon such Applications, 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 extremely 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 improper Behaviour, and Mr.
Macklin
was called 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 from him, started up and immediately struck Mr.
James
—This Signal it seems was to be given, together with the Expression 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 begun 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 believes the Lady, who begun this Assault upon Mr.
James,
was Mrs.
Macklin,
Wife of Mr.
Macklin,
who makes this Application. 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 Business 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 material to be denied, for they enter into the very Purpose, supposed to be a Preface to the Proceedings of the rest of these Persons, by calling upon Mr.
Smith
to perform 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 Usage he received from the Hands of Mrs.
Macklin
and her Friends.—He says, the next Morning he waited upon Mr.
Coleman,
the acting Manager of the Playhouse, to procure an Interview with Mr.
Macklin,
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.
Macklin,
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 a Ground for refusing this Information to Mr.
Macklin.
The Court requires, when an Application is made to them for an Information, 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 Application. 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 Form of Words—Mr.
James
says, he was there upon the 18th of
November,
that he was a perfect Stranger to
William Augustus Miles, James Sparks, Joseph Clarke, Ralph Aldus,
and
Thomas Leigh,
or any or either of them, to drive the said Mr.
Macklin
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 Assistants 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.
Mr. JAMES's Affidavit read in Court.
The Affidavit of JOHN STEPHEN JAMES,
Esq
sworn the 28th of
May,
1774.
SAITH, That on the 6th of
November
last, to the best of Deponent's Knowledge and Belief, as to the Time, Deponent went in Company with his Wife to Covent Garden Theatre, to see the Tragedy of
Macbeth,
wherein Mr.
Charles Macklin
was to perform the Part of
Macbeth,
being the third Time of his appearing in that Character; saith, They were in the two Shilling Gallery, and that before the beginning of the Play Mr.
Macklin
came on the Stage, with a large Parcel of Papers in his Hands, which he began to read, the Purport of which was to prove, that Mr.
Reddish
and Mr.
Sparks
had hissed him the first Night of his performing said Part of
Macbeth;
saith, That on hearing same read, it appeared to Deponent, that there was no sufficient Proof of either said
Reddish
or
Sparks
hissing, neither did Deponent think a mere Relation sufficient to contradict the Oaths of said
Reddish
and
Sparks,
which they had respectively made, denying that said
Reddish
had hissed on the 23d of
October;
Copies whereof were inserted in the News Papers, and Deponent did therefore disapprove of said
Macklin
's Behaviour, by the common Mode of Hissing, and faith nothing more particular passed that Evening, and the Play was heard through, during the Performance of which Deponent applauded or hissed, as he approved or disapproved.
Saith, That on 13th of same
November
Deponent went to said Theatre, to see the Tragedy of
Macbeth,
being the fourth Time of Mr.
Macklin
's performing said Character, and sat in the two Shilling Gallery; saith, that as said
Macklin
had not produced the positive Proof of
Reddish
and
Spark
's hissing, as he pledged himself to the Public to do Deponent, as well as many others, call'd out for such Proof or a Concession. And saith, that on his calling out for such Proof or Concession, a Woman some little Distance from Deponent, started up and struck Deponent, and said,
"This is one of the Scoundrels who hissed,"
or used Words to that Effect; on which a Man, who appeared to be sitting next her, immediately started up, and also struck Deponent, who returned his Blows, and continued so to do, till his Companions took him away.
Saith, That some little Time after said Fray happened, but during the Performance of said Play, as Deponent was endeavouring to find out said Man who had struck him, a Gentleman, whom Deponent has not the least Knowledge of, pointed out the Man, who had struck him, and told Deponent, if he was looking for the Man who had struck him, that was him, or Words to that Effect; saith, upon his going up to the said Person who had so struck him, another Man immediately rose up and struck Deponent, which Blow was followed by several others, from several persons who were sitting near said Man, who had first struck Deponent, and Deponent was knocked down between the two Benches, and some Person or Persons stamped on Deponent's Breast, and other Parts of his Body; and saith, if his Friends who went with him, and some other Gentlemen, had not interposed and prevented said Persons from continuing their ill Usage to him, the Consequence would have proved very dangerous to Deponent.
Saith, that immediately after he had been so released from the disagreeable Situation he was in between the two Benches, he went into the Passage of the said Gallery, where he was addressed by a Gentleman, who informed him he was a Patentee of said Theatre (and whom Deponent believes, and has been since informed, was Mr.
Dagge
) and desired Deponent to give him his Address, which Deponent did, and then said he had heard Deponent had been used very ill, and pointed to a Person, who he said was the Constable of the Theatre, and had Orders from him to take out any Person or Persons, whom Deponent should fix on, who had used him ill.
Saith, he then went into the Gallery, with the Constable, to search for the first Man who had struck Deponent, but could not find him; and on his coming into the Gallery, with the Constable, he observed the Woman who had struck him rising from her Seat to go out, and as Deponent was following her, with a View of finding out who she was, Deponent met Mr.
Lucas
of
Charing Cross,
who was then coming into the Gallery, on which Deponent desired Mr.
Lucas
to watch said Woman Home, which he accordingly did, and said
Lucas
returned to said Theatre in about twenty Minutes, and informed Deponent, that he had followed her into a House in
James Street, Covent Garden,
with the Name of
Macklin
on the Door, and therefore Deponent at that Time verily believed, and doth now believe, that said Woman who struck Deponent first, and whom said
Lucas
followed to said House, on the Door of which House was wrote
Macklin,
to be Mrs.
Macklin,
Wife of said
Charles Macklin;
Saith, that being so ill used in the Theatre, he was obliged to quit same during the Time the fifth Act was performing.
Denies being at the Head of, or forming any Party or Parties against Mr.
Macklin
's performing said Character of
Macbeth,
on said 13th
November,
and absolutely denies having at that Time the least Knowledge of Mr.
Ralph Aldus;
and also denies, that he called on Mr.
Smith
to play said Character of
Macbeth,
instead of said
Macklin,
or for any other Purpose whatsoever; and also denies, that he hissed, hooted, or abused those, who desired him to be quiet.
Saith, that on the
Monday
Morning following, he waited on Mr.
Coleman,
the acting Manager of the said Theatre, to request of him to use his Influence, to obtain an Interview with Mr.
Macklin,
in order to prevail on Mr.
Macklin
to use his utmost Endeavours to find out the several Persons, who used Deponent ill the preceding Night; that Mr.
Coleman
sent his Servant to said
Macklin,
to obtain such Interview, which Servant brought back for Answer, that said
Macklin
was not at Home; that said
Coleman
promised Deponent to speak to
Macklin,
and to procure a Meeting with him, and that he would give Deponent Notice of such Meeting; that in the Evening of same Day, he received a Note from Mr.
Coleman,
informing him, that soon after Deponent left said
Coleman
's House said
Macklin
came, and refused to have any Meeting or Conversation with Deponent on the Subject; in which said Note from
Coleman
to Deponent, was inclosed one from
Macklin
to
Coleman,
informing said
Coleman,
that said
Macklin
refused to meet Deponent.
Saith, that on or about 17th of said
November,
Deponent did cause to be inserted in the Morning Chronicle, a Letter addressed to said
Macklin,
in the Words following (that is to say)
Sir,
I call upon you thus publicly to declare your Reasons, for refusing to meet me, at Mr.
Coleman
's or elsewhere, as likewise who the Gentlewoman is, who first struck, and then set a Russian to assault me, on
Saturday
Evening last, in the Gallery of
Covent Garden,
she being afterwards watched into your House, in
James Street, Covent Garden:
This I must insist upon, as I intend then to leave you to the Stings of your own malevolent Heart, and the Resentment of the much abused Public.
I am, Sir, Your very humble Servant, J. S. JAMES.
Saith, that said
Macklin
took no kind of Notice of said Letter, either in a public or private manner, and saith, that receiving no Answer from Mr.
Macklin,
he went to said Theatre on the 18th of said
November,
with two Gentlemen only, who had dined with him that Day, at his Lodgings in
Bridge Street,
and went into the Pit, with an Intent to see the Play of the Merchant of
Venice,
in which Play said
Macklin,
was to perform the Part of
Shylock,
and, likewise publicly to repeat the Question to
Macklin,
whether he knew the Woman or Man who struck Deponent on 13th
November
in the two Shilling Gallery as aforesaid; but the Confusion and Noise on
Macklin
's Appearance on the Stage, Deponent presumes prevented said
Macklin
from hearing said Question.
Positively denies, that he roared out to
Macklin,
to down on his Knees, or that he menaced said
Macklin
with his Stick, for he had no Stick or Cane of any kind whatsoever with him, during that Evening; and saith, that on 18th
November
last, he was a perfect Stranger to
Miles, Sparks, Leigh,
any or either of them, and never had any Conversation with all or any of them, or with
Clarke
or
Aldus,
or either of them, to drive said
Macklin
off the Stage, nor did Deponent enter into any Combination, Conspiracy, or Agreement with any Persons whomsoever, for that Purpose; nor did Deponent say or express any Desire t expel said
Macklin
from the Stage, for all that Deponent wanted was an Answer to his Question, and an Apology for said
Macklin
's Conduct towards the said
Reddish
and
Sparks.
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 extends 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 Person'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 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.
Macklin
's House; he had Notice, and was called upon to give an Account, if he knew who the Persons were who had used
James
so ill—But what was Mr.
Macklin
's Conduct: 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 present Application to a Court of Justice, he is not intitled to the least Favour or Countenance whatsoever; for he brought his Complaint in the most public and solemn Manner he could, against two People in the same Profession with himself, 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 Conspiracy, 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 denied, in the most positive Terms, that
James
knew any thing of the other Defendants; 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 stamped upon, which might have been attended with fatal Consequences to his Person; but when called upon, Mr.
Macklin
refuses to give him any Answer, or meet him.
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 recollect, what has been stated from the Affidavits, containing that Charge which is supported, 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 correct that Misinformation; for nothing can 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 November 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 Lordship, as Persons speaking from Information and Belief, and to suppose Mr.
Macklin
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 believing it is, he has been fo informed by those, who now prove it, concurring with his own Apprehensions.
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 presuming 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 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 Woman 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 nothing to do with it, but the Fact of being a Witness in this Case; all the Argument founded upon it will be removed, by shewing there is such a Misrepresentation. Then my Lord it remains to shew, that the Charge is neither disputed or denied; I take Leave to say so, notwithstanding 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 undoubted Evidence, and which no Person is prepared to controvert,
viz.
with respect to the enlarging of the Rule for Mr.
Leigh,
Mr.
Buller
was not ill advised, it was not a Slip upon the Occasion, 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 Attorney, in my Apprehension, perfectly understood 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 discharged; and now that he has been discharged, if he is not apprehensive of being discharged, it is certain he is not yet restored, and not under the Apprehension he shall be restored. With respect to their own Safety, for which no Imputation falls upon them, if the Managers of the Theatre attend to such Behaviour 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 into Execution, and for the Purpose of obviating the Suspicion of Collusion and Conspiracy, the Circumstances are singular 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 representing Three, and to Day the Partie
are Six, and have six Council; and the
they forget there stands my Friend, the common Attorney to the whole Six.
It is not so; I am not Attorney 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 Parties, represented by three Council; and three Attorneys instructing another Council, 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 unconnected with each other; another Attorney employs three distinct Council, representing three Parties, because they chuse to shew those three Parties totally unconnected with each other; therefore, as far as respects the Point of Connection, is to be discovered by the
Evidentia rei
of the Case, which your Lordship sees, with respect to Mr.
James,
the present Subject in Consideration, is, that he is understood by his Council, to have acquitted himself altogether; and they have gone particularly through the Charge, in Point of Observation, 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 seeing 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 Order; 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 Purposes: It seems he returned to the Playhouse; 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 himself invested with Authority, to form a Judgment upon the Merits of Mr.
Macklin,
as a Performer, and, in Company with his Wife, whose Criticisms concurring 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 Judgment, that he should chuse, whenever Mr.
Macklin
came on again, in that Character, 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 Entertainment, in Sir
Archy Macsarcasm;
I take Leave to suppose the Town agreed, that in these Characters Mr.
Macklin
always 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, because they wanted Something else; they wanted an Apology, and some Explanation, 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 Characters, 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 not his Purposes, has left us no Doubt what they were; for he has had the Goodness 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 Depotent, that there was no sufficient Proof, of either 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? Because there was not sufficient Proof to satisfy 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, in Fact, had no Relation at all to the Merits of the Performance—But Mr.
James
was so inattentive to the Pleasure of the Company there, as to think himself authorized 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
alluded to, was right; if the Application went therefore in the Way he meant it, to be sure, this Court would not encourage Complaints of the Disapprobation or Approbation of acting upon a public Theatre; being shewn in a manner in which every Part of the Auditory has a Right to shew it—But if from Malice, 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— 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 Affidavit, he gives sufficient Ground to shew with what View, after the Sixth of
November,
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 express Charge, and he hardly gives an Answer 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.
Macklin,
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.
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 Purposes, 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
Reddish
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 respectively made, whereby they denied it and he says, he therefore shewed his Disapprobation 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 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 produced 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 outrageous—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 Concessions—Who was to take them? Was the Court? Or the Pit? Or the Upper Gallery? They had not defined what the Concessions 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 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 Account, 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 Woman 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.
Sir, I call upon you thus publicly, to declare your Reasons for refusing to meet me at Mr.
Coleman
's, or elsewhere, as likewise who the Gentlewoman is, who first struck, and
then
set a Russian to assault me, on
Saturday
Evening last, in the Gallery of
Covent Garden
Theatre, she being afterwards watched into your House, in
James Street, Covent Garden.
This I must insist upon, as I intend then to leave you to the Stings of your own malevolent Heart, and the Resentment of the much injured Public.
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 particular 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 Evidence 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 necessary to prove a parole or written Agreement, 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 themselves said, when they moved the Court for a new Trial, that they had not a parole 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 concurred 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 written 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
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 Answers 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 upon 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 throwing 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 that he had a Conference with Mr.
Woodward,
and after that
Woodward
retired. I think that is the whole of the Charge made upon Mr.
Miles.
He is not charged with being present in the Evening Mr.
Macklin
acted
Macbeth
—I understand 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
November,
for the Purpose of seeing Mr.
Macklin
act the Part of
Shylock,
and the Part of Sir
Archy Macsarcasm,
in an Entertainment; 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, after what he said, to make some little Concession to the Public—That he did not do it with any View or Intention of driving 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 Lordships, from the whole of the Case, it appears there was no Malice, or Intention of Malice—That
Miles
went there as a Spectator—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 nothing at all about it.
Mr. MILES's Affidavit read.
The Affidavit of WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MILES, Gentleman, sworn the 30th of
May,
1774.
SAITH, That he want into the pit of the Theatre Royal
Covent Garden,
on the Eighteenth of
November
last, to see the Play of the
Merchant
of
Venice,
and the Farce of
Love a la Mode,
advertised for that Night; and that on drawing up the Curtain, the Audience became very clamorous for the Appearance of the acting Manager, and incessantly called out for Mr.
Coleman
to come on the Stage; saith, that
Macklin,
habited in the Character of
Shylock,
came on the Stage, in Opposition to the general Sense of the Audience, and on being desired to go off, he peremptorily refused, and, in the most insolent Manner, advanced to the Orchestra, and stampt with his Feet, and continued on the Stage.
Saith, Deponent then understood be Resentment of the Audience against said
Macklin,
was occa
ioned by his bringing Charges against some Persons, with whom Deponent is, and ever was unacquainted, and which Deponent understood, and thought appeared to be false and groundless, and for engaging some Persons to interrupt the Sense of the independant Part of the Audience, on the Night of the Thirteenth of
November.
Saith, That he was then informed, that several Persons were by hired People most cruelly beat, and otherwise ill treated, for giving their Opinion on the Merits of said
Macklin,
in the Character of
Macbeth;
and finding, by much the major Part, if not the Whole of the Audience, on the Night of the Eighteenth of
November
last, incensed at the Outrage offered by said
Macklin
to the Public, and insisting on some Concession being made, Deponent did as an Individual, give his Sentiments to the same Purport, and without being connected, or in the least acquainted, either directly or indirectly, with any of the abused Parties; but merely from a Conviction, that some Apology wa
due from
Macklin
to the Audience, fo
the Insult they had received, and th
groundless Charge he had made on particular Persons.
Saith, That he did not, by any Words or Signs, give any Signals to th
Audience whatsoever, nor did he threaten or menace any of the Actors, an
on his Oath saith, he was a perfe
Stranger to
Leigh, Sparks, James, Aldu
and
Clarke,
on the Eighteenth of
November
last; and that he neither hired no
engaged, nor was concerned in hirin
or engaging, directly or indirectly, and Person nor Persons to hiss the said
Macklin,
nor was Deponent concerned or engaged in any Combination, Conspiracy, or Agreement, with any Persons whomsoever, to hiss, or otherwi
molest or interrupt the said
Macklin
i
his Performance on the Stage.
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 constantly producing the same Effect, Deponent
Macklin
apprehends were pre-concerted 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 menaced
Macklin,
and called upon him to kneel down and ask Pardon. Now in that Mr.
Macklin
is unconfirmed, and it is denied 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 roared out
Coleman, Coleman,
and desired him to come upon the Stage; that
Clarke
appeared 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 several other Persons,
Leigh, Miles,
and the others; and says, he understands it was a Combination by all these Persons, for discharging 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 Answer; 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 Character of
Macbeth
shine in Mr.
Macklin,
an
no doubt it did, if he had had the Pleasure 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
Shylock
and Sir
Archy Macsarcasm;
he denies he is at all conscious of making any Salutations to the Audience, or that the Audience 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 between
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 Offence against the People; and
Clarke
tells your Lordship, that finding a Majority of the Audience in this, he did concur 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 Pardon, 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 preconcerted Signals with any Person whomever—That those Gentlemen, who were taking an active Part and Lead in the Business, 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 knocked 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
Macklin,
that he wished
Macklin
would come and beg Pardon; with which the People would be perfectly satisfied—If the Business of this Court is to consider, whether 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 Affrays, 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.
Mr. CLARKE's Affidavit read.
The Affidavit of JOSEPH CLARKE,
Esq
sworn the 20th of
May,
1774.
SAITH on
November
18, 1773, he went to the Theatre Royal,
Covent Garden,
to see the Play of the Merchant of
Venice,
and the Entertainment of
Love a la Mode,
and got to said Theatre before the Curtain was drawn up and sat in the Box, one Story high, over the Stage.
Denies, that to his Knowledge or Behalf that, on making his Appearance in said Box, he was saluted with three Chears, with waving of Hats, brandishing of Sticks, or that he received any Salutation whatsoever, with Acknowledgment and Satisfaction, or returned any Salutation made to him.
Denies, that as the Curtain was drawing up, he made any Signal, with his Hat, to the Audience, or any Thing else to make an Outrage of Hissing or Hooting, or to cry off, off, off.
Saith, that as soon as the Curtain drew up, and two of the Performers of the Play came on the Stage, a great many of the Audience in the Pit cried off, off, off, and the Players withdrew from off the Stage, and thereupon Mr.
Charles Macklin,
in the Dress of
Shylock,
came on the Stage, when some Altercation or Dispute arose between the said
Macklin
and some Persons in the Pit, when said
Macklin
went off the Stage, and took off the Dress of
Shylock,
and came on the Stage again, in his common Dress, when he was called upon by the Majority of the Audience, as Deponent believes, to make good his Charge against
Reddish
and
Sparks,
and to clear up some other Matters which he was accused with; but
Macklin,
as Deponent verily believes, desired further Time to make good his Charge against
Reddish
and
Sparks,
and to clear up such other Matters, with which he was accused; that thereupon
Macklin
was called upon, by the Majority of the Audience, as Deponent believes, to make his Submission to the whole Audience, by asking Pardon; which said
Macklin
refused to do, and said
Macklin
not making good his Charge against
Reddish
and
Sparks,
and not clearing up the Matters with which he was accused, and not making a Submission to the Audience, as was required, Deponent did, as did the Majority of the Audience, as Deponent believes, Hiss, and cry Off, off, off.
Admits he had a Board, or false Rail in his Hand, covered with red, which was loose on the Top of the Box, where he leant over, which Deponent believes takes off, and puts on, occasionally; and admits he made a Noise with said Board, by striking it against the Box and Scenes; but denies, to his Knowledge or Belief, he menaced or threatened said
Macklin
with the same.
Saith, that said
Macklin
continued obstinate in not making a Submission, and the Audience beginning to be more violent than ever, Deponent wrote a Note to Mr.
Coleman,
the Manager of said House, to desire he would come on the Stage, which Deponent thought would be the only Way to put an End to the Disturbance; but said
Macklin
refused to come, and Deponent thereupon went to said
Coleman
in the Green Room, and desired he would appear on the Stage, and inform the Audience, that whilst said
Macklin
lay under their Displeasure, that he should not appear again on the Stage, until he had made a proper Submission to the Public, or used Words to that Effect, and the reason of Deponent's so doing was, because he apprehended it was most likely to put an End to the Disturbance.
Saith, said
Coleman
still refusing to come on the Stage, Deponent immediately left said Theatre, and went to the Theatre Royal in
Drury Lane.
Saith, he hath been informed and believes, that said
Coleman
did afterwards that Evening come on said Stage, and address himself to the Audience; and saith, he never preconcerted any Signals with
William Augustus Miles, John Stephen James, Ralph Aldus, Thomas Leigh
and
James Sparks,
or any of them, to be given by him, said
Joseph Clarke,
on said 18th of
November,
at Theatre Royal,
Covent Garden.
But, on the contrary, Deponent saith he was, before 18th of said
November,
and whilst the Disturbance was making in said House that Evening, a total Stranger to said
Miles, James, Aldus Leigh
and
Sparks,
and never had any Conversation with them, or any or either of them, touching said
Macklin,
or any Thing else, except that Deponent met said
Miles
by Accident that Night, as he was going behind the Scenes to the Green Room, to Mr.
Coleman
as aforesaid, who spoke to Deponent; but what he said Deponent can't recollect.
Saith, he never preconcerted any Signals, to be given by him, said 18th of
November,
at the Theatre Royal
Covent Garden,
with any Person or Persons whatsoever; and denies, to his Knowledge or Belief, he menaced said
Macklin,
with said Board covered with red as aforesaid, and denies he made any Signals with it to make a Disturbance, in said Theatre, said 18th of
November;
but admits he had said Board in his Hand, and struck it against the Box and Scenes, and made a Noise with it.
Denies, he called upon said
Macklin,
to kneel down and ask Pardon, but admits he cried off, off, off, which seemed to Deponent to be the general Sense of the Audience then present; and denies he did in Conjunction with
Miles, James, Aldus, Leigh
and
Sparks,
or any of them, or with any other Person, compel the Managers of said Theatre to discharge said
Macklin
from his Employ, Deponent having no such Wish, Desire or Intention; but verily believes, that if said
Macklin
had made a proper Submission to the Audience, the same would have been accepted, by the Majority thereof, which would have put an End to the Disturbance.
Denies, that he ever entered into any Combination, Conspiracy, or Agreement with said
Miles, James, Aldus Leigh
and
Sparks,
or any of them, or any other Person against said
Macklin
in order to discharge him from the Theatre, on said 18th of
November,
or any other Time.
Saith, he had not any ill Will against said
Macklin,
but was desirous, as he believes was the Majority of the Audience then present, that said
Macklin
should have made a proper Submission to the Public, as well on Account o
said
Samuel Reddish
and
James Sparks
as on Account of other Matters, which he was accused with.
Saith, he was not at the said Theatre the 23d or 30th of
October
last nor the 6th or 13th of said
November
when said
Macklin
appeared in the Character of
Macbeth;
and denies he was in said Play-House on the 18th of said
November,
when Mr.
Coleman
came on the Stage, Deponent having before that Time left the said House.
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 conceive 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 ridiculous, than in any Character he attempted 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 Composition, 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
Macklin
was extremely wrong to call in Question, in that public Way, the Veracity 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 appealing to the Public; and a Man who is in the wrong, should not come for the Interposition 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 occasion it—Three Persons informed him (one of whom hath now made an Affidavit) that
Sparks
and
Reddish
were the People who occasioned the Tumult in the Gallery the first Night—Then upon the subsequent
Saturday
(it was Upon a
Saturday
he first applied) Mr.
Macklin
finding all the News-papers, Day after Day, Morning and Evening, pouring out the most virulent Abuse upon him, calling him Murderer, Villain, and the most opprobrious Names of every sort, and Paragraphs desiring the Public to drive him from the Stage, if he ever appeared again; he went upon the Stage with a large Bundle 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 Paragraph'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
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
Reddish
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
Saturday.
How dared Mr.
Macklin
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 Unsatisfactoriness 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 Champion, will make good the Charge; the 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.
FINIS.