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 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 [Page 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 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, [Page 8] 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 [Page 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. 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 [Page 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 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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.

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 [Page 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. 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 [Page 28] 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, [Page 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 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.

[Page 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 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 [Page 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 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.

[Page 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 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 [Page 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 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 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 dis­charged; and now that he has been dis­charged, if he is not apprehensive of being discharged, it is certain he is not [Page 36] 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 [...] [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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: [Page 39] 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 [Page 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, 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 [Page 41] 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, [Page 42] 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— [Page 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 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.

[Page 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 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 [Page 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 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 [Page 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 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.

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, [Page 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 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 [...] [Page 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 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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 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 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.

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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 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 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 [Page 58] 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, [Page 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 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 [Page 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 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.

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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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) [Page 70] 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 [Page 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 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 [Page 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.