Case, Mr. Macklin late of Covent-Garden Theatre, against Mess. Clarke, Aldys, Lee, James, and Miles:

CASE.

* 1.1MR MACKLIN, who had attempt|ed the character of Macbeth at the Theatre in Covent Garden, having given offence to the Town, by some hasty accusations, without sufficient proof, against two or three brother players, for interrupting him in his performance, was discharged from that Theatre, by order of a numerous Au|dience, assembled, as it should seem, for that purpose. On the curtain being drawn up, the cry was, No Macklin! and it increased so much, that, to prevent the house from being pulled to

pieces, the Managers complied with their desires, and publicly discharged him: after which, there being no play ready, the money was returned, and the people dispersed.

* 1.2MR MACKLIN moved the Court of King's Bench, against several persons, for hissing and otherwise insulting him, the last night he appeared in Covent Garden Theatre, to perform the part of Shylock; for preventing his going through the character; and likewise for the loss of his bread. The motion was rejected, it being ob|served, that as the Theatres were open for the reception and entertainment of that part of the Public who paid for their admission, the Audience had a right to applaud, condemn, nay re|ject what Performers they thought proper; but if any unjust combination was formed previous to the opening of

the house, an action at Common Law might be grounded: But in the in|stance then before the Court, there did not appear any room for such plea; and therefore, he was advised to make his peace with the Town as speedily as possible. Mr Macklin had retained the Attorney and Solicitor-General, besides Mess. Dunning, Wal|lace, &c.—It is said, Mr Macklin had 74 affidavits ready to produce.

* 1.3THE Court of King's Bench was moved by Mr Dunning on behalf of Mr Macklin, for a Rule on six Gen|tlemen, to shew cause why an inform|ation should not be filed against them for a riotous conspiracy to deprive Mr Macklin of his livelihood, by forcing the Managers of Covent Gar|den Theatre to discharge Mr Macklin therefrom on the 18th November last; which Rule the Court was pleased to grant accordingly.

* 1.4CAME on before the Court of King's Bench at Westminster, the Complaint of Mr Macklin against six persons for a riotous conspiracy, founded on private premeditated malice, to de|prive the said Mr Macklin of his bread, by causing him to be expelled the Theatre last Winter. The Court was pleased to grant an information against all but Mr Sparks. The Bench recommended it to the Gentlemen to make restitution to Mr Macklin, and to compromise the matter without bringing the cause to trial.

* 1.5CAUSE of Macklin against Clarke, Aldys, Lee, James, and Miles, came on to be tried by way of indictment, in the Court of King's Bench, before Mr Justice Aston and a special Jury. The indictment consisted of two counts; the first specifying, That on the 18th November 1773, the defendants had

been guilty of a riot;—the other, that they had been guilty of a conspiracy; both in order to cause Mr Macklin to be dismissed from their Stage by the Patentees of Covent Garden Theatre. The Judge, after hearing the evidence, and summing it up with accuracy and impartiality, desired the Jury to ex|ercise their judgement: And if they thought the defendants guilty of both counts, they were to find a verdict generally; if only of one count, they should find accordingly. The Jury then withdrew; and, in about twenty minutes, brought Clarke in guilty of the riot, and the others of the conspi|racy. — But judgement was deferred till next term.

* 1.6MR JUSTICE ASTON reported to the Court of King's Bench, his minutes of the evidence on the trial of Messrs Leigh, Miles, James, Adys, and Clarke,

on the 24th February last; the four first of whom were convicted of a conspiracy and riot, and the latter of a riot only, in Covent Garden Theatre, on the 18th November 1773, with intent to drive Mr Macklin from the Stage.—Lord Mansfield observed on the nature of the offence, — called it a national dis|grace, — and, in very severe terms, reprobated the conduct of the parties concerned in it. He said, In the first stage of the business, he had urgently advised the defendants to make Mr Macklin an adequate compensation for the great damage he had sustained;— that he then particularly pointed out as an adviseable measure, the saving of the costs, by putting an end to the matter at once;—that the law-expences were now swelled to an enormous sum, which sum the defendants themselves had given rise to, by their obstinacy and want of prudence.—Some time

was spent in the Courts, endeavouring to make an amicable adjustment of the matter, and a final conclusion of it. Mr Colman was proposed as arbiter-general, which the defendants unani|mously agreed to; but Mr Colman declined the office.—At length Mr Macklin, after recapitulating his griev|ances, informed the Court, that to shew he was no way revengeful, with which he had been charged, he would be sa|tisfied with the defendants paying his law-expences, taking one hundred pounds worth of tickets on the night of his daughter's benefit, a second hundred pounds worth on the night of his own benefit, and a third on one of the managers nights when he should play. This plan, he observed, was not formed on mercenary views: Its basis was to give the defendants popularity, and restore mutual amity.—Lord Mansfield paid Mr Macklin very high

compliments on the honourable com|plexion and singular moderation of this proposal. His Lordship declared it did him the highest credit;—that generosity was universally admired in this coun|try, and there was no manner of doubt but the Public at large would honour and applaud him for his lenity. His Lordship added further, that notwith|standing his acknowledged abilities as an Actor, he never acted better in his life than he had that day. The pro|posal was accepted by the parties, and the matter was thus ended.—During the course of the business, Lord Mans|field took occasion to observe, that the right of hissing and applauding in a Theatre, was an unalterable right; but that there was a wide distinction be|tween expressing the natural sensations of the mind as they arose on what was seen and heard, and executing a pre|concerted design, not only to hiss an

Actor when he was playing a part in which he was universally allowed to be excellent, but also to drive him from the Theatre, and promote his utter ruin.

SOON after the above decision, the Managers of Covent Garden Theatre met, and generously agreed to give up their claim to the hundred pounds worth of tickets.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1773. Nov. 18.
• * 1.2

  1774. Feb. 11.
• * 1.3

  1774. May 2.
• * 1.4

  1774. June 11.
• * 1.5

  1775. Feb. 24.
• * 1.6

  1775. May.