The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-12-07 00:00:00

. TM?,

They are tint necessaries of city sort is • this teasei
in which, if a nun exact more fur than is legal,
he it guilty of extortion. Ido not see how ex.
tuition can be applied to the Patentees of a Thea.
Ire. They were not obliged to build is Thestre.•
When they did build it, they, and they only,
were the judges at what prices they could reason-
ably perform. Nobody else can judge for
them. They are the only persons who can judge.
But, if they ditt wrong, er as It ii arid, dune
wrung, in raising their pates, there is a very
obvious way of redreasing that grievance, for if
people will not pay these prices, there is an end
of the Theatre. There is no sort of employment
of men in society which is motet liable to extortion
in the use of it, than that which takes takes place
in Theatres—fur, if the prices of admission are so
raised that the public will not go, it will not he
worth while fur the Managers to open—or if
they employ Actors, which the l'nhlic have no
pleasure in seeing, then they are undone, for no.
body will go to see them. On these hazard.
our terms these persons build their Theatre, and
the effect must be, that they have a right to impose
what terms they please on admission. If they
impose unreasonable terms they must be undone,
because persons will not come to the Theatre in
such numbers as to produce to them a profit.—
You have heard from the Learned Counsel fur the
Plaintiff, in general terms, a doctrine by which
he seemed to inculcate a conclusion, that if the
prices were joesperir naked they would be ap.
proved of by what he calls the Public. But that
if such a Public do uut approve, persons may go'
to the Theatre and act as they have done ; that is,
to put a stop to the exhibition altogeiher.—l do
not know how it is possible fur us to start that
idea and discuss it—The prices are fixed by
the Managers—lf unreasonable, they will roiu
their Theatre by them. If there be in their
Letters Patent a provision that they shall not
raise their prices beyond a certain limit, why thou,
if they do that, they forfeit their patent, and a
suit in Chancery may be instituted. That Court
will order a trial by Jury upon the fact of whe-
ther the Patemtees had abused their patent or
not ; and if that be found in the affirmitive, the
patent will be revoked by the Court of Chancery.
I remember an itistseice that illustrates this :
It was the Case of Sir Richard Ark wright, who
hail made a prodigious fortune under his patent,
which patent was found, at last, to be such as
could nut be supported in law ; a suit was institu-
ted in the Court of Chan:try, and in the-Court of
Chancery that patent was filially repealed ; there-
fore it is incorrect to say, that there is no remedy
but public disapprobation against the abnse of a
patent by the Patentees of a Theatre. It is said
that persons have a right to go into a Theatre.—
I do not, caactly, kno.v %hat sort of a right that
is : when persons exhibit plays, and fix prices un
their Boxes, Pit, and Galleries, if a person gives
that price fur his admission, there never can be a
tptestioe, w hether he has a right to enter or
nut, because he cannot pay, without the other
receiving, anti having paid,-he ceters, and therefore
the question of his right to enter teem payment is
a point of mere theory, which nevercan occur in
practice, aid the thing tan never, in reality, urine-,
As to the question of the Private Boxes, there are,
it is said, in that Theatre, many Private Boxes ;
I have never seen the Private Boxes myself, in this
Theatre—but, I think, I have seen Private Boers
in the Opere.house, and in the late Theatre in
Drury.laise. lint supposing the present Theatre
to have the Private Boxes which are said it has, and
which I presume it has from what I hear. If the
Proprietors think it will ba for their advantage,
anffif.persons of fashion, who, for some reason
do not chose to sit in the common Boxes, chute to
pay for sitting in the private one:, I do nut know
what right any body has to object to it. The Pro.
prietors are to use their property as any other
persons would do—that is, as they think most ad-
vantageotis---if they use it absurdly, they miit,
as I have told you before, be rained. It there-
fore appears to use, that with respect to the occca.
sion, or the cau.c of what was done at this play.
house on theenight when Mr. Clifford was there,
it is impossible to imagine any ground of law oil
which it Cats be justified. • I know it has been
thought by great numbers of people in this eouit-
try, that that which you have heard of this day,
is a disgrace td the country:.-that it is relaxing our
manners and descending nearly into barbarism...
to exhibit such noise, violence, and tumult. Per-
sons going into the Theatre to be the terror oLthe
peaceable, and to stop all exhibition whatever,
except tho exhibition of their own violence...
frightening all persons present, and deterring all
others from coming ; for, what are men in
such violent scenes to expects where there are
inock.fights..-you know what that alluded to ;
you he lliM from the witness what passed that
might, wilen the Plaintiff was apprehended. It was
necessary, it seems, for the people to stand up
(bet 'it was not said, how stand up). Is this
con duct to be observed in a theatre fir dramatic
entertainment ? o man can venture into such e
scene, who is not tolerable robot of constitution,
and of strung nerves ; who has not some purpose
io view, besides that of seeing dramatic entertain:
meat. So indifferent person would clime to go
himself into a theatre, *here such confusion ap.
peered nightly ; certainly not hit 'wife or Baugh.
ter, while this scene of violence is passing.• It
therefore seems to me, that the outrages committed
at this 'fbeatre, are illegal ht the highest degree,
and that whoever has conducted himself in such a
way as to involve himself in the furtherance of
this tumult, is answerable to the law, and may be
severely punished : that is, punished according
to the extent of his crime. It has beets
maintained that the Public, as it is called,
that is, the audience, on. these occasions,
have a right to express approbation or disap-
probation, either of the Play which is exhi-
bited, or of the performance of any particular
Actor, and so long as that arises from the im-
pulse or emotion of the moment, and is mani-
fested by clapping or as in such
case it must do, from the feelings of the audience,
either from admiration or dislike of the Play, or
the Actors, it is a right which no one ever found
fault, or ever will fled fault with) I dare sae:

'ATZSM AN.

restrictions; funif men agree before-baud to go
to the Play, with a view of either Injuring the
owners of the Theatre—the Author of a work
exhibited—or any particular Actor, or, needed.
ing to the common phrase, to llama the piece—
if they go to the Play-house for any such purpose,
undoubtedly they would be guilty of a conspi-
racy, and for which they may be indicted and
punished; but, as to the honest expression of the
' feelings of the moment, nobody ever did, or I dare
say, ever will, quarrel with those who applaud, or
disapprove, however loudly they may do either, et
! the Theatre. This being the law of the case, the
questions for Lou to decide, are—first, Whether
there was a riot at the Theatre, on the night of the
31st of October ? And, if you find that, in the
affirmative, then, whether this Plaintiff, Mr. Clif.
ford, is to be considered as an instigator of that
riot ? Now, with respect to that, the law is this
...That, if any person excites, encourages, takes a
part in, or promotes, the crime of riot, whether
he actually uses violence, or not, whether he
does it by signs or by words, or whether
he does it by wearing an ensign of riot,
he is guiity of a riot, if riot ensue ; and
whether he sears it on his hat, or on
his breast, or in any other manner exhibits
it to view, he is equally guilty. There is no
distinction, in these cases, between principals and
necessaries ; every party in suolt a crime is a prin.
pal, in whatever part be takes; and you are to
r judge, NMI' the evidence, whether Mr. Clifford
on this occasion is to be considered as having in.
stigated the rioters in this case. I have not et.
'dallied to you yet, what riot is, of which there
are various sorts ; but as applied to the present
case, if a person attempt by terror, tumult, or dis-
order, to effectuate an illegal purpose---that
amounts to riot. The extent and guilt of such a
crime depend upon the number of prisons en.
gaged, and the degree of violence which they use ;
but it is nut necessary to cunstitue that crime,
that actual injury should be done : neither is
it necessary that the House should be pulled
down. Aud here, there is 1141 evidence be.
fore you, of any injury done to the -House:
but, it persons, by noise and tumult, persist in
this, in order to effectuate their purpose, that is,
to compel the Managers to reduce their prices...
then, I am of opinion, they were guilty of
riot. It is said, that to constitute a riot. there
must be terror. It is not necessary to dispute that
proposition in this case, for here is that same ter.'
ror ; for how cut it be without terror? Would
any body send his wife or his daughter to that
scene, which the witn.eses have described to you?
%%quit the situation of the Managers was, it is not
difficult to say ; it is impossible that they should
not feel terror, at observing persons fighting in
the Pit—moving about—not caring over whom—
conducting themselves le such a manlier, that all the
people in the Pi eare uhligesl to stand niefor fe sr of
being crushed. What would be the consequence of
ell these motions, and ntuck-fights, to any person
who happened to be presont,and was known to be a
friend to the Managers; or, who was of a differ.
ent way of thinking, from those who were en-
gaged in these tunistituary proceedings ? . It lase
should be discovered, would they nut resort to
that which is pretty generally keowp• -that of,'
turning such a person out, or else fright. a ng him ;
and would not that be sufficient terror? No
doubt it would be prodigious terror. Therefore,
Gentlemen, it dies apiCear to me, that there was
in this case, a design to effectuate an illegal pur.
pose, by a nub—by a violent, tumultuous; noise,
and uproar; and which I cannot call, by any
other name, than that of riot. Tied being so, the
question is, was Mr. Clifford involved iu this—or Is
he perfectly innocent—that is, was he encouraging
it? Now on that question, you will attend to the
evidence of Mr. Hipkins, who tells you, that
he met, by accident, Mr. Clifford in Bond-street ;
that Mr. Clifford proposed to him to go to the
play ; that the place they went to was the Pit ;
that Mr. Clifford took no part in the tumult or
riot, but stood tip, for fear of being crushed ;
hut that he did not say any thing to encourage the
rioters, nor, did he du any thing, that seas
proved by the witness, to be amiss, in his opi-
nion; but when he is asked, as to the extent of
the noise, and, whether be had ever heard a greet.
er, lie tells you, and he could nut express it in a
stronger way, that he had heard a greater noise,
when he had hard 1000 drunken sailors; so that
it is clear he could nut hear the performance ;
he could not even know what it was ; that when
they went into the Pit, some persons said, " here
comes the honest Coutveller ;" and then, way
was made by the people, evil they reached the
centre of the Pit ; when they were there, some.
one asked Mr. Clifford, whether there was any
barn in wearing 0. in a hat, to which, he said,
none; and then, the same person asked Mr.
Clifford, whether he had any objection to 0. P.
being put into his hat. 0. P. was put into his
hat, and that hat he wore, from that time until be
was taken : he had not pulled it (Mt of his hat :
he had it in, when he was arrested. The witness
tells yoe, that we are too well acquainted with the
meaning of 0. P. to reeder ate explanation of the
meastiug of that ensign necessary. Another wit-
ness also tells you the same thing : he did not hear
Mr. Clifford say any thing, or do ally thing, to
encourage a riot. Other witnesses speak to the same
effect: they ell prove that Mr. Clifford did not Com-
mit ally act of violence, and that they did nut hear
• him say any thing to encourage the rioters, and ex..
cept one person, to whom Mr. Clifford spoke in
order to prevent his springing a rattle,, lie did net
speak to any body in the Pit; and he adds, that
there were not, at that time, more than 20 persons
wearing 0. P.'s in their hats in the Pit. In eon.
sidcring whether Mr. Clifford was instigating a
riot, you are to consider, that he is a Gentleman
at the Bar of great experience, and, as that is well
knows, we may therefore conclude, that whatever
Mr. Clifford 10.1, the persons present, who had an
opportunity of judging of his conduct, would
naturally think they must be doing right, in doing
ts hat they saw Mr. Clifford do. The wearing an
0. P. by a common ordinary person, sod by a man,
whiee profession sod rank in life, must na-
-1 turally give him authority, are very different