The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-10-27 00:00:00

VIE PEOPLE OF ENGL.4ND.

*The following description of a Speech intended
'to be spoken, and subsequently delivered by that
very old, and long tried friend to the rights and
'liberties of the People of England,

Ma. MAINWARING,
was sent fur insertion to the offices of two simple,
time-serving, weathercock publications, called
The Pilot and The Press. The erparte senti.
meats in this Address we du most readily admit
to be very fit sentiments fur such a Pilot and such
a Press.

WESTMLVSTER SESSIONS, Orr. 26.

RIOTS AT COVENT-GARDLY THEATRE.

SITTINGS BLFORE XR. YAtrWARI\G AND ♦ BENCH Or
JUSTICES.

This being the Cast day of the Westminster
Stasiutts, the Grand Jury was sworn in ; after
which the Chairman, 11r.111 A tswanuto, addressed
than to th ful lowing effect:

6 lie said, that, before they entered upon the
discharge of the duties to whirl) they were now
appointed, lie thought it necessary to make a few
observations upon a subject which, from its con-
tiouancr, and the mischief it produced, was of
the utniust imporonee to the eommunity at large,
as well As to the individuals whose property it
affected. It was a matter of public notoriety, that
since the opening of the new Theatre, at Oovent.
Garden, for the amusement of the town, disturb-
ances had taken place, and frequent breaches of
the peace been committed 'Whin its walls; it
bad been declared, by many persons, that, unless
the Proprietors would consent to admit the public
at the same prices as before the fire took place,
they would not permit the performance to go for-
ward, or at all events they would prevent it
from being heard ; they had demanded admission
at the old prices, and this bring refused, they
persevered in a marsh which destroyed the tree.
guiltily of the Theatre, to the inconvenience and
terror of a greet part of the audience. They
Seemed to consider thole demand a matter of right
—apron what ground ha knew not. It hod been
said, in support of it, that every one wa,. en-
titled to express his disapprobation of a per.
formance in a theatre. Custom certainly had
sanctioned suck a practice ; Cuing and clapping
of hands had been lung used as the means of
ev pressing applause of dislike—probabty from an
iJea that it was the readiest and most convenient
may of expressing the sentiments of an audience, as
It prevented the delay and disturbance of an at-
tempt at discussion, under circumstances so unfa-
vourable to it. But this did not justify any person
in resorting to the same Trans fur a different pur-
pose; there was no parallel between the two
cases. The Proprietors had risked their fortunes
in the present undertaking, and it was not con.
sistent, either with low or justice, that any per-
sons should destroy their property, in consequence
of a dislike to their arrangements. There %as
no principle, no Act of Parliament, no ease to
sanction such an opinion; the law was- most clear
upon the subject, and denied any such right.—
The audience of a Theatre was not recognised
in this country as a court of law ; it had no au-
thority to issue decrees, and none to enforce
them. If, as was asserted, it could settle Ate
prices of admission, what could it nut du? by what
glistinguishing line could it be prevented from tak.
tog the whole management into its hands, and
regislating the salaries and the dresses ? What
confusion, too, must result from the wavering tut-
tsre of such an assembly, who would, the very
next night, undo what they hail done the night
adore; But even if such a right did exist—if
the audience was justified ha assuming to itself such
A prerogative, it could not be by riots and
breaches of the reacts that it was to he enforced.,
Azcorditig to the law of the land, tit) man could
be a judge in his own case ; he was prevented
evoi from being a witness. No man could take
t.l/4c law into his own hands, except its the
,ingk instance of self-defence. If any man
was injured, his redress was in the law ; the
opponents of the advanced pikes could not,
therefore, be justified in becoming themselves the
punishers of conduct upon which they themselves
pronounced judgment, and of which they them..
selves complained. It was not competent to them
(the Grand Jury) to enter at the present moment
tato any inquiry or resolution upon the subject
of the Managers' conduct, or that of the disturbers
of the Theatre; but if persons were brought before
them, charged with disturbing the peace, it would
then become their duty to inquire monitely in-
to the whole circumstances ; they had a straight
forward line before them, a process .:atremely
clear and simple; they were to catmint witnesses
upon the charge, and if they found it sufficiently
e,tablished by prop'r witnesses, to provide that the
offending party should be put upon his trial. He
was aware that they all knew what was meant by
the word re riot," in common langtisge ; but as
it was possible they did not understand its meaning
let strict law, he felt it his duty to explain it.
----In doing so, he would nut offer any thing
upon his own unsupported authority, but refer
them to a great name (well known in Courts of
Justice) for a more certain guide. Here the Learn-
ed Justice produced quotations from Bacon, by
which it appeared that the assemblage of three, or
more persons, without arty authority, for the
purpose of creating disturbance, constituted a
riot ; and that it was legal to resort to force for its
suppression ; that any persons, who joined in inch
disturbance, even though they had not assembled
for the same purpose, were equally rioters with the
rest. That even if the object they had in view,
was a justifiable one, such as the suppression of
a nuisance, &c. the adoption of unjust means would
still be punishable, and the riot as complete as of
the motive was as criminal as the means. An un-
lawful assembly was any assembly met to do an on.
lawful act, and, as such, was punishable by fine and
imprisonment. The act was punishable every
wh-re, not less so in a Theatre than in any other
I.:ace.— He was not iuforased of the course of