« ZurückWeiter »
our fears that such dissensions may prove man of an ancient and noble family; eminently prejudicial to the best interests but far inore distinguished for the urbaof the nation.
nity of bis manners, the extent of his Your Majesty's faithful citizens, ac- learning, and the splendour of his talents. tuated by loyal attachment to your sa- The defendant held some situation under cred person and illustrious house, and Covent Garden Theatre; and therefore solicitous for the honour of your Majes- the best way of considering this cause ty's arms, and the dignity and solidity would be to treat it as between the of your Majesty's councils, are deeply plaintiff and the managers of that theaimpressed with the necessity of an early tre. The present complaint was that of and strict inquiry into the causes of the an outrageous assault upon the person failure of the late expedition and therefore of the plaintiff, and which, to a man of pray your Majesty wil direct inquiry to his profession, was to the last degree be forthwith instituted in order to ascer unworthy and insulting, the defendant tain the causes which have occasioned ordered him to be dragged before a mait. By order of the court, , gistrate, which magistrate, in the due
HENRY WOODTHORPE, execution of his office, having beard all To which address and petition his that could be alleged against the plainMajesty was graciously pleased to re- tiff, and much more than could be alturn the following answer :
leged to-day, the defendant himself “I thank you for your expressions of then hearing witness against the plainduty and attachment to me and to my tiff, which he could not do to day, family.
discharged the plaintiff. And now « The recent expedition to the Scheldt the answer to this charge against the was directed to several objects of great defendant was, that there was a riot importance to the interests of my allies, in Covent Garden Theatre, and that and to the security of my dominions. the plaintiff was one of the rioters,
“I regret that of these objects a part and was therefore apprehended by the only has been accomplished.
defendant, and brought before a inagise « I have not judged it to be necessary trate, to receive justice for his share in to direct any military inquiry into the 'that riot. It was not profit the plaintiff conduct of my commanders, by sea or louked for, and therefore he had laid Jand, in this conjoint service.
his damages at the sum of only 1001. a " It will be for my 'parliament, in their sum which was no object to a gentlewisdom, to ask for such information, or man, who, the learned-serjeant rejoiced to take such measures upon this subject to say, was as independent in circum-' as they shall judge mosť conducive to stances as he was in mind. Not that the public good.”
even that sum would ever find its way They were all received very graciously,
into the pocket of the plaintiff; the and had the honour to kiss his Majesty's learned serjeant pledged himself it should band.
be employed for the purpose of assisting
those who laboured under an oppression In the Court of Common Pleas, on
siinilar to that now complained of. the 5th, came on to be heard before Sir The learned serjeant then went into James Mansfield, chief justice, and a the particulars of the dispute at the special jury, the cause--Clifford, Esq. Theatre, and observed that he did not v. Brandon.-Mr. Runnington, in open- justify riot; but Englishmen must be ing the pleadings, said, in this case taken with their virtues and their faults; Henry Clifford, Esq. Barrister at Law,
Chord so, Barrister at Law. it was to the riots of Englishmen that was the plaintiff, and James Brandon we owed soine of the most valued privithe defendant.---The action was for as- leges of our land; and when Englishmen sault and false imprisonment,' as the ceased to riot in a just cause, they would plaintiff was quitting Covent Garden cease to preserve their liberty from opTheatre. To this the defendant had pression at home, and their rights froin pleaded not guilty, and entered seven usurpation abroad, That noise which pleas in justification. To which the constitutes a riot, must carry with it plaintiff had replied, that the defeudant something of terror and alarni; it must had committed the trespass without the be the actual exertion of, or the inten cause he had alleged.
tion to exert force. The noise which • Mr. Serjeant Best then rose on behalf had lately filled Covent Garden Theatre of the plaintiff, and observed, that the did not in the least alarm the learned plaintiff was a gentleman of the bar, a serjeant, who was, as he said before, a
nervous man. If it could beshewn that unless it was answered by evidence, he a single chandelier had been broken, would be entitled to the verdict of the and that the damage of sixpence had jury. But be trusted the other side been done to the theatre, the learned would feel that " the better part of vas serjeant would allow it to be called a lour is discretion," and that they would riot; but for his part he never saw a not attempt to set up their patent: they more harmless set of people in his life would give him his verdict, and not atthan these same rioters. The learned tempt to say they were lawfully playing serjeant should prove, till the jury were which the learned serjeant undertook to tired of hearing it, that the plaintiff' took say they were not. The defendant had no part in the riot, and only wore (), P. called a special jury to decide this cause. in his hat; and the learned serjeant suh. From what the learned serjeant had mitted that, if there was a riot, this seen of common juries, he thought them single circuinstance could not make a quite competent to the task; but, as it man one of the rioters. If it could, the was, he was glad of the circumstance, gentlemen of the jury must take care as a special jury was composed of men how they went to contested elections, in the same rank of life with the plaintiff At the last Brentford election there himself, and who would make him such were serious riots; so that, if this doc- reparation for any attack upon his hotrine were held, and any one of the jury nour, as they themselves should expect happened to wear the same ribband as under similar circumstances. the rioters, he was to be construed a Seven witnesses, of the names of rioter too. To wear the 0. P. ribband, Hopkin, Elwin, Bone, Fisher, Jolly, was not to join the O. P. riot: but to Harris, and Philpot, were then called, answer the appeal to the public of the and generally confirmed the statement proprietors of the tlieatre; “ I don't ap- of the quietness of Mr. Clifford's de prove of the advanced prices." Was meanour, although they admitted there chat illegal? If so, why did the proprie- was much noise in the house; also spoke tors ask the public whether they ap- to the brutal and reprobate behaviour proved of their conduct or not? If the of Mr. Brandon. jury should be of opinion that the plain- Mr. Serjeant Shepherd addressed the tiff was a rioter, still he would be entitled jury, as counsel for the defendant. to their verdict; for the law says that a The question now for them to try was, rioter could be taken up only durante not whether the proprietors of Covent delicto, and even then not without a Garden were tyrants or not, but whether magistrate's warrant. The defendant those persons who had embarked their wus no constable; and the learned ser- property in the theatre to a vast amount jeant believed that Taunton, who ap- should be ruined by caprice. As to the prehended him, was none: the defendant, extortion, that was no question at all; however, was the man that gave the if the public had a right to reduce the charge, and he, at least, was no con- ' prices from seven shillings to six, they stable. If a man saw a riot, it was his might with as much justice reduce them duty to go to a magistrate, and, armed to sixpence. Constitute the right once, with his authority, to interfere. But and it did not signify what was the mithe mornent the rioters separated, there nimum : that would be just as the whiny was an end of the riot; and the learned of the moment dictated. Mr. Brandon's serjeant would shew the jury, that at case was this, that Mr. Clifford was the time the plaintiff was apprehended, either rioting himself, or encouraging he had left the theatre, and was walking other people that were rioting. His home with the gentleman with whom he case was proved by the witnesses of the entered the theatre. At that moment plaintiff, and he would leave it confim it was certain that nobody could seize dently to the jury under his lordship's him as a rioter, without the warrant of direction to say, whether the riots had a magistrate ; and if the plaintiff, in- not been proved; and whether Mr. stead of being a peaceable and good. Clifford, by wearing the ensign of the humoured man, had been violent, and rioters, had not made himself a particihad resisted the assault, the assaulterpator in their acts. and the proprietors of the theatre would Sir J. Mansfield in summing up the have had to answer for whatever blood. evidence, gave it as his opinion that the might have been spilt. The learned audience at a theatre had no right to in scrjeant should prove this his case; and terfere as to the regulation of prices, in
to make such noise and confusion at a tiff had been taken into custody they theatre as to prevent ile performers from had found for the plaintiff. .. proceeding; although they had a right The foreman of the jury stated, that to hiss or applaud at the moment; hut, they were all of opinion generally, that if any body of people were to go to the the plaintiff had been illegally arrested. theatre, with the deliberate intention of Another of the jury then informed hissing any particular actor, or even of his lordship, that the principle on which damning a piece, there could be no doubt the greater part of the jury had given but that such a deliberate and précon- their verdict, was, that it was harshy certed scheme would amount to a con- that for so slight a matter as wearing spiracy, and that the persons concerned O. P. in his hat, the plaintiff should in it may be severely punished. This have been taken into custody. being the law of the case, it was for the Sir J. Mansfield said he treinbled for jury first to consider whether there had the verdict the jury had delivered. He been any riots at the theatre on the was sorry, he said, that they had not night alluded to, and whether Mr. Clif- stated the precise ground of their verford was not to be considered as an in dict, because many persons might supstigator of those riots ? As to the plain pose the disturbance which had prevailtiff's rayk and situation in the world, it ed was sanctioned by law. It would made his example peculiarly mischievous. be shocking to say such was the meanThose in an inferior situation and of less ing of the law, as such a construction knowledge of the law, thought his ex- would tend to every thing subversive of ample was a protection to them, and, the constitution. therefore, his wearing the 0. P. in his [It may be asked, Is it constitutional hat produced a very different effect froin for a judge to put such questions to a what would have been the consequence jury, after their verdict has been deli-' of similar conduct in a person of very vered upon their oaths ? inferior situation.
The success of the above cause exciThe nest point was as to the legality ted an unusual attendance of O. P.'s at of his apprehension. He must allow Covent Garden Theatre the same eventhat the rule of law was, that no private ing, where shouts and groans were given person could arrest another for a bare for their friends and opponents; the breach of the peace, at a time subse private hoses were stiikingly reprobated, quent to the commission of it, without and no Bow-street officers or hired a warrant from a magistrate. By law a prize-fighters dared to enter the pit.) private person had only a right to arrest The disputes at the theatre after sixty a person rioting or breaking the peace six nights of disorder are at length settled. at the time of his committing such of Mr. Kemble sent a note to Mr. Clifford, fence. If the jury should find a verdict and an interview took place, which led for the plaintiff, he would request them to Mr. Kemble's introduction to the to state to him the grounds upon which O. P's assembled at a public dinner at they so found, whether it was from their the Crown and Anchor.-After an adopinion of the rarrest being illegal in dress from Mr. Clifford, stating the parpoint of time, or whether they did not ticulars of his interview with Mr. Keinbelieve the plaintiff i have assisted and ble, a committee was appointed, and encouraged the riots.
several articles were drawn up and a In about half an hour, the jury re- greed to They are in substance as folturned with a verdict for the Plaintiff low:--The pit to be reduced to 3s. 6d. Damages 51.
the former rate of admission.-The boxes The moment the verdict was announ to be continued at 7s.--At the end of . ced, a tremendous burst of applause the present season, that part of the front communicated itself to the multitude boxes which is now occupied by annual without, who to the number of several boxes, to be restored to the use of the thousands almost filled the hall. Some public as it was in the old theatre, at the time elapsed before a word could be time of Mr. Kemble's becoming a proheard.
prietor. . . All legal proceedings to be Sir. J. Mansfield then asked the jury, inmediately stopped, and Mr. Brandon upon which of the two points referred the box keeper, to be disinissed. whether a riot had been committed, and whether the plaintiff had been a parti- On the 18th. came on in the court of cipator in it; or, on the fact of the riot King's Bench, the trial of Messrs. Dahaving been ended at the time the plain- niel and Francis Wright and Mrs. Clarke,
for a conspiracy to defraud Gwyllim advantage from her eridence before the Lloyd Wardle, Esq. The circumstances house of Cominons, and to relate all be of the case were so ainply recited on the knew on the subject of Col. Wardle's former trial, in which, by the perjuries furnishing Mrs. Clarke's house; and alledged on this occasion, Mr. Wardle that therefore the colonel forbore calling had a verdict given against him for fur- either him or Wright; though they had niture delivered by the Wrights to Mrs. both been subpænaed.-Col. Wardle Clarke, that it it is unnecessary, and our being again called into court as a witness, linits prevent us from entering into de positively denied that Stokes ever assigned tails.--The witnessess called to prove to him, that the fornishing of Mrs. Clarke's that Mr. Wardle had not made himself house was a reason why he wished hin liable to pay Mr. Wright for Mrs. Clarke's not to appear as a witness in the house, furniture, and consequently to prove by or that any conversation passed on that inference, the fact of the conspiracy, topic in his interview with Stokes. This were the Colonel himself, Major Dodd, was the substance of the evidence of Mr. Glenvie, and Sir R. Phillips. The both sides. — Mr. Alley, the leading two first contradicted the testimony gia counsel, (Serjeant Best being subpænaed ven by Mrs. Clarke on a former. trial, as a witness but not called) who so eloas to certain expressions used by her quently opened the case, was then heard while selecting the furniture at the up- in reply, in which he made a forcible holsterers, and the two latter gentlemen appeal to the jury, on the superior crestated the substance of conversations dibility which the plaintiff's witnesses with Mrs. Clarke, subsequent to the justly claimed. conclusion of the late parliamentary in- Lord Ellenborough summed up the vestigation, in which that lady admitted evidence, and the jury, after deliberaher own responsibility for the goods in ting about five minutes in the box, requestion ; particularly on offering her turned a verdict-Not Guilty. memoirs for publication to that respec- The Royal Dukes of York and Kent table bookseller, who bade 50001. for were present: them, when she said she must have : 70001 as she had to pay Francis Wright Mr. Canning is said to have expressed 20001. for furniture; on which Sir Rin considerable surprise, and even dissatis. chard declined the purchase, but for faction, at the readiness manifested by which she had since obtained 10,0001. Lord Wellesley to supply his place in by the hands of the Earl of Chichester the foreign department. The occur. for their suppression, besides an annuity rence reminds us of an Eastern tale, for life!!
wherein one of two friends being conOn the part of the defendants Mr. demned to die for an offence committed Stokes (Mrs. Clarke's attorney) was against the state, the other consents not called, who said that be told Col. War- only to be the messenger of the inelandle, during the investigation, that he choly tidings to his prison, but to inform must not call him as a witness, (since him, “ that as somebody must under: he could not there claim his privilege as take the office of strangling hiin, and as an attorney) for by cross-exardination he it does not signify by whose band a man might be compelled to tell that Mrs. dies, he is himself just arrived time Clarke expected to derive considerable enough to be his executioner!"
PRICE OF STOCKS.—Dec. 23, 1809.
Ex. Bills 5 10 pm.
India for Opening
Omnium 21 pm.
India Stock Shut
India Bonds, 19 20 pm.
Imp. Aun. 75
Lottery Tickets, 221. 15s.
END OF THE SIXTH VOLUME.
(B. Flower, Printer, Harlow.)
Curwen, Mr. inconsistently approves
the conduct of Austria, xv
terprize againsi, xli
Durl, shameful, between Castlereagh
. and reforın, ixxij.lxxiii
count of, xávi-objects of, xxxix.Ixiv
delity of the court of Rome, vi, note
Fall of the papal hierarchy, reflections
ng of Flushing, bombardment of, xxvii
a Fox, Mr. his just character of Pitt, lvii
power of, tend only to increase its
strength, xv ,
Francis. Einperor, remarks on the må
nifesto of, viii.ix
duct of the dissenters at, on the ju.
bilte, lxxxvi :
France and Austria, viii.xvi
wav' Humphreys, Rev. Mr. remarkable pe-
tition of, xxxi
grand corruption of christianity, in
1. J. ;
Infidelity, prevalent amongst the higher
'Jubilee, reniarks on the proposed, lvii
remarks on the common council