Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/356

 Some Things about TJieatres. and a number of men wore on their hats the mystic letters " O. P." and " N. P. B." (Old Prices and No Private Boxes). There were sham fights in the pit, but no violence was offered to any one and no injury done to the theatre. One witness said, the affair was like a quarrel among a thousand drunken sailors. Best, Sergeant, said the audience was more amused with what was going on than they would have been with the per formance; the Judge remarked that the scenes were a disgrace to the country and tended to bring the English nation back to a state of barbarism. When Mr. Clifford entered upon this wild scene there was a cry, " There comes the honest counsellor," • and a passage was opened for him and he went and seated himself in the centre of the pit. His hat was soon ornamented with the "O. P." sign; his conduct was most exem plary, he took no part in the disturbance, in fact he persuaded one sitting near him from giving a solo on a trumpet; yet as he was quietly going home he was arrested by the order of the defendant, the box-keeper, and carried off to Bow Street; the magistrate discharged him, however. Sergeant Best acted for him at the trial and recovered from the jury a verdict of £5, although Mansfield C.J., who presided at the trial, asked the jury to consider a lot of knotty, disagreeable questions, such as " Why was his entrance saluted with the exclamation, ' Here comes the honest counsellor?' How had he de served this peculiar panegyric? (Note the sarcasm of those words; why do so many judges delight in kicking the ladder by which they have risen?) How came it that a word from him was sufficient to prevent a man from blowing a trumpet? Why did he go to the theatre? Was it to see the play? Did he know the meaning of the letters O. P.? " So much by way of digression; now to resume the golden thread of our dis course.) In fact, Macklin, in 1775, was playing Shylock; Leigh and a number of others ar

325

ranged to hiss him whenever he appeared on the stage, whereupon he indicted them before Lord Mansfield for unlawfully, wick edly, riotously and tumultuously making a great noise, tumult, riot and disturbance to prevent his playing and to ruin him in his profession. The accused were found guilty; Macklin was satisfied with his victory and declined to call them up to receive judg ment, especially as they consented to pay all his law expenses, take £100 worth of tickets for his next benefit, and another £100 worth for his daughter's benefit.. This was a comic ending to the affair that the noisy fellows had not anticipated. (Rex v. Leigh, 1 C. & K. 29, note "A".) The opin ions of Englishmen are not of much weight in this year of grace, especially of a Tory like Mansfield, so we hasten to back up our position with the words of an Irish Chief Justice: in Rex v. Forbes (1 Craw. & Dix, Circuit Cases), Bushe C.J. said: "The rights of an audience at a theatre are perfectly well defined. They may cry down a play or other performance which they dislike, or they may hiss or hoot the actors who de pend upon their approbation or caprice. Even that privilege however is confined within its limits. They must not break the peace, or act in such a manner as has a ten dency to excite terror or disturbance. Their censure or approbation, although it may be noisy, must not be riotous. That censure or approbation must be the expression of the feelings of the moment; for if it be pre meditated by a number of persons confed erated beforehand to cry down either a per formance or an actor, it becomes criminal. Such are the limits of the rights of an audi ence, even as to actors and authors." And we are told by high American authority that French decisions say, that a person has at a theatre as much right to express disappro bation as others have to express approbation. (32 A.L.J. 401.) The benefit of humility and of the willing ness to take a low seat has been proved even