for such theatre shall become absolutely void. A stageplay includes nearly every kind of entertainment of the stage, including opera and pantomime. And though mere tumbling is not an operatic performance, yet where there is little else than dancing and pantomime it will be a question of fact whether it amounts to this description. And a dialogue between two persons in costumes and characters satisfies the description of entertainment of the stage. But the Lord Chamberlain's allowance was carefully stated to be unnecessary for such theatrical representations as are given in booths or shows allowed by justices at fairs and feasts.

RIGHT OF HISSING AT THEATRES.

It has been sometimes thought that as theatres are intended for the resort and recreation of the public, there are peculiar privileges if not absolute rights on the part of the public, and that the proprietor of the theatre is much at their mercy, and cannot refuse to admit any person who chooses to enter on paying the appropriate price. But this is founded on confusion of ideas. A theatre differs in no respect from a shop, or a building where a public meeting is held, or where the public are invited for a particular purpose, and it has been seen how far the exclusion of the public can be carried by the proprietor for the time being of any such place of meeting. The proprietor can at all times request a person who has paid for admission to leave the building, whether he has misconducted himself or not, and the person so requested has no alternative but to leave, and may bring an action for breach of contract and for repayment of his money, but has no other remedy. The imprudence of so excluding a peaceable person is obvious; but the law is bound to regard only the strict rights of the respective parties to the contract, and a guest cannot argue with the master of the building about remaining, when his presence is objected to.

On this subject Sir J. Mansfield said once, "I cannot tell upon what grounds many people conceive they have a right at a theatre to make such prodigious noises as to prevent others from hearing what is going forward on the

stage. Theatres are not absolute necessaries of life, and any person may stay away who does not approve of the manner in which they are managed. If the prices of admission are unreasonable, the evil will cure itself; people will not go, and the proprietors will be ruined unless they lower their demands. But the proprietors of theatres have a right to manage their property in their own way, and to fix what prices of admission they think most for their own advantage."-Paterson's Lib. Press, 311.

THEATRE VERSUS CIRCUS.

Curran was counsel in a case where the proprietors of the Theatre Royal, Dublin, sued Astley, the circus proprietor, for acting the "Lock and Key." "My lords," said Curran, "the whole question turns upon this, whether the said Lock and Key' is to be a patent one, or of the spring and tumbler kind!"

THE ACTOR AND THE EMINENT LAWYERS IN A STAGE COACH.

Charles Mathews, the first, was travelling by the stage coach from the north, one very cold wintry night, during the reign of George IV., when he had two unknown fellow passengers, one of whom had thrown a large white linen wrapper round his head, and went to sleep. A fourth passenger, after parting with a boon companion, came in while they were nearly all asleep. He was damp with snow, and on sitting down called out, "Coompany, oop or down," as if asking whether he was to shut or leave open the door window. He was irritated at their not answering, and went on muttering repetitions of this unanswered question, and that the weather was dreadful, and other particulars, one after another, till one of the passengers broke out and begged him to hold his tongue, for he was a nuisance. He was still more irritated at this, exclaimed that "he was a respectable man, had paid his fare, and his name was John Luckie, and he had paid the King's taxes, etc. And he would not hold his tongue, no, not for Baron Hullock (a north country man), nor the great Mr. Bruffem (Brougham)." Mathews, being amused, told the man confidentially, that that was Baron Hullock in the corner asleep, and the one opposite, in white

head-gear, was Lady Hullock, and he himself was Mr. Bruffem. The effect of this announcement was electric. The man felt alarmed, and wanted to go out at once. In his abortive efforts, Mathews imitated the squalling of a child, as if Lady Hullock had one under her arm, and the boor begged pardon for hurting the child; and Baron and Lady Hullock were adjured again and again, almost piteously, to forgive him. He was so uncomfortable that he took the first opportunity to escape quietly, being fearful of some appalling legal retribution that might overtake him and smite him to the ground, for taking such great names in vain.

MIMICKING A JUDGE ON THE STAGE.

Charles Mathews, the first, was so successful in imitating Mr. Curran, the Irish Master of the Rolls, that after the death of the latter, when giving his imitations in a friend's house, the widow, who was accidentally in another room, shrieked with horror at the well-remembered voice. The actor was also so successful in imitating Lord Ellenborough, in the character of charging the jury in the play of "Love, Law and Physic," that the audience roared and shouted their delight. The noise of this success reached the Prince of Wales (George IV.), who invited Mr. Mathews to Carlton House, where a circle of twenty persons were present. The Prince told Mr. Mathews he had heard of his excellent mimicry of Lord Ellenborough, and as he himself (the Prince) professed to do Lord Eldon, the Chancellor, pretty well, he begged a specimen of the Chief Justice, which was given accordingly with great applause. As, however, this was a dangerous success, Mr. Mathews prudently ceased to repeat this exhibition.

THE JUDGE COMPLIMENTING THE ACTOR.

In 1775, a conspiracy was entered into to drive Mr. Macklin from the stage, and the conspirators were indicted. The prosecution was very costly to Mr. Macklin, who however agreed, after the conviction of the defendants, that if his costs were paid, and tickets for certain. benefit nights were taken to the value of £300, he would not press for further punishment. Lord Mansfield said.

this was highly honourable; and added, that notwithstanding Mr. Macklin's acknowledged abilities as an actor, he never acted better in his life than he had done that day. The proposal was accepted, and the matter ended. Lord Mansfield observed as to the law, that the right of hissing and applauding in a theatre, was an unalterable right, but that there was a wide distinction between expressing the natural sensations of the mind, as they arose from what was seen and heard, and executing a preconcerted design, not only to hiss an actor when he was playing a part, but also to drive him from the theatre and promote his utter ruin.-Peake's Colman Family.

COMPLAINT OF PLAYS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF THIEVES.

In 1773, the following note was sent to Colman, manager of Covent Garden Theatre: "The magistrates now sitting at Bow Street, present their compliments to Mr. Colman, and acquaint him that, on the 'Beggar's Opera' being given out to be played some time ago at Drury Lane Theatre, they requested the managers not to exhibit this opera, deeming it productive of mischief to society, as, in their opinion, it most undoubtedly increased the number of thieves. Under these circumstances, from a sense of duty and the principles of humanity, the magistrates make the same request to Mr. Colman, and the rest of the managers of His Majesty's Theatre, Covent Garden."

Mr. Colman answered: "Mr. C. presents his best respects to the magistrates with whose note he has just been honoured. He has not yet had an opportunity of submitting it to the other managers, but for his own part, cannot help differing in opinion with the magistrates, thinking that the theatre is one of the very few houses in the neighbourhood that does not contribute to increase the number of thieves."

Mr. Peake, the biographer, says that, "In those Jonathan Wild days, Mr. Colman's reply to the magistrates was rather severe."

373

CHAPTER X.

ABOUT THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE GREAT SEAL.

GREAT SEAL, ORIGIN OF ITS USE AND OF THE OFFICE OF LORD CHANCELLOR.

Lord Campbell thus explained the origin of using a Great Seal. From the art of writing being little known, seals became common; and the King, according to the fashion of the age, adopted a seal with which writs and grants were sealed. This was called the Great Seal, and the custody of it was given to the Chancellor.

For ages to come the Chancellor had no separate judicial power, and was not considered of very high dignity in the State, and the office was chiefly courted as a stepping-stone to a bishopric, to which it almost invariably led. Particular individuals holding the Great Seal acquired a great ascendency from their talents; but, among the Anglo-Saxons, the Chancellor was not generally a conspicuous member of the government, and in the early Anglo-Norman reigns he ranked only sixth of the great officers under the Crown, coming after the Chief Justiciar, the Constable, the Marischal, the Steward, and the Chamberlain. At this time the Chief Justiciar was by far the greatest subject, both in rank and power. He was generally taken from among the high hereditary barons; his functions were more political than judicial; he sometimes led armies to battle; and when the Sovereign was beyond the sea, by virtue of his office, as regent, he governed the realm.

GREAT SEAL AND OTHER SEALS.

In early times, the King used occasionally to deliver to the Chancellor several seals of different materials, as one