Theatrical Arbitration in Georgian England
2022; Routledge; Volume: 43; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/01440365.2022.2147528
ISSN1744-0564
Autores Tópico(s)Legal principles and applications
ResumoABSTRACTThe connection between theatre and the law has been much explored, and especially the theatricality of the courtroom, which developed in the late Georgian era. This article seeks to look beyond the law to a wider culture of dispute settlement, of which legal proceedings were only a single subset, and in some ways a deeply unpopular one. The business of theatre provides a window onto this culture, not least because theatre proprietors were extremely disputatious, both due to their personality and for a range of structural and legal reasons, including the monopolistic regime of theatre patents. The resolution of disputes was often performative, requiring a repertoire including legal threats and suits, but mediation and arbitration might provide cheaper and quicker resolution, with less reputational damage. Indeed, arbitration was so familiar to theatre folk that it featured in plays, which explored its wider cultural meaning. Managing theatre arbitrations was also politically charged, because of the political language used, the involvement of the political and aristocratic elite, and the immediate need to resolve disputes with audiences and even pacify riots. This article thus seeks to affirm the importance of arbitration in the interconnected areas of Georgian theatre, law, business and politics.KEYWORDS: ArbitrationADRtheatrebusinesspoliticscultureGeorgianSheridan AcknowledgementsResearch for this article was carried out whilst working on the Access to Justice project at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) and I am greatly indebted to both the donors to that project and to Derek Roebuck and Rhiannon Markless, with whom I collaborated. Thanks go to Luke McDonagh, Christine Ferdinand, the anonymous referees, and to the members of the Four Star Society, Joe Cozens, Adam Crymble, Sarah Lloyd, Katrina Navickas and William Tullett, who all provided invaluable comments. Early versions of this article were presented at IALS and the American Society for Legal History annual conference.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Derek Roebuck, A Miscellany of Disputes, Oxford, 2000, 102-119.2 Frederic Reynolds, Arbitration, or Free and Easy: A Musical Farce, unpublished manuscript, 1806, f. iii, [http://www.eighteenthcenturydrama.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Details/HL_LA_mssLA1500], accessed 4 June 2019. Perhaps the most famous example is from Samuel Johnson, Prologue Spoken by Mr. Garrick at the Opening of the Theatre in Drury-Lane, 1747: ‘The Stage but echoes back the publick Voice./The Drama’s Laws the Drama’s Patrons give,/ For we that live to please, must please to live’.3 See for instance James Oldham, ‘The Historically Shifting Sands of Reasons to Arbitrate’, Journal of Dispute Resolution (2016), 41.4 Derek Roebuck, Francis Calvert Boorman and Rhiannon Markless, English Arbitration and Mediation in the Long Eighteenth Century, Oxford, 2019.5 Sara Ramshaw, ‘Jamming the Law: Improvisational Theatre and the ‘Spontaneity’ of Judgment’, 14.1 Law Text Culture (2010), 133.6 Robert D. Hume, ‘Theatre as Property in Eighteenth-Century London’, 31.1 Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies (2008), 37.7 E.g. 'The Haymarket Opera House', in F.H.W. Sheppard, ed., St James Westminster, Part 1, Survey of London: vol. 29, London, 1960, 223-250.8 Oliver Gerland, ‘The Haymarket Theatre and Literary Property: Constructing Common Law Playright, 1770-1833’, 69.2 Theatre Notebook (2015), 74; David Worrall, ‘Charles Macklin and Arthur Murphy: Theatre, Law and an Eighteenth-Century London Irish Diaspora’, 14.1 Law and Humanities (2020), 113, at 114-115; Theodore Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Measure of Damages, vol. II, 9th ed., 1912, 766-769; Victoria Barnes and James Oldham, ‘Carlen v Drury (1812): The Origins of the Internal Management Debate in Corporate Law’, 38.1 The Journal of Legal History (2017), 1, at 14–15.9 Henry Horwitz and James Oldham, ‘John Locke, Lord Mansfield, and Arbitration during the Eighteenth Century’, 36 The Historical Journal (1993), 137.10 In a simple arbitration, the parties voluntarily referred all aspects in dispute. This could be arranged privately or a reference made from the courts, if a suit had been commenced. Each side chose an arbitrator or arbitrators, or agreed to their appointment, and an umpire was nominated to decide the award if the arbitrators could not agree. The award was a final decision in the style of a judgment, not a mutually agreed settlement as would be elicited by a mediator. To enforce an arbitration, the parties usually entered into bonds and forfeited the money if they did not comply with an award. Under the Arbitration Act 1698, the award could also be registered with a court and then enforced, potentially by imprisonment. For further background see Roebuck, Boorman and Markless, English Arbitration and Mediation; and Christian R. Burset, ‘Merchant Courts, Arbitration, and the Politics of Commercial Litigation in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire’, 34.3 Law and History Review (2016), 615.11 Oldham, ‘The Historically Shifting Sands’, 41.12 Heather McPherson, ‘Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics in Eighteenth-Century London’, 43.3 The Eighteenth Century (2002), 236, at 245.13 Michael Simpson, ‘Re-OPening after the Old Price Riots: War and Peace at Drury Lane’, 41.4 Texas Studies in Literature and Language (1999), 373; Adrian Randall, Riotous Assemblies: Popular Protest in Hanoverian England, Oxford, 2006, 43.14 Burset, ‘Merchant Courts, Arbitration, and the Politics of Commercial Litigation’, 620-621.15 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 30 Sept. 1790; Public Advertiser, 8 Sept. 1789.16 Hume, ‘Theatre as Property’, 22-30.17 Judith Milhous, ‘Company Management’ in Robert D. Hume, ed., The London Theatre World, 1660-1800, Carbondale, 1980, 2.18 Ibid., 4-5.19 Ibid., 9.20 Sheppard, ed., St James Westminster, Part 1, 224.21 Kalman A. Burnim, ‘Aaron Hill's "The Prompter": An Eighteenth-Century Theatrical Paper’, 13.2 Educational Theatre Journal (1961), 73, at 74-75.22 Hume, ‘Theatre as Property’, 28.23 Prompter (1734), 15 April 1735.24 David Francis Taylor, Theatres of Opposition: Empire, Revolution, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oxford, 2012, 163; Vincent J. Liesenfeld, The Licensing Act of 1737, Wisconsin, 1984.25 Daily Gazetteer (London Edition), 30 March 1739.26 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 31 Oct. 1777.27 Elaine Hadley, Melodramatic Tactics: Theatricalized Dissent in the English Marketplace, 1800-1885, Stanford, 1995, 40.28 Michael F. Suarez, ‘To what extent did the Statute of Anne (8 Anne, c. 19, [1709]) affect commercial practices of the book trade in eighteenth-century England? Some provisional answers about copyright, chiefly from bibliography and book history’, in Lionel Bently, Uma Suthersanen and Paul Torremans, eds., Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace, Cheltenham, 2010, 54-57.29 Gerland, ‘The Haymarket Theatre and Literary Property, 86-92.30 Barnes and Oldham ‘Carlen v Drury (1812)’, 13-14.31 C.Y. Ferdinand and D.F. McKenzie, ‘Congreve, William (1670-1729)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), Oxford, online edn, Jan. 2008.32 Richard Brinsley Peake, Memoirs of the Colman Family, Including their Correspondence, London, 1841, 280.33 Gerland, ‘The Haymarket Theatre and Literary Property’, 82–83 and 87.34 See also entries in the ODNB.35 Taylor, Theatres of Opposition, 2; Hadley, Melodramatic Tactics, 51.36 Worrall, ‘Charles Macklin and Arthur Murphy’, 113-130.37 Simon Devereaux, ‘Arts of Public Performance: Barristers and Actors in Georgian England’ in David Lemmings, ed., Crime Courtrooms and the Public Sphere in Britain, 1700-1850, Farnham and Burlington, e-book, 2016, 96–97 and 112–117.38 Peter Thomson, ‘Garrick, David (1717–1779)’, ODNB, Oxford, online edn, Jan. 2008.39 W. J. Burling, Summer Theatre in London, 1661–1820, and the Rise of the Haymarket Theatre, Cranbury, London and Mississauga, 2000, 134.40 McPherson, ‘Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics’, 240.41 Worrall, ‘Charles Macklin and Arthur Murphy’, 117.42 David M. Little and George M. Kahrl, eds., The Letters of David Garrick, vol. I, London, 1963, 256-257, no. 179 to Susannah Maria Cibber, 17 Dec. 1756.43 Little and Kahrl, eds., The Letters of David Garrick, vol. I, 258-259, no. 181 to Susannah Maria Cibber, c.5 Jan. 1757.44 Philip H. Highfill, Kalman A. Burnim and Edward A. Langhans, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800, vol. VII, Carbondale, 1982, 252.45 Cecil Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. I, Oxford, 1966, 95, Richard Brinsley Sheridan to Thomas Linley the Elder, 31 Dec. 1775.46 Cecil Price, ‘Thomas Harris and the Covent Garden Theatre’ in Kenneth Richards and Peter Thomson, eds., Essays on the 18th century English Stage, Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Manchester University department of Drama, London, 1972, 105-107.47 McPherson, ‘Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics’, 245.48 A letter from T. Harris, to G. Colman, on the affairs of Covent-Garden Theatre. To which is prefixed, an address to the public, London, 1768, 56; Lloyd's Evening Post, 1 Aug. 1768.49 Lloyd's Evening Post, 18 July 1770.50 Price, ‘Thomas Harris and the Covent Garden Theatre’, 106-107.51 Ibid.52 Milhous, ‘Company Management’, 13.53 Quoted in Price, ‘Thomas Harris and the Covent Garden Theatre’, 106.54 Robert W. Jones, ‘Competition and Community: Mary Tickell and the Management of Sheridan's Drury Lane’, 54.2 Theatre Survey (2013), 187, at 192.55 Taylor, Theatres of Opposition, 116.56 Cecil Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. III, Oxford, 1966, 67, Richard Brinsley Sheridan to S.J. Arnold, [Sept. 1809?].57 Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. I, 120, Richard Brinsley Sheridan to the proprietors of the Drury Lane and Covent Garden Theatres, 1777.58 Ibid., vol. I, 168, Richard Brinsley Sheridan to [Albany Wallis?, c.1783-85].59 F.H.W. Sheppard, ed., The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, Survey of London: vol. 35, London, 1970, 16-18,60 Cecil Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. II, Oxford, 1966, 124n.61 The Monthly Mirror, vol. XII, July 1801, 347-351.62 Morning Chronicle, 19 Nov. 1801; Monthly Mirror, vol. XII, July 1801, 354-357.63 Morning Post and Gazetteer, 24 Dec. 1801.64 Taylor, Theatres of Opposition, 226 and 231.65 Morning Post and Gazetteer, 28 Dec. 1801.66 Morning Chronicle, 10 Feb. 1802.67 Francis Calvert Boorman, ‘The Political Space of Chancery Lane, c.1760-1815’, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of London, London, 2013, 99-102.68 William J. Burling, ‘Colman, George, the Younger (1762–1836)’, ODNB, Oxford, online edn, Jan. 2008.69 Burling, Summer Theatre in London, ch. 4.70 Ibid. The National Archives (TNA), C33/628/1029; The Morning Post, 6 March 1815.71 TNA, C33/637/165.72 Julius Henry Cohen, Arbitration and the Law, New York and London, 1918, 160-161.73 Penelope J. Corfield, Power and the Professions in Britain, 1700-1850, London and New York, 1995, 47-48.74 Hadley, Melodramatic Tactics, 75. The latter scenario is perhaps reminiscent of arbitration, in its quasi-legal performance.75 Charles Macklin, A Will and No Will, or A Bone for the Lawyers, Los Angeles, 1967.76 Worrall, ‘Charles Macklin and Arthur Murphy’, 118-120.77 John Burgoyne, The Heiress, London, 1786, 62.78 Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser, 10 Sept. 1784.79 Walley Chamberlain Oulton, History of the Theatres of London: Containing an Annual Register of New Pieces, Revivals, Pantomimes, &c; with Occasional Notes and Anecdotes; Being a Continuation of Victor's and Oulton's Histories, from the Year 1795 to 1817 Inclusive, vol. 1, London, 1818, 153.80 See for instance Morning Chronicle, 10 Dec. 1806 and Caledonian Mercury, 5 March 1807.81 Morning Chronicle, 12 Dec. 1806.82 Frederic Reynolds, The Life and Times of Frederick Reynolds, Written by Himself, 2 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1827, vol. 2, 274-278.83 Ibid., vol. 1, 148.84 Reynolds, Arbitration, f.21.85 London Chronicle, 9–11 April 1799.86 Mrs Inchbald, ed., The Modern Theatre; A Collection of Successful Modern Plays, as acted at the Theatres Royal, London, vol. II, London, 1811.87 Reynolds Arbitration, ff.2 and 6.88 Peter Thomson, ‘Thomas Holcroft, George Colman the Younger and the Rivalry of the Patent Theatres’, 22 Theatre Notebook (1968), 162.89 Thomson, ‘Thomas Holcroft’, 166.90 London Chronicle, 13–16 Sept. 1794.91 Taylor, Theatres of Opposition, 1-2.92 Roebuck, Boorman and Markless, English Arbitration and Mediation, 300.93 Matthew McCormack, The Independent Man: Citizenship and Gender Politics in Georgian England, Manchester, 2005, 39-40.94 Reynolds, Arbitration, f.ii.95 The present author intends to expand on this link between arbitration and English national character, but space constraints preclude further discussion here. Charles L. Nordon, ‘British Experience with Arbitration’, 83 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1935), 314.96 Curtis Price, Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, Italian Opera in Late Eighteenth-Century London, vol. 1: The King’s Theatre, Haymarket 1778-1791, Oxford, 1995, 576-579.97 Reports Presented to the First and Second General Assemblies of Subscribers to the re-building of the Theatre-Royal, Drury Lane … , London, 1811, 33-35.98 Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. III, 188n.99 Thomas Moore, Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. II, London, 1825, 434.100 Price, ed., The Letters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, vol. III, 218-219, Richard Brinsley Sheridan to His Wife, c.1 March 1815.101 Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, 20 June 1777.102 The dispute is detailed in David Symons, ‘A Pass for the ‘Birmingham Theatre’, 1774’, 76 British Numismatic Journal (2006), 312.103 John Johnstone, Joseph George Holman, Alexander Pope, Charles Incledon, Jos. S. Munden, John Fawcett, Thomas Knight and Henry Erskine Johnston, A Statement of the Differences Subsisting Between the Proprietors and Performers of the Theatre-Royal, Covent-Garden. Given in the Correspondence which has Passed between Them, London, 1800.104 Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, ‘Theatrical Custom versus Rights: The Performers' Dispute with the Proprietors of Covent Garden in 1800’, 63.2 Theatre Notebook (2009), 92, at 110-111; Morning Herald, 10 March 1800; True Briton (1793), 10 May 1800.105 Milhous and Hume, ‘Theatrical Custom versus Rights’, 111-115.106 Oracle and Daily Advertiser, 13 May 1800.107 Milhous and Hume, ‘Theatrical Custom versus Rights’, 116-118; True Briton, 30 July 1800.108 The Morning Post, 22 Jan. 1810.109 Gillian Russell, ‘Playing at Revolution: The Politics of the O.P. Riots of 1809’, 44.1 Theatre Notebook (1990), 16, at 22; McPherson, ‘Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics’, 237.110 Gillian Russell, Theatres of War: Performance, Politics, and Society, 1793-1815, Oxford, 1995.111 McPherson, ‘Theatrical Riots and Cultural Politics’, 237.112 ‘To the editor of the Constitutional Review’ in The Covent Garden Journal, vol. II, London, 1810, 488-489.113 Marc Baer, Theatre and Disorder in Late Georgian London, Oxford, 1992, 78-79.114 Russell, ‘Playing at Revolution’, 16-22.115 Morning Chronicle, 23 Sept. 1809.116 Quoted in Baer, Theatre and Disorder, 78.117 Morning Chronicle, 5 Oct. 1809.118 The Examiner, 8 Oct. 1809; ‘To the editor of the Constitutional Review’ in The Covent Garden Journal, vol. II, 489-493119 Caledonian Mercury, 9 Oct. 1809. For other satires using the John Bull trope see e.g. Isaac Cruikshank, King John & John Bull 1809, British Museum Satires.120 The Covent Garden Journal, London, 1810, 96.121 Christina Parolin, Radical Spaces: Venues of Popular Politics in London, 1790-c.1845, Canberra, 2010, chs. 4 and 5.122 Memoirs of Henry Hunt, Esq., vol. II, New York, 1970, 387-388.123 Morning Post, 15 Dec. 1809 and 16 Dec. 1809.Additional informationNotes on contributorsFrancis Calvert BoormanFrancis Calvert Boorman is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He is an historian of London, locality and arbitration.
Referência(s)