- 59 Downloads
Samuel Foote wasted no time in turning the victory over Sangster to his advantage in the libel suit against the Public Ledger. On 6 February 1777, Foote’s lawyers persuaded Thomas Brewman, the manager of the paper, to provide evidence proving that William Jackson had written the libelous paragraphs about Foote. Brewman had good reason for his decision to turn King’s evidence: Foote’s acquittal made a conviction in the libel case all but certain—especially since it was going to be heard in the Court of King’s Bench, where Lord Mansfield and Justice Willes were both known to be sympathetic to Foote and hostile to the paper.
KeywordsDine Room Divorce Process Judicial Separation Public Humiliation Midas Touch
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.John Forster, Biographical Essays, 3rd ed. (London: J. Murray, 1860), 461Google Scholar
- 2.Arthur Murphy, Plays by Samuel Foote and Arthur Murphy, ed. George Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 173, 227.Google Scholar
- 25.James Kingsley Blake, “The Lost Dukedom, or the Story of the Pierrepont Claim,” Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society 7 (1908): 258–287.Google Scholar
- 32.For the rumors, see Simon Trefman, Sam. Foote, Comedian (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 263n85; the 1779 payment is mentioned in a letter to Bell Chudleigh of 19 October 1779 preserved in the Beinecke Library (Osborn Folder 3211); and the claim that he worked for her in the late 1780s is made inGoogle Scholar
- William Sampson, The Trial of the Rev. William Jackson at the Bar of the King’s Bench in Ireland for High Treason (Dublin: P. Byrne and H. Fitzpatrick, 1795), 34.Google Scholar
- 36.The best account of Jackson’s spy mission is found in Marianne Elliott, Partners in Revolution: The United Irishmen and France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 62–74.Google Scholar