public opinion of his country-or the sentiments of men of all creeds and parties in this great nation.

It is not our intention here to notice Mr. Shee's play otherwise than as connected with the censor; the merits or demerits of the poetry, or plot, or of the tragedy, either in parts or altogether, form a distinct subject, and would render this article too copious, and divide the attention that should primarily be directed to the act of "despotism" (we use the word in the teeth of the Lord Chamberlain and of Mr. George Colman the younger) which it involves. It may not be irrelevant, however, to recall to the memory of the reader the origin of the play-licensing act, so liable to abuse in its present state, and altogether so antiBritish in spirit, that those who do not recollect how the scalping-knife was originally placed in the hands of the theatrical mohawk may be saved the trouble of enquiring about it. It is to the year 1737, and to the minister who formed the septennial act, which destroyed the ancient duration of parliaments, and opened a wide door for corruption, almost justifying popular interference (for the septennial act was a deed of an arbitrary legislature,* which king, lords, and commons had no right to perform at the expense of a great principle of the British constitution,) that the Lord Chamberlain and Mr. George Colman the younger are indebted for their power and the public for the ingenious display of intellect which has been exhibited on this occasion. That minister, instead of enlisting men of talent and principle on his side to resist literary attacks by fair weapons, invited, among others, miserable renegadoes, who had no principles at all, and who were deserters from the ranks of his opponents, a circumstance not without a parallel in later times. When he found, as must always happen, how futile and contemptible the efforts of such men were, and how little they could operate on the nation, he determined, as far as possible, to avail himself of "brute force," the ultima ratio of corrupt and incensed power. A manuscript farce (called the "Golden Rump") was presented to him by the manager of a theatre, as having been offered for representation, though it had not been performed, and most likely never would have been, being of a most abusive and even seditious character. The opportunity was too good to be lost. Too many shots had been fired at the minister from the stage for Sir Robert Walpole to pass it by. The embryo farce was produced in the House of Commons as the text for a copious philippic upon the calumny, malice, insolence, and sedition of the theatre where it had never appeared. An act, which had no doubt been ready prepared, was rapidly passed, vesting play-licensing in any "Noodle" or "Doodle," whom accident or interest might place in the situation of Lord Chamberlain; of course presuming that official to be always qualified with the literary discrimination, independence of mind, and strict impartiality, which the better order of British noblemen ought to possess. To these qualifications there is unfortunately no "royal road"

*The difference between "a supreme and an arbitrary legislature," to borrow a phrase of Junius, is, that an arbitrary legislature might annihilate the constitution which is the common parent-a supreme legislature could not abrogate its great principles. An arbitrary legislature, acting in corrupt union, might abolish the elective principle entirely, for example, and dictate an absolute monarchy—a supreme legislature governs only by the great constitutional principles, an invasion of which may justify the interference of the people.

for nobles or plebeians; and a deputy, supposed to be duly qualified, has usually been appointed to take the active duty of the office. Considering its obnoxious character, it has, on the whole, been pretty fairly exercised until the Duke of Montrose and his deputy, Mr. George Colman the younger, commenced a new career in its duties. It should be observed, that, at the same time with the play-licensing, a monopoly of theatres was established by Walpole, more pernicious to the true interests of the drama than the licensing duties have until now been. Edifices of dimensions too large for an audience to hear and see with effect, have introduced mummeries and melodramas, and prevented a pure theatrical taste from being cherished for the higher walks of tragedy and comedy, in which alone the rational part of the public might seek amusement, while smaller theatres dare not play the pieces of Shakspeare or Sheridan. Before these alterations, effected by overbearing power, the theatre was as free as the press, and managers were punishable for offences, as libellers are now, by fair legal process. The present licenser, or rather the licenser's deputy, will no doubt be as strict in regard to moral allusions, as he has been in what he unfoundedly, and uncomplimentarily to his own government, thinks political ones affecting its character, or what else can he mean? Thus the frail sisterhood in the lobbies will be disappointed in their expectations of finding the delicate graces, and rich double entendre* of Mr. George Colman the younger en scène. They must expect no fresh excitements to their chaste loves from that quarter, but return with heavy hearts to their watchful couches, or console themselves at home with his past lucubrations.

We do not impugn the Government in the present business, for the members of it well know that there has been no disposition shewn of late by dramatic writers to indulge in offensive allusions. We should not animadvert on the licenser who erased passages that admitted of politico-satirical construction, this being the real object of his official existence, his essential vocation. But there is no trace of such in the play which has been so insolently treated. It may be doubted if even the fanatic Freyssinous, the foe of free literature and free opinion in France, would have sanctioned all the excisions of Mr. George Colman the younger, when their general nature and the situation of the characters are considered. There is a degree of proper feeling in managers and in the public, which would not tolerate coarse attacks upon an authority; and any worthy of importance, having that bias, are not likely to be often made. The present is to be looked upon as the act of the Lord Chamberlain and his deputy alone; but it certainly does become higher authorities to prevent such flagrant abuses of the licensing power from again occurring, especially as Parliament is beginning to encourage the polite arts. We expect no repeal of the present law, because, right or wrong, it confers power; and power once conferred is rarely ever to be withdrawn. Some check to the stupidity, servility, and bad passions of a licenser should be formed, or some mode of appeal established, even if it were to the ministers themselves. Mr. Canning or Lord Liverpool, on perusing the present castrated tragedy, would be the very first to smile and condemn the censor's conduct. Indeed he seems to

* Vide his published works.

have mystified himself in refusing the repetition of truisms that are now used on the stage in dramatic performances, or have been anxious to shew that he would not admit such where he thought he should by such showing exhibit his zeal. Can it be that the deputy and his master are determined to commence a new era as to the stage,* and contribute their modicum to stifle all lofty opinions in the dramacrush high and noble sentiments, a belief in which has in all ages constituted the very essence of public virtue-and labour, as far as their means will allow them, in debasing the character of the theatre ? His Grace of Montrose (whose ancestor so sternly opposed the bringer in of the licensing act), having determined to support his deputy, must share the odium of his conduct. He volunteered chivalrously in his defence (like his ancient namesake of the north for the Stuart), but the want of power in his weapons and his deficiency of skill in their use, renders his assistance of little or no service to his Sancho Panza. In the epistlet to Mr. Shee, a lasting testimony of his Grace's refined taste and lucid style of composition, it would have been politic, though less generous, had he declined giving his own highly discreet and forcible opinion, and simply stated that he considered himself bound by his deputy. What can his Grace mean by the phrase "at this time," &c. the tragedy should not be acted? To what tremendous state mystery does he allude" that may not strike authors," but of which the Lord Chamberlain and Mr. George Colman the younger are in possession? Perhaps Mr. Shee, (who is we believe of the sister kingdom), in his literary shortsightedness, did not observe the effect his tragedy must produce, if acted in Ireland, upon the enlightened followers of Captain Rock-he

* That the monopoly in the drama is to be sustained, we may judge from the Lord Chamberlain's refusal to license French tragedy and comedy under any restrictions. When free trade is established, we ought to have a free Theatre. Every thing that will keep knowledge alive or spread it further, should be tolerated. The dramatic works of Corneille or Racine are as moral as the best of our own. The French theatres too (in spite of what some allege respecting the people) are far removed from the unblushing profligacy exhibited in ours; while our national character is more lofty and respectable-a strange anomaly, proving the effect of similar restrictions, which should extend farther, as the French do, or wholly cease. The pedlaring spirit of the manager appears through this refusal; it may be presumed it was not the Lord Chamberlain's own act. Must our literary entertainments and fine arts for ever smack of the spirit of managers and of shopkeepers! + The Literary Gazette justly observes that "His Grace either wants time or a deputy in literary matters." Let our readers judge.

"Sir-Thinking Mr. Colman a very sufficient judge of his duty, and as I agree in his conclusion (from the account he has given me of the tragedy of Alasco), I do conclude that at this time, without considerable omissions, the tragedy should not be acted; and whiist I am persuaded that your intentions are upright, I conceive that it is precisely for this reason (though it may not strike authors) that it has been the wisdom of the Legislature to have an Examiner appointed, and power given to the Chamberlain of the Household to judge whether certain plays should be acted at all, or not acted at particular times.‡

"I do not mean to enter into an argument with you, Sir, on the subject, but think that your letter, conceived in polite terms to me, calls upon me to return an answer, showing that your tragedy has been well considered.

"I remain, Sir, with esteem,
"Your obedient Servant,

"MONTROSE."

We have not read this act. Does it really confer this monstrous power? After being licensed, we had imagined any piece might be performed. Woe to our best tragedies under the new regime, if this be the law!

did not calculate what tithe-proctors, "what district despots" might fall, were Alasco performed in Dublin or Cork-how Sir Harcourt Lees might be thrown into fresh convulsions by the mention of his favourite orthodoxy, or Sir Abraham Bradley King forced to the remotest recesses of his stationary warehouse to invoke the "glorious and immortal memory," and strengthen his spirit for martyrdom, on hearing any "question the high privilege of (Orange) oppression." Mr. Shee, too, had forgotten the English radicals, who would have collected warlike stores again in the foot of an old stocking, and with fifteen ounces of gunpowder have threatened the existence of a mighty empire, notwithstanding the free trade and diminishing taxation of Messrs. Robinson and Huskisson and the conciliatory disposition of Mr. Canning. How could they resist the hope

To rescue from the oblivious grave,
Where tyrants have combined to bury them,
A gallant race, a nation and her fame!

Even the ghost of Thistlewood, like that of the defunct Dane king
(O profane comparison, Mr. Colman!) might have crossed the Covent-
garden boards, and inflamed the audience at the delivery of such a
passage! At this time," too, when Louis le Desiré reigns in peace
over France and Spain, and devours his pieds de cochon undisturbed by
the eagle of Elba, and when this Bourbon has succeeded in virtually
destroying elective rights among his people, and is become absolute
again!
When Austria and Prussia, like our county gaolers, sleep
tranquilly amid fetters and dungeons, secure in the tenacity of their
iron! Above all, Mr. Shee did not recollect Russia and her armed
million, whom his tragedy would inevitably call from Covent-garden
boards into Poland to quell the sentiment that "'Tis not rebellion to
resist oppression," thereby disturbing the present wholesome state of
the Holy Alliance; or, as a lawyer would say, having a tendency to
disturb it, which is exactly the same thing in law! Profound foresight
of the licenser and his deputy! Let authors admire it in silence, and
bow with all humility to their statesmanlike sagacity, as these objections
were not likely "to strike" them! Thus the stage will, by and by, try
its best to make us all that servility can desire, or the servile heart of
the licenser regard as the mirror of true fealty.

Mr. Shee has very truly stated (whatever the merits of his tragedy may be in a literary view) that it does not contain "one sentiment, moral, religious, or political, of which an honest subject of this empire can justly disapprove, or which any honourable man of any party should be ashamed to avow." The plot and incidents belong to another time and country. In future tragedies, however, a Brutus must not invoke his country's liberty, according to Mr. George Colman the younger. A King of Denmark, who is an assassin, must not have his dignity prophaned by another Hamlet's calling him unworthy names. A Richard the Third must not be styled a despot, for having mounted to the throne by means of private assassination or treachery and open bloodshed, doubtless to prevent offence to Alexander of Russia and Ferdinand of Spain, in the licenser's opinion. To him another tragedy of Cato would be downright sedition. Every epithet that can be directly or indirectly applied by the dramatist to designate the tyrant, or the slave that licks his feet-to lash unhallowed power, or its minions, riding

audaciously on the necks of nations, however remote the era described, is forbidden under pretence that at this time it is improper, "though it may not strike authors." The priests too seem unlawful game in the sight of Mr. George Colman the younger, at least in tragedy: whether in his wisdom the rubicund friar may retain a place in comedy is a question still; but as "gentle dullness ever loves a joke," there is yet a chance for the brotherhood in that department. Mr. Shee has quoted "Venice Preserved" and other pieces at present on the stage, that contain stronger passages than his own play. He might have quoted a hundred such, licensed by preceding censors without a scruple, but they were no doubt unfit for their duty. The present licenser stands the Abdiel of crawling sycophancy, faithful to an unrequired abjectness of purpose, and an unnecessary officiousness in his calling beyond example. He will not suffer the breath of Heaven to visit too roughly the Dagon of tyranny which he sets up and adores in his own imagination. He draws a circle of protection around his idol and the crimes of its worshipers, with the sanguine ink of his official pen, and dares the dramatist to trench on the charmed limit. But let us take a review of Mr. Shee's delinquencies-those passages which are to work "treasons, stratagems, and spoils" in the licenser's view of them, bearing in mind that the characters and events are imaginary, and the scene in a remote country. The first red ink obliteration blots out the following mischievous passage :—

What little skill the patriot sword requires,

Our zeal may boast, in midnight vigils school'd;
Those deeper tactics, well contrived to work
The mere machine of mercenary war,

We shall not need, whose hearts are in the fray,-
Who for ourselves, our homes, our country fight,
And feel in every blow, we strike for freedom.

This would, no doubt, have caused a second Cato-street conspiracy!

Tyrants, proud lord, are never safe, nor should be ;
The ground is mined beneath them as they tread,
Haunted by plots, cabals, conspiracies;

Their lives are long convulsions, and they shake
Surrounded by their guards and garrisons.

The tendency of this is to involve us in a war with more than one of our holy allies is clear and palpable!

Those chains his nobler countrymen have broken
On their oppressors' heads,

was doubtless designed for Prince Mavrocordato and the Greeks, and might embroil us with Turkey! It is, too, most wickedly put into the mouth of a character supposed to be English-born. The next and fourth erasure is doubtless intended for the same rebellious people, who presumptuously dare to "question the high privilege of oppression" on the part of the "legitimate" commander of the faithful. The mysteries still concealed in the bosoms of his Grace of Montrose and his deputy, are the causes that will justify to the letter the other excisions, no doubt! We can only observe respecting them, that, perhaps the eighth and thirteenth were struck out from an apprehension of their effect on our slaves in the West Indies; and the tenth for fear of offending persons a little nearer home.