must be laid on something, and no more proper object could be found. In France they contribute also to the poor-rates of the parish the tenth part of the entrance money; every ticket is stamped; a five shilling ticket is rated sixpence. This is called le droit de l'indigence. The British government has been accused by its revilers of encouraging drunkenness for the benefit of the revenue. At any rate, it could incur no blaine by encouraging dramatic amusements from motives of charity and finance; and rival managers would endeavour to procure the best performers, and render their Theatres as convenient as possible; as rival innkeepers endeavour to render their chaises comfortable, and to procure excellent horses.

But if the legislature should not judge proper to permit an indefinite number of Theatres, it would, though not entirely, terminate in part many of the present abuses, and render an essential service to the drama, by licensing more Theatres than at present.

It is the height of absurdity to pay any attention to the patents granted by Charles II. London is three times as large as it was in his reign; and if the population then could support two Theatres, it could at present support six. Suppose the hackney-coaches should require, that their number should be limited to what it was in Charles the Second's time. Let any one look at the map of London at that period. In his time, people resided more in the country. If the numbers that have increased the population of London had settled at York or Exeter, could Charles's patentees have objected to their having a Theatre? Poor Marybone is a posthumous child, unnamed in the will of his father.

London was then the capital of England alone; it has successively become the capital of Great Britain, and of the United Kingdom. Numbers, who would have filled

the Theatres of Edinburgh or Dublin, now contribute to compose the London audiences. Is it just, that the room that is insufficient for those for whom it was originally destined, should be engrossed by those who were considered aliens in Charles's time? Have not English actors also cause to complain, when Scotch and Irishmen are employed on these two Theatres ? but not only actors but managers now are Irish and Scotchmen. No unprejudiced mind would wish to deprive us of the talents of Sheridan, or of the countrymen of Home. By no means. Let them enter into competition, but not to the exclusion of our own people. They are welcome to their share, but the number of the loaves and fishes must be increased. Has not the King of the United Kingdom the same right to grant patents that the King of England had? If any attention must be paid to Charles's patents, let a reasonable interpretation be given to them. Let no new Theatre be erected in those parts of the town that were built at that period. Charles could as little foresee the future grandeur of London, when he granted them, as when he gave a tax upon the London coals to a natural son.

All monopolies are against the natural and constitutional Rights of the People; but, nevertheless, should it be judged proper to indemnify these Patentees, let every Proprietor of a New Theatre assign to them, during a number of years, a certain portion of his profits. Though justice would not. confirm their claims, liberality might take their case into consideration, as well as that of the Dukes of Richmond and Athol.

Patents of exclusion are only granted to the most useful and ingenious inventions for a term of years; and yet these Theatrical Patentees, without a shadow of merit, require that their monopoly should last for ever. The descendants of Shakespeare, if any are existing, would be prevented by

them from representing the productions of their ancestor; nay, they would not suffer an author to perform his own drama.

Why refer to the Theatrical Regulations of Charles the Second, in whose time the drama was allowedly depraved? Is not the drama more indebted to Elizabeth, who, when the capital had not a quarter of its present extent, permitted seven principal Theatres? Had London then been confined to two, and they been managed with so much partiality and injustice as our Theatres at present, Shakespeare would probably have been lost for ever.

Beside, a Patent can be forfeited for abuse. Whenever there is a proposal for erecting a New Theatre, the Patentees cry out against the injustice that they would suffer.Have they themselves been guilty of no injustice? The Sovereignty of the Isle of Man was taken from the Athol family, because it had favored a system of smuggling. Have not the Managers favored smuggling also? Have not the kinsmen and protégés of Managers produced on the Stage, as their own labors, translations from languages, of which, if required in a Court of Justice, they would not be able to translate a sentence, and this at the expense of the real translator, who had labored to acquire the language? Is not literary property sacred, or is it more pardonable to smuggle works of genius than spirituous liquors?

What further proof can be required, that two Theatres are not sufficient, than that these two are always full, though the same pieces are performed thirty successive nights.— Should a spectator have returned a third time to see the same piece, he, however fond of the drama, must have recourse to some other amusement the other twenty-seven nights, and wait with patience, till every school-boy, board. ing-school miss, and apprentice, have seen the raree-show. A family from the country, that comes to spend a month in

town, might find Cinderella performed every night at one house, and Blue-Beard at the other. What judgment would a foreigner, who came to pass a winter in London, form of our dramatic taste?

Even if pieces of transcendent merit were to be acted on both thirty times running, the lover of the drama, after paying a tribute to their excellence, would regret being confined to two Theatres.

What inducement has the Manager to engage good actors, and perform good plays, when the house will be sufficiently full with any actors and any plays? The number of theatres ought to be so far in proportion to the population, that every house should remain empty by a bad representation; moderately full for an indifferent one; full for a good one; but never overflowing, except for a performance of transcendent merit.

Every tradesman expects that some wares should remain on his hands; and what inducement would a manufacturer have, should he be as certain to sell bad articles as good ones? The Managers at Paris are content, when two-thirds of their houses are full: and yet their profits enable them to support their rank in life, and to make a creditable appearance. It is not necessary that they should be Grands Seigneurs. The question is simple: is the Public to depend on the Manager, or the Manager on the Public?

A Parisian enjoys the theatres in comfort. They are, except on extraordinary occasions, seldom too full to admit of a spectator's arriving as late as he pleases, of his sitting at his ease, or his changing his place to join an acquaintance in a distant box. Whereas in London, an individual, who is so fortunate as to have found a place, is obliged, at the risk of his health, to retain it, lest he should be unable to find another. Add to this, seldom a night passes without rough words, sometimes blows exchanged, from the scarcity of

seats. Many a duel has had the same source. The man, who opens the box at Paris, would be as surprised, should a stranger tip him a shilling, as a journeyman in any shop would be at receiving one from a customer.

In London, an individual, having walked two or three miles, or paid his hackney-coach, (for in these times many a gentleman of quality is less able to keep his carriage, not only than a Manager, but a Boxkeeper) arrives at the theatre, and is informed that the house is full, if he has not the good fortune to be admitted into the fifth tier of boxes, where, perhaps, he may see Timour's horses wag their tails; but, as to hearing, he might as well expect to hear à sermon in the whispering-gallery in St. Paul's.

The Patentees allege, that they have built houses sufficiently large to contain the public; but if it may be allowed to illustrate the profane by the sacred, now that the population of Marybone is so increased that one church will not contain the parishioners, no one proposes to build a cathedral so large, that one-half of the congregation could not hear the discourse. No; it is proposed to build several churches for the convenience of all. It may be defined at what distance the human voice may be heard with ease, and without any extraordinary exertion of the actor. In the cathedral-theatres, should the actor speak in a natural tone, he would not be heard by half the audience: should he bawl, he would distort his countenance; and often the effect that Garrick produced was attributed to his gestures, as well as to his utterance.

If the patent houses should be deserted in consequence of the erection of new Theatres, the Managers would have no right to complain, provided their audience amounted to the number that would have filled their original houses. If the Patentees have doubled the size of their Theatres, they must consent to their remaining half empty. If a man had VOL. II. Pam. No. IV. 2 A 2