sons disposed to go to it" to learn their duty?" Amid the present taste for speculation, one wonders that the experiment has never been made; or is the project too chimerical and ridiculous for the wildest mercenary adventurer to embrace? By any means could a theatre exist independently of public pecuniary support, it would be left free to adopt its own regulations, and thus might probably become a moral instrument of considerable efficiency and value. Gratuitous admission, and suitable representations, might secure the attendance of a class of the community to which its mode of instruction is best adapted. In proportion to his ignorance man is the creature of his senses, and is dependent on them for the conveyance to his mind both of ideas and impressions. What he sees and hears he will best understand and feel. The stage, therefore, properly conducted, would possess considerable advantages for the instruction and improvement of the lower orders of society. By interesting their attention

and moving their passions, it would open avenues, both to their minds and hearts, which remain closed against the more sober and direct modes of instruction. It would have a power peculiarly its own, to lessen their ignorance, to polish their rudeness, to soften their barbarity, and refine their sensuality, as well as to elevate their taste, to warm their affections, and to raise them in the scale both of intellect and morals. The establishment of a national theatre, of free admission to the lower classes of society, and expressly adapted to their improvement, is a project not unworthy of the attention of our legislators. A distinguished senator has said, "Give me the making of the ballads of my country, and I leave any one to make its laws." Will not this remark, in some measure, apply to theatrical amusements?

The advocate of the stage will probably suggest, that of late years the drama has made considerable moral advances. Without questioning the fact, his opponent de

mands, whether the circumstance is to be traced to a disposition on the part of those who conduct stage performances, to lessen the moral evils attending their exhibitions, or to motives of another and inferior character? In the face of facts already stated, he pleads the liberty to inquire, whether policy, rather than principle, may not have suggested the favourable modification. On comparing the public morals of the present day with those of some preceding periods, an opinion, in some respects favourable to the former, must doubtless be pronounced. The general diffusion of education, combined with other causes, has given to the public mind a comparative refinement of feeling, which, if it does not bring popular moral taste into positive alliance with virtue, yet places it at a remove from the grosser qualities of vice. The channels of impure passion, if still broad and deep, are less exposed; the public mind, if not less sensual, is more imaginative; gross desires are modified, if not destroyed; and vice, therefore, most successfully creates excite

ment, not in its native form, but under a specious disguise. Such a modification in public taste demands a corresponding change in stage exhibitions; they would otherwise fail of their end. Qualities, which were once in unison with public taste, would now be uncongenial; they would repel sooner than attract, and disgust rather than fascinate. Whether these observations correctly mark the points of dissimilarity between the present and past moral character of the stage, and assign the true origin of the change it has undergone, must be determined by the judgment of the candid reader.* If the opinion is correct, it will be evident that, in its relation to public morals, the stage is precisely the same; that instead of reforming the world,

* From the character of some of the present stage performances, it would appear that, in the above pages, too liberal a concession is made to the advocate of the amusement. Dryden's Amphytrion haslately been acted at one of the principal theatres; nor did the very severe animadversions of a daily journalist apparently avail to hinder the success of this immoral representation.

it has been reformed by it; that it is a mere creature of the public, implicitly submitting to its control, and forming a sort of moral barometer, by which the atmospheric state of public taste is duly ascertained.

Another circumstance in the present history of the stage demands attention. Within the last few seasons, the most distinguished, and least exceptionable productions of our great Dramatist have obtained the highest degree of popularity. The friends of theatrical amusements regard this fact as indicative of a progression, both moral and intellectual, in public taste. The legitimacy of the reasoning is questioned by their opponents. It falls, they argue, to the lot of the present conductors of the stage, to command, in the department of tragedy, talent of distinguished pre-eminence. Some of the tragedies of Shakspeare are unquestionably masterpieces in this class of dramatic compositions, and must, therefore, invariably invite