raptures of applause, she suffers humiliation, rendering her the object alike of pity to others, and of reproach to herself.

But this is not the greatest injury to which stage-performers are subject. The profession, from its very nature, exposes the moral character to imminent peril. The habit of assuming a fictitious character is injurious. The character personated is often a vicious one; prejudicial effects, therefore, necessarily follow. So close a contact with vice, and indeed identity with it, cannot be safe. Familiarity with vice, it is universally admitted, weakens its power to repel and disgust:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen;
But seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.*

The actor, in personating bad characters, must direct his thoughts into an ex

ceptionable channel, cherish evil dispositions, and become, in fact, for the time, the vicious being he describes. Nor is there any countervailing advantage supplied by occasional personifications of virtuous character. Of this he is deprived, in considerable measure, by the native bias of the human mind to moral evil rather than good, and the greater facility with which vice communicates its properties. In real life the imitation of an evil example is easier than that of a good one, and so it must be in the fictitious world. The habit, moreover, of personating ideal character has a necessary tendency to destroy what is native and genuine.

In

The moral evils of a theatrical life are abundantly exhibited by fact. Stageperformers are generally immoral. most instances, perhaps, virtuous character has been destroyed previously to their introduction to this mode of life; but to the nature of their profession, the associa

tions they form, their facilities for vicious indulgence, the powerful temptations to which they are exposed, and above all to the loss of self-respect, which forms so

*The following interesting anecdote is given in a late number of a periodical publication. The late Rev. Samuel Lowell of Bristol, being once at Brighton, expressed a wish to walk on the Steyne, and to have the public characters pointed out to him. Amongst the rest a celebrated comedian was noticed. "Ah!” said Mr. L. " is that -, my old schoolfellow! I'll speak to him." He therefore accosted him, and the following conversation took place. Mr. L. Sir, I believe I have the pleasure of addressing Mr.

Mr. Yes, Sir, my name is -, but I have not the pleasure of being acquainted with you. Mr. L. your old schoolfellow, Samuel What! are you Samuel Lowell?

What! not know
Lowell? Mr.

Mr.

Well, I am very glad

Mr. L. Yes, I am. to see you; now tell me your history in five minutes. Mr. L. First, my name is Samuel Lowell; I am a dissenting minister at Bristol, where I have lived upwards of twenty years, and I have a large family. Mr. So, you are a dissenting minister; well, you are a happy man, for you go to your work with pleasure, and perform it with pleasure; you are a happy man. I go to my work like a fool, to please fools; I am not a happy man.

firm a support for virtue, must be undoubtedly ascribed their fixedness in evil principle, their difficulties of restoration, their excesses in dissipation, and their almost inevitable ruin.

The baneful influence of theatrical amusements on the moral character of the performers, supplies a powerful additional argument against this species of gratification. The services of the performers are indeed voluntary, but this circumstance cannot be admitted as an apology. Christian benevolence not only forbids us to become the instrument of others' ruin, it requires us to use exertion, as occasion may serve, for the prevention of self-inflicted injury. He would be guilty of his brother's blood, who willingly supplied the suicide with the instrument of self-destruction, or who neglected the occasion of preventing the rash design.

Without further, therefore, protracting discussion, a decision as to the lawfulness

of stage amusements may be safely pronounced. If the instituted test of their character is legitimate, if the reasoning adopted is not totally defective, the conclusion must inevitably involve a negative. The evils of which it is productive, decidedly outbalance its advantages; and for the same reasons that any system, obviously injurious to society, requires to be discountenanced, theatrical amusements cannot be sanctioned. Ingenuity may doubtless invent many plausible arguments in support of an opposite verdict, as well as entangle the reasoning by which the present conclusion is obtained; inveterate prejudice may oppose, and voluntary scepticism doubt; but we mistake if the candid and conscientious inquirer has not obtained satisfactory evidence and perfect conviction. The argument has been constructed on a basis which none, who embrace the first principles of ethical truth, are prepared to deny. The question is not, whether the amusement may be indulged in without immediate personal injury;