THE DEPUTY LICENSER BEFORE THE DRAMATIC COMMITTEE.

AN extract from the evidence given by old GEORGE COLMAN the younger, in his official capacity of Deputy Licenser, before the Committee for inquiring into the Laws relating to Dramatic Lite- rature, has made the round of the papers. It is worth quoting once more, for its laughable absurdity.

" When a play is submitted to you for examination, how do you proceed upon it?"—" The Examiner is a very subordinate person, and no further interferes, directly from himself, with the Managers, than by recommending them to omit any passage palpably exceptionable, and all oaths, as well as all religious expres- sions and allusions too sacred for the stage. I observe previously in this state- ment, 'the Lord Chamberlain is the Licenser, to whom the Examiner forwards an outline, and sends his opinion of the entertainments, which he has officially perused, and then the Lord Chamberlain signs or does not sign the form of licence, as he may think proper.' I may observe here, that as to sending an out- line, that is a voluntary act, because my predecessor never sent any outline; but I thought it might be more satisfactory, and I have gratuitously sent that, at my own expense, that the Lord Chamberlain might see what the subject of the play was."

A voluntary act performed gratuitously at his own expense— amazing virtue ! how much did it cost?

The Examiner, though " subordinate" in power, is supreme in authority. His opinion is the ground of the Licenser's refusal or permission to allow a play to be acted. Virtually, the Examiner is the Licenser. Yet we have several recommendations of the Com- mittee to strengthen and increase the power of the Lord Cham- berlain as Licenser of Plays. If there is need of any other con- trolling power than public opinion to preserve the moralities of the stage, assuredly a Lord Chamberlain and his Deputy are insuffi- cient as judge and jury. They constitute a snug little private court, without any appeal from its decision. A Lord Chamberlain is about as appropriate an arbiter of the fate of dramatic authors as a Groom of the Chambers would be as censor of the press. What were the Committee thinking about, when they recom- mended a continuance of such an obsolete absurdity ; which was only tolerable so long as the players were made appendages of a court, and literally "his Majesty's servants," in order to screen them from the fangs of Justice's law as "rogues and vagabonds?"

But we are keeping the feast waiting—hear Mr. COLMAN upon angels !

" What do you consider palpably exceptionable, that is at your discretion?"— " It must be very gross and palpable to every body before I should interfere. I allude to political and personal allusions, downright grossness and indecency, or any thing that would be profane, which any candid man could not but say was improper, about which there could not be two opinions." " The Committee have heard of your cutting out of a play the epithet ' angel,' as applied to a wo- man?"—" Yes, because it is a woman, I grant ; but it is a celestial woman. It is an allusion to the Scriptural angels, which are celestial bodies. Every man who has read his Bible understands what they are ; or if he has not, I will refer him to Milton." "Do you recollect the passage in which that was struck out?"—" No, I cannot charge my memory with it. I do not recollect that I struck out an angel or two, but most probably I have, at some time or other." "Milton's angels are not ladies?"—" No, but the Scripture angels are ladies, I believe. If you will look at Johnson's Dictionary, he will tell you they are celestial persons, commanded by God to interfere in terrestrial business."

This is rich. " It must be very gross and palpable to every body before I should interfere," says our moral Examiner ; and in the next breath he justified his having " struck out an angel or two, because they are Scriptural personages." What authority, by the way, has Mr. COLMAN for determining the sex of angels ? How has he discovered that they are "celestial women ?" His reference to MILTON is unlucky : but when it is objected that " Milton's angels are not ladies," he, with " infinite promptitude," rejoins—" No; but the Scripture angels are ladies—I believe I* Can any thing be more conclusive ? Again- " Suppose you were to leave the word angel' in a play or farce, will you state your opinion as to what effect it would have on the public mind ?"—" It Is impossible for me to say what effect it would have; I am not able to enter into the breasts of every body who might be in gallery, pit, or boxes." " But you must have some reason for erasing it ?"—" Yes, because it alludes to a Scrip- tural personage." '6 Must an allusion to Scripture have an immoral effect ?"— " Yes; I conceive all Scripture is much too sacred for the stage, except in very solemn scenes indeed, and that to bring things so sacred on the stage becomes rrafane."

Mr. COLMAN reasons thus: Scripture is too sacred for the stage. Allusion to Scripture has an immoral effect : bringing things so sacred on the stage is profane ; ergo, except—mark the exception—" in very solemn scenes indeed r Thus, for a gallant in comedy to speak of a woman metaphorically as an angel, is pro- fane; but for the hero or heroine of a tragedy to invoke Heaven with very great solemnity indeed, is not profane. This is lament- able drivelling. Every body knows and feels, that when a lover says his- mistress is as beautiful as an angel, the phrase con- ventionally expresses the idea of -exquisite beauty, and nothing more. No Scriptural association whatever is produced. If there is any profanity on the stage, it is precisely in those " solemn

• scenes of which the sage Examiner .makes an approving excep- t tion.

Let us hear the Licenser on swearing.

" What would be the result of using ordinary oaths, such as damme,' or any :thing of that sort?"—" I ;think • it is highly immoral and improper, to say nothing, of the vulgarity of it, in assemblies where high characters and females congregate. I certainly think it highly improper ; and, beyond that, I believe you will find there are acts of Parliament where swearing is restrained under a penalty." "Do you speak from your experience as to the immoral effect, or is it your opinion merely?"—" It is my opinion of the practice in general. I have seen a great deal of the stage, undoubtedly, and so far I can speak from experience. I think nobody has gone away from a theatre the better for hearing a great deal of cursing and swearing." The truth here comes out. Mr. COLMAN'S morality is imbibed from the Statutes. His rule of virtue is an act of Parliament. He speaks like a parish beadle, or a page of the back stairs. The Licenser's opinion of the vulgarity of a " damme " in assem- blies where high characters and females congregate, is exquisite : we hope it will have due weight in the servant's hall. Mrs. Betty "hates any thing as is low."

"How do you reconcile the opinion you have just given with your making use of those terms, such as danne,' or any of those small oaths which you say are immoral and improper, to say nothing of their vulgarity, in some of your own compositions, which have met with great success on the stage ?" " If I had been the Examiner I should have scratched them out, and would do so now. I was in a different position at that time ; I was a careless, immoral author. I am now the Examiner of Plays ; I did my business as an author at that time, and I do my business as an Examiner now."

This is the thief-taker's morality. " I was a reckless, unprin- cipled rascal; I am now a thief-taker. I did my business as a thief at that time, and I do my business as a thief-taker now."

" Do you suppose that those plays of your's (which were so pleasing to the public, and are still acted with great success, from which you have not the

power of erasing these small oaths) have done much mischief to the morals of the town ?"—"bThey have certainly done no good, and I am sorry I inserted the oaths. As a moral man, one gets a little wiser as one goes on, and I should be very happy to relieve my mind from the recollection of having written those oaths."

"As a moral man!" here is an assumption of morality. How far back is it dated? since the appearance of the Vagaries Vindi- cated, or the Eccentricities for Edinburgh, we presume. "Do you mean to say that you regret being the author of John Bull ?"— " No; that is a different thing. I might not be sorry to have made a good

pudding ; but if there are any bad plums in it, I should be glad to have them out." "Have you any idea of what you would consider politically wrong ?"--; " Yes, certainly ; any thing that may be so allusive to the times as to be ap- plied to the existing moment, and which is likely to be inflammatory." "You would think, under a Tory Administration, any thing against the Tories would be wrong ; and under a Whig Administration, any thing against the Whigs?"—. "I should say to the Manager, I do not presume to interfere, but you had

better not allow it, for the sake of your theatre, as you will have a row in your theatre.' It was but the other day the word Reform' was mentioned, and I

understand there was a hubbub." " Where was that?"—" At all the theatres." " In the exercise of your censorship at the present moment, if the word Re- form' should occur, would you strike it out ?" —" No; I should say, ' I think you had better omit it; I advise you to do so, for your own sakes, or you will have a hubbub.'"

The political nicety of the Censor is worthy of his moral deli- cacy. His definition of an improper phrase in a political sense as

" any thing that may be so allusive to the times as to be applied- to the existing moment, and which is likely to be inttammatory,'' is a most subtle distinction. We do not object to his waging a war of extermination against all claptraps, and we will concede the dangerous word "Reform."

" There was a play of Charles the First you refused to license?"—" Yes." " Why did you refuse to license that?"—" Because it amounted to every thing but cutting off the King's head upon the stage." "So does Julius Ccesar?"-- " Yes, but not in that way. If you took the trouble of reading the two plays, you would see the difference."

We would lay a bet that this play did not represent Charles as he figures in the Almanacks—a Royal Martyr.

"There is a discretionary power in the Lord Chamberlain." "Is it all a. matter of discretion and caprice?"—" Yes, it is the discretion of the Lord Chamberlain." " Or a caprice?"—" You may call it so."

Yet in the teeth of this leading question, and the reluctant ad- mission of the answer, the Committee would confirm the Lord Chamberlain's authority in these matters!