the Golden Rump, which had been brought to the then master of the theatre in Lincoln's-inn fields, who, upon perusal, found it was designed as a libel upon the government, and, therefore, instead of having it acted, he carried it to a gentleman concerned in the administration; and he having communicated it to some other member of the house of commons, it was resolved to move for leave to bring in a bill for preventing any such attempt for the future; and the motion being complied with by that house on the 20th of May, 1737, the bill was brought in on Tuesday the 24th, and passed through both houses with such despatch, that it was ready for the royal assent by Wednesday the 8th of June, and accordingly received the royal assent on Tuesday the 21st, when his majesty put an end to this session of parliament." MY LORDS, SPEECH, &c. THE bill now before you I apprehend to be of a very extraordinary, a very dangerous nature. It seems designed not only as a restraint on the licentiousness of the stage; but it will prove a most arbitrary restraint on the liberty of the stage; and I fear it looks yet further. I fear it tends towards a restraint on the liberty of the press, which will be a long stride towards the destruction of liberty itself. It is not only a bill, my lords, of a very extraordinary nature, but it has been brought in at a very extraordinary season, and pushed with most extraordinary despatch. When I considered how near it was to the end of the session, and how long this session had been protracted beyond the usual time of the year; when I considered that this bill passed through the other house with so much precipitancy, as even to get the start of a bill which deserved all the respect, and all the despatch, the forms of either house of parliament could admit of; * One Gifford, who had removed thither with a company of players from Goodman's Fields, where he had a theatre, which was silenced by this very act. it set me upon inquiring, what could be the reason for introducing this bill at so unseasonable a time, and pressing it forward in a manner so very singular and uncommon. I have made all possible inquiry; and as yet, I must confess, I am at a loss to find out the great occasion, I have, it is true, learned from common report without doors, that a most seditious, a most heinous farce had been offered to one of the theatres, a farce for which the authors ought to be punished in the most exemplary manner: but what was the consequence? The master of that theatre behaved as he was in duty bound, and as common prudence directed. He not only refused to bring it upon the stage, but carried it to a certain honourable gentleman in the administration, as the surest method of having it absolutely suppressed. Could this be the occasion of introducing such an extraordinary bill, at such an extraordinary season, and pushing it in so extraordi. nary a manner? Surely no. The dutiful behaviour of the players, the prudent caution they showed upon that occasion, can never be a reason for subjecting them to such an arbitrary restraint. It is an argument in their favour; and a material one, in my opinion, against the bill. Nay, further, if we consider all circumstances, it is to me a full proof that the laws now in being are sufficient for punishing those players who shall venture to bring any seditious libel upon the stage, and, consequently, sufficient for deterring all the players from acting any thing that may have the least tendency towards giving a reasonable offence. I do not, my lords, pretend to be a lawyer. I do not pretend to know perfectly the power and extent of our laws; but I have conversed with those that do, and by them I have been told, that our laws are sufficient for punishing any person that shall dare to represent upon the stage what may appear, either by the words or the representation, to be blasphemous, seditious, or immoral. I must own, indeed, I have observed of late a remarkable licentiousness in the stage. There have but very lately been two plays acted, which one would have thought should have censure. given the greatest offence; and yet both were suffered to be often represented without disturbance, without In one, the author thought fit to represent the three great professions, religion, physick, and law, as inconsistent with common sense: in the other, a most tragical story was brought upon the stage, a catastrophe too recent, too melancholy, and of too solemn a nature, to be heard of any where but from the pulpit. How these pieces came to pass unpunished, I do not know. If I am rightly informed, it was not for want of law, but for want of prosecution, without which no law can be made effectual. But, if there was any neglect in this case, I am convinced it was not with a design to prepare the minds of the people, and to make them think a new law necessary. Our stage ought certainly, my lords, to be kept within due bounds; but for this, our laws, as they stand at present, are sufficient. If our stage players at any time exceed those bounds, they ought to be prosecuted; they may be punished. We have precedents, we have examples of persons having been punished for things less criminal than either of the two pieces I have mentioned. A new law must therefore be unnecessary, and in the present case it cannot be unnecessary without being dangerous. Every unnecessary restraint on licentiousness is a fetter upon the legs, is a shackle upon the hands, of liberty. One of the greatest blessings we enjoy, one of the greatest blessings a people, my lords, can enjoy, is liberty; but every good, in this life, has its alloy of evil. Licentiousness is the alloy of liberty: it is an ebullition, an excrescence: it is a speck upon the eye of the political body, which I can never touch but with a gentle, with a trembling hand, lest I destroy the body, lest I injure the eye upon which it is apt to appear. If the stage becomes at any time licentious, if a play appears to be a libel upon the government, or upon any particular man, the king's courts are open; the Pasquin, a comedy. † King Charles I. a tragedy. law is sufficient for punishing the offender; and in this case the person injured has a singular advantage, he can be under no difficulty, to prove who is the publisher. The players themselves are the publishers, and there can be no want of evidence to convict them. But, my lords, suppose it true, that the laws now in being are not sufficient for putting a check to, or preventing, the licentiousness of the stage; suppose it absolutely necessary some new law should be made for that purpose: yet it must be granted, that such a law ought to be maturely considered, and every clause, every sentence, nay every word of it, well weighed - and examined, lest, under some of those methods presumed or pretended to be necessary for restraining licentiousness, a power should lie concealed, which might be afterwards made use of for giving a dangerous wound to liberty. Such a law ought not to be introduced at the close of a session; nor ought we, in the passing of such a law, to depart from any of the forms prescribed by our ancestors for preventing deceit and surprise. There is such a connexion between licentiousness and liberty, that it is not easy to correct the one, without dangerously wounding the other. It is extremely hard to distinguish the true limit between them. Like a changeable silk, we can easily see there are too different colours; but we cannot easily discover where the one ends, or where the other begins. There can be no great and immediate danger from the licentiousness of the stage. I hope it will not be pretended, that our government may, before next winter, be overturned by such licentiousness, even though our stage were at present under no sort of control. Why then may we not delay till next session passing any law against the licentiousness of the stage? Neither our government can be altered, nor our constitution overturned, by such a delay; but by passing a law rashly and unadvisedly, our constitution may at once be destroyed, and our government rendered arbitrary. Can we then put a small, a short lived inconvenience in the balance with perpe tual slavery? Can it be supposed, that a parliament of Great Britain will so much as risk the latter, for the sake of avoiding the former? Surely, my lords, this is not to be expected, were the licentiousness of the stage much greater than it is, were the insufficiency of our laws more obvious than can be pretended. But when we complain of the licentiousness of the stage, and the insufficiency of our laws, I fear we have more reason to complain of bad measures in our polity, and a general decay of virtue and morality among the people. In publick as well as private life, the only way to prevent being ri. diculed or censured, is to avoid all ridiculous or wicked measures, and to pursue such only as are virtuous and worthy. The people never endeavour to ridicule those they love and esteem, nor will they suffer them to be ridiculed. If any one attempts it, the ridicule returns upon the author. He makes himself only the object of publick hatred and contempt. The actions or behaviour of a private man may pass unobserved, and consequently unapplauded, uncensured; but the actions of those in high stations can neither pass without notice, nor without censure or applause; and therefore an administration, without esteem, without authority among the people, let their power be never so great, let their power be never so arbitrary, will be ridiculed. The severest edicts, the most terrible punishments, cannot prevent it. If any man, therefore, thinks he has been censured, if any man thinks he has been ridiculed, upon any of our publick theatres, let him examine his actions, he will find the cause: let him alter his conduct, he will find a remedy. As no man is perfect, as no man is infallible, the greatest may err, the most circumspect may be guilty of some piece of ridiculous behaviour. It is not licentiousness; it is a useful liberty always indulged the stage in a free country, that some great men may there meet with a just reproof, which none of their friends will be free enough, or rather faithful enough to give them. Of this we have a famous instance in the Roman history. The great Pompey, af |