My correspondent's request will require consideration. The evils he complains of have not escaped my inspection; but he must be aware that it would be presumption in an individual to dictate to a government, although it be the common presumption of Projectors.

The grievance complained of by my next correspondent comes more immediately within my province.

"SIR,

"TO THE PROJECTOR.

"ALTHOUGH you have now completed a year's lucubrations without taking into consideration the affairs of the stage, yet I hope you do not mean so far to depart from the custom of your predecessors as to omit that amusement. Its present state may afford you many reflections suited to the nature of your paper, which I shall not here anticipate. Permit me, however, to point out one abuse, which has grown of late years into a most shameful enormity, and seems to call loudly for reformation.

"It is commonly said, that the stage is much reformed from what it was in the licentious days of Charles II. and that there is less immorality and indecency in our plays.

mean,

an

This I am not unwilling to allow, although a lover of the drama will probably regret that our wit disappeared with our indecency, and that when we became moral we became dull. Be this as it may, of late years we seem to be falling into a species of immorality which is not of the kind that is likely to bring wit with it— I the habit of cursing and swearing, so very general in our new comedies. I can remember the time when a very favourite actor, who could presume a little upon the indulgence of the town, would rap out, as we say, oath which was not to be found in his author; yet an actor of less popularity would not at that period have ventured upon this insult to refined manners, and, I may add, to the religion of his country. But the case now is so much altered, that our dramatic writers provide their favourite actors with a stated quantity of dammees, which must be committed to memory with equal attention as any other words of the part, and I should not wonder if an actor should hereafter be d-n'd for misplacing a curse, or a play be hissed for being deficient in oaths.

I have had my attention particularly directed to this subject by the extracts lately given in the Reviews of some of these new plays, in which the author seems to be upon oath on

every thing he

says, and the spectator, on his return from the theatre, may say, with all the gravity of a justice, "Sworn before me, this 26th of February." I cannot help thinking, Sir, that such authors abuse the patience of the publick rather too much. The publick allows them the privilege of being as dull as they please; and managers, if we may judge from recent plays, no more expect wit in a play than in a sermon. It is too much, therefore, seeing they are so highly privileged, that they should introduce the language of the streets, and that of the lowest of the streets too, in a place where we at least expect decent if not elegant language, and polished dialogue.

"I am convinced, Sir, that the enormity of which I complain would appear incredible to those who are not frequenters of the theatre; but I can now appeal to the printed records of the stage. It is well known that the custom of writing plays is now to fit a certain kind of language for a certain kind of actor, and this is called 'taking his measure' for the part. In consequence of this very wise practice (which, by the way, shews that our dramatic authors have no eye to distant fame), I could point out the actors who are thus regularly supplied with oaths and curses, because they are supposed to have a particular

knack at uttering them with a sort of emphatic sound which passes for wit, and in the vicinity of Dyott-street or Billingsgate really may be

wit.

"I hope, Sir, that when you take into consideration the state of the theatre, you will not omit this striking improvement. I am, Sir, "Yours,

"A PLAY-GOER."

My correspondent has at least truth on his side. The abuse of which he complains is too common and obvious to require proof. It has been increasing for the last ten years; but it has been so frequently adverted to in the public prints, without remedy on the part of those who are the guardians of the stage, that what my correspondent recommends seems to be more within the province of the magistrate than of the moralist. The latter, however, may be permitted to remark as somewhat very singular, that an indecency should be tolerated in what is reckoned our most refined amusement, which is banished by general consent from all companies, except the lowest.

Although these letters have completed my allowance of room, I am inclined to admit another from a facetious correspondent; to

whom, however, I must hint, that he has every claim to my attention, except that of originality.

"TO THE AUTHOR OF THE PROJECTOR.

66 SIR,

"As you recommend brevity to your correspondents, I hope you will insert this letter, from humble servant,

your

"A FRIEND TO DISCUSSION,"

THE PROJECTOR. N° 16.

March 1803.

"MR. PROJECTOR,

Lambeth, Feb. 14.

“THE old adage, that ‹ there is nothing

new under the sun,' though trite, is certainly true. To this, Sir, yourself and your learned labours bear equal testimony. Not to enter into. the display of learning which a Delphin Index would readily furnish on the subject, it may be: sufficient to glance at the Academy for PRO