--

CHAPTER XI.

Boston Law against Stage-plays by the General Court of Massachusetts, 1750 · Hallam and Henry petition for leave to open a theatre, and are refused Perez Morton's Petition, 1791 — Instructions given by the town of Boston to their Representatives -Committee appointed, who report against a Theatre

and Mrs. Morris and Harper go to Boston Broad Alley - Charles Powell

Mr.

A theatre built in

Plays performed as Moral LecPlayers arrested on the Stage O Governor Hancock's

Federal Street The-
Oppo-

Speech - Law against Theatres repealed
atre built and opened
sition Prologue.

Prologue by Mr. T. Paine

MASSACHUSETTS, both as a colony of Great Britain and as an independent state, had been forbidden ground to all Thespians. As early as the year 1750, before any of that dangerous class of people had ventured over the Atlantic, the General Court of Massachusetts, that is, in the language of other parts of our country, the House of Assembly or Representatives, passed an act to prevent stageplays and other theatrical entertainments. The historian of Massachusetts says, that the cause of "this moral regulation" was, that two young Englishmen, assisted by some townsmen, tried to represent Otway's tragedy of The Orphan, and the inhabitants were so eager to see the entertainment, that some disturbances took place at the door of the coffee-house where they were amusing themselves. This so alarmed the lieutenant-go

LAW AGAINST STAGE-PLAYS.

243

vernor, council, and house of representatives, that, "For preventing and avoiding the many and great mischiefs which arise from public stage-plays, &c. which not only occasion great and unnecessary expenses, and discourage industry and frugality, but likewise tend generally to increase immorality, impiety, and a contempt of religion," they enacted as follows: "that from and after the publication of this act, no person or persons whatsoever may, for his or their gain, or for any price or valuable consideration, let, or suffer to be used or improved, any house, room, or place whatsoever, for acting or carrying on any stage-plays, interludes, or other theatrical entertainments, on pain of forfeiting and paying for each and every day, or time, such house, room, or place, shall be let, used, or improved, contrary to this act, twenty pounds. And if, at any time or times whatsoever, from and after the publication of this act, any person or persons shall be present as an actor in or spectator of any stage-play, &c. in any house, &c. where a greater number of persons than twenty shall be assembled together, every such person shall forfeit for each time five pounds. One-half to his majesty, and one-half to the informer."

Such were the feelings and opinions of the representatives of the people of Massachusetts in 1750; "but," says the author of Dramatic Reminiscences in the New England Magazine," as the Puritanic sentiments of the older inhabitants gave place to

more liberal and extended views in religion and morals, much of the prejudice against theatrical amusements subsided."

After Wignell had separated from Hallam and Henry, they, foreseeing that he would occupy the south, petitioned the legislature of Massachusetts, on the 5th of June, 1790, "for leave to open a theatre in Boston, under proper regulations." The petition was not granted.

In 1791, a petition was presented to the select men of Boston, drawn up by Perez Morton, Esq., and signed by him and thirty-eight other gentlemen of the town, setting forth "the advantages of well regulated public amusements in large towns,' and stating that, "being desirous of encouraging the interests of genius and literature, by encouraging such theatrical exhibitions as are calculated to promote the cause of morality and virtue, and conduce to polish the manners and habits of society," and for other reasons assigned, they respectfully solicit the board of select men to take the opinion of the inhabitants "on the subject of admitting a theatre in the town of Boston," and of instructing their representatives "to obtain a repeal" of the prohibitory act of 1750, which law had been revived in 1784, to be in force fifteen years.

On the 26th of October, this subject was debated in town-meeting, and a committee appointed to prepare instructions to the representatives of the

LAW AGAINST STAGE-PLAYS.

245

town in the legislature, and on the 9th of November following, the committee presented their report to the adjourned town-meeting, which was accepted.

The instructions state, that the inhabitants of Boston consider the prohibitory law of 1750 as an infringement of their privileges; and that a "theatre, where the actions of great and virtuous men are represented, will advance the interests of private and political virtue." They, for these and similar reasons, instruct the representatives to endeavour to effect the "repeal of the law alluded to, so far, at least, as respects the town of Boston." They farther instruct, that “the law of repeal may be so constructed that no dramatic composition shall be the subject of theatrical representation,' till sanctioned "by some authority appointed for the purpose;" that no "immoral expressions may ever disgrace the American stage;" but, on the contrary, all "subserve the great and beneficial purposes of public and private virtue."

In January, 1792, Mr. Tudor brought the subject before the house of representatives, and moved for a committee to "consider the expediency of bringing in a bill to repeal the prohibitory law of 1750." After opposition, a committee was appointed, and "a remonstrance against the repeal" was referred to the same committee.

The committee reported on the 20th that it was inexpedient to repeal the law. Notwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Gardiner and Dr. Jarvis against this report, it was accepted on the 25th. The

names of Samuel Adams and Benjamin Austin are enrolled as opponents to a theatre. The latter wrote "a series of essays," says the author of Reminiscences, "to prove that Shakspeare had no genius." The principal advocates for stage exhibitions were William Tudor and Dr. Charles Jarvis.

We see from the above instructions, given by Boston to her representatives, that the opinions of the people of the capital of Massachusetts had undergone a change. We shall soon see, that, notwithstanding present opposition to these opinions, they were triumphant, and the drama established in the cradle of the liberties of America.

The secession of Wignell from the old American Company, and his crossing the Atlantic in search of performers, caused the immediate voyage of John Henry, also for the same purpose. It has been stated that Mr. and Mrs. Morris and Stephen Wools were sharers in the scheme of the old company. Harper was not. Mr. and Mrs. Morris took their part with Wignell, and were, during his absence, to seek employment. Harper was not engaged with either party. Wools adhered to the property in which he was a sharer, but was left for the present unemployed.

Under these circumstances, the above-named four individuals united for the purpose of trying their fortunes in Boston, invited by the efforts for the establishment of a theatre which a portion of the inhabitants were making. Notwithstanding