To

be fancied occasionally, and a face full of meaning. The author of the Hypocrite has not ventured upon it; — but imagine it in the hands of Munden! complete the scene, Orgon's brother-in-law, another enemy of Tartuffe's, is present, wondering all the while at his infatuation. Orgon has just come from the country, and after interchanging civilities with his brother, begs him to excuse him a little while he talks with the servant, and asks after the welfare of his house. He addresses her accordingly: :

"Well, Dorina, has everything been going on as it should do these two days? How do they all do? And what have they been about?

Dor. My mistress was ill the day before yesterday with a fever. She had a headache quite dreadful to think of.

Org. And Tartuffe ?

Dor. Tartuffe ! O, he is wonderfully well; fat and hearty, a fresh complexion, and a mouth as red as a rose.

Org. (turning about with an air of fondness). Poor soul!

Dor. In the evening my mistress was taken with a sickness, and could not touch a bit of supper, her head was so bad.

Org. And Tartuffe?

Dor. O, seeing she could not eat, he eat by himself; and very devoutly swallowed two partridges, with a good half of a hashed leg of mutton.

Org. Poor soul!

Dor. My mistress did not shut her eyes all night. The fever hindered her from getting a wink of sleep, and we were obliged to watch by her till morning.

Org. And Tartuffe?

Dor. Tartuffe, happy gentleman, with a comfortable yawn, goes right from table to bed, where he plunges into his warm nest, and sleeps soundly till morning.

Org. Poor soul!

Dor. At last we prevailed upon Madame to be bled, which gave her great relief.

Org. And Tartuffe ?

Dor. Monsieur Tartuffe was very much relieved also. He found himself charming, and to repair the loss of the blood which Madame had sustained, took four draughts of wine with his breakfast.

Org. Poor soul!

Dor. In short, both are very well now; so I'll go and tell my mistress you are coming, and how happy you are to hear she is recovered."

We have left ourselves very little room to speak of the actors. In fact, we must see them again before we can venture to speak much; and then we shall feel diffident, except in speaking of what all the world may judge of. French nature is, in some respects, so different from ours, we mean that the same nature, where great passions are not concerned, exhibits itself in such various ways through the medium of national manners, that all critics ought to be cautious how they pronounce upon it, especially those who know more of the language in books than as it is spoken; which we confess to be our case. We shall therefore wait, and judge cautiously. Meantime, we cannot help saying, that M. Perlet appears to us a performer of the very first merit, full, both of sensibility and judgment, relishing, self-possessed, various," up," as the phrase is, to every situation, and every part of it; and with an equal perception of the gravest as well as the lightest things he has to say. There was an air of singular depth and intention throughout his performance; and when he turned with that preternatural insolence of heart, after his detection, and pausing before he spoke, with his arm up, and an air of frightful preparation, told the master. of the house "to go out of the house himself, for it was his," there was something ghastly and awful in it. The house was so still we felt as if we could almost have heard the rain out of doors. Yet the same man, we are told, is wonderful in clowns and idiots, and is but a young actor. We must not forget Madame Daudel, a sort of younger Mrs. Davison; very pleasant. She acted Dorina. 1828.

HEREDITARY HOUSE OF PLAYERS.

TH

HE other day we heard of an indiscreet young Lord, who took it in his head to perform on a private stage, and performed very badly. This is the consequence of people going out of their spheres: an eccentricity, which the wisest cannot be guilty of with impunity. Had this tyro of quality, by the decease of the Peer, his brother, found himself in his right element, that is to say, in the House of Lords, he would, of course, have displayed a talent for legislation, because he inherits it. He may appear, for the present, to be nothing but a dandy and a foolish fellow, but the moment he got there, we should have his first wise speech; and all the speeches that followed would be equally wise. To hear him talk just now, not being a Peer, we allow might lead people to suppose that he could do nothing but swear, and say "By G-d," and gamble, and babble of wine and women; but only let the Peer, his brother, make room for him, only let him seat himself on the magic bench and wisdom shall flow from his lips; no question, however knotty, shall come amiss to him: points, which the House of Commons could not decide, shall come before him to be settled, and he shall settle them well: the whole country shall be satisfied: his tenants shall rejoice, especially if he has given them reasons why three parts of them are to be ejected from their houses; he shall disburse, till one

in the morning, jurisprudence, eloquence, wisdom, and taxation, all by virtue of the noble cock-fighter his ancestor, whom Charles the Second gifted with those accomplishments by patent, and then roll to the gaming-house in his carriage to swear, and say "By G-d," and gamble, and babble of wine and women, out of pure refreshment after the fatigues of sapience.

Now only fancy an actor attempting to legislate by virtue of his ancestors. It is clear the man would be preposterous. Had the late Mr. Kemble stood up in the House of Lords, and after his best consideration of the matter in hand, attempted to make a speech, who supposes that he could have at all equalled my Lord Grey? Who fancies that Garrick could have risen there, and shown any wit, however sharp and epigrammatic he may have been in the green-room? Who thinks that Mr. Kean could even have looked clever; that Mr. Charles Kemble, not having a Lord to his father, could have had the least aspect of nobility; or that Mr. Dowton or Mr. Farren could have been as facetious as the Duke of Newcastle?

On the other hand, if we could but discover the descendants of Garrick and the other actors of past times, great or small, what a House might we not have of hereditary performers! That polity would be quite feasible, and it is astonishing that no aristocrat of histrionic propensities ever thought of it. When Charles the Second had his Richmonds, Grafton, St. Albans, and other little dukes, he doubted whether some of them ought to have been dukes, seeing that their mothers were actresses. What a pity the idea did not come into his head of giving a new

kind of patent to Drury Lane, and making them and their descendants actors forever! What a pity that, while he was ennobling the children of the Clevelands, Querouailles, and other illustrious ladies, and rearing up legislators out of their lightness, he did not en-histrionize the sons of the Nell Gwynnes, Bettertons, Lacys, and others, whose hereditary powers of performing Hamlet and Macbeth might have charmed us to the end of time! That this might have been done, whatever Jacobin critics pretend, is proved by the existence of our hereditary lawgivers. To give law is no easy task. Our peers are jealous in vindicating its dignity, and in protesting that the vulgar are unfit for it. To be sure there is the House of Commons, who are legislators and not hereditary; but they would make sad work of it without the peers. In fact, they do but represent the peers, just as a lower house of players might perform under the auspices of an upper, and say nothing but what the great lords and box-mongers of Drury and Covent Garden allowed them. There is no talent among them; no fit legislation. if legislability can be conferred thus a thing sui generis? For either a talent for lawmaking is hereditary, or it is not. If it is not, then. we could have no house full of hereditary wisdom, whereas, it is manifest we have. If it is hereditary, as we have seen it is, then it must depend upon being inherited, or it would be a pure figment, and no greatgrandson would be capable of solving knotty points because his progenitor was a Marquis; which would be a very ludicrous conclusion, and flat treason against the state.

How can there be, by ancestry, and is