e found a full justification of the licenser's conduct, "Boni judicis
est ampliare suam auctoritatem."

If then it be "the business of a good judge to enlarge his authority,"
was it not in the licenser the utmost clemency and forbearance, to
extend fourteen days only to twenty-one?

I suppose this great man's inclination to perform, at least, this duty
of a good judge, is not questioned by any, either of his friends or
enemies. I may, therefore, venture to hope, that he will extend his
power by proper degrees, and that I shall live to see a malecontent
writer earnestly soliciting for the copy of a play, which he had
delivered to the licenser twenty years before.

"I waited," says he, "often on the licenser, and with the utmost
importunity entreated an answer." Let Mr. Brooke consider, whether that
importunity was not a sufficient reason for the disappointment. Let him
reflect how much more decent it had been to have waited the leisure of a
great man, than to have pressed upon him with repeated petitions, and to
have intruded upon those precious moments which he has dedicated to the
service of his country.

Mr. Brooke was, doubtless, led into this improper manner of acting, by
an erroneous notion that the grant of a license was not an act of
favour, but of justice; a mistake into which he could not have fallen,
but from a supine inattention to the design of the statute, which was
only to bring poets into subjection and dependence, not to encourage
good writers, but to discourage all.

There lies no obligation upon the licenser to grant his sanction to a
play, however excellent; nor can Mr. Brooke demand any reparation,
whatever applause his performance may meet with.

Another grievance is, that the licenser assigned no reason for his
refusal. This is a higher strain of insolence than any of the former. Is
it for a poet to demand a licenser's reason for his proceedings? Is he
not rather to acquiesce in the decision of authority, and conclude, that
there are reasons which he cannot comprehend?

Unhappy would it be for men in power, were they always obliged to
publish the motives of their conduct. What is power, but the liberty of
acting without being accountable? The advocates for the licensing act
have alleged, that the lord chamberlain has always had authority to
prohibit the representation of a play for just reasons. Why then did we
call in all our force to procure an act of parliament? Was it to enable
him to d