he says, 'Nay, faith, let me not play a woman; I have a beard coming.'

With some few notable exceptions, the dramatic authors and actors of this age (usually the same persons) were a dissolute and degraded class. Nor was it without just cause that the Puritans, who were a butt for the satire and wit of the comedians and comic writers, directed their satires against the stage.

A universal eagerness after theatrical diversions continued during the whole reign of King James, and great part of the first Charles', until Puritanism, which had gathered great strength, openly opposed them as wicked and diabolical. Prynne, one of the leading Puritans, and whose ears were cropped, to answer for the wagging of his tongue, put out his famous Players' Scourge;' this was published in 1633. The players answered it by publishing the best old plays they could find, and, of course, many of Shakspeare's; and for a short time the players prevailed. Prynne's book was deemed an infamous libel against church and state, against peers, bishops, and magistrates, and, finally, against the king and queen. This fierce and bitter old Puritan, in this famous pamphlet, says, 'That English ladies had become shorn and frizzled madams, and had lost their modesty. That plays were the chief delight of the devil, and all that frequented them were damned.' To all music he had an utter antipathy, and to church-music in particular, which he calls the bleating of brute beasts,' and says,' The choristers bellow the tenor, as if they were oxen; bark a counter-point, like a kennel of hounds; roar a treble, as if they were bulls; and grunt out a base, like a parcel of hogs.' For this, and many other passages, the book was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman, and he himself to stand in the pillory, have both his ears cut off, and to pay a fine of five thousand pounds, beside to suffer perpetual imprisonment; all of which, but the last, was carried into execution. But Puritanism day by day gathered strength, and finally the play-houses were leveled to the dust, but only to arise, in another age, with renewed vigor and strength.

LITERARY NOTICES.

THE LOST PRINCE: Facts tending to prove the Identity of Louis the Seventeenth of France, and the Rev. ELEAZAR WILLIAMS, Missionary among the Indians of North America. By JOHN H. HANSON. In one volume: pp. 479. New-York: GEORGE P. PUTNAM, Number Ten, Park-Place.

LOUIS THE SEVENTEENTH: His Life, Sufferings, and Death. By M. BEAUCHESNE. In one volume: pp. 289. New-York: HARPER AND BROTHERS.

THE COURT, thanking the Jury for the patient hearing which they awarded to the first division of the 'Charge to the Jury of the Public in the Dauphin Case,' would now call their especial and earnest attention to the remaining unconsidered arguments involved in the case:

'A FARTHER and curious fact, strongly telling against the government, is that the death of the child was reported to the Committee of General Safety, before it had actually occurred. LASNE, it seems, noted the precise time, as is customary on such occasions, and GOMIN afterward went to inform the committee of the occurrence. He reached the Tuileries, and found the committee had adjourned. He, however, states that he saw SERESTRE, a member, who told him to keep the secret till the next day; and he adds that he did so. The next day, it was reported to the Convention that LOUIS CAPET was dead, and that the committee had been informed of it at two o'clock on the preceding day. Generally, evidence as to the time is little to be relied on. But here, it is so interwoven with facts, as to leave little doubt as to its correctness. The fact that GOMIN proceeded after the death of the child, that he found the assembly adjourned, and that he kept the secret until the following day, show both the time and order of events. The statement made to the convention might be regarded as an error, were it not that GOMIN alone should have reported it, which he did not. Moreover, as little was known and little thought of the child, it is not probable that rumor could have reported it before it had happened, as it has indeed been the case with many of our own distinguished men.

"This ends those facts of which the jury are to judge, and the effect of which they are to determine.

'But there is another class of facts also bearing upon the case, which will require careful consideration. This case is properly an action brought by the Rev. ELEazar WILLIAMS against the late possessor of the French throne. Now, although hearsay is not evidence, admissions are; and admissions may, in such a case as this, be made not only by the parties but their privies. LOUIS PHILIPPE is, in effect, a privy of Louis Eighteenth. The Duchess d'ANGOULEME was, in our view, a partner of, or joint tenant with, Louis Eighteenth. She was at least his avowed supporter and the possessor of

his political secrets: in legal effect, his duly-authorized agent. We will therefore admit any admissions of LOUIS PHILIPPE, LOUIS Eighteenth, and of the Duchess d'AN

GOULEME.

The admissions of LOUIS PHILIPPE in words are narrowed to a single question: the admissions made by the Prince de JOINVILLE to Mr. WILLIAMS. But Mr. WILLIAMS is a party to the suit; and however respectable a man, and however strongly corroborated by indirect evidence, his statement is not legal proof, and must be wholly rejected. Nemo in propria causa testis esse debet. Of the admissions to be gathered from his acts we wil hereafter speak.

"The admissions of Louis Eighteenth relate to two things. First, it appears that, although the highest marks of respect were paid to the memory of Louis Sixteenth. MARIE ANTONETTE and the Duchess d'ENGHIEN none were given to the last, though youthful king In the graves of the two former quick-lime had been emptied, and hundreds of victins buried over them and around them to obliterate the spot. The grave of the Dauphin could have been easily discovered, and the surgeons' examination of the skull afforded certain proof to identify the remains. Yet, while the supposed dust of LOUIS Sixteenth and MARIE ANTOINETTE was exhumed, to be re-buried with stately pomp and studied mourning, the bones of Louis Seventeenth, in an obscure cemetery, unmarked by a single memorial, still rest, like those of a common pauper. This singular exception must be considered and explained.

"The next is somevhat similar in character. PELATAN, the physician, according to his own statement, carried from the post-mortem examination the heart of the child. He preserved it for some years, when it was stolen by one of his students. Recovering it afterward, he offered it to the king as the heart of the dauphin. An inquiry was instituted, in which LASTE testified that he was present at the examination, and nothing was carried away. The evidence, although contradictory, can be reconciled; for the statement of LASNE amounts to nothing more than that he observed closely, and did not see any thing taken. In regard to this, M. BEAUCHESNE Stigmatizes the conduct of PELATAN as barbarous, and the statement for that reason incredible. Mr. HANSON claims that PELATAN was a physician of the highest standing, and entitled to every belief, and that his conduct sustains his testimony. Louis Eighteenth adopted the statement of LASNE, and rejected the relic. Of his belief and his motive it is for the jury to judge.

"The last admission contended for relates to NAUNDORF.

"This man claimed to be the dauphin. It is not necessary that we should consider his claim. It is sufficient to know that he possessed a knowledge of facts constituting state secrets, and relating to the royal family. As far as Louis Eighteenth is concerned, the admissions pertaining to NAUNDORF relate to a single fact. It appears that, while all other claimants were brought to trial, he, after repeated applications, was refused one. Indeed, the refusal was one of the most suspicious character; for it was not only deliberate, repeated, and unprecedented, but at last was made emphatic and effectual by NAUNDORF's being ordered from France. On these facts Mr. HANSON contends not that NAUNDORF was the dauphin, but that he was possessed of information which the king feared would betray the escape of his nephew.

'More interesting, if not more clear, are the admissions to be derived from the conduct of the Duchess d'ANGOULEME. Our jury will, first in order, to construe her acts correctly, examine her character carefully. She was a woman of dauntless energy, unwavering resolution, and possessed of self-command beyond the ordinary measure of her sex or race. She was dignified, stern, conscientious, believing fully in the religion which she professed, and devoted to the system of which her family was the exponent.. So greatly, indeed, did she possess these qualities, that BONAPARTE is reported to have said of her that she was the only man in her family. Her position was as peculiar as her character. She was the daughter of the murdered king, the neice of the reigning one, the sister of the rightful prince, and the wife of the heir-apparent.

'The only admission of the Duchess sought to be established directly, is by the evidence of Mrs. BROWN, of New-Orleans. The testimony of this lady comes before us

approved by the strongest tests of truthfulness known to the law of credence. It is given while the witness was in extremis, and aware of her condition, which the law esteems of such importance that statements so made may be received in evidence as though legally verified. For the law properly regards a person believing himself at the point of death as under as high a moral obligation to testify truly as any human law could impose. The evidence is moreover sanctioned by a judicial oath, and is substantiated by a blameless reputation. It is also corroborated by statements made to unbiased parties before any of the facts now known had been brought to light. In her testimony, however, Mrs. BROWN is not sure that it was the Duchess who told her that the prince had escaped. Under the circumstances, the length of time elapsed since the conversation, the position of the parties, the invariable absence of such confidence in the Duchess, in our judgment, authorize us in withholding this evidence from the jury entirely, were it not for the following facts:

'A venerable Christian woman, upon her death-bed, tells us that, from the Duchess d'ANGOULEME, or from one of two other persons, she heard that Louis Seventeenth escaped from the Temple, was brought to this country by a man named BEllanger, and was living under the name of WILLIAMS. This statement of Mrs. BROWN was made at least twelve years ago, before the name of a BELLANGER was known, before the visit of the Prince de JOINVILLE had taken place, and before the clain of Mr. WILLIAMS had been thought of. If this coincidence is to be ascribed to chance, a more miraculous chance is not recorded in the history of evidence. Still, this does not make the testimony of Mrs. BROWN evidence. Unless her information was derived directly from one of the royal family it must be rejected. We allude to this merely as a confirmation of her statement that her information was derived from the Duchess d'ANGOULEME.

'Of the acts of the Duchess the jury must be first struck with the neglect shown toward the memory of her brother. Like Louis Eighteenth, she erected no monument, and allowed the heart produced by PELATAN to be retained by his family. We cannot discover a single act indicating the sisterly regard which would naturally be shown toward the remains of a brother. Yet to the other members of her family who had been the victims of the revolution, no testimonials that an affection almost fanatical could prompt were unpaid. For her cousin, the Duke d'ENGHIEN, once a week, for months, she had masses performed, and repaired to her chapel, to pray for his soul. It is truly said, in reply to this, that the like offices were unnecessary according to the tenets of the Catholic faith for the soul of a child. But, while this is true, it nevertheless shows a carelessness in regard to her brother strangely at variance with the fervor of the devotion which she rendered to what she deemed the sacred victims of an unholy rebellion.

"To the Duchess, Naundorf preferred his claim. Repeated were his applications for a personal interview, and repeated her refusals. To every request she returned not a decided negative, but a condition that he should send her the documentary evidence he pretended to possess. At one time, she appears to have deemed a personal interview with the King of Prussia necessary to resolve her doubts. The king, it will be remembered, had some of the documents on which NAUNDORF based his claim. Whenever this subject was brought to her notice, strong agitation seems to have shaken her enduring frame. From her character and conduct, two inferences are drawn: Firstly, that she would never have consented to deprive her brother of his rights, and that her agitation was due to the love she bore him, and the horrors he had endured. Secondly, that she did assent to the surrender of his rights, from motives of state policy; but, in the unbending pride of her nature, scorned to render those testimonials of respect and love to an unknown impostor, which she would eagerly have given to a murdered brother, and the heir of her kingly race.

'A farther admission is also claimed against both the king and the duchess. The decree of the allied powers treated LOUIS Eighteenth in a manner which allows the supposition that the existence of LOUIS Seventeenth was known to all the contracting parties. By itself, this construction carries little weight; but when taken in connection with the others, if they are held true, this is not without its signification.

"This ends the material facts of which we have legal evidence. The others, founded upon hearsay, conjecture, and rumor, we exclude. In construing these, we call the attention of our jury to a well-settled rule, peculiarly applicable to the case. We have, in speaking of the facts, adopted an old metaphor, and spoken of them as a chain and its links. This is an error. Circumstantial evidence made up of unmistakable facts where each one connects with another in such a way that should one be missing the break would be fatal, will alone bear this illustration. In the case before us, the facts are (each taken by itself) weak, but at the same time, corroborative of the others. Now, it is obvious and established, that, while one fact tending to a particular thing might by accident occur, and yet the thing itself never have happened, two facts tending to the same thing would be singular, and several in point of fact impossible. Thus, it often happens in doubtful criminal cases, that a number of slight circumstances together form a strong conclusion. A more fitting metaphor would therefore be, the strands of a cable. It will be for the jury to say whether, in the case we are now trying, the slender strands of circumstantial evidence of Mr. HANSON will be sufficient to topple down the positive testimony which forms the tower of M. BEAUCHESNE.

If the jury shall be of the opinion that the prince escaped from the Temple, they will proceed to determine whether he survives in the person of the Rev. Mr. WILLIAMS. There is but one question, and it is a simple question of personal identity. Had but a few years intervened between the escape and the time of trial, Mr. HANSON would be required to produce witnesses who knew Mr. WILLIAMS when imprisoned. But, as it would be impossible to find such witnesses now, and the difference between the child and man would render this evidence useless could they be found, the question must be determined in another way. Firstly, by those personal marks (if any) which would survive childhood; and secondly, by those circumstances in his life which tend to corroborate or contradict the presumption.

"The first indication of this identity is that of personal resemblance. This is based on the supposed resemblance between Mr. WILLIAMS and the BOURBON family, and on the supposed resemblance between Mr. WILLIAMS and the portraits of the prince. If it were proper to admit such evidence in any case, it would be in the one before us. It is supported by the testimony of competent and experienced persons, termed experts, who have made such matters their particular study, and whose opinions would be con. sidered facts. There is also one actual fact shown, and it is that the prince, although he had the BOURBON features generally, had not the BOURBON nose; while Mr. WILLIAMS, in the same way, has the BOURBON features generally, without this particular feature resembling that of the BOURBON family. But when it is remembered how frequently the features of children change, how often the opinions of the best judges differ, how common it is to find resemblances where there is no relationship, and relationship where there is no resemblance, we will be justified in excluding this testimony.

'Of a very different character are those personal marks which do not depend upon the opinion of witnesses. If the witnesses are to be believed, this evidence, in the case before us, is unusually strong. The prince had, as we have seen, tumors upon the joints; and upon the same joints Mr. WILLIAMS has marks which the testimony of eminent physicians assures us were caused by tumors in childhood. In addition to this, it appears by the evidence of Madame de RAMBAUD, the nurse of the prince, that upon his arm was a crescent-shaped scar, produced by vaccination. Her statement was made many years ago, to his sister, the Duchess d'ANGOULEME, with great earnestness, and is manifestly true. From the silence of the duchess, we may also infer that she admitted it. Mr. HANSON was not aware of this fact till after the publication of M. BEAUCHESNE'S Work. Immediately upon learning it, he proceeded with Dr. FRANCIS to Mr. WILLIAMS' residence, and examined his arm. The examination showed a crescent-shaped scar on the same arm, the effect of vaccination. The good faith of the whole evidence is therefore apparent.

This combination of facts not naturally connected, for the reasons stated before, gives to this evidence peculiar power.