PUSS IN BOOTS AND THE PRINCESS VICTORIA. 159 



satisfied, that, had an opportunity offered, he would have put in a 

 protest against the little princess being exposed to a pantomime. But 

 doubtless Sir John Conroy and the Lord Chancellor differ, as well 

 in this, as in other respects, and the consequence has been the Prin- 

 cess Victoria's honouring the representation of the pantomime by her 

 presence. We repeat that we are sorry for it. 



Modern pantomimes are not merely nonsense they are eminently 

 obnoxious and detestable. Their aim if aim they have is to make 

 the rising generation as bad as that which is about to pass away. 

 They are "inventions of the enemy:" they first obtained under the 

 influence of Tory principles ; it is high time that' they were swept 

 away "at one fell swoop," by a Whig act of Parliament, and that, 

 too, without the least remorse for Bologna has flitted, and where is 

 Grimaldi ? 



Is it possible that pantomimes are subject to the holy hand of the 

 hoary licenser ? If so, how does he justify his erasures of " damme's " 

 in farces and comedies ? What is a damme to a knock-down blow ? 

 How can it be more iniquitous than the stealing of all kinds of com- 

 modities by a clown ? Let Mr. Colman consider this, and like a moral 

 man, steadily refuse to license another pantomime if he can : but to 

 speak the truth, we doubt his power. The licensing act, if our me- 

 mory do not deceive us, recognizes no such potentates as a deputy 

 licenser, nor is the phrase, <f two guineas," mentioned in either of its 

 sections. 



But now, as to Puss in Boots : all pantomimes are bad, but 

 of all pantomimes, one founded on the story of Puss in Boots must 

 needs be the worst. The nursery tale is full of enormities. The cat 

 is a regular scamp he commences his career by poaching next by 

 false pretences, and most outrageous hypocrisy but why trouble 

 ourselves to be vehement ? The tale, to all people of common sense, 

 will speak for itself; after the reader has glanced through it, we will 

 venture to ask if a pantomime founded upon its leading events were 

 likely to improve a young lady who may, perhaps, become one's 

 queen. Here is an abridgment of the story. 



" A miller died leaving his youngest son nothing but a cat : the poor young 

 fellow complained bitterly of his fate ; the cat bade him be of good cheer, and 

 procure a pair of boots and a bag ; the youth contrived to do so. The first 

 attempt puss made was to go into a warren, in which there were a great 

 nnmber of rabbits. He put some bran and parsley into his bag ; and then 

 stretching himself out at full length, as if he was dead, he waited for some 

 young rabbits, who as yet knew nothing of the cunning tricks of the world, to 

 come and get into the bag (a pretty example to delude the unwary). Scarcely 

 had he lain down before he succeeded as well as could be wished. A giddy 

 young rabbit crept into the bag, and the cat immediately drew the strings, 

 and killed him without mercy (mark this, gentle reader, the cat kills the giddy 

 young rabbit without mercy !) . Puss, proud of his prey, hastened directly 

 to the palace, where he asked to speak to the king. On being shown into 

 the apartment of his majesty, he made a low bow, and said : ' I have brought 

 you, sire, this rabbit from the warren of my lord the marquis of Carabas, 

 who commanded me to present it. to your majesty with the assurance of his 

 respect.' (What a goodspecimen of imposture ! How this must have con- 

 firmed the moralities of the princess ! the cat was evidently an ancestor of 

 our ' some gentleman/) 



