It must be allowed, that the “Beggar’s Opera” is not the first of Mr. Gay’s works, wherein he hath been faulty, with regard to courtiers and statesmen.  For, to omit his other pieces even in his Fables, published within two years past, and dedicated to the Duke of Cumberland, for which he was promised a reward[9]; he hath been thought somewhat too bold upon courtiers.  And although it is highly probable, he meant only the courtiers of former times, yet he acted unwarily, by not considering that the malignity of some people might misinterpret what he said to the disadvantage of present persons, and affairs.

But I have now done with Mr. Gay as a politician, and shall consider him henceforward only as author of the “Beggar’s Opera,” wherein he hath by a turn of humour, entirely new, placed vices of all kinds in the strongest and most odious light; and thereby done eminent service, both to religion and morality.  This appears from the unparalleled success he hath met with.  All ranks parties and denominations of men, either crowding to see his opera, or reading it with delight in their closets, even ministers of state, whom he is thought to have most offended (next to those whom the actors more immediately represent) appearing frequently at the theatre, from a consciousness of their own innocence, and to convince the world how unjust a parallel, malice, envy, and disaffection to the government have made.

I am assured that several worthy clergymen in this city, went privately to see the “Beggar’s Opera” represented; and that the fleering coxcombs in the pit, amused themselves with making discoveries, and spreading the names of those gentlemen round the audience.

I shall not pretend to vindicate a clergyman, who would appear openly in his habit at a theatre, among such a vicious crew, as would probably stand round him, and at such lewd comedies, and profane tragedies as are often represented.  Besides I know very well, that persons of their function are bound to avoid the appearance of evil, or of giving cause of offence.  But when the lords chancellors, who are keepers of the king’s conscience, when the judges of the land, whose title is reverend, when ladies, who are bound by the rules of their sex, to the strictest decency, appear in the theatre without censure, I cannot understand, why a young clergyman who goes concealed out of curiosity to see an innocent and moral play, should be so highly condemned; nor do I much approve the rigour of a great p[rela]te, who said, “he hoped none of his clergy were there.”  I am glad to hear there are no weightier objections against that reverend body, planted in this city, and I wish there never may.  But I should be very sorry that any of them should be so weak, as to imitate a court chaplain in England, who preached against the “Beggar’s Opera,” which will probably do more good than a thousand sermons of so stupid, so injudicious, and so prostitute a divine[10].