It was questioned at the time whether the Chamberlain, by his deputy, was not exercising more authority than he was really clothed with, under virtue of the Licensing Act.  He was entitled to prohibit the performance of any play; but could he make terms with the managers, and cut and carve their manuscripts, forcing upon them his capricious alterations?  Further, it was asked by what right he delegated his power to another?  The Act made no mention of his deputy or of such an officer as an Examiner of Plays.  And then, as to the question of fees.  What right had he to exact fees?  There was no mention of fees in the Act.  No doubt the managers had long been in the habit of paying fees—­L2 2s. for every piece, song, &c.  But it was urged that this was simply to secure expedition in the examination of their plays, which they were bound to submit to the Chamberlain fourteen days at least before representation, and not in pursuance of any legal enactment.  The Examiner of Plays received a salary from the Chamberlain for the labour he performed; why should he levy a tax upon managers and authors, and so be paid twice over for the same work?

Now, on the subject of fees Colman was certainly most rapacious.  He spared no effort to increase, in this way, the emoluments of his office.  Did an actor on a benefit night advertise any new songs, glees, or other musical performance—­Colman was prompt to demand a fee of L2 2s. for every separate production.  Occasional addresses, prologues, and epilogues, were all rated as distinct stage plays, and the customary fees insisted upon.  One actor, long famous as “Little Knight,” so far defeated this systematic extortion that he strung together a long list of songs, recitations, imitations, &c., which he wished to have performed at his benefit with any nonsense of dialogue that came into his head, and so sent them to be licensed as one piece.  They were licensed accordingly; the dialogue was all omitted, and the ingenious actor aided his benefit by saving L8 8s. or L10 10s., which would otherwise have found their way into the pocket of the Examiner.  When the French plays were performed in London, in 1829, Colman insisted that a fee must be paid for every vaudeville or other light piece of that class produced.  As some three or four of such works were presented every night—­the same plays being rarely repeated—­it was computed that the Examiner’s fees amounted upon an average to L6 6s. a night.  During an interval, however, the Duke of Devonshire succeeding the Duke of Montrose as Chamberlain, this demand was not enforced; eventually a compromise was agreed upon, and a reduced fee of L1 1s. was levied upon each vaudeville, &c.  Colman even succeeded in rating as a stage play, an astronomical lecture, delivered at the Lyceum.  The “At Homes” of Mathews were of course taxed, a “slight sketch and title” being submitted to the Examiner, the actor professing to speak without any precise text, but simply from “heads and hints before him to refer to should his memory falter.”  In an attempt to levy a fee on account of an oratorio performed at Covent Garden, Colman failed, however; it was proved that the libretto was entirely composed of passages from the Scriptures.  After great discussion it was ultimately decided that the Bible did not need the license of the Lord Chamberlain.