Charles I.'s time, there has been no mention of the Lord Chamberlain,
or of any subordination to his command or authority, yet it was still
taken for granted that no letters patent, by the bare omission of such
a great officer's name, could have superseded or taken out of his
hands that power which time out of mind he always had exercised over
the theatre. But as the truth of the question seemed to be wrapt in a
great deal of obscurity in the old laws, made in former reigns,
relating to players, &c., it may be no wonder that the best companies
of actors should be desirous of taking shelter under the visible power
of a Lord Chamberlain, who, they knew, had at his pleasure favoured
and protected, or borne hard upon them; but be all this as it may, a
Lord Chamberlain, from whencesoever his power might be derived, had,
till of later years, had always an implicit obedience paid to it."

Among the duties undertaken by the Lord Chamberlain was the licensing
or refusing new plays, with the suppression of such portions of them
_as_ he might deem objectionable; which province was assigned to his
inferior, the Master of the Revels. This, be it understood, was long
before the passing of the Licensing Act of 1737, which indeed,
although it gave legal sanction to the power of the Lord Chamberlain,
did not really invest him with much more power than he had often
before exercised. Even in Charles II.'s time, the representation of
"The Maid's Tragedy," of Beaumont and Fletcher, had been forbidden by
an order from the Lord Chamberlain. It was conjectured that "the
killing of the king in that play, while the tragical death of King
Charles I. was then so fresh in people's memory, was an object too
horribly impious for a public entertainment;" and, accordingly, the
courtly poet Waller occupied himself in altering the catastrophe of
the story, so as to save the life of the king. Another opinion
prevailed, to the effect that the murder accomplished by the heroine