THE CENSORSHIP OF THE DRAMA

Mr. G. B. Shaw, Sir J. Forbes-Robertson, Miss Rose Macaulay, Mr. Basil Dean, Mr. Noel Coward, &c., state their views.

TWO weeks ago we expressed certain views on the present agitation against " immoral and indecent " plays and the question of a stricter censorship. But at the same time, feeling that this was an essentially technical matter, we asked the opinion of some of our most prominent theatrical managers, dramatic authors and critics. In order to save them time, we asked them five specific questions. We publish to-day a selection of their replies. In doing so we particularly wish to express the thanks of the Spectator and its readers to our correspondents. They are all of them exceedingly busy people, and it is, we recognize, no light matter to ask them to add to their correspondence. Nor should we have done so had we not believed a really useful purpose would be served by thus putting their views before the public.

The questions we put to them were as follows :- 1. Do you think it desirable to retain the present censorship tin London as exercised by the Lord Chamberlain ?

2. Would you abolish censorship altogether and trust to the ordinary laws for the suppression of obscenity, &e. ? 3. Do you approve of the recommendation of the Joint Corn. 'Mine° of 1909 that there should be an optional censorship under which system those who did not care to apply for the Censor's licence would run the risk of a prosecution under the ordinary laws T 4. Do you approve of the suggestion that licences, inside 'London as well as outside, should be granted by the local authority ? 5. Do you agree with the criticism expressed at a meeting of the Theatrical Managers' Association that the present tendency of plays in London is not sufficiently " clean and healthy " ?

The answers fall naturally into two groups—first, what we may call a conservative party, led by Sir J. Forbes-Robertson. This party answers " yes " to the first question, i.e., it desires to retain the present system ; " no " to the second question, i.e., it does not wish to see the censorship abolished ; " no " to the third question, i.e., it does not believe in an optional censor- ship ; " no " to the fourth question, i.e., it does not want the censorship exercised by the local authorities ; and " yes " to the last question, i.e., it does not believe that the present tendency of plays in London is " clean and healthy."

Sir J. Forbes-Robertson takes exactly these views. But he adds a note to Question 2. " Even all plays produced by the many and various stage societies should be under the control of the Lord Chamberlain. This I consider most important." Evidently the breadth of Elizabethan or Restoration humour, as given us by the Phoenix Society, is not to his liking.

Mr. Ian Hay gives the same answers, and adds the following note :- " The public is the real arbiter, because the public pays the piper and gets the tune which it asks for—and deserves. The Censor can do little more than exercise reasonable restraint over current tendencies. The abolition of the Censor would lead to grave abuses. Managers and authors of a certain type would deliberately put up scandalous plays, relying upon the enormous advertisement which a prosecution would yield, and matters . would be worse than ever. Let us be patient, and avoid quack remedies. The present vogue will soon exhaust itself."

Mr. Frederick Harrison, of the Haymarket Theatre, takes the same view. He would consider it a calamity if the censorship was taken out of the hands of the Lord Chamberlain. But he doubts whether there is any tendency towards unclean or unhealthy plays.

Mr. Cyril Maude, taking the same view, says :— " If we abolished censorship altogether, we should be dependent on the opinions of the police—and that in New York they have found to be hopeless. Much more obscene plays are produced there than are here."

We now come to the answers from our correspondents who form what we may call the liberal party. This party is evidently led by Mr. Bernard Shaw. Although, as always in parties of the left, there is more divergence of opinion than in the party of the right, the general view seems to be that the censorship should be abolished altogether. In this case, of course, Questions 8 and 4 hardly arise, while Question 5 is naturally regarded as meaningless. Mr. Shaw states this case with his usual force and brevity. But, unlike most of his followers, he answers " yes " to the first question (whether the Lord Chamberlain should be retained as Censor). How- ever, he also answers " yes " to the first part of Question 2 (" Would you abolish censorship altogether ? ") —so he presumably means only that if some censorship must be retained, the Lord Chamberlain's is the best. To the last question—whether the present tendency of plays is unclean or unhealthy—he answers " Bosh" and adds the following note : " I have gone into the question exhaustively in the preface to The Showing-up of Blanco Posnet and in my evidence before the joint committee. I have not changed my views ; and I cannot go over it all again."

Most of the rest of the answers are in the same strain. They all indicate that the writers desire to see the whole censorship system abolished. Miss Rose Macaulay remarks that she is afraid that she can attach no meaning -5 to the adjectives " clean and healthy " in the context of the last question.

Mr. Basil Dean is in favour of the optional censorship mentioned in the third question, pending the abolition of censorship altogether. On the last question he says : " The Theatrical Managers' Association consists mainly of provincial theatre proprietors and managers, a body notoriously conservative even in the theatre. Is it necessary to say more ? "

Miss Clemente Dane would like the censorship abolished ; Mr. Zangwill, too, with no great objection to the optional censorship " save that any censorship acts as a protection to indecency."

Mr. Shane Leslie remarks that " clean " and " healthy " are not terms applicable to art, " but the present plays are not art, so the criticism stands."

Mr. Alec Rea, like all the other practical men con- nected with the theatre, condemns in the strongest possible way the suggestion that the censorship should be transferred to the local authority.

Mr. Henry Arthur Jones is also an abolitionist, though he considers that in that cape our present laws might need stricter definitions: He refers us to his book, Foundations of a National Drama, which includes his open letter of 1909, The Censorship Muddle and a Way Out of It, addressed to the chairman of the com- mittee to which we have referred. There, regarding the whole question as fundamentally a religious one, 'he roundly condemned the censorship as actually tending to promote indecency and immorality, and urged the appointment of an Inspector-General to prosecute for indecency in the place of a censor of morality.

Mr. Alfred Sutro takes the line that if there must be a censorship the " least objectionable " is that of the Lord Chamberlain.

Mr. Noel Coward, who is said to be the cause of all the trouble, sends us what we feel sure he considers a charaeteristic communication. "The most rigid Censor is preferable to the English stage coming under the control of the inadequacy of the English Church com- bined with the illiteracy of the London County Council."

Lastly, Mr. St. John Ervine gives us the critics' point of view in detail. He writes :- " 1. I do not think it is desirable to retain any censorship of plays, but if there is to be one at all, then the censorship we have at present seems to me to be the best. -The difficulty, surely, is to get a censorship sensibly and intelligently administered. That, on the whole, is now happening. An unlucky chance, however, might give us, as Reader of Plays, another Redford instead of another Street.

- 2. Yes. A healthy-minded community can be trusted to do its own censoring. An unhealthy-minded community ought not to be witnessing plays at all. It ought to be in its grave. Ours is an unhealthy-minded community.

3. -No. If there is to be a censorship, it should be compulsory for everybody.

4. No. What sort of a play would be approved by the Man- chester Watch Committee ? Ask Miss Hornirnan, whose fine work for the English theatre has not been nationally recognized. A few years ago, a preposterous fellow, who was a town councillor in Kent, ran about the country denouncing mixed bathing. Imagine that ass sitting in judgment on a play ! 5. No. The Theatrical Managers' Association are trying to cover up their own defects by harping on the alleged defects of the plays. When they have cleaned up, in a physical sense, their theatres and made them as comfortable as picture palaces, they may begin to talk about ` cleaning-up' the drama. Have you ever sat in the pit or the gallery of a provincial theatre ? If you want to know what the tortures of the .damned are, try the experi- ment. A great deal of pernicious twaddle has been talked about ' immoral plays ' by overwrought maiden ladies of both sexes. About thirty plays are performed in London at one time. How many of the thirty now being performed can be described as remotely immoral' in tendency ? Of the three that are most commonly cited as evidence of this immoral strain, two seem to be as nearly tractarian in tone as plays can be, while the third could not seriously affect the morals of anyone not already a fit subject for the lethal chamber.

May I add that there is a better case for censoring newspapers than there is for censoring plays ? I doubt if there is a dramatist in England who would dream of putting into his work (or dare to, if he did dream) some of the stuff that is commonly and unashamedly put into newspapers. I have observed, without surprise, that the newspapers which are most angry about ` immoral plays ' are precisely those whose columns stink with indecency. Perhaps they fear that the theatre may cut into their trade ! But although I think there is a better case for censoring news-. papers than for censoring plays, I would not support such a censorship. If our people are such that they can be corrupted by the press and the play, then the remedy is, not to fuss oneself with the symptoms of the disease, but to discover the disease itself and to cure it. The word ' bloody ' was not mentioned on the stage until it had become so common in ordinary usage that its utterance in the theatre shocked no one, and amused many. In other words, the theatre is nearly always at the heels of people, not in front of them."- To sum up, it is clear that there is no consensus of opinion as to whether the Censorship should be abolished or retained. A majority of our correspondents desire to see it abolished, but a minority are most anxious to retain it. On the other hand, there is absolute unanimity in support of the view we expressed that if the Censorship is to be retained at all, the Lord Chamberlain is the best possible official to exercise it. There is especially unani- mous condemnation of the proposal of the Coriunittee presided over by the Bishop of London, that the Censor- ship should be transferred to the L.C.C. There is a divergence of opinion on the desirability of optional Censorship, but on the whole opinion seems to be against it. This does not, of course, prove that the suggestion is a bad one. It may be ruled out as not being " practical politics," but we still think it good. It would give safefy to those who demanded it ; and those who chose to take- the risk of not asking for a licence would not be on unfavourable ground for resisting a prosecution if their motives were demonstrably sincere.