THE PLAY CENSORSHIP.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14314, 27 March 1912, Page 10

THE PLAY CENSORSHIP.

"DEAR OLD CHARLIE" AND "THE SECRET WOMAN."

(from our. own correspondent). LONDON', February 16. Thoro liave been so many protestations to the contrary, that one strongly suspects tho resignation of the; Lord Chamberlain (Earl. Spencer) to have been due in no Binall measure to the, recent loud criticisms ot the play-censor-ship. 'However that may be, tho censorship each week demonstrates . some new futility or absurdityMr C. H. Brookfield, for example, may now be called, upon to pass judgment on his own play, "Dear Qld Charlie." When it is revived-at the Princo of Wales by Mr Charles Hawtroy, the "merry humours" of it will be repeated'without alteration, but a certain reference, it seems, has to bo brought up to date, and any alteration must be submitted to the censor- • "Dear Old Charlie," -which was originally passed by Mr G. A. Bedford, the lato examiner of plays, will therefore have to be sent to the new examiners"lt will bo rather funny," Mr Hawtrey remarks, "if it goes to Mr Brookfield himself. "Quito a harmless piece of fun" (is Mr Hawtrey's description or tho play), "and it has an excellent moral for those who can,see v it. A great many pooplo who havo been crying oub about it havo never seen it at all. If they come to see it, .'they will find,it, I am sure, quite harmless-" . Here is a fresh mix-up. Mr Granvillo Barker and his wife (Miss Lillah McCarthy) have undertaken to produco Mr Eden Pbillpotts's new play, "The Secret Woman," "his first serious dramatic work, done to the full of his powers." Tho Lord Chamberlain will license "Tho Secret Woman" on condition that certain passages are omitted. But there's tho rub. As Mr Barker says: "Since the lines do not touch on religion or politics, the only excuse for condemning them could be that they were unclean. How can wo admit, how -can wo conceivably ask or expect, Mr Eden Phillpotts to admit an attempt to foist indecencies on the public? Can wo expect men of letters, used to self-respecting freedom and responsibility, to submit their work to editing, with no reason given, of the Lord Chamberlain's office? No art can prosper.on.such terms." By way of protest, a numboi-of leading playwrights, including such,men as Sutro, Pinero, Jerome, Henry Jones, Zangwill. Conan Doyle. H- G. .Wolls, and. J,. M. Barrie, have banded together to produco tho play unbowdlerised for six morning performances, charging no admission, and thus escaping the ''tor hiro" clause, which forbid 3 the production of uucensored plays- In their letter to "Tho Times" they, say: "Now wo, his fellow-writers, have read this play, and find it to bo the conscientious work of an artist doing his best in his own way, not necessarily our way, for no.two writers who have anything to express can express it identically. . , To our mind, tho play is worthy- work, such as a stage, of high, aims should ever be ready to welcome, and wo feel a warm indignation over the stigma ca-st by the Lord Chamberlain upon an author whom his fellow-writers and the English-speaking world generally, jiave '.tor many years held in admiration and esteem- Never in all those years of novel-writing has a word been breathed by any. responsible paper or person against his fair fame, but the moment ho has the ambition to write a play-in the eaiur* spirit .which, inspired " his novels, ho is at the mercy of'an official who knows no, better than to use him thus. If we do not come to the aid of this particular author ivho declines to accept this way out ho is helpless, and the public are left to presume that the Lord Chamberlain was right and that Mr PhiHnotts would be nn unworthy author it lio vns allo'.yert. Wo can make no charge tor admission, hut wp can invite the public to tome in free or charge atid for themselves whether with this play Mr Phillpotts lias forfeited their regard."