THE CENSORSHIP OF PLAYS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 50, 28 February 1908, Page 6

THE CENSORSHIP OF PLAYS.

According to Whistler, there never was an artistic country, there never was an art-loving nation. And certainly, if he were wrong, that country is not England, and that nation is not the English. England claims the prouder title of being a moral nation, whatever the rents in her decent garment. Consequently tho English drama, like other manifestations of English ait, is judged from the standpoint of the current moral convention. That convention, of course, is variable; and has altered greatly since the Elisabethan day, or evdn since the Carolean day. England now pays great attention to the outside of tho platter, though one is led occasionally to doubt whether tho -inside of an Englishman has changed greatly, and to doubt further whether it would be to the advantgo of the Englishman that it should change greatly. In any case, we do not complain. iVo may criticise or demur to tho conventional standard ; but there is no denying that the majority has a right to fix its own .standard. Or if not a right, it has the power : which comes to tha same thing. Art must march with the regiment. And, us wo pointed out in the recent, foolish prosecution, on tho "round of alleged indecency, of an illustration exhibited in Wellington, there is at any time a reasonable line to bo diawn as to what is or is not befitting in ths public representation of art— the line of expediency. Of that expediency tho community, and not tho artist, must judge. The community may know nothing about art. yet may know quite well what kind of art it wishes displayed in public ; and that knowledge is sufficient for its judgment. If the community is an ass, that is its own affair. The artist may properly be scornful; but ho may not justifiably complain. Everybody, including an u«.s, has a natural right to create his own artistic universe in so far as he lias tho powci' Tlie nppo.il i« only to C'ac&iir. It is of no use for tlie artist to appeal to his i^ods or ideals or Uieoues if the majority doen not agiee witu him. Their cods and ideals are

equally entitled to tneir honour. The voice of tho people, for the people, ia final. Consequently it cannot be claimed that ths outcry of British playwrights against the censor of plays has aught but their own wishes and their own reasonc to commend it. An unrestricted drama is possibly a good thing, though we do not think so; but the British Government or the British public is under no reproach for restricting drama as nluch as it chooses. It may b? ridiculous, yet it cannot be proven wrong; for its own tests of right and wrong are perfectly valid to the extent of its power. The playwrights have consequently to argue to the community's standards, or to endeavour to alter those standards to accord with their own; and that is what they do not always do. More often their argument is to their own standards, and these, do not apply until the community applies them. A favourite object of attack is the Lord Chamberlain, to whom the supervision of British theatres is legally entrusted. What does a Lord Chamberlain know of dramatic nrt? demand the indignant playwrights, missing the point. For the point is clearly what Lord Chamberlain knows about what the British public knows about dramatic art ; and such an eminently respectable official as the Lord Chamberlain appears to be nn egregious judge of what is demanded by British respectability. But the Lord Chamberlain exercises his censorious duties by deputy; and it is around the head of the deputy, standing like a moral rock amid the waves of tumult, that the dramatic storm rages. He is ignorant ; he is prejudiced ; he has no conception of art — how they mock mm and revile him ! Mr. Pinero satirised his inefficiency, and showed liow his stern scrutiny of the letter could be evaded in the spirit : shocking and exciting Mr. W. T. Stead by "The Wife Without a Smile." Now a cable message reports that Pinero, Barrie, Gilbert, "and many other dramatists" havo called upon the Home Secretary — asking for the appointment of "Court arbitrators" (or more 'ikely of a Court of Arbitration) to discuss the censor's disputed judgments. But that course only shifts the difficulty a step further on. Tho playwrights are kicking vainly against the pricks. What they have to undermine is noj; the decision of the censor, but the conventional mind of the respectable British public. Every public gets tho drama it deserves.