THE CENSOR CENSURED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 7, 9 January 1912, Page 2

THE CENSOR CENSURED.

MUCH CRITICISED PLAYWRIGHT. [FROM OUft OWN COaaESPONDfcNX.j LONDON, Ist December. Considering what was eaid at the joint committee on the censorship about the play, "Dear Old Charlie,'.' whicb Mr. Hawtrey made co popular, it iv not wonderful that there is an outcry against the appointment of the author to be assistant-ciaminer of plays, actinc with Mr. G. A. Redford. The Government is let out by the explanation that the appointment was made by the Lord Chamberlain in the ordinary exercise of hie powers without any consultation with the Government., and that the Lord Chamberlain himself considered Mr. Brookfield Wei] qualified both by training and experience for tho poet. Mr. Brookfield, who ie a son cf Canon. Brookfield, is 54 years of age, and after education at Westnuiistei' and TtiYiity, Cambridge, he want on tho stage under the management of the BanerottiS, leaving in 1885. Ho inherits from his distinguished lather the reputation of being a most delightful and amusing talker. He has written and produced between 40,aad 50 plays, including "Tho Dovecote," 'The Cuckoo.," "The Lady Burglar," and (in collaffbration) "The Bello of Mayfair." But tho trouble 'hab ile rise largely in. the article which Mr. Brookfteld contributed this month to the National Review, in which he gave it as hL» opinion that the palmy days of English drama began to decline with the introduction of the work of. Ibeen. The Pioneer Players met at thd Savoy the other night, for the purpose of hearing Mr. Laurence Housman'6 banned play, "Painsand Penalties/ and during the evening Mr. GranvilU Bc-vker declared that either the article in tho National Review M-as a manifesto of Mr. Brookfield on hift appointment or his appointment was the result of the article. In any case, it was a "scandal and a piece of political indecency." Or the invitation of Mies Elizabeth Robins the meeting decided—-and there were only two voices to suy ft was. too strongly' worded— "that in view of Mr. Brookfield's recently , published opinions on modern drama tne action of the- Lord Chamberlain is but further proof, if further proof were- needed, that he is hopelessly out of touch with the theatre over which he exercieeß despotic contfol, and that the continuance of his legalised tyranny is inimical to the drajna'e welfare and ite good name."