THE CENSOR CENSURED.

Otago Witness, Issue 3018, 17 January 1912, Page 85

THE CENSOR CENSURED.

MUCH CRITICISED PLAYWRIGHT. (Fjiom Obb Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 1. Considering what was said at the Joint Committee on the censorship about the play “Dear Old Charlie.” which Mr Hawtrey made so popular, it is not wonderful that there "is an outcry against the appointment of the author to be assistant examiner of plays, acting 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 his powers', without any consultation with the Government, and that the Lord Chamberlain himself considered Mr Brookfield well qualified both by training and experience for the post. Mr Brookfield, who is a son of Canon Brookfield, is 54 years of age, and after education at Westminster and Trinity, Cambridge, he went on the stage under the management of the Bancrofts, leaving in 1885. He inherits from his distinguished father the reputation of being a most delightful and amusing talker. He has written and produced between 40 and 50 plays, including “The Dovecote,” “ The Cuckoo,” “The Lady Burglar,” and (in collaboration) “ The Belle of Mayfair.” But the trouble has its rise largely in the article which Mr Brookfield contributed this month to the National Review, in which he gave it as his opinion that the palmy days of English drama began to decline with the introduction of the work of Ibsen. The pioneer players, who met at the Savoy the other night for the purpose of hearing Mr Laurence Housman’g banned play “ Paine and Penalties,” waxed furious in discussing the appointment. Mr Granville Barker declared that either that article in the National Review was a manifesto of Mr Brookfield on his appointment, or his appointment was the result of the article. In any case, it was a “ scandal and a piece of political indecency.”

On the invitation of Miss Elizabeth Robins the meeting decided—and there were only two voices to say it was too strongly worded —" That in view of Mr Brookfield's recently published opinions on- the modern drama, the 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 exercises despotic control, and that the continuance of his legalised tyranny is inimical to the drama's welfare and its good name."