The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, ,1907. THAT INDEX.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 36, 5 September 1907, Page 21

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, ,1907. THAT INDEX.

f NORTH ISLAND weekly is ' onaisy in its - mind ' about the condemnation of a .work of the late Dr. Schell, of Wurzburg, and by .the alleged efforts of some -dark-lantern people to abolish the ludex "of Prohibited Books. . • Wilh more heat L than- knowledge, our .contemporary alleges that the,. principle of safeguarding or restricting the purveying and perusal 'of reading matter is one of the explode.d notions peculiar to the Church of Rome fronuwhich (we are assured) the world has been happily -treed by ' modern ideas.' Such a statement, argues an extremely limited acquaintance Yfith sundry facts of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Reformation history^-nay, even with the state of the law and the practice of the courts in ''our own tight lfbtle islands of New . Zealand. ' The censorship of books has, indeed, been— more especially in the countries that accepted the Reformation—strained at times" beyond the bounds of right and justice. But the abuse of a sound principle is no argument against its right use. The need of such censorship has never bteen lost sight of, either by Church or sect or, civil\government. And it is in full operation bom i ; n the courts of law and (in one shape or other) among the .various religious denominations even at this hour. * A few months ago, a non-Catholic, writer, Mr. George Sampson, wrote in part as follows ' in the London ■ < Daily Chronicle ' :— 1 How far is the State, or any similar body standing in parental relation, to its members, - justified, in obstructing the circulation of literature esteemed - dangerous ? It is a question that -involves -the'-clagh toe- ~ tween the individual and community which troubles us so often, and we cannot answer it by windy, phes to Freedom (with a capital letter) or-by--denun- - ciations" of the Roman Index. A personal application of the difficulty may emphasize it, and so I rask^ny father,, what would you do if you found your lad. poring over some objectionable book, and what would you say to those who attempted to circulate such books among! your children ? Or, going to matters more directly lllustra- - tive of the Church censorship, let me ask this : -Would

you, as a Nonconformist, allow your . impressionable lads and girls to - read, unchecked, attractive Catholic stories written with' an eye £o conversions ? And would . you, as a Catholic, allow your children to browse at will on what 1 may call Maria Monkery ? I think not, ' and I fancy, too, that \i\ some bright .lad were to re-^ tort on you with the. Freedom of the* Press and the^ March of Ideas, you would answer, not ineffectively, with the strap. It is precisely this parental right of prohibition and punishment, that the Church claims and enforces. One thinks naturally of the Church of Rome in this respect, first because she has faced this matter of obnoxious literature with the deliberate organisation and relentless logic that go together as one secret of her marvellous vitality ; and next "because she has usually had power to make decrees effective when other bodies have had olily desire. '-

But the Congregation of the Index never ' faced this matter of objnoxious literature ' with regulations of such drastic severity "as, for instance, were enforced by Calvin in Geneva and by the Star Chamber , in' 'England. Here is how Chambers, in his ' Book of Days ' (vol. i, p. 82U) describes in part the steps taken ~~T>y the Star Chamber to make its decree of 1687 effective :

' A decree of the Star Chamiber prohibited • the printing, of any book or ipamphlet without . a license from the Archfodshop of Canterbury, the ' Bishop of London, ' or the authorities of the two* universities ; and' ordered all but " allowed " printers, who • presumed to set up a printing press, to be set in the pillory, and whipped through the City of London. One of the first victims of this ordinance* was Leighton (father of the archbishop of that name), who for printing his . " Zion's Plea against Prelacy', was fined £10,000, degraded from the ministry, pilloried, branded, and .whipped, besides having, an ear cropped and his nostril slit. Lilbtarne and Walton were alsp indicted for unlawfully printing, publishing, and dispersing libellous and seditious "works ; and upon refusing to appear to answer the interrogatories of the court, _were sentenced to pay £500 each, and to be whipped from the Fleet Prison to the pillory at Westminster ; a sentence which was carried into execution on the 18th of April, 1638 \

In 1867 the British Government had the unclean pamphlets of the no-Popery imposter Murphy pubiicly burned. Ten years later it prosecuted Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant for having published works that it deemed dangerous to public morals. A public cen?or of plays has long been an institution of both Great Britain and in France. One_ of the many duties of the Lord Chamberlain (who is now Lord Althorp) is to license theatres *in London, Windsor, and wherever there is a royal palace. It is also his duty to act as censor for plays that are intended to be publicly performed in any .theatre Great Britain. Our readers will recall the storm that was raised about the head of Lord Althorp a few months ago on account of his withdrawal of the license (issued about twenty years ago) for the performance of the Gilbert-Sullivan comic opera, ' The Mikado,' lest offence might be given to the representative of Japan. Htere is a summary statement of - the present English law in regard to the censorship oE plays :— 1 The law says that one copy of every new play, prologue, or epilogue, or addition -.thereto, intended to be produced at any theatre in Great Britain,~ must be sent to the Lord Chamberlain at least seven days before it is first acted, and he • may refuse a license if he considers it fitting for him to do so. Against his decision there is no appeal. The penalty for disobeying the Lord Chamberlain's instructions is rather severe. Not only is a fine of £50 levied on any person who presents a piece either- before it has been allowed, or subsequent to its being- disallowed, _but the license" of the theatre where it is presented becomes void. Anyone who gives information against an unlicensed performance is entitled to half the fine of £50.' The British Congregation of the Index consists of one person ; the Roman, of many, - all specialists more or less in their work. And in the working, the Roman Index, compared with the British one, is as^.mild as the balm of Gilead. But it is well that sbme

restraint is exercised upon the sort of printed stuff that is a menace to public morals and to social order. Now, more, perhaps, than ever, is the hand of the unclean and the unbelieving devil upon the lever that moves the press. And now, more' than ever, is there a pressing need of censorship and conscientious selection if we are to _safeguard,-~ religious, faith and cleanness of heart among our youth.