ART AND CENSORSHIP.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 664, 15 November 1909, Page 6

ART AND CENSORSHIP.

>We have to-day a brief cabled summary of the recommendations of tho Joint Committee of Lords and Commons set up somo months ago—largely as a result of M& Beknabd Shaw's agitation—to investigate tho working of the Censorship of Plays. The evidqneo taken by ,tho Committee constitutes a body of literary and artistic opinion of altogether exceptional interest—evory dramatist, author and poet of any consequence contributed thoir views, nor were episcopal opinions disregarded. Tho initial sensation, of tho | inquiry was tho discovery that Mb. Bedford, tho Examiner of Plays, was unguided by any general rule in his dealings with tho dramatists, and was not evon competent to form a personal opinion as to the merits, not to mention the .propriety, of tho plays submitted to him. Under hiß management, unpleasant " combdies " liko The Spring Uhicken, Dear Old Oharlic and The Devil received licenses, while such' serious dramas as Mrs. Warrcn't Proftuion, Waste and j Monna Vanna woro prohibited. Mr. Rbdfobd is not a particularly clover man —that .became apparent to overybody very quickly; but it was suggestod by more than' one of the distinguished witnesses who gave, evidence that a particularly clever man might use his autocratic powers oven, moro _ unwisely still. Tho Committee has ovidently como to the same conclusion, for it recommends the appointment of a Consulting Committee to advise the Censor. Tho genoral conclusion of the Committco is the only wiso conclusion, namely, that tho Censorship

ihall be retained,' bui ; that,.'the;-;Censor license shall .not be .'.necessary, to, the pro luction of any piece.-: : In other words i license will rnorely confer upon a; dra natic manager immunity irism'.profeetu ;ion;. those who choose to produce-thei: alays. without asking for a license'will,di ib at their own.risk. . ; ;No other, solution of this difficult quo! ;ion ! .has. ever occurred to any thoughtfu jerson who haa : had an edual iriendli xess towards art and morals.; It is ' th lolution which; was propounded by Mb 3haw and the Bishop of Southwark iVhoh Mr. Shaw can Jm; found agrceini sith a Bishop'. there'\is _ really'■ no. rooß 'or criticism.:■. perfect wisdom aridtrutl lave been found. " Tho only form o iontrol," said Mb.'-Shaw in his evidence 'should be, the law of the; land." ; Oon ;rol.by ',&■. person, which'.meant',contro >y a person's whims and weaknesses, ,-wa limply despotism.' Mr. Wiiaiam Arches ;ho dramatic critic of The Nation, am >ne of'the first living authorities oh th irama, hold the same view. | 'Ho ■ con rinded that' while " the effect of the Con lorship was to depress arid mutilate am ceop'out of existence serious plays;" th 3otißor was "indulgent toall the lighto: iorms of frivolity, which sometime sronched upon impropriety." He summer lp the situation ,m a sharp' epigram, th substance of which' none of the witqesse ittora'pted. to"challenge:;'"The' Censo: ceeps : serious drama down to, the leva )f nis own intelligence while he-docs no >van,pretend to keep tho lighter-drami ip to' the level of his own' morality.' Che absurdities of tho Censorship ar is notorious as they -are amazing. The; include- the.-licensing of such obsccn ibmodics: as : those mentioned, the jprohi ution of.. The. Showing :.- Up of, Slana Pomet— perhaps the most' foolish absurd .ty of all—the demand,that Mb. Gran jwz Babkbr should destroy the moti >f Waste, the 'prohibition of any ski lpon An Englishman'} Home,' and th jrder that during tho visit of the .Japan ;se fleet the music of The Mikado shouli lot: be played I. !• , V ~ '. That, the Censorship has seriously han licapped the. development of the Britisl irama was made ovident by the positiv issertions of- Joseph Conead, H. 'Q iVELLS, Abnoid Bennett, Henby James Maurice, Hewlett,' J. M. Barrie, Johi 3alsworthy, and Thomas Hardy that i leterred men of letters from using tin itage as the vehicle.-of ; their "art. Tb wst summary of the position was that, o Hbnby .Jahes: ■ v' 1 -■ ' : :-y\ "It is difficult to express the depth'of die uay and disgust twith which an author o looks in this country finds it impressed upo; lim, in passing into the province of th heafcre with the view of labouring* there, 1 tha te has to' reckon anxiously with obscuri md irresponsible Mr. So-and-So. . . . H hu» encounters an arrogation of -critical au hority and tho critical veto, with tho.powe: o enforce its'decisions, that is without i parallel in any other civilised country, anc fhich has in this one the \effoct of relegatinj ho theatre to the position of a mean minoi irt, and of condemning it to ignoble depend mees, poverties,, and' pusillanimities."- . . Phe Bishop of Southwark, who presentee limsclf ; as a' jealous champion of the lignity and the status of the stage, foi vhich he desired liberty .and public', reject, • pleaded for somo soft of censor' ;hip, but, like Mb., Shaw, ho inclined 10 think that the best- censor of all n jublic opinion.' " Current morality," he aid,' " ought properly to be able to fake iare. of itself. These plays, if they arc •eally distastoful to what is best in the ipinion of: the country, will not prosier." The. : decision of the • Committee, vhich contains the opinions of the jishop and Me. Shaw, contains the rulo chich should giiido the-authorities in ivory country in their attitude towards ndeconcics in art; Public.opinion, which letermine's "current morality,!',- is tho afest guido. .In Now Zealand it has boen ound ready to defend ,the freelom of art-and to condemn .immorality. Pho public must work out its -own salvaion.-■; A- rigid codo or.'oehsbrship will lot' only '. cripple art, but will; not'help jiorals.'-.-. .. . ■•v-.,\*.-.VrUy ;^ ;;;;;■'.