Theatre Censorship

The following is a reproduction of an article from a period publication in which the author addresses the delicate issue of theatre censorship. Following the article, by way of explanation, is a short treatise on the development of censorship as it related to the theatre of that period.

Playgoer and Society Illustrated, Volume 1 No. 2.
The Censorship

We had thought that the vexed question regarding the censorship of plays had practically ceased to occupy the attention of the public, but up to the time of writing letters have reached us continually expressing almost as many different views on the matter as the number of letters received. The subject is open to treatment from two standpoints, a favourable view from the one having a reverse effect upon the other. The thorough playgoer, who takes a genuine interest in the drama for its own sake, demands freedom for the stage. We have freedom for the Press, freedom in Art, freedom of Speech, he argues, why not freedom for the Stage? The public, in his view, should be the censors. He cannot sit down quietly and accept the dictates of a higher authority than his own where it touches his amusement. He cannot bear to be told what is fit for him to hear and see; he should be allowed to judge of that for himself. He is content to allow the police to stop a performance that is obviously indecent or immoral; he would even go so far as to invoke the vengeance of the Public Prosecutor upon any manager who produced a play that outraged the morals of society as we know them.

From a purely outside point of view we are at heart with this thorough playgoer. We admire his confidence in himself and his British independence, but we must lend an ear to the man "who makes the ghost walk on the Friday night," the theatrical manager who has staked thousands of pounds on a production and its following-on tour. Is his money to be subjected to the caprice of any party of local kill-joys who might care to forbid the performance of his play in their town? The Censor is the theatrical manager's saviour. Once the play has been licensed the Public Prosecutor cannot step in. The magistrates of a provincial town cannot forbid the performance of a play if it has been sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain in London. The Lord Chamberlain, who is, of course, the power behind the throne of the Censor, alone has the right to withdraw his licence; but this right he will not exert unless there are good reasons for doing so.

Every indication points to the retention of the Censor's office, and on the assumption that protection of the manager's interests is to the benefit of the public, we throw in our vote accordingly.

History of Censorship

Theatre in England, throughout much of its history, has been more persecuted and subjugated by restrictive legislation than in almost any other country in the world. For many years theatre was outlawed by the church which looked upon it as a pagan ritual. When the church itself later turned to dramatic representation as a means of conveying the bible stories to a largely illiterate population (in the form of the miracle plays), it unwittingly opened the doors for a breif flirtation between theatre and the English public.

This fertile period in theatre evolution was brought to an abrupt end by the rise of the Puritan movement and the Civil War which, in 1649, replaced Charles I in power with a Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. Throughout the twelve year of term of Parliamentary rule, theatre was totally banned throughout the realm. Only with the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II was theatre permitted to once again exist openly in England.

Even then theatre was strictly regulated. The King granted 'Patents' to two men, Sir Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Davenant, permitting them to put on 'straight' drama with their theatre companies at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane, and Theatre Royal Covent Garden respectively. These two theatres, and the Theatre Royal Haymarket during the summer, were the only ones at which straight dramatic plays (eg. relying upon spoken dialogue) could be legally performed. All other theatres had to resort to mime or music (the legal requirement being at least five songs in each act) to tell the story of their productions.

Whilst not enshrined in legislation, the power of enforcing these patents, and that of censorship over the theatre in general, lay in the hands of the Lord Chamberlain in his role of arbiter of the King's will. In response to the incidenece of a number of near riots in the theatre an Act was passed in 1713 to provide for the proper punishment of such 'rogues and vagabonds' who might be involved in these disturbances. In 1737, the Lord Chamberlains unwritten powers were at last set down in a bill which for the first time also provided that no new play might be performed at any venue without first obtaining permission from the Lord Chamberlain.

The Theatrical Regulation Act, 1843

The law that governed the theatre of the Edwardian era (and onwards until its revision in 1968) was laid down in the Theatres Act of 1843. This repealed all previous enactments relating to the control of the theatre and consolidated the law under one single piece of legistlation. This reinforced the Lord Chamberlains powers of censorship under the following provision in Section 12:

The Lord Chamberlain's power of censorship were entirely discretionary and his power of prohibition could be applied wherever 'he shall be of opinion that it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do to forbid the acting of any play'. Further guidelines suggested that these powers be used to prevent any profanity or lewd or improper language, any indecency of dress or action, offensive representations of living persons, and anything else which in the Chamberlains opinion might tend to induce riot or a breach of the peace. Anything mocking of royalty or the government of the day was particularly frowned upon.

To help in the task, the Lord Chamberlain relied upon his 'Examiners of Plays' to read the submitted scripts, produce a synopsis of their plots, and draw his attention to any scenes or language which might be offensive under the act. The Examiners would make recommendations as to whether or not the play should be permitted but the final decision lay with the Lord Chamberlain. His power was absolute, with no legal requirement to justify his decisions and no right of appeal.

Whilst the Lord Chamberlains powers may have appeared stifling, the skilled playwright could oftentimes circumvent them with clever use of inflective and innuendo. The written word, as approved by the Chamberlains Examiners, could assume a whole new meaning when it was performed in the theatre. In spite of this, and although the Chamberlain's authority remained for many years unquestioned, eventually grumblings began to arise among the theatre community against the exercise of these draconian powers.

In October 1907, these feelings were expressed in an open letter 'The Times', which was signed by seventy-one persons of literary repute. The letter protested against the powers of censorship which it said were exercised more for political ends rather than the protection of public morals for which they were intended. Moreover, that such power be vested in a single individual, unaccountable, and against whose dictates there could be no appeal, was injust when it might be used to impair the good name and impeach upon the livelihood of a person of an honorable calling. In summary, the letter argued that the licencing of plays, which was not felt necessary in the USA, should be abolished forthwith.

In 1909, a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commmons was set up to look into the issue. Many prominent literary figures were called upon to give evidence before the committee, including George Bernard Shaw, J.M. Barrie, John Galsworthy, W.S. Gilbert, G.K. Chesterton, and Beerbohm Tree among others. The Committee concluded that the licensing authority should not have the power to impose a veto on the production of plays, but that safeguards should be put in place to protect the community by creating procedures for the summary suspension of unlicenced plays of improper character and the imposition of substantial fines for the producers responsible. The office of Examiner of Plays should continue and it should remain the Lord Chamberlain's duty to license plays, although it was recommended that he should set up a Consultative Committee to further assist in this process.

The law however, remained unchanged until the revised Theatres Act of 1968 finally abolished the Lord Chamberlain's powers of censorship.