HL Deb 10 June 1926 vol 64 cc365-92

LORD MORRIS had the following Notice on the Paper:—

To ask the Lord Chamberlain—

  1. 1. If his attention has been called to the production of certain plays in 366 London, which have been described in the Press by dramatic critics and others as "immoral," "degrading," "demoralising."
  2. 2. Will he make inquiries into this matter and take appropriate action to suppress what is deemed indecent and objectionable?
  3. 3. Will he state what are the principles upon which the Censor of Plays acts, and upon which plays are granted a licence for performance?
  4. 4. Will he state if he objects to the licensing of theatres placed under his jurisdiction by the Theatres Act, 1843, being transferred to the local authorities, as is the case everywhere else in this country?

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question that stands in my name on the Paper to-day is the outcome of a number of conferences, at which I was present, arranged by the London Public Morality Council, of which, as I think your Lordships all know, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London is President and Chairman, and on that Council nearly all the Christian Churches in this country are represented. There were also present at these conferences representatives of the Press, those who may be broadly described as the dramatic critics, those who write for the Press in relation to dramatic productions, particularly in London. You will notice that the Question that I have put down embraces two or three subjects First I have asked the Lord Chamberlain— If his attention has been called to the production of certain plays"— I refer to recent plays— in London which have been described in the Press by dramatic critics and others as 'immoral,' 'degrading,' 'demoralising.' The body to which I have referred has collected a mass of newspaper extracts, written by dramatic critics and others, and I have had the advantage of going through a great many of them. If they were all put together they would fill a. very large volume, and if the Lord Chamberlain has not read these articles I should be glad to allow him or his deputy the opportunity of perusing them at any time.

For the information of your Lordships I will quote very briefly a few criticisms, and only a few, from some of these articles. I do not propose to name any of the plays or performances, because that would only be giving them an advertisement. Nor do I propose to name the newspapers, because that might he making an invidious distinction. Nearly all the London newspapers that have been dealing with the subject have, so far as I am capable of judging, been dealing with it in a fair way in respect of the public, the producers—that is, the men commercially interested—and the artists who take part. One of the critics, in a leading newspaper, says of one of these plays:— One of the worst plays I have ever seen. Another says:— They seem to have set to work deliberately to crush out all modesty from our young people. Another:— We are treated to a dish of highly flavoured sensuality. Breaches of the sexual code were presented obtrusively and I might add dirtily. Again:— The public are asking for fifth, and the younger generation are knocking at the door of the dustbin. Another:— I thought at first that he was about to kill her, but no such luck. He ravished her instead and we narrowly missed seeing them do it. And here are other quotations from criticisms:— My view of the wave of sensuality that has swept over British drama is that it is purely a temporary wave. As an habitual playgoer who for years past has derived more recreation of mind and body from the theatre, I view with dis-may the recent tendency to present on the stage plays that are occupied almost wholly with sexual abnormalities and excesses. The dresses worn by chorus girls are designed to make a sexual appeal to the men in the audience. A thoroughly nasty-minded play, in which every one is a person without morals or common decency. It is significant that the loudest laughs were given when someone used a word that was either obscene or profane. It would he useless to say the Censor should see this play. I suppose he has seen it. What is wanted really is a sanitary inspector. The play is one of the most disgusting, brutal and low-minded that it has ever been my misfortune to see. It is a bad and an evil play, because it seeks to make an audience laugh with a monster of a woman, a harpy, who seeks to gild her vice with respectability and with the ideas she expresses. It is quite as degrading and demoralising as any of the plays that have been condemned as immoral. How it ever passed the Censor is astounding. Once we used to be bored into the extremities of coma by the furtively resplendent vampires who always left their gloves or their fan in bachelor chambers as tinder for a third act blaze. But they are now well rivalled, in their ability to weary, by their young and up-to-date sisters who have neither gloves nor fans nor shame nor secrecy, but merely discuss interminably and before all the world the rather trivial issue of whom they are to live with next.

These quotations I culled myself from the Daily News, the Daily Mail, the Competitors Journal and Everybody's Weekly, the Daily Express, the Glasgow Herald, the Observer, the Medical Press, the Daily Sketch, the Saturday Review, the Western- Morning News, the Daily Graphic, the Nation and the Athenwum, the Sheffield Post, the Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard, the Star, the,Sunday Chronicle, the Evening News, the British Weekly, the Universe, the Referee, the Sunday News, the Times, the Pall Mall Gazette, the Sunday Pictorial, On with the Dance, the World's Pictorial News, and the Daily Mirror. Some of these articles, of course, were not criticisms by the paper but by correspondents and by persons who were interviewed. After listening to these criticisms—and they are only lines taken out here and there because I did not consider that it would be proper or appropriate to quote all these criticisms at length, for that would take the whole afternoon—to my mind one of the most serious aspects about these objectionable performances is that they carry the imprimatur of the Lord Chamberlain. It is not a question as to whether he has seen a play or whether it has been censored, but from the fact of its being performed in the City of London everyone can fairly and reasonably assume that it is all right because it bears the Lord Chamberlain's imprimatur. The author and producer, in answer to any appeal to cut out objectionable parts or withdraw the play altogether, may reasonably claim that it is up to standard because it has been censored and passed by the Lord Chamberlain. So in this way it would be far better to have no censor at all than the approval of a great officer of State which justifies the public in assuming that the play is all right.

The next part of my Question is whether the Lord Chamberlain will make inquiries into this matter and take appropriate action to suppress what is deemed to be indecent and objectionable. It is not quite understood what plan or system is adopted in licensing these plays. It is almost inconceivable, if these criticisms be true or even half true, or contain any truth at all, that these plays can possibly have been seen before production and licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. No doubt there is an explanation, and I am not putting this Question forward in any sense as a charge, but what those interested in this movement desire is to have clean productions. No one that I have met in connection with this movement wants to go back to the days of the Scarlet Letter. They are not joy killers. On the contrary, they want to give a very broad and wide interpretation, not alone from an artistic, historical and social standpoint, but even from any standpoint that would enable the author of the piece, and the producer, and designer of the dresses, fairly and accurately to inferpret the subject of the piece. It is in That sense that the people who are acting in this matter, and whom I imperfectly represent here, are very anxious that some step should be taken, and some policy adopted, which would make it unnecessary for the Press to deal with this "wave of sensuality," as it is termed. I think we are all agreed that the British Press, and particularly the London Press, in dealing with this special matter are liberal and generous and fair to all, and if it were not for the extravagant way in which these productions have been presented we should not have heard anything of this matter.

The other day a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons dealing with the publication of judicial proceedings and particularly of evidence in divorce proceedings, but I do not propose to introduce that subject into this discussion; the two questions are quite distinct. A very strong case might be made out that publication of these proceedings should continue just as it has been in the past. Such publication has a very deterrent effect on those who are qualifying for the Divorce Court and who do not like to see all this objectionable material published. But during the debate in another place there was one observation which, no doubt, was noticed by every one of your Lordships. As far back as 1859, the late Queen Victoria issued a most pathetic and strongly worded letter to the Lord Chancellor of the day beseeching him to stop the publication of this kind of thing. It has gone on ever since, however, and there may have been ample reasons for not interfering with the manner in which these Court proceedings are published.

But so far as this question is concerned it is an entirely different matter. The Government of the day and Parliament really have it in their own hands to save the public. What really is the remedy? It seems to me that if every piece put on the stage for public performance was seen by the Lord Chamberlain or his representatives before—not after—it was publicly produced—and not after the objectionable parts had been advertised—the play then could be very easily amended in such a way as to render it unobjectionable.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Morris I want to explain that I am making no sort of attack upon the Lord Chamberlain. As Chairman of the Public Morality Council I dare say I have been a trouble to successive Lords Chamberlain, and I have found them all courteous and attentive and none more so than the present Lord Chamberlain. Again and again he has listened to representations that I have made to him; again and again I know that plays have been modified as the result of our representation—and we are a large, representative body of all the denominations in London, including the Roman Catholics and the Jews. Nor, I may add, do we make any attack on the stage at large. The stage is one of the greatest institutions in London. I sent twelve of my house party to a play last night—not one of these that have been referred to to-day, I may tell you. I may also say that I am a patron of t he stage in London and certainly I think that nothing does so much good as a good play. It is one of those features of our city life which we want to see as good as possible. All the chief actors for years have been my personal friends in London and therefore it will be understood that in what I say I am making no attack on the stage at large.

We do not expect perfect drawing-room manners on the stage, but all the same it is a puzzle to us why, with so good a Lord Chamberlain, plays and scenes have been let through the net upon which such comments as we have heard are possible. The people I am now going to quote are not Bishops but very much the reverse of Bishops. The Evening Standard, for instance, said:— The performance was no doubt extraordinarily clever. But it was also extraordinarily unpleasant, and the very ability with which it was presented made it more unpleasant still.…The simile of the satirist is one thing and the leer of the satyr quite another.…Further, in making the great point of a play a business so painful and disgusting as female drunkenness he is offending against mere good manners. Again, Mr. Arnold Bennett is not a Bishop, and he says:— In the present age, as in all previous ages, ninety-nine serious plays out of a hundred deal with 'sex,' either in the form of infidelity, or seduction, or decadence. But what touches me most is the declaration from the provinces.

The President of the Theatrical Managers' Association actually says that in the provinces they are losing money by putting on London plays. He adds that:— Modern plays daily become shorter and more unwholesome. One manager in Birmingham has already declined to book certain London plays. … London grows daily more frivolous. The provinces have better taste. It often happens there that certain phrases have to be expunged from the London version of a play, and that local watch committees complain of certain costumes as being indecent which have lot aroused any public antagonism in London. In Parliament Sir Ellis Hume-Williams said:— Why do you leave in circulation … salacious plays in which the timely curtain falls only just soon enough to hide the obvious dénouement. Then Sir Alfred Butt also is not a member of my profession, and he says:— The dramatist who deals exclusively with the meaner qualities of men and women for the sole purpose of arousing the animal passions of an audience cannot he too strongly condemned for putting whatever talent he may possess to such base uses. And of that sort of thing we have seen far too much recently in London.… The immediate result has been to cause a large amount of uninformed opinion to believe that the various social strata in this country are largely composed of decadent parasites. I do not mean to mention any particular play, because if a Bishop quotes a play its fortune is made. This is what The Times says of a certain play: Clever, cynical and shameless. … the ladies are either 'kept' or 'keep'. … Faithless to husband and 'keeper,' she is detected almost in flagrante delicto with a gentleman 'kept' by another lady. The Daily Telegraph says of another play now on tour:— She arouses herself in a world in which everyone had at least two concurrent love affairs all the time, and the only rule observed is, 'If you must be unfaithful to me, for Heaven's sake don't let me find out '. That is quite enough about those plays. Certainly no one takes more trouble in this matter than the Lord Chamberlain, and therefore there must be some flaw or other in the system if those plays are let through. I think very likely they alter them after they have been passed by the Censor.

I only want to say a few words about the other two Questions. The third Question is: Will he state what are the principles upon which the Censor of Plays acts, and upon which plays are granted a licence for performance? As far as I can make out all that there is to guide the Lord Chamberlain is that "he shall be of opinion that it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do." Those wide words form the only provision which now gives statutory direction for the operations of the censorship. The Joint Committee of the two Houses suggested that it would help the Lord Chamberlain to put down a very much more detailed description of what he was to restrict. They gave seven things—namely, to be indecent; to contain offensive personalities; to represent on the stage in an invidious manner a living person, or any person recently dead; to do violence to the sentiment of religious reverence; to be calculated to conduce to crime or vice; to be calculated to impair friendly relations with any foreign Power; to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace. We should like to know very much from our noble friend whether any change of the principles would help him in his very difficult task.

The last Question is: Will he state if he objects to the licensing of the theatres in London placed under his jurisdiction by the Theatres Act, 1843, being transferred to the local authorities, as is the case everywhere else in the country? The Select Committee went into the whole question, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Herbert Samuel, and they recommended this:— We are of opinion, therefore, that it would be advisable that the licensing of the forty theatres which are now in the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain should be transferred to the London County Council, whose officers already visit them regularly in order to advise as to the safety of their structure and of their accommodation for the public. The Select Committee are not proposing that the censorship should be taken away, and I am not proposing now that the censorship should be taken away from the Lord Chamberlain. I am only bringing forward the facts of the case and asking your Lordships and the Lord Chamberlain what we can do. Nobody wants these filthy plays to be given on the stage to do harm to boys and girls. We want to have a stage of which we can be proud. I want to be able, in my tour of the Empire, to point to our stage as an example to the whole British Empire. I only want your Lordships and the Lord Chamberlain to help us to make the stage what we all desire that it should be.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, the subject that is raised by the Questions asked by the noble Lord is one that I think we shall all agree is extremely difficult to decide. Opinions upon it vary immensely. There are very many and very influential people who think that the mere existence of the censorship is an unfair restriction upon artistic work and that you ought to trust the stage just as you do literature, to the control of the Common Law. There are others who think that every play that is produced ought to be a play of such a character that it may be safely witnessed by a girl of fourteen who has never seen anything of the world beyond the walls of a vicarage garden. Between those two extremes there is an infinite variety of opinion which it is very hard to focus and make definite. The debate this afternoon is not only embarrassed by that uncertainty, but is rendered almost impossible by reason of the fact that in not one single definite instance has the discretion of the Lord Chamberlain been challenged.

There have been a number of extracts read from newspapers, the very names of some of which I have never heard in my life. I have never heard, for instance, of a paper called On with time Dance. I admit, of course, the limitations of my knowledge. I say there were a number of extracts read from papers some of which I, at least, had never heard of, relating to plays which nobody knew. There is not a single member of your Lordships' House who knows whether those accusations were directed to plays written by Wycherley, or Shakespeare, or by some modern dramatist. Whatever they may be we have to discuss this matter wholly and absolutely in the dark and you are to investigate into the conduct of the Lord Chamberlain without being provided with a single definite instance in which it is said that his discretion has failed.

The right rev. Prelate suggested that there ought to be rules upon which the Censor should act. I think that he overlooked the fact that the Committee to which he referred recommended that there should be appointed an Advisory Committee to assist the Lord Chamberlain. Such a Committee was to be appointed because it was recognised that this matter is not quite so easy as the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord seemed to think, and because it was considered that it would be a good thing to get the opinion of independent people as to whether or not a particular play should be performed, and that those people should do no more than advise the Lord Chamberlain, upon whom would rest the ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection of any particular play. That Committee was appointed, I think, fifteen years ago. I was one of the original members and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, was another. There acted with us Sir Walter Rayleigh, Sir John Hare and Sir Squire Bancroft. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, after a while retired and I am sorry to say that death has taken away those other three close friends of mine. Others have been added. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is one of the present members, Mr. Harry Higgins is another, and the third was Sir Squire Bancroft, who has since died.

One thing at any rate is obvious and that is that the collective opinion of a Committee of that kind is likely to be fair and it is not likely to desire that the public mind should be polluted by the performance of disgusting and improper plays. But they must remember that fairness means fairness both to the author and to the public and that it is not fair to an author to turn down a play merely because it deals with what the Committee, in a perfectly honest way, regard as an unpleasant subject. If you are to turn down plays on that ground many of the greatest masterpieces of literature would be incapable of being performed. Nor can you turn down a play merely on the ground that it is what the right rev. Prelate called "alluring." is there any play that ever was written that possesses more sumptuous immorality than "Anthony and Cleopatra"? Would you refuse that play performance because from first to last there is not one single line in the whole of that magnificent production that condemns the immoral relationship of Anthony and Cleopatra? You cannot say that because a play deals with an immoral situation, or because it deals with it without reproving the immorality, therefore it should not be performed. You have to have many other considerations present in your mind.

I cannot help thinking that the one outstanding thing is this. Disregard for a moment all those conditions in which there is agreement. You should do nothing to bring the Crown into contempt or to offend great institutions or friendly foreign Powers. Disregard all that utterly. Surely the real question is this: Is the play one that is calculated to shock and offend the general body of decent, reasonably-minded people? Is not that the real standpoint? If that is so you must remember that reasonably-minded people are not necessarily either shocked or offended because a woman is introduced on the stage who has an immoral past. Take the case of "The Second Mrs. Tanqueray," a play which I and many people think is one of the greatest of our modern plays. The whole of the play depends upon the fact that there is introduced an immoral woman, a woman of professional immorality. The play proceeds to show the utter and hopeless breakdown of the attempt to restore such a woman as that to decent life. You may say it is a good moral, but the point I wish to take is that you cannot take out a particular incident. You cannot take out this incident of a woman who has been the kept mistress of several men and say that that is an improper thing because young girls will go to it who will not know about kept mistresses and ought not to be told.

The conditions vary as to what may shock and offend from year to year. Nobody who reads Chaucer to-day—and I hope many of your Lordships do—can fail to realise that Chaucer's tales, which are in my opinion utterly free from any charge of indecency, are none the less expressed in language so coarse and relate to incidents that are so unspeakable that it is absolutely impossible that they should be produced to-day. None the less they did not shock nor did they cause mischief to the people who read them when they were published. An extremely good instance of this occurred during the War. There was a play called "Damaged Goods," which was to be produced in this country for the purpose of showing people the mischief that might result from irregular relationships with women. It was a play that began with a man consulting a doctor and being told that he had syphilis. The mere fact of venereal disease existing would be regarded as an improper thing for any conversation twenty-five or thirty years ago. Yet that play was produced and played and was not disapproved of by the very people who sit on the Bench opposite. That is a striking illustration that what you have to consider is not merely the subject, not merely whether it would shock our forefathers in the reign of Queen Victoria; it is whether to-day, having regard to the conditions of modern life, the plays that are produced are likely to cause harm to the people who go to see them.

There was one thing, which the right rev. Prelate said, which exhibited the real difficulty in the matter. The real difficulty lies in this. It is not the dialogue that makes the play indecent; it is the way that that dialogue is interpreted on the stage. That is a thing the Lord Chamberlain cannot prevent. You may have the same situation done by two different people. If it is done by a high-minded woman, as I beg your Lordships to believe our best actresses are, it will cause no offence whatever. If it is done by a lower-class woman with salacious impulses it will offend people of decent minds. Directly you admit that you destroy half the ground of your criticism against what the Lord Chamberlain has done, because you are realising that the real ground of offence does not lie in the thing that is performed but in the way it is performed. The Lord Chamberlain cannot stop that. I have had the pleasure of serving with several Lords Chamberlain now. I remember perfectly well a play, about which there was considerable question, which from one side of the theatre was absolutely unexceptionable and from the other side of the theatre was grossly obscene. It depended entirely on the way a particular woman disported herself with regard to the audience. If the Lord Chamberlain had sat on one side of the theatre he would have seen nothing objectionable. Realising this, he went when he was not expected and sat on the other side, with the result that the licence was withdrawn.

From time to time criticisms of this kind are made and complaints are brought against the way the Lord Chamberlain discharges one of the most thankless and difficult offices any man has to fill. In truth, the greater part of the complaints are not well founded but are directed against something he cannot control. One or two of the recent plays, which have been the subject of some criticism, have been the subject of this criticism, that they have disclosed an immoral condition of life existing among people who are well-to-do and who, for want of a better word, are sometimes called the "upper class." I want your Lordships to think of the difficulty in which the Lord Chamberlain is placed if he attempts to refuse a licence to a play like that. Whatever the play, if it is really gross and obscene, he has got to refuse it, but remember that the vices of the poorer people have never been excluded from the stage. Drunkenness on the part of a workman, cruelty to a wife, the general roughness and coarseness of the poor have been caricatured on the stage again and again and nobody complains. "The Silver Box," where a man was represented as thieving in the most despicable conditions, is another instance.

If you let the plays go through which attack the vices of the poorer people, how can you possibly justify a refusal to license a play that depicts what is alleged to be the vices of the people who are well-to-do? That really lies at the foundation of the reason why some of those plays were permitted to be performed. I still think that the reason is sound and good and that no worse service could be done to the censorship of the stage, or to society, than to lead the public to believe that a kind of screen was going to be put up and that people who lived behind that screen were not to have their lives caricatured or represented on the stage, while the people on the other side could.

The rules which the most rev. Prelate desired to be adopted are, I believe, the rules that have actuated the Lord Chamberlain in the discharge of his duties. It is easy to find objection here and there. It is not always easy to avoid licensing something which ultimately you wish, had not been licensed. On the other hand, again and again plays about which there has been considerable doubt have been licensed with general approval, and people afterwards have never thought that there was anything wrong in their production. Having regard to all the conditions under which the, Lord Chamberlain has to act and his big responsibility and the difficulties with which he is faced, I ask your Lordships to say that on the whole he discharges his duty with great fidelity and with great regard to all that he should consider, and that there is no reason whatever for suggesting that further restrictions should be imposed.

LORD BRAYE

My Lords, the indictment against stage immorality is a very old one. It has been going on for centuries. It is no new matter that we are discussing this evening. It. is as old as the beginning of Christianity. If any one of your Lordships has ever read any of the writings of St. Chrysostom he will find there how strong is his opposition to the existence of stage plays, and it may be remembered in connection with that idea that this day three hundred years ago a man was standing in the pillory in London condemned to suffer the excision of his ears. What was he punished for in that way? For writing a pamphlet against the immorality of the stage wherein he offended the powers that were, especially the Queen who was rather fond of plays at the Palace. That proves the intense and religious animus that existed at that time against the idea of the representation of immoral things and the repetition of immoral dialogues.

Then again, take the state of affairs in France 100 years after that. I do not think there was any distinction between moral and immoral plays there. They were all condemned as immoral. However that may be, actors and actresses belonging to the histrionic profession were excluded from Christian burial. You may recollect that Adrienne Lecouvreur, one of the most popular actresses at that time in France, who died suddenly on the stage or in the green room, was not allowed Christian burial, but at last they found a stonemason's yard in Paris where they deposited the body of the poor girl, for she was not more than a girl. I mention these incidents to show that this question has been agitated and has had the most violent supporters and opposers from time immemorial.

Therefore it certainly is not likely that in a short session we can come to any conclusion in the matter. It is one of those lasting questions, and in my humble opinion one of immense importance, because the ethics of a nation are of more real importance than the politics of a nation. The politics of a nation are the outcome of the ethics or morals of a nation, and if you bring up a nation inured to the sight of immoral things and to the hearing of immoral dialogues you cannot be surprised, when young people grow up, that they should have a very different idea of what their duty is to the State and to their own families from that which is sanctioned by Christian principles. However, that is an immense question which certainly cannot be entered into now.

The more practical question, although a very difficult one, arises: What is an immoral play? It seems to me that all plays, with very few exceptions, are immoral. That is to say, they represent the passions, and the uncontrolled passions, of men and women. From the days of Sophocles and Euripides that has been the theme of every play that has been written by every play-writer. "Immorality" is a very wide word. The noble Lords who have spoken dwelt almost exclusively on the sexual irregularities which are represented, or at all events which are referred to in the broadest terms, in these plays that are complained of, but surely there is another kind of immorality which is very harmful on the stage, and that is murder. I recollect seeing in Japan plays which were exclusively representative of murder and I suppose they were what is called nowadays "very thrilling" for the audience. They certainly seemed to me to be very dull, but that is a matter of taste.

Anyhow, they represented immoral actions and these same actions, represented in Europe, may certainly have a very detrimental effect upon young persons, especially upon boys, who are invited to see many heroic goings on of the highwaymen of the eighteenth century and are carried away with excitement, as you see from time to time in the newspapers, so that they want to emulate these adventurous gentlemen. They take to larceny and even to worse misdemeanours. Boys have before now been brought up before the Courts for committing violence and they have said that they first learned the excitement of these doings by seeing plays and not only plays but, nowadays still more, the cinema. These considerations seem to me to have been raised by the discussion to which we have listened to-night, but they go far beyond the scope of the Question which is upon the Paper, and it seems to me that you have no legal machinery in England—and that you cannot have under the present system—of excluding immoral scenes or immoral dialogues from the plays that are represented. I am one of those people mentioned by the noble and learned Lord who made such an eloquent speech just now upon the subject—namely, that small number who believe that all plays are mostly detrimental and that the stage in itself is an immense stimulus to the nation to form opinions, social and political, which will guide it through life.

If you want to reduce the chance of these immoral plays being produced in London and, as I understand the noble Lord wishes, throughout the whole country—for, of course, there are theatres not only in London but in every city in England, and cinemas as well—then why should we not imitate the system which seems to work well in America, where a jury is selected or elected in whose hands is placed the decision of this momentous question whether the play that is brought before them is fit to be licensed? I humbly submit—to use a phrase that the lawyers are very fond of using; I suppose it means "I suggest"—that it is not the place of the Lord Chamberlain or of any individual, however conscientious and careful he may be, to decide on his own judgment a question of this kind. I think such questions ought to be in the hands of a number of men, elected, as they are in America, as a jury actually to decide upon the merits of this or that play that is brought before them. There, I think, you have a far better machinery and a more powerful engine to effect your purpose, if your purpose is to purge the stage of its present gross and degrading characteristics.

From the extracts that have been read this evening there can be no doubt that the decadence of the stage, like the decadence of public morals in general, is very striking and, since the War, has proceeded very far. The theatre is the thermometer by which you can read the exact degree of national morality. Some-times it is higher and sometimes lower, but, at the present time all right minded persons agree that it has come down very nearly to zero. A reaction has taken place, as in the ease that I alluded to just, now when Prynne wrote his diatribes against the theatre and the Puritans put them into practice and closed every theatre that they could and abolished acting altogether as far as possible. Then came the reaction. Then came the Caroline debauchery and profligacy and the plays of that period indicate the state of morals in those days. Another reaction has now taken place and we see that those playwrights, Congreve and Wycherley, whose very names were considered almost improper to quote thirty or fifty years ago, are now unearthed and brought before the public as great playwrights And very admirable interpreters of social morality. That being so, certainly think that the thermometer has gone down to zero.

That is the only suggestion that I venture to make, with reference to the Question that has been brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, towards providing o satisfactory machinery to deal with this exceedingly difficult question. The noble and learned Lord has told us how complicated it is. For that very reason it scents to me that it can be more properly and efficiently dealt with by a number of persons than by a single individual, that single individual being the Lord Chamberlain or the Censor. Is he one and the same person? I really do not know, but I presume so. When a play is introduced in London in one of these numerous theatres it bears the sanction of the powers that be, the very high power of the Court. If that power allows a play to be produced, the public naturally suppose that there is nothing to be found fault with in it. That is the only practical suggestion that I venture to make, and I hope that I have made it clearly.

THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (THE EARL OF CROMER)

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given me by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to dispose, as I think I am able, of certain misapprehensions as to the whole position of the Lord Chamberlain and the censorship. In the temporary absence from the House of the noble Lord who asked this Question, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal with one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Braye, who rightly said that this question of the theatre has been one of controversy for all time and who suggested as a remedy that the censorship should be in the hands of a jury. There are various ways of approaching this question of the machinery of the censorship and I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time in considering that particular aspect of the matter, but I should like to point out to the noble Lord that the establishment of a jury presents a good many difficulties. How many members is it to have, who is to elect them, and further, from the point of view of business, how are you to avoid the real difficulty of delay? The procedure is that one copy of a play is sent in and the statutory notice allows seven days for the Lord Chamberlain to come to a decision. If the whole of the jury were to be asked to read a play I venture to think that it would very much delay theatrical business. That is only one objection to this particular form of censorship. The noble Lord also asked whether the Lord Chamberlain and the Censor of Plays were one and the same person. The censorship of plays is vested in the hands of the Lord Chamberlain, and he is entirely responsible.

I will now turn to the various points put to me by Lord Morris. He asked me if my attention had been called to the production of certain plays in London, which have been described in the Press by dramatic critics and others as "immoral," "degrading" and "demoralising." I should like to thank the noble Lord for not mentioning individually any particular play, because, as the right rev. Prelate said, that would advertise a play and would certainly continue its run. But are all these comments which the noble Lord has read out, true? The noble Lord, in the remarks which he made to your Lordships, did not mention that he himself had witnessed any of these particular plays. I confess he would have carried more weight in my mind if, instead of quoting at random from these articles, he had given me his own opinion and had been able to point to some particular portion of a play to which he himself objected. It is the business of the dramatic critic to criticise, and therefore I am not surprised that there should be a great variety of criticisms, but I should very much like to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered me of perusing some of this volume of criticism of which the noble Lord has spoken. As regards my Department, it is kept informed of Press criticisms. As to the question of dramatic critics and others; "others," I think, may be anybody who has anything to say or think about a play. Therefore that term covers a very wide field.

I pass now to the second point raised by the noble Lord, which is whether I will make inquiries into this matter and take appropriate action to suppress what is deemed indecent and objectionable. I should be failing in my duty if I did not at once take steps to suppress what is indecent, and I venture to challenge the allegation that at the present moment there is on the British stage anything which is indecent. As to "objectionable," the word "objectionable" is one that is interpreted by different people in different ways, and there again, if the noble Lord would indicate to me, not across the floor of this House, but privately, so as not to mention a play, the point where he finds objection, I will do anything I can to meet him.

The general outcome of the picture painted by the noble Lord, and to some extent by the right rev. Prelate, points to the suggestion that there is a relaxing rather than a tightening of the exercise of the censorship. Is that really the case? If your Lordships will allow me for one moment I will turn to the statistical side of the question, which will give your Lordships some idea of the volume of work which comes under the Department over which I have the privilege of presiding. In the year 1923, when I was first appointed Lord Chamberlain, 596 plays were submitted for licence. Of those, nine were refused a licence. In the following year, 1924, the number of plays submitted was 618, and by a curious coincidence the same number, nine, were refused licences. In 1925, 740 plays were submitted for licence, and in sixteen cases the licence was withheld. In the present year, up to June 9, 341 plays have been submitted, and of that number already 20 have been refused a licence. From those figures I should like to emphasise the fact that they point in the direction of increased severity of censorship, rather than in the other direction.

The noble Lord further asked me to state what are the principles upon which the Censor of Plays acts, and upon which plays are granted a licence for performarce. The recommendation of the Committee mentioned by the right rev. Prelate specified certain points, which I will not repeat to your Lordships, because they have already been mentioned this evening. But what I would ask the noble Lord to understand is this, that I personally, to the best of my ability, have been following these particular points in considering the licensing of plays. I would, however, strongly deprecate in the public interests putting down in tabulated form exactly what should be the absolute conditions for passing a play. That does not imply that anything indecent or improper will be passed, but if there is a scheduled list of conditions it is always quite possible for the ingenuity of the modern playwright just to evade that list and to be able to turn to a list and say:—"Look at this list, where have I actually offended?" For that reason I personally would deprecate tabulating exactly what conditions are to guide the Lord Chamberlain. Generally speaking, the guiding principle is to eliminate as far as possible any indecency, or anything which, supposing there was no censorship at all, would have to be dealt with by the police, and equally to respect as far as possible the susceptibilities of the community at large.

In the fourth part of his Question the noble Lord asks me if I object to the licensing of theatres placed under my jurisdiction by the Theatres Act, 1843, being transferred to the local authorities, as is the case everywhere else in this country. That same Question was raised in another place yesterday, and the reply given was that. His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, are not prepared to support the transfer. May I mention at the same time that, as is known by the right rev. Prelate, this matter has formed the subject of correspondence between the Public Morality Council and the Prime Minister, and if I may help in any way to elucidate what I feel is at the back of the right rev. Prelate's mind, it is this. There is an idea that the licensing of theatres would enable any particular individual or body to protest against the renewal of a licence. But I may point out that that opportunity exists at present. The theatre licences run for twelve months from November 30 every year, and before the renewal of the licence of any particular theatre it is open to any individual or body of people to make representations or to make a protest. As the Lord Chamberlain has not, like such a representative body as the London County Council, got any council to consult on these licensing questions, there is nobody for him to turn to in that particular way.

May I also point out, to the right rev. Prelate that the questions of transfers and the censorship, although it was disclaimed that there was any connection between them, are in a way one and the same thing for this reason. Supposing that the transfer were to take place and afterwards a theatre produced a play to which exception was taken and it was even desired to withdraw the theatre's licence; so long as the present system obtains the theatre manager could say: "But I have got the Lord Cham- berlain's licence for this play." Therefore the two things hang together, and I do not personally see how they can very well be separated.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

The point is that if there was some slight alteration there should be a chance of protesting.

THE EARL OF CROMER

I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris, touched on the same question, and urged that the Lord Chamberlain or his representative should see a play before it was licensed. But that presents certain business difficulties. Theatre managers have to make contracts for their plays. They buy the rights of a play, they want to know definitely if they can go ahead or not, and they have to take or leave the offer. They send in a play for licence, and once they get the licence for it they can keep it and produce the play as and when it suits them. This procedure makes it impracticable, from the theatre people's point of view, to produce a play before it is licensed; it is a question of time, and a question of money, because they must know before they enter into a contract whether or not they will be allowed to produce the play. Very often, in the case of a play in which some scene is doubtful, a member of my Department is sent to witness that particular scene in rehearsal, and sometimes suggestions are made as to the "business," which, as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster very rightly said, is very often the crux of one particular scene. It is a, question of how a thing is done. What is done by one actor or actress may be harmless, whereas if it were clumsily done by others it might be most offensive. So that that question of staging a play first and then licensing it afterwards does present certain real difficulties.

As Lord Buckmaster observed, the decision over plays is not an easy matter, and, as Lord Chamberlain, I have been most fortunate in being able in cases of extreme difficulty to turn to the advice of certain gentlemen who have been kind enough to act as an Advisory Committee to me. Two of those gentlemen are in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that as a vast number of plays have to be dealt with, and as these gentlemen are naturally prominent and busy people, it is only a very small number of plays that I venture to refer to them. But, whatever their advice is, and whether a play is referred to them or not, the responsibility, when it is acted, is, of course, that of the Lord Chamberlain of the day. Nevertheless, I should like your Lordships to know how much I value the advice and help that I constantly receive from the gentlemen who are kind enough to assist me in this matter.

I think that I have now dealt with all the different points raised by the noble Lord. I should like to add that when objectionable things appear in plays I welcome their being pointed out to me by anybody, but I should like people to be quite specific about the play or incident in question—I mean, I do not want them to bring forward vague mentions, perhaps in the newspapers, or from hearsay. Of course, there are some people who object to everything. The noble Lord, Lord Braye, did not like the idea of murder on the stage. No one does, but I think that if a ban were put on "The Babes in the Wood" or on every play in which the villain commits a murder it would be impossible for the Lord Chamberlain to carry out his duties. It is the Lord Chamberlain's duty, as far as possible, to hold an even balance between the different views, and to uphold, as far as possible, what is best in the traditions of the British stage and in the interests of the community at large.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I venture to intervene as one who is a fairly regular theatregoer and, if I may say so, I have listened with very great satisfaction to the extremely interesting speech which we have just heard. I think it must have brought home to us all the very great trouble which the Lord Chamberlain is taking in a work that is quite exceptionally difficult and delicate. Among the statements which he made there was none that I heard with greater satisfaction than his disapproval of the, proposal to give the local authorities further power in dealing with plays. It is quite true that they have this power in the provinces; but conditions in London are totally different in this way, that in London plays are, in the majority of cases, produced for the first time. If the London County Council was to be a kind of second censor of plays I fear the result would be that originality would be discouraged. I am told that it is now extremely difficult for any play with original, ideas to be accepted, especially as the actor-manager is now no longer so common as was once the case.

The peril to which the stage is open in every generation is, I think, that of becoming extremely conventional and monotonous. A manager would be very doubtful about accepting a play which was original, even if it had been licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, if he felt that later on there might be some agitation raised against it in the London County Council and possibly of the licence of the theatre being withdrawn. Nor am I prepared for a moment to say that the London County Council, or any other local authority, is really a suitable body for dealing with artistic matters. Personally I admire the London County Council in many ways, but I distrust them when they are dealing with bridges, on artistic grounds. I would still more distrust them if they had to deal with matters connected with the drama. I think, looking over a considerable period of time, we are bound to say the censorship, as exercised, has not hindered the drama. More often than not it has been attacked, not on the ground of laxity but on the ground that it has refused certain plays which it ought to have permitted. I think some of the strongest agitation against the censorship, that in 1909 for instance, was due to the fact that certain plays had been refused. The censorship no doubt makes mistakes. Every institution is bound to make a mistake. But on the whole, I think, we can feel that the censorship has both safeguarded the morality of the stage and, at the same time, safeguarded the best interests of the country.

I feel, notwithstanding, bound to add that from time to time there are plays on the stage which I think are open to very serious objections. I should not for a moment join with the statement that was made by the noble Lord opposite that the stage is decadent to-day. I do not believe the stage really is decadent to-day. There is a prevalent fallacy. People very often compare the ordinary plays of to-day with the best plays of the past, forgetting that the best plays of the past are a survival of the fittest, and that a large number of commonplace, ordinary and stupid plays have been completely forgotten. No doubt, on the stage to-day, there are a number of plays which are stupid and sentimental. There are other plays which have a good deal of very real interest in them, but now and again, among these plays, there is some play which is really objectionable. If the noble Lord asks me privately what play I am referring to at the present moment I could not answer. If he asked what plays I regarded as objectionable last year I could have answered. Now and again there appears a play written by someone who seems to be sexually obsessed, and that play is attended as a rule by a number of people who like to see their own unpleasant reflexes manifested and exhibited on the stage. But we are not thinking merely of those plays. we are not thinking merely of those playgoers.

Among the people who go to the theatres there are a number who drift in, going to a play not because they know very much about it but merely because it has had a considerable run, and sometimes they have to sit in a theatre and watch a series of extremely unpleasant incidents and find themselves in an atmosphere which is unwholesome. I venture, therefore, to press that the atmosphere and the general character of the play should be considered as well as any specific phrases or acts which are in it. I know how extremely difficult that is. It is no easy task. I am thinking at this moment of a play which was performed for some time in a London theatre. It would have been difficult to have taken out any particular passage in that play and to have said: "This is an indecent passage." It would have been impossible even to have said: "This play has an evil moral." For, as a matter of fact, in the last few lines it had an extraordinary non sequitur in the shape of a very sentimental ending. The whole play was nauseous, unhealthy and offensive, and I venture to say that any reasonable person who had attended the theatre would have come to the same conclusion about it as I did. I, therefore, would press upon the Lord Chamberlain the possibility of considering still further as to how far in this kind of play the atmosphere as well as the specific acts and words can be dealt with.

The last observation I would make is this. I am convinced that there is a very large body of theatregoers—the great majority of theatregoers—who dislike intensely some of those plays which appear on the London stage and they would support most warmly any further steps taken by the Lord Chamberlain to cheek or repress the production of such plays. I am thinking at this moment of another play. I do not say that I saw it myself, but I read it. It was thoroughly morbid and unhealthy. It is no longer being given on the stage. I was speaking to a distinguished actor-manager about it and I asked him what he thought of it. He said to me: "Sheer filth." That play for a long time drew crowded houses to a theatre. It is against that kind of play that many of us who are theatregoers desire to protest strongly, not merely because such a play was attended by a certain number of people who care for that kind of thing but also because a large number of people drift into the theatre where they find the great broad issues of life hopelessly confused and evil presented in an attractive shape. I hope these last comments of mine will not appear as a criticism of the Lord Chamberlain, who, if I may venture to say so, has been dealing very thoroughly with an extremely difficult task.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I intervene for a moment only. This discussion has more or less exhausted the subject, but I desire to repeat a suggestion that I made when I was a member of the Joint Committee which considered the question of the censorship. As everybody knows, there are far more women who waste their time and their money in going to the play than men. You can see hundreds of these misguided women waiting for hours and hours in all kinds of weather on the pavement in order to witness some perfectly imbecile piece. The Lord Chamberlain has, in accordance with the suggestion made by our Committee, a Consultative Committee of which my noble friend Lord Ullswater is one of the members. My suggestion is that a woman should be put upon this Committee—a really sensible woman, not the kind of woman who would stand twelve or possibly twenty-four hours waiting on the pavement in order to get a chance of going into the theatre at a payment of one shilling less than might otherwise be charged. You want a really sensible woman and there are plenty of sensible women. If this suggestion is adopted it will go a long way towards solving the difficulties of which complaint has been made.

The impression that I got from serving on that Committee was that the censorship was not strong enough. I found myself entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Ullswater, who was a witness and who expressed the same view. He said that what really was required was the tightening up of the censorship. The Committee really was appointed with a view, if possible, of doing away with the censor. I went into that Committee with an open mind, as I invariably do. At the conclusion of the proceedings I was far more strongly in favour of the censor than I had been at the beginning, and that, I think, was the experience of everybody, including those who entered upon their duties with a strong feeling against the censorship in any shape or form. I do not think that we should commit any error if we encouraged the Lord Chamberlain to be, if possible, even more severe and careful than he is at the present moment. The opinion has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Ullswater before now—and there could be no better authority—that many plays have escaped his net which ought not to be presented. If this debate has the effect of making the Lord Chamberlain stricter in his examination of plays, it will have had a beneficial effect. At the same time I hope he will bear in mind the suggestion I ventured to put forward.

LORD MORRIS

My Lords, I should like in one word to thank the Lord Chamberlain for the very full reply he has given to my Question, although, of course, it is not a satisfactory one. There are two points I would like to mention. First, as regards the extracts that I referred to, I should be very glad to send them to him. Secondly, as regards not having supplemented those extracts by my own opinion on the matter, I could not do that because I had not the advantage of seeing any of these plays.

THE EARL OF CROMER

My Lords, may I say that I shall certainly take into consideration the suggestion made by Lord Newton? It is one that has been considered before, but was dropped after a certain time. In view of his putting it forward again I shall have much pleasure in going into the question further and I shall welcome any suggestions on his part as to its solution.