of a play. True, it is an equally strong case for preventing the
circulation of the Bible, which was always in the hands of our
regicides; but as the Roman Catholic Church does not hesitate to
accept that consequence of the censorial principle, it does not
invalidate the argument.

Take another actual case. A modern comedy, Arms and The Man,
though not a comedy of politics, is nevertheless so far
historical that it reveals the unacknowledged fact that as the
Servo-Bulgarian War of 1885 was much more than a struggle between
the Servians and Bulgarians, the troops engaged were officered by
two European Powers of the first magnitude. In consequence,
the performance of the play was for some time forbidden in
Vienna, and more recently it gave offence in Rome at a moment
when popular feeling was excited as to the relations of Austria
with the Balkan States. Now if a comedy so remote from political
passion as Arms and The Man can, merely because it refers to
political facts, become so inconvenient and inopportune that
Foreign Offices take the trouble to have its production
postponed, what may not be the effect of what is called a
patriotic drama produced at a moment when the balance is
quivering between peace and war? Is there not something to be
said for a political censorship, if not for a moral one? May not
those continental governments who leave the stage practically
free in every other respect, but muzzle it politically, be
justified by the practical exigencies of the situation?


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW AND CENSORSHIP