functions of the crown, the freedom of authors to deal with
political subjects, even historically, is seriously
threatened by the way in which the censorship makes the King
responsible for the contents of every play. One author--the
writer of these lines, in fact--has long desired to dramatize the
life of Mahomet. But the possibility of a protest from the
Turkish Ambassador--or the fear of it--causing the Lord
Chamberlain to refuse to license such a play has prevented the
play from being written. Now, if the censorship were abolished,
nobody but the author could be held responsible for the play.
The Turkish Ambassador does not now protest against the
publication of Carlyle's essay on the prophet, or of the English
translations of the Koran in the prefaces to which Mahomet is
criticized as an impostor, or of the older books in which he is
reviled as Mahound and classed with the devil himself. But if
these publications had to be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain it
would be impossible for the King to allow the licence to be
issued, as he would thereby be made responsible for the opinions
expressed. This restriction of the historical drama is an
unmixed evil. Great religious leaders are more interesting
and more important subjects for the dramatist than great
conquerors. It is a misfortune that public opinion would not
tolerate a dramatization of Mahomet in Constantinople. But to
prohibit it here, where public opinion would tolerate it, is an
absurdity which, if applied in all directions, would make it
impossible for the Queen to receive a Turkish ambassador without
veiling herself, or the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's to display
a cross on the summit of their Cathedral in a city occupied
largely and influentially by Jews. Court etiquet is no doubt an
excellent thing for court ceremonies; but to attempt to impose it