on the drama is about as sensible as an attempt to make everybody
in London wear court dress.


WHY NOT AN ENLIGHTENED CENSORSHIP?

In the above cases the general question of censorship is
separable from the question of the present form of it. Every one
who condemns the principle of censorship must also condemn the
Lord Chamberlain's control of the drama; but those who approve of
the principle do not necessarily approve of the Lord Chamberlain
being the Censor ex officio. They may, however, be entirely
opposed to popular liberties, and may conclude from what has been
said, not that the stage should be made as free as the church,
press, or platform, but that these institutions should be
censored as strictly as the stage. It will seem obvious to them
that nothing is needed to remove all objections to a censorship
except the placing of its powers in better hands.

Now though the transfer of the censorship to, say, the Lord
Chancellor, or the Primate, or a Cabinet Minister, would be much
less humiliating to the persons immediately concerned, the
inherent vices of the institution would not be appreciably less
disastrous. They would even be aggravated, for reasons which do
not appear on the surface, and therefore need to be followed with
some attention.

It is often said that the public is the real censor. That this is
to some extent true is proved by the fact that plays which are
licensed and produced in London have to be expurgated for the