ecclesiastical referee might be biassed against the theatre
altogether. A judge in chambers would be the proper authority.
This plan would combine the inevitable intolerance of an
enlightened censorship with the popular laxity of the Lord
Chamberlain.

The judge would suppress the pioneers, whilst the Examiner of
Plays issued two guinea certificates for the vulgar and vicious
plays. For this reason the plan would no doubt be popular; but it
would be very much as a relaxation of the administration of the
Public Health Acts accompanied by the cheapening of gin would be
popular.


THE ARBITRATION PROPOSAL

On the occasion of a recent deputation of playwrights to the
Prime Minister it was suggested that if a censorship be
inevitable, provision should be made for an appeal from the Lord
Chamberlain in cases of refusal of licence. The authors of this
suggestion propose that the Lord Chamberlain shall choose one
umpire and the author another. The two umpires shall then elect a
referee, whose decision shall be final.

This proposal is not likely to be entertained by constitutional
lawyers. It is a naive offer to accept the method of arbitration
in what is essentially a matter, not between one private
individual or body and another, but between a public offender and
the State. It will presumably be ruled out as a proposal to refer
a case of manslaughter to arbitration would be ruled out. But