even if it were constitutionally sound, it bears all the marks
of that practical inexperience which leads men to believe that
arbitration either costs nothing or is at least cheaper than law.
Who is to pay for the time of the three arbitrators, presumably
men of high professional standing? The author may not be able:
the manager may not be willing: neither of them should be called
upon to pay for a public service otherwise than by their
contributions to the revenue. Clearly the State should pay. But
even so, the difficulties are only beginning. A licence is seldom
refused except on grounds which are controversial.

The two arbitrators selected by the opposed parties to the
controversy are to agree to leave the decision to a third party
unanimously chosen by themselves. That is very far from being a
simple solution. An attempt to shorten and simplify the passing
of the Finance Bill by referring it to an arbitrator chosen
unanimously by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour might not improbably
cost more and last longer than a civil war. And why should the
chosen referee--if he ever succeeded in getting chosen--be
assumed to be a safer authority than the Examiner of Plays? He
would certainly be a less responsible one: in fact, being
(however eminent) a casual person called in to settle a single
case, he would be virtually irresponsible. Worse still, he would
take all responsibility away from the Lord Chamberlain, who is at
least an official of the King's Household and a nominee of the
Government. The Lord Chamberlain, with all his shortcomings,
thinks twice before he refuses a licence, knowing that his
refusal is final and may promptly be made public. But if he
could transfer his responsibility to an arbitrator, he would
naturally do so whenever he felt the slightest misgiving, or