themselves anything that the most abstruse playwright is likely
to put before them, But the plain sailing tradesman who must be
taken as the typical manager (for the West end of London is not
the whole theatrical world) is by no means equally qualified to
judge whether a play is safe from prosecution or not. He may not
understand it, may not like it, may not know what the author is
driving at, may have no knowledge of the ethical, political, and
sectarian controversies which may form the intellectual fabric of
the play, and may honestly see nothing but an ordinary "character
part" in a stage figure which may be a libellous and
unmistakeable caricature of some eminent living person of whom he
has never heard. Yet if he produces the play he is legally
responsible just as if he had written it himself. Without
protection he may find himself in the dock answering a charge of
blasphemous libel, seditious libel, obscene libel, or all three
together, not to mention the possibility of a private action for
defamatory libel. His sole refuge is the opinion of the Examiner
of Plays, his sole protection the licence of the Lord
Chamberlain. A refusal to license does not hurt him, because he
can produce another play: it is the author who suffers. The
granting of the licence practically places him above the law; for
though it may be legally possible to prosecute a licensed play,
nobody ever dreams of doing it. The really responsible person,
the Lord Chamberlain, could not be put into the dock; and the
manager could not decently be convicted when he could procure in
his defence a certificate from the chief officer of the King's
household that the play was a proper one.


A TWO GUINEA INSURANCE POLICY