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 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 whenever, for
diplomatic reasons, the licence would come more gracefully from an
authority unconnected with the court. These considerations, added to the
general objection to the principle of censorship, seem sufficient to put
the arbitration expedient quite out of the question.