I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice.  I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays.  My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals.  In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong; and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England to-day with abhorrence.  I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinions in these matters.  I have no other effectual incentive to write plays, as I am not dependent on the theatre for my livelihood.  If I were prevented from producing immoral and heretical plays, I should cease to write for the theatre, and propagate my views from the platform and through books.  I mention these facts to shew that I have a special interest in the achievement by my profession of those rights of liberty of speech and conscience which are matters of course in other professions.  I object to censorship not merely because the existing form of it grievously injures and hinders me individually, but on public grounds.

THE DEFINITION OF IMMORALITY

In dealing with the question of the censorship, everything depends on the correct use of the word immorality, and a careful discrimination between the powers of a magistrate or judge to administer a code, and those of a censor to please himself.

Whatever is contrary to established manners and customs is immoral.  An immoral act or doctrine is not necessarily a sinful one:  on the contrary, every advance in thought and conduct is by definition immoral until it has converted the majority.  For this reason it is of the most enormous importance that immorality should be protected jealously against the attacks of those who have no standard except the standard of custom, and who regard any attack on custom—­that is, on morals—­as an attack on society, on religion, and on virtue.

A censor is never intentionally a protector of immorality.  He always aims at the protection of morality.  Now morality is extremely valuable to society.  It imposes conventional conduct on the great mass of persons who are incapable of original ethical judgment, and who would be quite lost if they were not in leading-strings devised by lawgivers, philosophers, prophets and poets for their guidance.  But morality is not dependent on censorship for protection.  It is already powerfully fortified by the magistracy and the whole body of law.  Blasphemy, indecency, libel, treason, sedition, obscenity, profanity, and all the other evils which a censorship is supposed to avert, are punishable by the civil magistrate with all the severity of vehement prejudice.  Morality has not only every engine that lawgivers can devise in full operation for its protection, but also that enormous weight of public opinion enforced by social ostracism which is stronger