invited them to read them to the Committee before
being questioned. I accordingly prepared such
a statement. For the greater convenience of the
Committee, I offered to have this statement printed
at my own expense, and to supply the members with
copies. The offer was accepted; and the copies
supplied. I also offered to provide the Committee
with copies of those plays of mine which had been
refused a licence by the Lord Chamberlain. That
offer also was accepted; and the books duly supplied.
As far as I can guess, the next thing that happened
was that some timid or unawakened member of the Committee
read my statement and was frightened or scandalized
out of his wits by it. At all events it is certain
that the majority of the Committee allowed themselves
to be persuaded to refuse to allow any statement to
be read; but to avoid the appearance of pointing this
expressly at me, the form adopted was a resolution
to adhere strictly to precedent, the Committee being
then unaware that the precedents were on my side.
Accordingly, when I appeared before the Committee,
and proposed to read my statement “according
to precedent,” the Committee was visibly taken
aback. The Chairman was bound by the letter of
the decision arrived at to allow me to read my statement,
since that course was according to precedent; but
as this was exactly what the decision was meant to
prevent, the majority of the Committee would have
regarded this hoisting of them with their own petard
as a breach of faith on the part of the Chairman,
who, I infer, was not in agreement with the suppressive
majority. There was nothing for it, after a somewhat
awkward pause, but to clear me and the public out of
the room and reconsider the situation in camera.
When the doors were opened again I was informed simply
that the Committee would not hear my statement, but
as the Committee could not very decently refuse my
evidence altogether, the Chairman, with a printed copy
of my statement in his hand as “proof,”
was able to come to the rescue to some extent by putting
to me a series of questions to which no doubt I might
have replied by taking another copy out of my pocket,
and quoting my statement paragraph by paragraph, as
some of the later witnesses did. But as in offering
the Committee my statement for burial in their bluebook
I had made a considerable sacrifice, being able to
secure greater publicity for it by independent publication
on my own account; and as, further, the circumstances
of the refusal made it offensive enough to take all
heart out of the scrupulous consideration with which
I had so far treated the Committee, I was not disposed
to give its majority a second chance, or to lose the
opportunity offered me by the questions to fire an
additional broadside into the censorship. I pocketed
my statement, and answered the questions Viva
Voce. At the conclusion of this, my examination-in-chief,
the Committee adjourned, asking me to present myself
again for (virtually) cross-examination. But this
cross-examination never came off, as the sequel will
shew.
Print
Word
PDF
