CENSORSHIP in modern practice may be generally defined as action taken by any governing authority to prevent the dis semination of false statements, inconvenient facts or displeasing opinions among the governed (for derivation and history see CENSOR above) .
In Great Britain al most entire freedom of the Press has existed since 1695—except in time of war. Milton's eloquent protest in his Areopagitica against the tyrannous censorship of the Long Parliament had no effect at the time ; it had its effect after the Revolution. Since
there have been no official restrictions except in so far as all publishers of criminal or injurious matter are answerable to the laws of libel and blasphemy and must comply with certain statu tory requirements framed with a view to the identification of offenders (see PRESS Laws). In 1771, however, the house of com mons attempted unsuccessfully to prevent the publication of its debates; and in 1819 the tax of f ourpence a copy on all periodicals (retained until 1836) amounted to a censorship of readers, if not of the Press.
In other European countries, control by Government of printed publications has in the past been almost universal. Its stringency has varied greatly according to the country and the time, but the right of Governments to attempt to control opinion has seldom been in serious question. Books have been freely suppressed, their authors fined and imprisoned, on such grounds as lese majeste, and newspapers and periodicals have been subjected to a censor ship, always political and military, and of ten religious and "moral" as well. Such a system was seen in full flower in Germany during the World War, and as censorships are generally stronger, because more necessary and more easily tolerated, in time of war, it may be well to describe it in detail. When war was declared the control of the censorship was transferred to the military command and administered from the headquarters of the army corps dis tricts into which Germany was divided. Every two or three days instructions were issued to the Press in every district on (I) what they were definitely forbidden to publish, (2) the attitude they were to take up with regard to certain questions, (3) inspired arti cles—often taken from other newspapers—which they were re quested or given permission to reproduce.
The methods of exercising this Press censorship, which were much the same as those adopted in peace time, are typical of most censorships in highly centralized and bureaucratic countries. Edi tors were allowed to produce their papers without preliminary examination of proofs. If they transgressed any regulations they could be prosecuted and their paper suspended or placed under "preventive censorship." Except where purely military subjects were involved, it was impossible for an editor to escape responsi bility by submitting his copy to the censor by way of precaution. "Preventive censorship" involved the submission of all proofs before they were passed for press. The censor was thus in a posi tion to strike out all matter to which he objected, whether action able or not. Generally no discussion of doubtful topics was al lowed, no criticism of the Government and above all no criticism of the higher command. All information which might be of mili tary value was excluded, though in spite of the efforts of the cen sors, much military information was obtained by the British War Office from the German Press. An organization was created in London to scrutinize all enemy periodicals, and a similar institution existed in Berlin. Both organizations were able to obtain much information from the indiscretions of the enemy Press.
A peculiar feature of the German censorship was the censors' insistence that the published periodical should bear no obvious traces of censorship. This was not so in the Allied countries, where most papers appeared daily either heavily caviare, as it was called in Russia (i.e., with paragraphs blacked out), or with large num bers of blank spaces. In Germany it was considered bad for moral that censorship should be so obvious.
In Great Britain a system was devised which first established a series of offences—communicating military information, spreading false reports or publishing statements likely to cause disaffection or to undermine moral—and then supplied a practical line of de fence for editors and publishers against such charges by setting up an "Official Press Bureau" to which matter of doubtful legality or expediency could be submitted for "censoring" or for an official imprimatur. The Bureau, however, had no power to insist on sub mission to censorship and its imprimatur did not relieve an offender from the liability to prosecution. On the positive side, the Bureau issued from time to time secret instructions for the guidance and information of editors.
The censorship of stage plays still surviving in Great Britain is one exception to the now vanished tyrannies which sought to regulate opinion in the mediaeval world. The theatre has in some way been controlled by authority in this country since the time of Henry VII., but the office of Licenser of Plays and the foundations of the present system of dramatic censorship dates from 1737. The Licensing Act of that year was the direct result of Henry Fielding's attacks on Walpole at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket. It prohibited under a penalty of
for each performance the acting for gain of any play or theatrical performance not sanctioned by letters-patent from the Crown or licensed by the lord chamberlain. Lord Chesterfield in his speech on the bill pointed out that there were already remedies at hand for the abuses at which it was aimed, and declared that the powers with which it was proposed to invest the lord chamberlain were more absolute than those of the monarch himself. The "Ex aminer of the Stage" then appointed had in practice little to do for the age was not squeamish and the theatrical world was entirely taken up with the fight for freedom of enterprise against the two "patent" houses, Drury Lane and Covent Garden. In 1832 the chairman of a royal commission appointed to examine the situation was strongly against the continuance of the office of Licenser of Plays, but of the 15 witnesses examined ten were in favour of re taining the censorship and only five against it. Ten years later, the Theatres Act of 1843 at last defined the lord chamberlain's powers as a licenser of plays, and he was forbidden to withhold his license unless "he shall be of opinion that it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do." Twenty-one dramatic authors of note petitioned for the abolition of the censorship in 1865, but a select committee of both Houses in 1866 recommended no change. In 1907—there had been much intermediate agitation-71 authors joined in a letter of condemnation of the censorship which they sent to the Times. They included Meredith, Swinburne and Hardy and their language did not err on the side of mildness. As a result another select com mittee was appointed and reported in 1909. The central feature of the scheme they proposed was that "it should be optional to submit a play for license and legal to perform an unlicensed play, whether it had been submitted or not." Since that time the question has found a working solution by the appointment of a representative committee of arbitrators to which the lord chamberlain can refer any play about which any doubt appears to exist in his own mind or in that of his reader. Prag matically regarded, the censorship may be said to have justified itself ; and the lord chamberlain's licence is probably generally preferable to the mercies of ignorant watch committees and an uninstructed police. The examiners during the 19th century were Larpent, George Colman the younger, Charles Kemble, John Mitchell Kemble, William Smyth-Pigott and G. A. Redford. Lar pent was easy-going, Colman a little ridiculous because of his ex aggerated notions of decency; but the Kembles and Smyth-Pigott were men of letters and men of tact and manners, well acquainted with the world they lived in. Redford was very much out of place and it was largely the gaucherie with which he carried out his duties that led to the protest of 1907. His successors have given critics of the office little ground for complaint.
It would be a mistake to suppose that religious censorship has ever been confined to one section of avowed Christians. But the Roman Catholic Church having at many times asserted its authority regarding the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of Christians, has naturally worked out its own system of censorship through the ages pari passu with the secular censorships of national States. The Index Librorum Ex purgandorum (or Prohibitorum) is published by papal authority as a catalogue of printed publications prohibited to professing Christians whether on doctrinal or moral grounds. In the past there have no doubt been other grounds of prohibition. The first Roman Index was undertaken at the Council of Trent, and when it could not be completed was handed over to Pius IV., who pub lished the first complete list of prohibited books in 1564. Books named in the Index may be either absolutely condemned or pro hibited until they have been "corrected." In modern times it has been found quite impossible for the Congregation of the Index to keep pace with the output of the printing presses of the world. but on the other hand there already exist general rules regarding the use of books which the positive prohibitions of the Index are only intended to supplement.
