The censorship should not be constituted for the purpose of greatly restricting freedom of expression, but, rather, only to check gross license, with impartiality. Dramatic works might be dealt with by the same authority as novels, memoirs, and other classes of literature. Unless the whole scheme of a novel were to run on some revolting moral question, it should not be condemned by the censorial authority, but only those portions of it, individual words, lines, paragraphs, or pages, impartially judged to offend. Once the work submitted had been passed, subject to the deletion or alteration of condemned passages, the possibility of a later questioning should be denied. In this way, the irresponsible fanatic, who now acts as a police irritant or goad, would have to turn his attention to other spheres of activity. The existence of the censorship would therefore perform several services. It would supply publishers and printers alike with definite knowledge as to their immunity from legal attack. It would serve the purpose of a barrier between the public and the publisher of obscene or indecent or blasphemous prints. It would supply a certain sense of security to the writer, whose copyright royalties are, under present circumstances, frequently in danger. It would also relieve the magistracy and the police from a comparatively trivial, though time-filling branch of work. Some utility of purpose would also be fulfilled where plays are concerned. A great deal of gratuitous newspaper advertisement recently attached to the writer of a play, which was refused the license of public performance by the Lord Chamberlain. The whole disturbance was idle enough in its effect, though it helped to recall the existence of the Examiner of Plays--a person deputed by the Chamberlain to carry out the work of censorship in practice. Political reasons were said to have actuated the refusal of a license to produce the play. Such reasons could also be made the basis for similar refusals (in connection with dramatic productions, at any rate) on the part of the censorial authority here advocated. A censorship would free from the shackles of doubt and uncertainty all those persons who contribute to the production of a book. An author would know that at worst his writing was liable to expurgation. In practice, this could even be carried out by the author himself, in accordance with the directions supplied by the censorial authority. The re-submission of the MS. to such authority would mean nothing more than a further delay, of scant importance alongside the sense of security afforded by the process. On the whole, there can be no argument against censorship as strong as the argument in favour of it, and that is the grossly inconsistent method of dealing with _risqué_ literature at the present day. CHAPTER VIII CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, MURDER AND SUICIDE[28]