No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Controlling Obscene Stage Plays in England
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2009
Extract
Throughout most of the theatre's history, control of obscene stage plays and indeed stage plays generally has been vested in the Lord Chamberlain, the official with overall responsibility for the running of the King's household. One of the Lord Chamberlain's functions would be to ensure that actors and players appeared to entertain the royal household and it was presumably for this reason that he acquired control over the performance of plays. This power of control, which he possessed initially under the authority of the King, was later clarified and put in statutory form in the Theatres Acts 1737–1843.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1981
References
Notes
1. There are a number of matters for which the Lord Chamberlain is responsible e.g. appointment of various royal tradesmen and professional men who attend the household, and care of the royal furniture, pictures and plates. Although he performs no political functions, he is nominated by the Prime Minister for the time being and goes out of office with the ministry. The present Lord Chamberlain is Lord Maclean.
2. Such a power is said to be possessed by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, which consists of various powers and privileges which the law allows to the sovereign over and above those enjoyed by everyone else.
3. s. 2(1), Theatres Act 1968.
4. ss. 3(1), (2).
5. s. 8.
6. Times, 24 September 1968.
7. Times, 1 October 1970.
8. Times, 24 September 1968.
9. See Brian Moynihan, ‘Testing Time for Sex on the Stage, Sunday Times, 26 July 1970.
10. ibid.
11. Times, 1 August 1970.
12. See Hansard H.C. Debs. (5th series), 4 March 1971, vol. 812, col. 1885 and 1 April 1971, vol. 814, cols. 1654–5.
13. Times, 26 August 1970.
14. Times, 23 February 1968.
15. See Report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship (1979) Cmnd. 7772, para. 2.23.
16. ibid.
17. ibid., Cmnd. 7772.
18. Proposals 4 and 5.
19. Para. 11.8 and Proposal 7.
20. Para. 11.8 and Proposal 8.
21. (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 360, 371.
22. (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 569.
23. [1968] 1 Q.B. 159.
24. [1969] 1 Q.B. 151.
25. [1965] 1 Q.B. 509.
26. Para. 11.15 and Proposal 24.
27. Paras. 11.16–11.17 and Proposals 26 and 27.
28. Para. 11.11.
29. Paras. 9.41 and 11.10.
30. See s. 3 Theatres Act 1968: ante p. 138.
31. See Proposals 14 and 29.
32. Para. 2.23 of the Report.
33. ibid.
34. Evening Standard, 17 October 1980.
35. Times, 18 October 1980. The GLC currently makes a £630,000-a-year grant to the theatre. Cutler has denied any veiled threat to cut off the grant (although it seems that the feeling among many GLC members was that the grant should be withdrawn forthwith) but contends that the play will make it difficult for him when he has to argue in favour of the grant at the next GLC budget discussions: Sunday Times, 19 October 1980.
36. Mrs Whitehouse, who formed the NVLA in 1964 initially to monitor the type of material shown on television, has since then been a vigorous campaigner against obscenity and pornography.
37. Times, 20 and 21 October 1980. After these two performances, the play is scheduled for a further six performances in November and another three in December.
38. Times, 24 October 1980.
39. I am most grateful to Chief Inspector R. J. Shepherd, Head of the Metropolitan Police Obscene Publications and Public Morals Squad, for the following information.
40. Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978, Reg. 6(1)(g), replacing the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1946.
41. Criminal Law Act 1977, s. 53(2).
42. Another example under this head would be objects exhibited in public art galleries.
43. Unless of course the Attorney-General gives his consent to a private individual to prosecute, but this would be most unlikely.
44. Times, 20 October 1980.