This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]On: 11 October 2014, At: 12:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

The Journal of Legal HistoryPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgh20

The fushimi incident: Theatrecensorship and the mikadoAndrew Goodman aa Barrister‐at‐law, LondonPublished online: 30 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Andrew Goodman (1980) The fushimi incident: Theatrecensorship and the mikado, The Journal of Legal History, 1:3, 297-302, DOI:10.1080/01440368008530722

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440368008530722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising

directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Fushimi Incident: TheatreCensorship and The Mikado

ANDREW GOODMAN*

It is now only a little over twelve years since the considerable agitationthat successfully removed the curious but controversial powers of censor-ship over stage-plays, vested in the Office of the Lord Chamberlain bythe Theatres Regulations Act, 1843. In the mid-1960s the argumentsbasically centred upon morality—and the consequent indulgences innudity and unchecked vulgarity. The original statute did have that inmind, but only within a broad spectrum of controlling the activities ofthose regarded by the law as rogues and vagabonds, that being anyoneconnected with the theatre. In 1751 theatres and music-halls were speci-fically mentioned in an act designed to regulate 'disorderly houses', andthe 1843 Act extended and redefined the Elizabethan powers of the LordChamberlain with regard to the licensing and censorship of publicpresentations:

sl4. . . . It shall be lawful for the Lord Chamberlain for the Timebeing, whenever he shall be of the opinion that it is fitting for thePresentation of Good Manners, Decorum, or of the public Peaceso to do, to forbid the acting or presenting of any Stage Play, orany Act, Scene, or Part thereof, or any Prologue or Epilogue, orany Part thereof, anywhere in Great Britain, or in such Theatres ashe shall specify, and either, absolutely or for such Time as he shallthink fit.

This power was also extended to lay Justices to be used in connectionwith the Riot Acts. The Lord Chamberlain's Office introduced regu-lations under the Act concerning all aspects of theatrical management,from fire control and crowd safety (later transferred to the LondonCounty Council), to what could actually be presented on stage:

Regulations as to Theatres1

13. A copy of every new piece, or alterations of old pieces intendedto be produced, to be forwarded for Licence to the Examiner ofPlays seven clear days before such intended production. No

* Barrister-at-law, London.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

298 THE JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY

alteration of the text when licenced for representation to be per-mitted without sanction.

14. Copies of all Play Bills to be sent to the Lord Chamberlain'sOffice every Monday, and whenever a change of performance isannounced.

15. Notice of the change of title of a piece to be given to the Ex-aminer of Plays.

16. The name and private address of the actual and responsiblemanager to be printed in legible type at the head of each bill.

17. Admission to be given at all times to authorised officers of theLord Chamberlain's Department, and of the Police.

18. No profanity or impropriety of language to be permitted on thestage.

19. No indecency of dress, dance or gesture to be permitted on thestage.

20. No offensive personalities or representations of living persons tobe permitted on the stage, nor anything calculated to produceriot or a breach of the peace.

21. No exhibition of wild beasts or dangerous performances per-mitted on the stage. No women or children to be hung from theflies, nor fixed in positions from which they cannot releasethemselves.

W. S. Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan fame, like any other Victoriandramatist grew up with these restrictions, and whilst remaining unpopu-lar they became quickly institutionalised and something to be attackedwith humour or good natured grumbling rather than serious radicalopposition. Gilbert was probably affected less than his contemporaries,his work being conservative and even prudish: very rarely did he seekvulgarity as the means to raise a laugh. Yet at a time when he wasthe most successful and respected dramatist of his day, and indeed onlya month before he became the first author of drama to receive a knight-hood, his most loved and feted work was banned from performanceunder those same regulations.

In one area Gilbert's writing style was severely restricted. Whilsthe was a keen supporter of propriety on the stage, in nearly all hisplays, from early burlesques right through the period of his Savoy Operapartnership with Arthur Sullivan, a hard-hitting and sometimes bittersatire was punched home to the audience, attacking nearly all thecherished Victorian institutions; and it was in his satire, and especiallyhis political satire, that he fell foul of the Lord Chamberlain and Regula-tion 20. In March, 1873, using the pseudonym of F. Latour Tomline,Gilbert produced a burlesque which portrayed three leading Liberalmembers of the Government of the day, Gladstone himself, Ayrton and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE 'FUSHIMI INCIDENT' 299

Lowe. The Lord Chamberlain suspended its performance until the repre-sentation of the politicians was made less obvious. In response to thisGilbert ordered that, using the same costumes and make-up, the coatcollars should be turned up and the hat brims pulled down. This made'Gladstone' look like Guy Fawkes and the show ran for 200 perfor-mances.

By the time Gilbert and Sullivan broke all box-office records with therun of The Mikado in 1885 all this had been forgotten. Universallypopular to this day, its initial run lasted for over 800 performances;it became translated into more than 50 languages; it became KaiserWilhelm's favourite opera; it enjoyed almost continuous amateur per-formances from the time of its first production: it confirmed more thanany work before it the genius of the creative partnership.

The 1906-9 revival series organised by Mrs. Helen D'Oyly Carteshowed that the Savoy Operas had suffered no loss in popularity. The1907 revival was scheduled to be The Mikado, and the preparationshad been made accordingly. However without warning, or any form ofprior consultation, Mrs. D'Oyly Carte received a notice from the LordChamberlain under Regulation 20 forbidding the performance of theplay. Gilbert was summoned to see Lord Althorp at St. James's Palaceand informed of the decision. Both were amazed. It appeared that aState visit to Britain was to be made, starting on 4th August 1907, by amember of the Imperial Japanese household, Prince Fushimi, and underpressure from the Foreign Office who felt that the Japanese allies mightbe offended, the Chamberlain imposed the ban. No mention was madeof the fact that the opera had been enjoyed throughout the country forthe past 22 years, or that it had even been translated into Japanese.

The notice came at the end of April: it covered not only all per-formances, whether professional or amateur, of the piece, but alsoconcert performances and even arrangements for band or orchestra. TheSecretary to the Admiralty issued an order forbidding Naval or Marinebands to play selections from the opera. Amateur performances were forthe most part abandoned, such as that due to be given by the Robin'sDramatic Society at the Cripplegate Institute on Tuesday, April 30th.However in defiance of the Lord Chamberlain's order a performancewas given at the Lyceum Theatre, Sheffield on Thursday, May 22ndand the Chamberlain withdrew the theatre's licence. Specific action wasalso taken against the Middlesborough Amateur Operatic Society.

The Lord Chamberlain's office defended the action by claiming thatthe matter had been raised after a representation made by a member ofthe Japanese embassy. The press ridiculed the whole business and thejingoists were scathing in their criticism. The Japanese correspondentassigned to the Prince's visit, Sugimura, himself went to the Sheffieldperformance and reported that not only was there nothing of possible.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

300 THE JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY

offence, but that he greatly enjoyed the show.Eventually the subject was raised on the floor of the Commons and

even the Prime Minister was drawn into the argument. It started onMay 22nd with a question to the Foreign Secretary, and concerned alegitimate constitutional point: the answerability, and departmentalresponsibility of the Lord Chamberlain to the House of Commons.2

Mr. Vincent Kennedy (Cavan. W.): I beg to ask the Secretary ofState for Foreign Affairs if he will say whether the views of theJapanese were consulted in withdrawing the licence for The Mikado;on whose advice did the Lord Chamberlain act; and will he statewhat were the considerations that prompted the action in this matter;whether the responsibility for the decision rests solely with the LordChamberlain; and will he generally reconsider the whole question asaffecting the case of this play with a view to withdrawing the pro-hibition and limiting, by legislation or otherwise, the power of theLord Chamberlain.

Sir Edward Grey: I understand that the Lord Chamberlain actedon his own responsibility solely. But, with regard to the best partof the Question, I may say that if my advice had been asked orgiven it would have been entirely in accord with the action whichthe Lord Chamberlain has taken, for reasons which I would havethought would have been obvious at this moment. I am not there-fore, prepared to reconsider the Question, even if it were in myprovince to do so.

Mr. Vincent Kennedy: Who is responsible in this house for theactions of the Lord Chamberlain?

Sir Edward Grey asked for notice.

On the 6th another attempt was made to raise a discussion of theissue, and with the minister for a body which it was hoped would havemore influence, the 'Senior Service':3

Mr. Trevelyan (Yorkshire W. R. Elland): I beg to ask the Secretaryto the Admiralty whether naval bands have been forbidden to playany selections from 'The Mikado'; and if so, will he explain thereason for this prohibition?

The Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee):The licence for the play was withdrawn by the Lord Chamberlain,who asked that instructions should be given to all naval and marinebands to exclude from their musical programmes any music from'The Mikado' during the visit of His Imperial Highness the PrinceFushimi of Japan to this country.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE 'FUSHIMI INCIDENT' 301

Viscount Tumour (Sussex, Horsham): Can the Right HonourableGentleman state more fully the grounds on which the Admiraltycame to this extraordinary decision?

Mr. Edmund Robertson: I have stated fully the grounds.

Mr. George Faber (York): May I ask whether there is any buffooneryin the music?

Major Anstruther-Gray (St. Andrews, Burghs): Will the Governmentreconsider their decision?

Mr. Edmund Robertson: The Admiralty are alone concerned in thismatter, arid they will not reconsider their decision.

A few minutes later the Prime Minister was faced with the issue:4

Mr Vincent Kennedy (Cavan W.): I beg to ask the Prime Ministerif he will state whether any Minister of the Crown is responsibleto the House of Commons for the action or inaction of the LordChamberlain.

The Prime-Minister and First Lord of The Treasury (Sir HenryCampbell-Bannerman Stirling, Burghs): The Home Secretary hasbeen in the habit of answering the Parliamentary Questions onbehalf of the Lord Chamberlain, and of seeing that he is furnishedwith the best legal advice; but it would require legislation to makehim Parliamentarily responsible for the Lord Chamberlain.

The Pall Mall Gazette had, in common with all other social magazinesand newspapers, been closely following events, and indeed took up thecause in its editorial of May 1st which aptly ridiculed the situation:

We shall await with real interest the Prime Minister's reply tothe question Mr. Vincent Kennedy will put to him tomorrow withrespect to the play of 'Hamlet'. He will be asked whether his atten-tion has been drawn to the fact that in the play the King of Den-mark is portrayed as a murderer; whether, in view of the fact thatDenmark is a friendly Power, he will request the Lord Chamberlainto prohibit the further production of this play; or whether he intendsto introduce legislation to define and limit the powers of the LordChamberlain.Really, this withdrawal of 'The Mikado' licence, after twenty yearsof inoffensive fooling, seems to argue a lack of sense of humoursomewhere, and does set people asking how many classical Englishplays may have to disappear unvenerably at the capricious hest ofan excessive diplomatic delicacy. It is a great nonsense for theplay has been produced in Japan itself; but it is more than nonsense

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

302 THE JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY

—it is quite an alarming grievance. Since the art of governmentbegan it was known to be specially dangerous to interfere withpeople's amusements; but a democracy with classic ones constituteswhat the Americans call a new proposition!

The show remained barred, despite the agitation in the press and theCommons, and what was especially underlined was the non-answerabilityto Parliament of the Chamberlain using the exercise of his TheatresAct powers even if intra vires. It was not until 28th April 1908 that theD'Oyly Carte Company was allowed an unhindered revival. Gilbertcomplained bitterly that he had lost up to £10,000 over the incidentwhen giving evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee onStage Plays (Censorship),5 a year later, as an acknowledged expert andthe leading member of his profession of the day. His complaint was thearbitrary interference with a valuable Proprietary right, with no availableappeal. His point was justified with considerable irony: in that August,1907, the Japanese squadron had sailed up the Medway to land PrinceFushimi. The imperial warship carrying the Prince very naturally had anaval band playing on the quarterdeck. Playing airs from . . . The Mikado.

NOTES

1. See Settle and Baber: The Law of Public Entertainments (1915) 150-1.2. Hansard: Commons Debates 2 May 1907 col. 1062.3. Hansard: Commons Debates 6 May 1907 col. 1323-4.4. Hansard: Commons Debates 6 May 1907 col. 1348.5. Minutes of Evidence. Joint Select Committee on Stage Plays (Censorship) 19

August 1909, pp. 190-2, paras. 3418-3456.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

12:

11 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014