After all, ridiculous as the scene was, Colonel Lockwood’s simplicity and courage were much more serviceable to his colleagues than their own inept coup de theatre would have been if he had not spoiled it.  It was plain to every one that he had acted in entire good faith, without a thought as to these apparently insignificant little books being of any importance or having caused me or anybody else any trouble, and that he was wounded in his most sensitive spot by the construction my Times letter had put on his action.  And in Colonel Lockwood’s case one saw the case of his party on the Committee.  They had simply been thoughtless in the matter.

I hope nobody will suppose that this in any way exonerates them.  When people accept public service for one of the most vital duties that can arise in our society, they have no right to be thoughtless.  In spite of the fun of the scene on the surface, my public sense was, and still is, very deeply offended by it.  It made an end for me of the claim of the majority to be taken seriously.  When the Government comes to deal with the question, as it presumably will before long, I invite it to be guided by the Chairman, the minority, and by the witnesses according to their weight, and to pay no attention whatever to those recommendations which were obviously inserted solely to conciliate the majority and get the report through and the Committee done with.

My evidence will be found in the Bluebook, pp. 46-53.  And here is the terrible statement which the Committee went through so much to suppress.

THE REJECTED STATEMENT

PART I

THE WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS

I am by profession a playwright.  I have been in practice since 1892.  I am a member of the Managing Committee of the Society of Authors and of the Dramatic Sub-Committee of that body.  I have written nineteen plays, some of which have been translated and performed in all European countries except Turkey, Greece, and Portugal.  They have been performed extensively in America.  Three of them have been refused licences by the Lord Chamberlain.  In one case a licence has since been granted.  The other two are still unlicensed.  I have suffered both in pocket and reputation by the action of the Lord Chamberlain.  In other countries I have not come into conflict with the censorship except in Austria, where the production of a comedy of mine was postponed for a year because it alluded to the part taken by Austria in the Servo-Bulgarian war.  This comedy was not one of the plays suppressed in England by the Lord Chamberlain.  One of the plays so suppressed was prosecuted in America by the police in consequence of an immense crowd of disorderly persons having been attracted to the first performance by the Lord Chamberlain’s condemnation of it; but on appeal to a higher court it was decided that the representation was lawful and the intention innocent, since when it has been repeatedly performed.