Double Dutch

Examiner of Plays' Summary:

[...] Still, I think if they come out and a strong caution is given about the acting - not to emphasise any suggestiveness left it - the play would be possible. But it is only on that proviso that it is Recommended for Licence. 18 March 1916.  [...] This play was reported on a year ago, and reluctantly recommended for Licence as not being essentially immoral in spite of its suggestive incidents. 13 March 1917. The author has now made several more cuts at the instance of the Lord Chamberlain and others as suggested in my second report of the 13th. The effect of these cuts is no doubt good; they take away a good deal of suggestiveness. The atmosphere of the play, however, and the nature of its plot remain extremely unfortunate for the present time. As I said originally, it is not essentially an immoral play, and nothing bad is supposed to happen. But the central idea, an old man suspected of immoralities, with the climax of his wife supposing that young women who answer a painter's advertising have come to form her husband's "harem", is very much out of place now. There is hardly any genuine fun, in the English sense of fun in the piece, and the unpleasantness of the idea is accentuated by the coarse and vulgar manners of the characters. 20 March 1917.