The tom-foolery of the permissive bill / [a Templar].

Date:
[1872?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The tom-foolery of the permissive bill / [a Templar]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    6/8 (page 6)
    though it is “possible to conceive” the monstrous social-state supposed, it is so very difficult to do so, that it just amounts to the foolish conception that a generation of sane people, having prohibit¬ ed the greatest curse of the age, is strangely succeeded by an insane generation that prohibits its daily bread ! If my Lord Derby were to assure us that the logic of the two courses was precisely the same, he would simply demonstrate his own utter want of logic—- to say nothing stronger and truer. One answer suffices for all the false parallels, so foolishly paraded. If the sale or exhibition of mutton, Notts or Australian, or anything else, produces the same evil effects as the tippling*shop, or even a tithe of them, then a sane community will treat them in the same fashion. Tf not—not. Lord Derby’s miserable paralogism amounts to this—“If a pear tree be an Upas tree, you may cut it down!” Or to this—“If good things be bad ones, you may prohibit them.” But this is mid-sum¬ mer madness—not reasoning. Convictions must follow the differences of things, and law must follow both. If the drink- traffic be good, then it ought not to be prohibited, either in part or whole. If it be bad, it cannot be made good, or better, by idiotically supposing yourself that some really good thing is bad—- or by supposing that somebody else might suppose it to be bad. 2. “ Opinions of a certain kind in religion and politics might be very ob¬ jectionable to a majority ; therefore, why not suppress them, or prevent their diffusion. Why not, as Lord Derby said, permit a Tory majority to hinder the publication of a Liberal newspaper; it would be very easy to per¬ suade them that the perusal of Liberal opinions were [was] quite as detri¬ mental as the drinking of spirituous liquors.” No doubt it would be very easy to persuade selfish and bad people into many false positions ; but is that /my reason, my Lord Derby, why wise and enlightened men should not legislate on true positions? This objection can only mean one of two things—either the absurdity just refuted, or that it is only an opinion that the Drink- traffic is a social evil and nuisance. To this, we reply—law is not to be based upon 4 opinions,’ but upon facts—facts carefully ascertained, as in matters of sanitary law and trade : and no fact is better established than the fact of the universal and permanent evil of the drink shops. As a rule, an adverse opinion does me no wrong; and, therefore, gives me no right to repress it, but if the publication of an opinion does tend to upset morals, society, or government, as the doctrine of treason, and the English law of libel assume—then sftch publication is prohibited. If Toryism, or Liberalism, really do produce crime and confusion in society, then let them be suppressed, because they do the same things as other prohibited courses,—and if they do not, then let them live and flourish as they best may. “ So long as they do not interfere with me, wrongfully and injuriously, I have no wish to interfere with them.” This is the position of every citizen, in regard to everything. 3. “ Why not allow the majority to punish the minority for not going to Church on Sundays, or for holding opinions not strictly in accordance with the Thirty-nine Articles,”