The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-11-14 00:00:00

MR. MILL UPON_ THE PERMISSIVE

BILL.
Mr. Dawson Burris, of the United Kingdom
Alliance, .2s, King Witlimn-street, London. has sent
the following letters for publication

November C, 1888.

sjr,—you are reported to have replied on Wednesday
: evincing to a ,lueslil II oil the Permissive Bill in these terms
--• I ant against allowing the majority in any place to make
laws regulating the tastes aunt morality nit the minority.'
! Assuming that you have 'leen correctly reported, I respect-
(ully submit that, philosopher anal statesman as )oat are, this
observation is neither statesmanlike nor philosophic. As a
I general proposition, it is wanting in that clearness for which
I your style is eminently listitiguishett. If von mean that
, majorities have no right to legislate so as to check the in-
-1 diligence td the tastes i. e., likes and dislikes of minorities,
and so as to affect the moral condition of the community, I
cannot see what room you leave for ally species of legisla-
tion, or how the duties of in legislator can be other than
I negatively defined. If this he not }our meaning, I fail to
i perceive any pertinency in lour remark as directed against
the resaiiaNive
.• hotther submit that your reply both suggests a wholly
false issue, and entirely suppresses that real issue between
the friends and opponents td the Bill. It sliggests a false
Issue, for you very well know that if the qtlestioll were one
of mere personal taste as of one kind of food in preference
to an..ther tire! private morality. as of e. pvetousiiess against •
the Perniissive hill could never have been
.. • ; Your reply also suppresses the real issue,
. Raves completely ont oi sight the indisputable
of the drink traffic, mei its acknowledged con-
all the eel!; which impoverish, criminalize, and
11,railo irlll.llso iluSoess and thereby impose heavy
bil I, I 013 Upon all thlt,e, and seriously impede, where
they do list thwart, the InoSt generous and active
efforts for social prenTaily alai Well-being The
effects id this traffic call for aml compel legislation of a
charact, designe lad "hen vainly, to be remedial and
col motive anti to deny the right of any community, large
or small, to act upon the causes when within reach of legal
restraints, aud already assumed to he under legal control
scents to tile a deaial of that right of self-protection which
lies at the basis of all social institutions and of rivilisation
itself. I ani not aware that in your published writings yen
have ,inestioned the tight II peblic interference with the
'plor traffic for public ends: all that pin have ever claimed
being that the right of u.e involves the tight I purchase,
and iherefore the right of sale. hut this right of sale does
Ind liecessitate the upiedil tic la tine licensing 6ysteni as lone
innmtilutrmi.inn!, short of entire prohiliitiou, it would admit
. of a redaction in the 111110,er nt drinking-shops, leading to
a great abatement of prevailing evils.
•'I ant sorry that, unlike Captain Grosvenor and Mr.
:smith, you have led consent.' to receive a deputation 4,f
3,4111 r e,nnnlitueinls nt! this sabject. oral intercourse in MICR
a ease is mere satisfactory than epistolary cm 11111 l mication,
and is infinitely superior to the question-and-answer style
however .pigranitnatically conithicted) carried on in the
face of an excited and impatient public meeting.
I ant, dear fir, very sincerely yours,
" DAWSON BURNS."

"Blackheath-park, Kent, Nov. 7,1568.
" Boar Sir,—lt is quite true that nip answer to the quer,-
thin about the Permissive Bill was very inadequate, but it
did not pretend to be adequate it was only intended to
give a general notion of the kind of objection I have to the
Bill— via, that the use or non line of alcoholic liquors is a
subject on whieh every sane and grown-up person ought to
judge for himself under his own responsibility, and that in- ,
terference with that private responsibility from known good
motives, and with however much apparent justification, is
not, in my eye., made allowable by the fact of its being
sanctioned Ily the vote of a majority.
•• My reason facet accepting the proposal of an interview
was merely that, each side being already well aware of what
the other side has to say, it was probable that any oral diu.
cussion would be lost time. Fm the same reas. al I hope
you will excuse me from replying to the arguments in your
letter. But I will not conclude without saying that a much
better licensing system might easily la, hail than that of
leaving all to the discretion of the magistrates, and that I
should not necessarily be opposed b. any proposal on the
subject because it might • reductum in the number
of drinking-shops."llds, of course, does not affect my
opposition to a Bill for allowing a two-thirds majority in
a locality the power of prohibiting the sale of alcoholic
liquors.
" Allow nie, at the some time, to say that I have never
expressed myself otherwise than most respect:ulty concern-
ing the intentions ad those who support the Bill, and the
great moral value of the on,h they pursue.
.• I am, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
J. S. MILL"