The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1896. THE MAJORITY MANIA.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9326, 29 January 1896, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1896. THE MAJORITY MANIA.

p J - A gbeat roanj people seem to be i n carried away jfist now by the prepos£terous doetrinfj that not only is the { majority aiwajps right, but it is always J justified us coercing the minority to|i

infallibility about them, and it is rashly assumed that it is only necessary to poll a bare majority of votes for any given proposal to make it just and equitable. One of the candidates in this election contest is perfectly infatuated with this crazy doctrine. Let us briefly examine it. On any question which only admits of being answered in one way, the majority, of course, must rule. If it is impossible that both the majority and the minority can have their will the larger number must prevail. To illustrate: the electors of Christohurch are called upon to decide whether they prefer Joxss or Smith to represent them. If the larger number vote for Jones the Smithites must be content to accept him as their member. The candidates cannot be cut up into fractional parts in proportion to the number of their supporters. There is only one seat vacant, and only one man can fill it. Here, obviously, the decision of the majority must be final. Or again, the majority of electors in the colony want a Land and Income tax rather than a Property tax. The minority must of necessity give way because it is impossible to have two different fiscal systems. Or once more, the people are called on to decide between freetrade and protection : whichever has most supporters must become the system of the colony, since it is impossible to allow one man who believes in freetrade to import his boots free of duty while another who believes in protection has to pay 25 per cent, for them. So far then it is clear the rule of the majority is both necessary and expedient, namely, when it is impossible to gratify the desires of the majority without sacrificing those of the minority. But we absolutely deny the right of the majority to coerce the minority where the conduct of the one does not interfere with the conduct of the other, and is not in itself injurious to the general well-being. To claim that ten men may compel nine men to conform to their views, when there is no possible obstacle to the ten and the nine both doing as they like is a vicious and tyrannous doctrine. Take religion as an illustration. In Ireland the majority of the people are Catholics; in England the majority are Protestants. Who is there would daro to propose that the Catholics of Ireland — a majority—should compel the Protestants—a minority—to change their faith? Or who would have the audacity to suggest that the religion of England should be submitted to referendum, and as a result evory English Catholic bs compelled by law to abjure his faith ? Yet that is precisely what thi3 claim for the rights of majorities amounts to. And it is precisely this doctrine which has been used to justify the cruellest religious persecutions in the Middle Ages. No one now would seriously maintain such a proposition, because it is recognized that the existence of a minority of Protestants in Ireland, or of Catholics in England in no way debars those of the opposite faith believing in and acting up to it in their own way. The rule of the bare majority has been swept out of existence by the growth of the spirit of tolerance. And yet in other questions than religion it is asserting itself in precisely the same terms. There are those who claim that the smoking habit shall be suppressed by law. If a bare majority of votes were polled against the use of tobacco, these fanatics would have smoking made a penal offence. Such a proposition one would think had only to be stated to reveal its own absurdity. The fact that a minority wish to smoke in no way interferes with the wishes of the majority to abstain, and the majority has no more right to expect to coerce the minority than it would were the positions reversed. How would antismokers receive the proposition that a majority of smokers should have the power to compel the minority to take to pipes and cigars—subject to penalties for failing to obey ? Yet the one proposal is as just and logical as the other. Or, again, take dress as an illustration. It is conceivable that in the near future the majority may agree to adopt some reformed style of attire—hygenic dress or what not. The persistence of the minority wearing the garb at present in fashion would in no way prevent the majority from adopting their own. Yet there are people who speak as though it would be perfectly just and proper for the "bare majority" to compel the bare minority to comply. Nor let it be supposed that these illustrations are far-fetched or improbable. They are simply harking back to medieval tyranny. It is not so long ago that the Government of England made stringent rules as to the number of meals to be eaten by the different grades of society. The Roman law actually specified the number of courses to each meal 1 And the statutes of Edward prescribed the national cut and cost of the garments allowed to be worn by men in different walks of life. That was feudal tyranny. True; but is the tyranny of the " bare majority " any better? Is the proposition that a bare majority of teetotallers shall prevent by law a bare minority of moderate drinkers from consuming a pint of beer per day one whit less preposterous than the sumptuary laws of the Edwards? And if we compare these dietary fanatics with the religious fanatics we have already referred to their position is even less tenable. Both wish to impose the will of the majority on the minority, but the religious persecutors had at least this in their favour that they firmly believed the minority, unless they were made to conform, were doomed to eternal damnation. The worst the teetotal persecutor can allege is that drink may injure you or yours physically or socially, or if they go so far as to hold that drink may indirectly lead a man to perdition, they will none of them seriously contend that the blue-ribbon badge is in itself a passport to eternal bliss. - In fact, all this mania about majorities is a revival in a new guise of the worst type of mediaeval tyranny. The first three-quarters of this century saw a successful struggle to throw off all the fetters of individual liberty. The last quarter is occupied in as vigorous an attempt to rivet them on again. And it is all being done under the guise of this doctrine of "majorities." It behoves us, therefore, to pause be-. fore we are carried off oar feet by this j

accept its views. Ono would think majorities had something of divine mania, and to examine critically each new claim to apply it. And we believe the test of its application we have sought to explain will be found to be a sound one, namely, where there is but one way the majority must deoide it. Where it is impossible both for the majority and the minority to havo their way, the larger number must prevail. But where any act or line of conduct is in question, which is not in itself immoral or injurious to the public weal—if the conduct of the minority doe 3 not hamper the conduct of the majority—if it is possible for both to gratify their wishes without interfering with the other—then the claim of the larger number to coerce the smaller is fraught with danger to liberty, and is in its essence undemocratic and unjust.