NO. 1.
MHEUTY.
r
r
Y
V
?:
"T
W
v
hH
nnk ; lor il Is evident tltut one individual
hits not the right to deprive another of the
privilege of developing himself in such a
way as may seem best to him. Hut is it
true that society is willing to allow
this degree of freedom to the individual?
I think not, for we need only look at our
political issues, and we see a majority
ready to crush out all views difVcring from
those which seem right to them. Not by
violence and force, perhaps, but by a pow
er that is still more destructive to individ
uality, the power of society. "When a
man's opinions nro opposed by violence,
he can and generally docs cling to them;
but when he has to endure the scorn of
society, to bear the name of eccentricity,
to be shunned as if he were afllicted with
some contagion, and contact meant death;
with rare exceptions, he will suppress his
own better judgment, and become a mere
reflector ol the ideas of others. To prove
the truth of this, glai.ee at the two great
parties of the day as condoled by Ihecua
cuh. A few men, and often the most un.
scrupulous ones, detei mine upon a course
of action; the rest follow as though they
possessed no will of their own. They sac
rilico their own better judgment tc the
ties of party ; and the result may be the
precipitation of another struggle that will
rend our land assunder.
Again Communism and Socialism arc
making rapid strides; and if they once
gain the ascendancy, they may decree an
equal division of property hetween the
rich and the poor. And why not? They
believe such a division would be just; and
they have been taught that the majority
have the right to determine what privileg.
es the minority shall enjoy; anil also to
compel the acceptance of their decision.
But in no subject have the principles of
personal liberty been so little acknow
ledged as in that of religion. Here the
majority have almost universally claimed
that the view held by them was the right
one, and that no other doctrine could pos
sibly bo correct. The stake and the fag
ot were formally brought into requisition
to bring the wandering and the erring
back into the true belief, which was what
ever the majority held at that particular
time and place.
War followed war, massacro succeeded
massacre, because some men dared assert
their individuality, and deny the common
ly received interpretation of the Bible.
Among the more civilized nations, arms
and armies are no longer employed for
this purpose. And why not? Simply bo
cause the principles of individuality the
right of each man to hold such views as he
chooses, provided he does not attempt to
force them upon others has been recog
nized and established to a limited degree.
But such a doctrine, it is said, will de
stroy all religion, and Mil the world with
such men as Mill, Higginsnn, and Arnold.
Perhaps it may, but let us sec whero
tne denial of liberty of opinion to these
men would lead us. If it is right to stamp
them and their views out of existence,
why should not the Catholics have pro
hihilcd Luther, and Wiclill', and Calvin
from propogating their doctrines? The
Catholics of that day believed the' were
right just as earnestly, as do the opponents
of the new doctrines of the present day.
But it is suggested that these men are
reformers, and that no reformation should
ever he suppressed? How did the people
of that day know they were reformers?
How do you know that every new doc
trine proposed is not a reformation till it
has been tried. Opponents of change are
you uotasliable to be mistaken as the per
sons you would prevent, by all the power
of society from spreading his views?
No man, nor any combination of men,
has the right to restrain the liberty ot an
others, cither by force or by the scorn aud
contumely heaped upon him by society;
they may persuade, they may reason with
him, but farther they have no right to go,
unless he in his turn would deprive others
of the the right of developing themselves
fully and freely ; then society may step iu
and compel him by law, if necessary, to
observe her rights. The object of every
atil..,.,'Ai'-:-'kv