Quotes by A. P. Herbert

“From the standpoint of Tao” all things are one. People “guided by the criteria of their own mind,” see only the contradiction, the manifoldness, the difference; the sage sees the many disappearing in the One, in which subjective and objective, positive and negative, here and there, somewhere and nowhere, meet and blend. For him, “a beam and a pillar are identical. So are ugliness and beauty, greatness, wickedness, perverseness, and strangeness. Separation is the same as construction: construction is the same as destruction” (pp. 33-33). The sage “blends everything into one harmonious whole, rejecting the comparison of this and that. Rank and precedence, which the vulgar prize, the sage stolidly ignores. The universe itself may pass away, but he will flourish still” (p. 39). “Were the ocean itself scorched up, he would not feel hot. Were the milky way frozen hard he would not feel cold. Were the mountains to be riven with thunder, and the great deep to be thrown up by storm, he would not tremble” (pp. 38-38).””

“...the dissemination of what is called 'news' is always an anti-social and disturbing act; that 'news' consists as to ninety per cent, of the records of human misfortune, unhappiness, and wrongdoing, as to nine per cent of personal advertisement, as to one per cent of instructive and improving matter; that the study of the newspapers is harmful to the citizen because (a) by the their insistence upon railway accidents, floods, divorces, murders, fires, successful robberies, the rates of taxation and other evils, and (b) by the prominence which they give to exceptionally good fortune, the winners of large sweepstakes, the salaries and faces of beautiful actresses, and the occasional success of what are known, it appears, as 'outsiders', [one] is led to the conclusion that industry, thrift and virtue are not worth pursuing in a world so much governed by incalculable chances; and, in general, that the conditions of mind most fostered by the news of the day are curiosity, cupidity, envy, indignation, horror, and fear.””

“We are all Expressionists part of the time. Sometimes we just want to scream loudly atinjustice, or to stand up and be counted. Theseare noble motives, but any serious revolutionist must often deprive himself of the pleasures of self-expression. He must judge his actions by their ultimate effects on institutions.””

“This is one of many expressions which, colourless and even meaningless at first, have been developed into recognized terms of abuse by sloppy writers, prejudiced thinkers and powerful evangelists. The ordinary reasonable man has been trained to shudder away from a 'reactionary' as he does from a 'vested interest', though he may have no clear notion of the nature of either. "What is a Reactionary?””

“Now, in cross-examination, the witnesses Asquith, George, Grey, Simon, Runciman, and indeed nearly all the plaintiffs, have confessed that they have been guilty from time to time of legislation, or proposals for legislation, of which the main purpose was to make people do something which they did not wish to do, or prevent people from doing something they did wish to do. Few of them could point to an item in their legislative programmes which had any other purpose, and, with the single exception of Mr. Haddock, they have no legislation to suggest of which the purpose is to allow people to do something which they cannot do already. On the contrary, it appears, they are as anxious as any other party in Parliament to make rules and regulations for the eating, drinking, sleeping, and breathing of the British citizen... Mr. Haddock's own programme is simple: (a) to propose no legislation unless its purpose is to allow people to do what they like, and (b) to support no legislation whose purpose is to stop people from doing what they like. "Which is the Liberal Party?””

“What is in my mind is well illustrated by this case; for the evidence is that the one manifest result of the 'Hands Off Russia' movement has been to implant in many minds a new and unreasoning antipathy to Russia; whiel the cry of 'Hands Off England' has aroused in others a strong desire to do some injury to their native land. We find therefore that there is no right of Free Speech recognized by the Constitution; and a good thing too. "Free Speech -- Why?””

“And least of all may they do unusual actions 'for fun'. People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. If anything is said in this Court to encourage a belief that Englishmen are entitled to jump off bridges for their own amusement the next thing to go will be the Constitution. For these reasons, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal must fail. It is not for me to say what offence the appellant has committed, but I am satisfied that he has committed SOME offence, for which he has been most properly punished. "Is It a Free Country?””

“It cannot be too clearly understood that this is NOT a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is. The citizens of London must realize that there is almost nothing they are allowed to do. Prima facie all actions are illegal, if not by Act of Parliament, by Order in Council; and if not by Order in Council, by Departmental or Police regulation, or By-laws. They may not eat where they like, drive where they like, sing where they like, or sleep where they like. "Is It a Free Country?””

“When we speak of the ‘Crown’ we sometimes mean the Monarch himself; but more often we mean the Government or some Department of it, or some department of some Department, and sometimes in practice, it is to be feared, some subordinate clerk in some department of some Department. All these Departments, nominally controlled by one who is nominally the King’s Minister, enjoy in practice the benefit of the doctrine that the King can do no wrong.””