be judged "in each separate case" by the crude feelings of that man on the Clapham bus, who also happens to be the man in the jury box." Further codification of immorality, further inquiry into how far the law ought or ought not go, seems purely academic to Sir Patrick, "indeed, the law does not distinguish between an act that is immoral and one that is contrary to public policy."

Everyone, he concludes, must help enforce the moral bias of the man on the Clapham bus, lest morals fail and society collapse.

In the magazine, ENCOUNTER, Nov., 59, Richard Wollheim (see also "The Road to Toleration," ONE, June, '58) rather easily dissects the "unanswerable logic" of Justice

Devlin:

"... we are told at one point. that society has an unlimited right to enforce morality and ... later on... that there are certain conditions...capable of only very vague formulation, under which society ought not to enforce morality. But if 'right' here is used to mean 'right,' and 'ought' here is used to mean 'ought,' how can the argument taken as a whole avoid the charge of self-contradiction?... He clearly senses that something is wrong, and betrays this by the way he talks of society's right to enforce morality as a 'right' when he is trying to establish it, but then talks of it as a 'power' when he is trying to limit it . . . a power to do something can properly be limited by the obligation not to do it: whereas it is evident that a right can't be."

Devlin's chief confusion, Wollheim says, is his apparent view that distinctions based on a single criterion are logically, even morally, in-

one

ferior to those based on several indeterminate criteria. This led him to reject the Wolfenden sin-crime distinction, and to affirm that society has the right to punish all immorality, and then to say that some immorality needn't be punished but can be judged piecemeal by application of several separate and vague principles.

Devlin shows no way, Wollheim says, to tell when or how a moral judgment by one individual, whether or not he rides that Clapham bus, becomes more than private judgment, i.e., "a judgment of society." The error lies largely in Devlin's unsupportable dogmatism that "society" is defined by the possession of a single morality, whereas many societies tolerate vastly differing moralities (as Devlin half sees, but ignores when mentioning interChristian differences over contraception, divorce, etc.).

Wollheim further attacks the irrational and primitivist concept that morality can rest safely on whatever happens to make the Clapham bus man sick, and finally, Devlin's bland assumption that society's right to punish immorality is identical with and established by society's right to self-preservation. Devlin's reasoning makes all change or deviation or disagreement with the boor on the Clapham bus both immoral and treasonable an old confusion with authoritarians.

D.O.B. MEET

Daughters of Bilitis will hold their first national convention May 27-30 in San Francisco. Theme will be, "A Look at the Lesbian." Speakers will include attorneys Morris Lowenthal and Kenneth Zwerin.