THE USE AND ABUSE OF HARSH WORDS.
4' HONOURABLE Members who do not accept hostile messages ought to be especially guarded in the language they applied to others." This is one of the many commonplaces which are either true or false according to the inuendo couched under them. When used in the sense that it is a moral duty to avoid giving unnecessary provocation as well as to avoid carrying anger to a fatal issue, it is true. When used to imply that a certain latitude in vituperation may be tolerated in a man who will stand up to shoot and be shot at, or that all but duellists are debarred from calling bad actions by their right names or giving vent to honest indignation, it is a dangerous fallacy. Let us take the phrase in connexion with the circumstances un- der which it was used by Sir George Grey in the House of Com- mons on Monday night. His intention was either to palliate the conduct of Mr. Somers, or impute an impropriety to Mr. Roebuck. Now, as between these two gentlemen, how stands the case 'I The only words used by Mr. Roebuck, in the speech of which Mr. Somers complains, that can be applied to that gentleman, are- " They who have followed in the train of him who has been guilty of these things, are neither worthy of much respect for their po- sition or their intellect." It seems difficult by any stretching to bring this within the compass of the " seven dependencies." It is neither the " he direct," nor the " lie circumstantial"; it is not the " counter-check quarrelsome," " the reproof valiant," "the reply churlish," the "quip modest," nor even "the retort courteous!' It is simply a declaration that certain gentlemen in their choice of a leader evinced bad taste and little sagacity. The case of Touchstone is exactly in point—" I did dislike the cut of a cer-
tain courtier's beard : he sent me word, if I said his beard was not cut well, he was in the mind it was. This is called the retort courteous." Mr. Somers was clearly entitled to do no more than send word to Mr. Roebuck, that in choosing a leader Mr. Somers was "in the mind that both his intellect and position deserved re- spect." Sir George Grey's vindication of Mr. Somers—or charge against Mr. Roebuck, whichever it was meant to be—although endorsed by Lord Palmerston, is untenable. It is not easy to say whether the two Whig leaders wished to break Mr. Somers's fall as a peace-offering to the O'Connell party, or to have a hit at Mr. Roebuck by way of paying off old scores. Nor does it much matter what was their intention. Enough that the inadequacy of the occasion, and the dubiety of their object, show the vague and ambiguous character of the grave saw of which they were delivered. The truth is, that the use of virulent and abusive language, and the practice of duelling, are independent offences, and ought to be judged by their own demerits. It is seldom that language however harsh, used in the heat of the moment and without pre- meditation, leads to a duel. Much more frequently the offensive language is merely used as a conventional intimation of a desire to light. On the other hand, the duello imposes no restraint on the vituperative propensities of the man who possesses animal courage, and may deter timid persons from speaking wholesome truths. The code of honour, as it has been called, does not and cannot define the class of words that call for a bloody arbitre- meat. The duellist and his " friend " are judges in their own case. They may take offence, like Touchstone's courtier, at a cri- ticism on the cut of their beards. In the simple state of society in which the duel had its origin, the lie, the accusation of cow- ardice, and the blow which implied the latter charge, were almost the only provocations to a duel. As social relations grew more complex, and as men grew more fastidious, they have been multi- plied after the most fantastic fashion, till the most innocent words in the vocabulary, under some circumstances or to some apprehensions, may give mortal offence. The lavish use of vituperative language—apart from any ten- dency it may have to provoke outrage—betrays a mind ill- regulated, deficient in self-respect and self-control. Railing, scolding, is an offence to the company in which any one indulges the propensity, and ought to be checked by it. The use of epi- thets current among the vulgar—who are naturally most liable to this fault—is an aggravation of the offence. But condemnation of unworthy actions, however strong the language in which it is expressed, if preceded by proof that unworthy actions have been committed, is just and proper. The epithets employed ought to be the strongest not contaminated by low associations—concise and crushing. The errors to be avoided by those discharging a public duty of this kind are, the application of the condemnatory epithets before they have shown their right to use them, and the attempt by heaping epithet upon epithet to compensate for the inadequacy of each apart. Exaggeration and diffuseness lend even to justifiable censure the appearance of railing. Exhibitions of this kind are offensive ; but, when prompted by honest indig- nation, much less so than the habitual railing against political opponents to stimulate the passions of the mob, which some can habitually indulge in and yet expect that its objects should treat them in face-to-face debate as if such language had never been used. The power of conversing civilly and good-humouredly with persons the abuse of whom is the staple of a man's speeches when they are not present, shows that he is insincere—speaking according to the trick of his trade in both cases. The vulgar effrontery of an habitual railer affecting to exchange courtesies with the standard objects of his vituperation, is about the moat offensive spectacle in nature.
Previous page
