1798 AND 1876.
[To THE sarros or THE "siatcraroa."] Su,—May I briefly recast my criticism of Mr. Congreve'a historical parallel and the inferences he draws from it, as I seem to have been misunderstood? Mr. Congreve maintains :—(1.) That if the details of 1798 had been known to speakers at the late public meetings, they "must have modified" their denunciations of the Turks. (2.) That Irish atrocities in 1798 afford the closest parallel to Bulgarian atrocities of 1876; but Irish atrocities of 1798 did not prevent the continuance and amelioration of „*English rule, therefore Bulgarian atrocities of 1876 need not pre- vent the continuance lied amelioration of Turkish rule. I replied :—(1.) That we did know of our misdeeds in 1798, and it was this very consciousness of having done wrong in 1798 that made us condemn Turkey in 1876. I cannot recall at present any denunciation of the Turks in 1876 which would be materially modified by a knowledge of the details of 1798. The- horrors of 1798 may be used as a fair argument to check self- praise on our part, but to throw in our teeth our fathers' sins of nearly a century ago, when we are honestly denouncing what is wrong, because we think it is wrong, is another use of that argu- ment which converts it into a taunt, and this is how I thought Mr. Congreve used it. (2.) That English and Irish in 1798 could not be compared at all closely to Turks and Bulgarians in 1876. I did not think it worth while to combat Mr. Congreve's inference concerning the propriety or possibility of the continuance and amelioration of Turkish rule in Bulgaria, as I had disproved his premises, and I did not mean to say that there was no argument in what he wrote, except the one which I described as a taunt. On the contrary, I admit that there is an argument, and a very unsound one, as it seems to me.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
