TRUTH versus OCCASION.
MR. BULWER, in his speech on the Address,—one of the bestreasoned of all the speeches delivered in the course of this eloquent week,—quoted some general propositions from a former speech of Mr. MACAULAY, the rhetorical member for Leeds. He quoted them, we presume, because he had been struck by their wisdom when he heard them, and because he saw they were the general formulw of which Ireland was a particular case. These are the passages " You cannot govern a gallant nation by the laws of the quarter-sessions ; because it is in vain that you have the law on your side if you have the people against you. There is only one power that makes the law strong : that is the consent, the public opinion, of the People for whom the law is made."
"Discontent, which the 'great body of the people think they have reason to • entertain, cannot be put down by penal restrictions. Measures of coercion and severity have failed former Governments : they failed Cromwell—they failed • James the Second against the Bishops, and Pitt against Horne Tooke—they failed Lord Castlereagh—and they will fail every Government which shall attempt to smother the People of England without redressing their grievances."
To a rhetorician, one general proposition is as good as another, 'provided it answer the temporary purpose of effect: but to a sincere and honest speaker, truth is truth; and to such a man, genexal propositions, at one time true, are ever so—convenient or not.
"Every such impression," says Mr. MACAULAY, now," should be construed by the occasion on which it was delivered, and it only. No man knew better than a practised writer like the honourable member, that the whole force or wisdom of words depended on their application."—Here, then, is an end to all expectation of political consistency. The application is easy : "For England read Ireland," said Mr. BULWER. Why not? The propositions are general : they are either true or false : if true, as they were universally allowed to be at the time, they are true now—not only of England, not only of Ireland, but of every society—of mankind at large. They, in fact, contain an answer to Ministers, who demand "additional powers," i. e. force, in order to compose a restless and dissatisfied country.
Mr. MACAULAY supports the demand for powers to impose penal restrictions on the Irish nation : how then does he reconcile this proceeding with his avowed tenets ? Oh! every thing depends upon appositeness.Certainly, every thing; but the application may be as various as the affairs of a country ; so therefore may a man's sentiments. On different occasions he may contradict himself as often as he pleases. General assertions only apply to particular occasions; and it is unfair to refer to a speaker's for
mer opinions, for now they have ceasecE tolie.apposite: So nmeh:' for oratory—so much for rhetoric! For eloquence read flummery: admire the skill of the advocate, and say„appositeness is every thing; an accident or two, and the speech would have been on the other side—equally eloquent.
Let us take a little dialogue in illustration.
DIALOQUE BETWEEN A PENSIONER AND A. PICKPOCIEET.
Pensioner. Are you not aware, Mr. Pickpocket,. that society cannot possibly go on if you are permitted to continue thus ap. propriating that which does not belong to you? Pickpocket. Why, Sir, that is just what Mr. CORBETT Says of you : he said you had your hand in the nation's pocket, and long as you were at liberty to keep taking out the country's pro. perty, it was in vain to expect to maintain a family in decency. Pensioner. What has that to do with petty larceny ? The oeca. sion, Sir, was very different—there is no appositeness in. your remark.
Pickpocket. Is not this true, Mr. Pensioner—that it is altogether contrary to every social law, that a man shall, by fraud or force,gain possession of the property of another? Pensioner. Nothing can be more plain : that is the reason why I tell you, you must be punished for pouncing upon that gentle man's snuffbox.
Pickpocket. But, Sir, from what funds do you derive your pen. sion of seven hundred a year ?
Pensioner. From the national revenue, Sir. No personality, Mt. Pickpocket. Pickpocket. Suppose the Tax-gatherer were to tell the tax. payer, that he wanted his 3/. lbs. for you, do you think he wouk pay it ? would not he say—" I don't know the gentleman, but I an sure be never did any thing for one or mine?" and would not the tax-gatherer answer him thus—" If you won't pay, Ill make you, I'll distrain your goods and if you kick up a root, I'll call in the military ; and pay you ;hall" ?" Is not this getting possession of • the property of another by force or fraud? Do you not juggle first, and bully afterwards, in order to get that which no maa would give you of his free consent? and what do I do, but the same, only more adroitly and genteel-like ? Pensioner. My good fellow, there is no appositeness in the remark : the occasions are altogether different. You are a prae. tised thief, and must know that it makes a great deal of difference from whom you steal. A person of your ingenuity must know, that the remark quoted by you is true only to an extent; that the quality of a person greatly varies the offence; and that, in short the occasion is every thing, more especially in political life,which you, poor dishonest man, cannot be supposed to know much about.
Pickpocket. What's true for me, I suppose is true for another: and if you rob the public, I do no more. But you go 'home to St James's Square, and I go to the Old Bailey: I see no appositeness in that, and think that, excepting the difference in the amount in your favour, there is no difference in the occasion.
Previous page
