Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 137.djvu/724

718 usually found. For example, Mr Stiggins was fond of speaking of himself as a vessel, which word does not in the vernacular signify a man of any kind; also, Cromwell's people named their adversaries Amalekites and worshippers of Baal, which, to ordinary apprehensions, they certainly were not. Any pursuit which may have a fairly numerous company of votaries, may have also its cant phrases; and thus cant and slang, though not quite the same thing, are nearly related.

We do not propose, however, here, to examine into the exact nature or the different kinds of cant, so much as to point out that religious cant is a very low method of speech, and that educated men, who may condescend to resort to it to serve a temporary purpose, will probably afterwards find reason to wish that they had refrained from so degrading themselves. With the multitude cant phrases tell far more than sound arguments. They are passwords which indicate that speakers and hearers have fraternal confidences unshared by the profane outside world. There is an immense appetite for them in many shallow minds, strong in sentiment but weak in sense. And there is no doubt that they fall on the ears of melting listeners as honey glides upon the palate, or that they are an effective vehicle for instilling doctrines and prejudices into vulgar minds. So persuaded are wise and prudent men of the deluding influence of cant, that they will not condescend to the use of it. They condemn it, and reckon it an agency quite unworthy of them.

All cant is not intended to deceive; but unfortunately deceivers oftentimes find cant a ready and powerful auxiliary. Many men have a natural disposition towards uttering cant: these, generally speaking, are not manly or ingenuous persons; they have an instinctive persuasion that, being through weakness of character little likely to obtain the favourable regard of mankind, they do well to beguile the weak of their good opinion by alluring speech.

Most of us must remember when the word "blood-guiltiness" was transferred from a verse in the Psalms of David to our political vocabulary. It was understood to characterise our annexation of the Transvaal, which we were thenceforth to regard as a great national transgression of which at length all saw the guilt, and which all now bewailed in a truly penitential spirit, except the reprobate persons who had led the nation into this crying iniquity. They were unrepentant and never to be forgiven; while their virtuous and innocent successors, shocked by such wickedness, would put far from them all hateful and ignominious acts. It is to be presumed that this introduction of a Scriptural word into political debate – this cant – answered the purpose designed by its inventor. Numbers of uninstructed sensitive persons were impressed to their hearts' cores by the happy phrase. The judicious grieved; "the censure of which one, must, in your allowance, o'er-weigh a whole theatre of others." But the speaker fancied that the word served his purpose indifferent well for the occasion; and he is not one to let dread of future ill consequences stand between him and the advantage of the moment.

He learns nothing from mishaps; all through his career he has had reason to regret his use of cant phrases; yet of all his ventures in that direction, this perversion of the term "blood-guiltiness" was the most unfortunate. His ad-