SWEARING.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXVI, Issue 100, 2 May 1890, Page 3

SWEARING.

.. „.. ■„.."/ : >'.^ ■■-.-,. ■;-,... i i A'siflsraAir snbject'-fof discussion was chosen by the young men of the Durham University Umon the other day. It was stated m the following, form :—.'•. That, m the -opinion of 'this House; swearing m ordinary conversation is, m. moderation, morally unobjectionable.,' "and has, moreover, a beneficial effect' upon the lemper." The opener, we learn from, a report m a Home paper, was' good enough to explain that he wished it to be clearly understood that he did not appear as an advocate of Bwekring' m 'ordinary, conversation; as a deß&ablff, practice. \ He wi|hed ;ority to affirm two things. about it— (l) That it was morally unobjectionable, and (2) that it exercised a y beneficial effect^ on the temper when used m moderation. He argued that the., oaths; of. 'ordinary conversation, whatever they might originally have meant, were now stripped of all their profane and evil intention, and, though m form they were oaths; m essence they were nothing but convenient r anjl forcible formula, for expressing one's anger or irritation, '"or "fot making a 1 statement more emphatic. He insisted that words were merely expressed: thoughts, and must be judged by the intention of the persons using them. : : The ■• seconder of the motion was not so ; moderate as his principal. He laid it down. as. an axiom : that there were "three; alternatives by: which a man might get'rid'bf'an'angryj temper— ;by kicking and^ smashing the; furniture, by snarling at bisiriendsy or by indulging in' a small, pyrotechnic display; of oaths." He put;it to thd House, which was the most satisfactory and desirable of these methods? Snarling, he said, was 1 a safety valve through which bad temper escaped ; swearing "cleared a man out as a pennyworth of gunpowder did the washhouse chimney." He challenged the opposersof the motion to mention a word, not an oatb, which would take the place of tke modest big D, and produce an equally satisfactory effect on the temper. There is no doubt this explosive person opensd up a wide field for the exercise of ingenuity by his challenge ;. but, so, far as we can 'learn, it was hot. taken up. Fortunately, however, the champions of profanity were not allowed to? have it all their own : way. The Eev J. R. r Shortt. opposed the' motion, : and ventured to; suggest that there was a fourth' course of action, m addition to those laid down by; the seconder of the motion. This was, to suppress the temper or, as the rev gentleman added; '.'to use a common 1 expression, ' keep your hair on.' " This is a canonical form 'of 34pguage which; improbably confined to the Diocese of D_urham, but we thoroughly agree' with -the moral it seems to convey.' Possibly it had an effect on the young advocates of swearing which a more classical form of language' woluld ■havefaUed to produce! since on'adivision the motion was rejected by 27; votes to 19. The general conclusion .we arrive at, frpnv reading the debate, is that the students ..of Durham Utiiversity must be rather hard^ up for subjects of discussion. — Christ-! church Press. .'. - ' ■ : .'.'--'i ; >