Even when vehemence is justified by the subject and prompted by genius; when warmth is felt, not feigned; we must be cautious, lest impetuosity transport us too far. If the speaker lose command of himself, he will soon lose command of his audience. He must begin with moderation, and study to warm his hearers gradually and equally with himself. For, if their pas sions be not in unison with his, the discord will soon be felt. Respect for his audience should always lay a decent restraint upon his warmth, and prevent it from carrying him beyond proper limits. When a speaker is so far master of himself, as to preserve close attention to argument, and even to some degree of accurate expression; this self command, this effort of reason in the midst of passion, contributes in the highest degree both to please and persuade. The advantages of pas sion are afforded for the purposes of persuasion, without that confusion and disorder which are its usual attendants.

In the most animated strain of popular speaking we must always regard what the public ear will receive without disgust. Without attention to this, imitation of ancient orators might betray a speaker into a boldness of manner, with which the coolness of modern taste would be displeased. It is also necessary to attend with care to the decorums of time, place and character. No ardour of eloquence can atone for neglect of these. No one should attempt to speak in public without forming to himself a just and strict idea of what is suitable to his age and character; what is suitable to the subject, the hearers, the place and the occasion. On this idea he should adjust the whole strain and manner of his speaking.

What degree of conciseness or diffuseness is suited to popular eloquence, it is not easy to determine with precision. A diffuse manner is generally considered as most proper. There is danger, however, of erring in this respect; by too diffuse a style, public speakers often lose more in point of strength, than they gain by fulness of illustration. Excessive conciseness indeed

must be avoided. We must explain and inculcate ; but confine ourselves within certain limits. We should never forget, that however we may be pleased with hearing ourselves speak, every audience may be tired; and the moment they grow weary, our eloquence becomes useless. It is better in general, to say too little than too much; to place our thought in one strong point of view, and rest it there, than by showing it in every light, and pouring forth a profusion of words upon it, to exhaust the attention of our hearers, and leave them languid and fatigued.

ELOQUENCE OF THE BAR.

THE ends of speaking at the bar and in popular assemblies are commonly different. In the latter the orator aims principally to persuade; to determine his hearers to some choice or conduct, as good, fit, or useful. He therefore applies himself to every principle of action in our nature; to the psasions and to the heart, as well as to the understanding. But at the bar conviction is the principal object. There the speaker's duty is not to persuade the judges to what is good or useful, but to exhibit what is just and true; and consequently his eloquence is chiefly addressed to the understanding.

At the bar speakers address themselves to one, or to a few judges, who are generally persons of age, gravity, and dignity of character. There those advantages which a mixed and numerous assembly affords for employing all the arts of speech, are not enjoyed. Passion does not rise so easily. The speaker is heard with more coolness; he is watched with more severity; and would expose himself to ridicule by attempting that high and vehement tone, which is suited only to a multitude. Beside at the bar, the field of speaking is confined within law and statute. Imagination is fettered. The advocate has always before him the line, the

square, and the compass. These it is his chief business to be constantly applying to the subjects under debate.

Hence the eloquence of the bar is of a much more limited, more sober, and chastised kind, than that of popular assemblies; and consequently the judicial orations of the ancients must not be considered as exact models of that kind of speaking which is adapted to the I present state of the bar. With them strict law was much less an object of attention than it is with us. In the days of Demosthenes and Cicero the municipal statutes were few, simple and general; and the decision of causes was left in a great measure to the equity and common sense of the judges. Eloquence, rather than jurisprudence, was the study of pleaders. Cicero says that three months study would make a complete civilian; nay, it was thought that a man might be a good pleader without any previous study. Among the Romans there was a set of men called pragmatici, whose office it was to supply the orator with all the law knowledge his cause required; which he disposed in that popular form, and decorated with those colours of eloquence which were most fitted for influencing the judges.

It may also be observed, that the civil and criminal judges in Greece and Rome were more numerous than with us, and formed a kind of popular assembly. The celebrated tribunal of the Areopagus at Athens consisted of fifty judges at least. In Rome the Judices Selecti were always numerous, and had the office and power of judge and jury. In the famous cause of MiJo, Cicero spoke to fifty one Judices Selecti, and thus had the advantage of addressing his whole pleading, not to one or a few learned judges of the point of law, as is the case with us, but to an assembly of Roman citizens. Hence those arts of popular eloquence which he employed with such success. Hence certain practices which would be reckoned theatrical by us, were common at the Roman bar; such as introducing not only the accused person dressed in deep mourning,

but presenting to the judges his family and young children, endeavouring to excite pity by their cries and tears.

The foundation of a lawyer's reputation and success must be laid in a profound knowledge of his profession. If his abilities, as a speaker, be ever so eminent; yet, if his knowledge of the law be superficial, few will choose to engage him in their defence. Beside previous study and an ample stock of acquired knowledge, another thing inseparable from the success of every pleader, is a diligent and painful attention to every cause with which he is entrusted; to all the facts and circumstances with which it is connected. Thus he will in a great measure be prepared for the arguments of his opponent; and, being previously acquainted with the weak parts of his own cause, he will be able to fortify them in the best manner against the attack of his adversary.

Though the ancient popular and vehement manner of pleading is now in a great measure superseded, we must not infer that there is no room for eloquence at the bar, and that the study of it is superfluous. There is perhaps no scene of public speaking, where eloquence is more requiste. The dryness and subtilty of subjects usually agitated at the bar, require more than any other, a certain kind of eloquence in order to command attention; to give weight to the arguments employed, and to prevent what the pleader advances from passing unregarded. The effect of good speaking is always great. There is as much difference in the impression made by a cold, dry, and confused speaker, and that made by one who pleads the same cause with elegance, order, and strength, as there is between our conception of an object, when presented in twilight, and when viewed in the effulgence of noon.

Purity and neatness of expression is in this species of eloquence chiefly to be studied; a style perspicuous and proper, not needlessly overcharged with the pedantry of law terms, nor affectedly avoiding these when suitable and requisite. Verbosity is a fault of which

ELOQUENCE OF THE BAR.

12,1

men of this profession are frequently accused; into which the habit of speaking and writing hastily, and with little preparation, almost unavoidably betrays them. It cannot therefore be too earnestly recommended to those who are beginning to practice at the bar, that they early guard against this, while they have leisure for preparation. Let them form themselves to the habit of a strong and correct style; which will become natural to them afterward, when compelled by multiplicity of business to compose with precipitation. Whereas, if a loose and negligent style have been suffered to become familiar, they will not be able even upon occasions when they wish to make an unusual ef fort, to express themselves-with force and elegance.

Distinctness in speaking at the bar is a capital property. It should be shown first in stating the question; In exhibiting clearly the point in debate; what we admit; what we deny; and where the line of division begins between us and the adverse party. Next, it should appear in the order and arrangement of all the parts of the pleading. A clear method is of the highest consequence in every species of oration; but in those intricate cases which belong to the bar, it is infinitely essential.

Narration of facts should always be as concise as the nature of them will admit. They are always very necessary to be remembered; consequently unnecessary minuteness in relating them overloads the memory. Whereas, if a pleader omit all superfluous circumstances in his recital, he adds strength to the material facts gives a clearer view of what he relates, and makes the Impression of it more lasting. In argumentation, however, a more diffuse manner seems requisite at the bar than on some other occasions. For in popular assemblies, where the subject of debate is often a plain question, arguments gain strength by conciseness. But the Intricacy of law points frequently requires the arguments to be expanded and placed in different lights, in order to be fully apprehended.