and may not have been known to possess that art of which they gave proof by skillful concealment of it.

One of the reasons why the very name of rhetoric has fallen into disrepute in this age, is that the greatest artists strive to conceal their perfection in it; they endeavor to make their statements in such a way that the effect may seem to be produced by that which is stated and not by the manner in which it is stated. It was said of Sir James Scarlett, who, though an admirable speaker, indulged in no great feats of oratory, that his triumphs at the bar were so easy and natural that they did not seem triumphs at all. The Duke of Wellington declared that when he addressed a jury, there were thirteen jurymen. A countryman who had been serving day after day on a jury which Mr. Scarlett had addressed, once paid him the highest compliment when he was undervaluing his qualifications. Being asked what he thought of the leading counsel,'Well," was the reply, "that lawyer Brougham be a wonderful man; he can talk, he can; but I don't think nowt of Lawyer Scarlett." "Indeed!" exclaimed the querist, "you surprise me! Why, you have been giving him all the verdicts." "Oh, there's nothing in that," said the juror; "he be so lucky, you see, he be always on the right side." This reminds one of Partridge, in Fielding's "Tom Jones." "He the best player!" exclaimed Partridge after seeing Garrick in Hamlet; "why, I could act as well as he myself. I am sure if I had seen a ghost, I should have looked in the same manner, and done just as he did. The King for my money; he speaks all his words distinctly, half as loud again as the others; anybody may see he is an actor."

66

It will be seen from all this, also, that eloquence is a

relative term. It is, as Dr. Campbell has properly defined it, "the art by which a discourse is adapted to its end"; and therefore it is impossible to say of any discourse, abstractly considered, whether it is or is not eloquent, any more than we can pronounce upon the wholesomeness of a medicine without knowing for whom it is intended. While there are certain qualities which all discourses should have in common, yet there are others which must vary with the varying capacities, degrees of intelligence, tastes, and affections of those who are addressed. The style of oratory that is fitted to kindle the enthusiasm of Frenchmen, would often provoke only the merriment of Englishmen. The English are grave, matterof-factish, sententious, and argumentative; the French ardent, discursive, and brilliant. The French speaker

abounds in facial expression and gesticulation; the English stands almost motionless, clenching the desk with his hands, or burying them in his breeches pockets. Again, a speech addressed to an audience of scholars, exacts very different qualities from one addressed to the common people. It was said of one of John Foster's profound discourses when published, that "it should have been addressed to an audience created for the purpose." The orator who throws a congregation of illiterate enthusiasts into tears, would raise affections of a very different kind, should he attempt to proselyte an American Senate; and again, the finest speaker that ever swayed a parliamentary assembly, might try in vain to rouse or allay the passions of an uneducated mob.

Indeed, it is a well-known fact that some of the most persuasive parliamentary orators have failed when out of their proper element, floundering like a fish on dry

land. If we may believe Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield), the greatest member of Parliament that ever lived was Sir Robert Peel; "he played on the House of Commons as on an old fiddle"; and yet, according to the same authority, "he could not address a public meeting, or make an after-dinner speech, without being ill at ease, and generally saying something stilted or even a little ridiculous." Mr. Cobden says of Lord John Russell: "On the boards of the House of Commons, Johnny is one of the most subtle and dangerous of opponents; take him off those boards, and I care nothing for him." On the other hand, O'Connell was equally at home in the forum, at the hustings, or in the House of Commons. Before he entered Parliament he was pronounced a mere "mob orator," and it was predicted by his enemies that in that body he was sure to "find his level." In 1830 he was elected to the House of Commons, and in 1831 he was listened to as the foremost orator in that assembly. It was said of Murray (Lord Mansfield), "that he refined too much, and could wrangle too little for a popular assembly," and hence he succeeded better in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons. The true orator will always study the character of his audience, and whether he is copious and flowing, or concise and pointed,-whether he arms himself with the thunders and lightnings of eloquence, or speaks "with bated breath and whispering humblein the mild tones of insinuation or persuasion,- he will at all times accommodate himself to his situation, becoming

66 'Orpheus in silvis, inter delphinas Arion,"

and, if necessary, will, like Sylla, convert even the trees of the Academy into martial engines.

CHAPTER VIII.

PERSONALITIES IN DEBATE.

A FOREIGN correspondent of an American journal,

who visited the British Parliament a few years

ago, strikingly contrasts the courtesy of political opponents in that body with the personalities which are so common in American legislatures. He says that the moment a member rises to address the House of Commons, he seems possessed by the most refined and gentlemanly consideration for others. In speaking of antagonists he carefully guards against the slightest imputation of dishonorable motives; or if, in the heat of debate, a word of oblique significance slips from his tongue, he hastens to withdraw it, and to express his regret; nay, even in his sarcasms and home-thrusts, he is careful to mention something to the credit of the very foeman he is about to scathe. Such a thing as hurling abusive epithets, giving the lie, and, above all, threatening personal violence,— practices so common as scarcely to create a sensation in our American legislatures,- would not be tolerated for a moment. When the Earl of Derby, in an attack on Lord John Russell, likened him to "Bottom the weaver,” and described his policy by "the two homely words, meddle and muddle," it was felt that he went to the very verge of propriety. Great as was the ascendency of Lord Palmerston in that body, it never enabled him to lord it over his

LIBR

KY

UNIVERSI

DEBATEY

PERSONALITIES IN DEBATE

I Least

fellow-Commoners so far as to be uncivil to f

the least popu-

OF

lar members of the House. When, on one occasion, he trespassed so far as to say impatiently of the not-overpopular Joseph Hume, "If the honorable gentleman's understanding is obtuse, it is not my fault," he was instantly brought to his senses by the reproachful murmurs of the House, and was reminded that even Lord Palmerston must respect the fine code of legislative chivalry established there.

What American, unless a politician, will not feel humiliated by the contrast between this picture and the scenes often witnessed in Congress and our State legislatures? How often are epithets applied to each other, by our Senators and Representatives, which a fishwoman in Billingsgate might delight to add to her already sparkling vocabulary, but which

"A beggar in his drink Would not bestow upon his callet."

What must be a foreigner's impression, if, on visiting Congress, he should hear an altercation in which the vocabulary was exhausted by members for foul epithets to fling at each other, and see this followed,—as we have seen it, by one of the pugilists rushing with turned-up sleeves into the arena before the Speaker, and shaking his clenched fist at his antagonist? Not always, however, did the British Senate transfuse debate with those graceful amenities which now do it honor, and which lift its discussions so far above the hot and scurrilous word-brawls which politicians so often substitute for facts and logic. The criminative fury with which Pulteney attacked Walpole, and Walpole attacked Pulteney, is well known to the readers of British history. Nearly all of Lord Chat