صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

in this House, I give you leave to cut me off, root and branch, for ever.'1

Conspicuous among the debaters of the Lower House during the ten years preceding the Revolution of 1688, was Henry Booth, afterwards Earl of Warrington, eight of whose speeches are printed from notes supplied or corrected by himself. We give a specimen from ‘A Specch against the Bishops voting in case of Blood: '

'It is strange the bishops are so jealous of their cause as not to adventure it on their great Diana, the canon law, by which they are expressly forbidden to meddle in case of blood. Perhaps they would do by the canon law as it is said of the idolaters in the Old Testament, that of part of the timber they made a god and fell down and worshipped it; the rest they either burnt in the fire, or cast it to the dunghill. For they tell you that the canon law was abolished by the Reformation, and that none but Papists yield obedience to it, and, therefore, now they are not tied up by the canon, but may sit and vote in case of blood if they please. I should be very glad if they were as averse to Popery in everything else, and particularly that they would leave ceremonies indifferent and not contend so highly for them, whereby they make the breach wider and heighten the differences amongst Protestants, in the doing of which they do the Pope's work most effectually. I wish they would consent to have a new code of canons, for those that are now extant are the old Popish canons. I like the bishops very well; but I wish that bishops were reduced to their primitive institution, for I fear that, whilst there is in England a Lord Bishop, the Church will not stand very steadily.' 2

It was the author of the Characteristics,' when Lord Ashley and a member of the House of Commons, that turned his temporary embarrassment into an oratorical success. He was speaking on the Bill for granting counsel to prisoners in cases of high treason, when he got confused, but after a short pause continued: 'If I, Mr. Speaker, who rise only to offer my opinion on the Bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I intended to say, what must be the condition of that man who without any assistance is pleading for his life ?'

2A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England. From the year 1668 to the present time.' Printed in 1741. Vol. ii. p. 153.

At the meeting of the Convention in 1688, we hear of Sir Thomas Littleton, 'gifted with a vehement and piercing logic, which had often, when, after a long sitting, the candles had been lighted, roused the languishing House, and decided the event of the debate.' There, too, was William Sacheverell, an orator whose great parliamentary abilites were many years later a favourite theme of old men who lived to see the conflicts of Walpole and Pulteney. There too were other veterans, but all were speedily to be thrown into the shade by two young Whigs, who then took their seats for the first time-Charles Montagu and John Somers.1

We are compelled to take the oratorical reputation of each of them upon trust. Lord Campbell says of Somers, that although he sat in Parliament from the beginning of the year 1689 till his death, not much short of thirty years, and during a considerable part of that period led a great party, first in the Lower and then in the Upper House, there is not extant as much of any one speech he delivered as would make half a column of a newspaper; and in the very scanty reports of parliamentary proceedings in the reign of William and Anne, his name is rarely mentioned.'

Macaulay says: His speeches have perished, but his state papers remain, and are models of terse, luminous, and dignified eloquence.' Amongst modern orators, the closest parallel would be Lord Lyndhurst. In no instance do the reports purport to give more than the substance of what Somers said; and the most successful efforts of Montagu have been similarly reduced to little better than a caput mortuum. Thus, we are assured by the historian that the extraordinary ability with which, at the beginning of the year 1792, he managed the conference on the Bill for regulating trials in cases of treason, placed him at once in the first rank of parliamentary orators; but the report of his speech, filling 1 Macaulay's History,' chap. x.

[ocr errors]

eight pages, is a dry abstract or abridgment of his argument.

One of the severest and best merited rebuffs received by King William was the opposition to the grant to the Earl of Portland in 1695 of sundry lordships with the royalties in Wales, forming a large proportion of the demesnes of the Principality. When this affair was brought before the House of Commons, Mr. Price, a gentleman of great parts,' since one of the Barons of the Exchequer, amongst other pointed things, is reported to have said :

[ocr errors]

'I shall make no severe remarks on this great man, for his greatness makes us little, and will make the Crown both poor and precarious. And when God shall please to send us a Prince of Wales, he may have such a present of a Crown made him as a Pope did to King John, who was surnamed Sans Terre, and was by his father, King Henry II., made Lord of Ireland, which grant was confirmed by the Pope, who sent him a crown of peacocks' feathers in derision of his power and the poverty of his revenue. I would have us to consider that we are Englishmen, and must, like patriots, stand by our country and not suffer it to become tributary to strangers. We have rejoiced that we have beat out of this kingdom Popery and slavery, and we do now with as great joy entertain Socinianism and poverty, and yet we see our properties daily given away, and our liberties must soon follow.'1

The palm of eloquence in the next generation is, by universal consent, awarded to Bolingbroke, of whom

''Parliamentary Debates.' The entire speech was printed in 1702 under the title of Gloria Cambriæ, or Speech of a Bold Briton against a Dutch Prince of Wales.' Macaulay referring to it remarks: Price was the bold Briton whose speech, never, I believe, spoken, was printed in 1702. He would have better deserved to be called bold if he had published his impertinence while William was living.' According to the reporter in the 'Parliamentary Debates,' 'This short and eloquent speech made so great an impression that Mr. Price's motion was carried by an unanimous consent.' Smollett and Belsham both speak of the effect of the speech as delivered; and it is on record that equally strange language, or impertinence,' was hazarded by Mr. Price, as member of a deputation, before the Lords of the Treasury.

[ocr errors]

not one spoken sentence has been preserved. There is a current story that when the company were speculating on what lost or missing production was most to be regretted, and one named the lost works of Livy, another those of Tacitus, Pitt at once declared for a speech of Bolingbroke. All accounts agree that his voice and person were eminently adapted for oratorical display; and his writings abound in indications of the qualities by which he won his admitted supremacy in debate.1 Take, for example, what Lord Brougham calls 'a noble passage,' from the 'Dissertation on Parties :'

'If King Charles had found the nation plunged in corruption; the people choosing their representatives for money, without any other regard; and these representatives of the people, as well as the nobility, reduced by luxury to beg the unhallowed alms of a court; or to receive, like miserable hirelings, the wages of iniquity from a minister; if he had found the nation, I say, in this condition (which extravagant supposition one cannot make without horror), he might have dishonoured her abroad, and impoverished and oppressed her at home, though he had been the weakest prince on earth, and his ministers the most odious and contemptible men that ever presumed to be ambitious. Our fathers might have fallen into circumstances which compose the very quintessence of political misery. They might have "sold their birthright for porridge," which was their own. They might have been bubbled by the foolish, bullied by the fearful, and insulted by those whom they despised. They would have deserved to be slaves, and they might have been treated as such. When a free people crouch, like camels, to be loaded, the next at hand-no matter who-mounts them, and they soon feel the whip, and the spur of their tyrant; for a tyrant, whether prince or minister, resembles the devil in many respects; particularly in this: He is often both the

1 'Lord Bolingbroke's productions, with all their defects in argument, method, and precision, contain a force and energy which our orators rarely aim at, though it is evident that such an elevated style has much better grace in an orator than a writer, and is assured of more prompt and astonishing success.'-(Hume,' Essay on Eloquence.')

tempter and tormentor. He makes the criminal and he punishes the crime.'

Or the following specimen of his imagery, which has been pronounced as rich and varied as Dryden's and more chaste :

'It is evident that a minister, in every circumstance of life, stands in as much need of us public writers as we of him : in his prosperity he can no more subsist without daily praise, than we without daily bread; and the farther he extends his views, the more necessary are we to his support. Let him speak as contemptuously of us as he pleases, for that is frequently the manner of those who employ us most, and pay us best; yet will it fare with his ambition as with a lofty tree, which cannot shoot its branches into the clouds, unless its root work into the dirt, from which it rose, on which it stands, and by which it is nourished.'

After reading these passages, we can readily believe the tradition that he dictated his compositions to an amanuensis. His periods swell and amplify, as if the author was in the full fervour of declamation; and, so far as mere readers are concerned, his writings might be improved by a judicious retrenchment of their redundancies. The fulness and richness of St. John's printed language, however, leave no doubt that he amply fulfilled in his own person what he requires in the genuine orator, when he lays down that eloquence must flow like a stream that is fed by an abundant spring, and not spout forth a little frothy water on some gaudy day, and remain dry the rest of the year.'

He was by no means a solitary instance, in the last century, of a very young man becoming the mouthpiece of a party, or taking the lead in the conduct of affairs, at his first entrance into public life. The Pitts, father and son, and Charles Fox, are remarkable examples of this description of precocity; and the phenomenon ceases to inspire wonder, if we reflect on the very different sort of training required for public life in

« السابقةمتابعة »