صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

tician, he might have been thought a great man.'* There was, probably, some pique and some ill nature, together with some truth in this representation. Mr. Nicholls, in his "Re"collections," describes the Earl as certainly a very able magistrate, and a very honest man under a most craving appetite-extreme avarice; but then, he was not even suspected of having ever acquired money by incorrect means.' He was not the first nor the last Lord Chancellor who has been reproached for his frugality and his keen sense of the value of money. On the whole, Mr. Nicholls does him no more than justice when he says, that he must be reckoned among our greatest and most spotless lawyers.'

[ocr errors]

Lord Camden's eloquence is described by our Reminiscent,' as of the colloquial kind, extremely simple, diffuse, but not desultory; abounding with legal idioms, but these were always introduced with a pleasing effect. Sometimes,' it is added, his Lordship rose to the sublime strains of eloquence; but the sublimity was altogether in the sentiment; the diction ⚫ retained its simplicity; this increased its effect.'

[ocr errors]

As a speaker,' says Mr. Nicholls, Lord Camden possessed one beauty beyond any man I ever heard; his style and his delivery were little above those of private conversation. 'He seemed to be arguing with a friend, rather than contending with an adversary; it was the mitis sapientia Lalii.' In this respect, he is represented as the very contrast of Lord Mansfield, by whom every thing was done with effort. Lord Camden is stated to have been a great novel reader.

The judicial oratory of Lord Rosslyn is described by Mr. Butler as having been exquisite ;' his arguments were perspicuous, luminous in their order, and chastely elegant: the Author thinks that justice has seldom been done to either his heart or his talents. But the most perfect model of judicial eloquence,' continues Mr. Butler, (and here most persons, we believe, will subscribe to the justness of his panegyric,) is that of Sir William Grant.'

In hearing him, it was impossible not to think of the character given of Menelaus by Homer, or rather by Pope; that

"He spoke no more than just the thing he ought." But Sir William did much more:-in decompounding and analysing an immense mass of confused and contradictory matter, and forming clear and unquestionable results, the sight of his mind was infinite. His exposition of facts and of the consequences deducible from them, his discussion of former decisions, and shewing their legitimate weight and authority, and their real bearings upon the point

* Eclectic Review, N.S. Vol. XV. p. 427.

in question, were above praise: but the whole was done with such admirable ease and simplicity, that while real judges felt its supreme excellence, the herd of hearers believed that they should have done the same. Never was the merit of Dr. Johnson's definition of a perfect style," proper words in proper places," more sensibly felt than it was by those who listened to Sir William Grant, The charm of it was indescribable; its effect on the hearers was that which Milton describes, when he paints Adam listening to the angel after the angel had ceased to speak ;-often and often has the Reminiscent beheld the bar listening, at the close of a judgement given by Sir William, with the same feeling of admiration at what they had heard, and the same regret that it was heard no more.'

On this follows a panegyric on the present Chancellor, to whose merits as a judge, with the single drawback of a slowmoving cautiousness in giving the results of his interminable deliberation, that is sometimes not a little inconvenient to the suitors, all parties have concurred in yielding their suffrage. The greater is the pity that so good a Chancellor should have upon his hands the business of Speaker of the House of Lords, and all the toilsome duties of the Cabinet. A man with his good humour and bonhommie, so fond as he is of a joke, so good a shot, as well as so sound a lawyer, how much is it to be regretted that he should be a politician and a minister !

The Reminiscences relating to Parliamentary Eloquence, open with a spirited character of the great Pitt, Lord Chatham. We must make room for nearly the whole of it.

Of those by whom Lord North was preceded, none probably, except Lord Chatham, will be remembered by posterity. It was frequently given to the writer of these pages to hear the speeches, both in the house of Commons and the house of Lords, of this extraordinary man. No person in his external appearance was ever more bountifully gifted by nature for an orator. In his look and his gesture, grace and dignity were combined, but dignity presided; the "terrors of his beak, the lightning of his eye," were insufferable. His voice was both full and clear; his lowest whisper was distinctly heard, his middle tones were sweet, rich, and beautifully varied; when he elevated his voice to its highest pitch, the house was completely filled with the volume of the sound. The effect was awful, except when he wished to cheer or animate; and then he had spirit-stirring notes, which were perfectly irresistible. He frequently rose, on a sudden, from a very low to a very high key, but it seemed to be without effort. His diction was remarkably simple, but words were never chosen with greater care. He mentioned to a friend of the Reminiscent, that he had read twice, from beginning to end, Bailey's Dictionary, and that he had perused some of Dr. Barrow's Sermons so often, as to know them by heart.

His sentiments, too, were apparently simple; but sentiments were never adopted or uttered with greater skill. He was often fa

miliar and even playful, but it was the familiarity and playfulness of condescension; the lion that dandled with the kid. The terrible, however, was his peculiar power. Then the whole house sunk before him. Still he was dignified, and wonderful as was his eloquence, it was attended with this most important effect, that it impressed every hearer with a conviction that there was something in him finer even than his words; that the man was infinitely greater than the orator. No impression of this kind was made by the eloquence of his son, or his son's antagonist.

But, with this great man, manner did much. One of the fairest specimens which we possess of his lordship's oratory, is his speech in 1766, for the repeal of the Stamp Act.

"Annuit, et nutu totum tremefecit Olympum."

Most, perhaps, who read the report of this speech in Almon's Register, will wonder at the effect which it is known to have produced on the hearers; yet the report is tolerably exact, and exhibits, although faintly, its leading features. But they should have seen the look of ineffable contempt with which he surveyed the late Mr. Grenville, who sat within one of him, and should have heard him say with that look,-" As to the late ministry, every capital measure they have taken, has been entirely wrong." They should also have beheld him, when, addressing himself to Mr. Grenville's successors, he said," As to the present gentlemen, those, at least, whom I have in my eye," (looking at the bench on which Mr. Conway sat,)" I "have no objection: I have never been made a sacrifice by any of "them. Some of them have done me the honour to ask my poor "opinion, before they would engage to repeal the act: they will do "me the justice to own, I did advise them to engage to do it. But, "notwithstanding, for I love to be explicit, I cannot give them my "confidence. Pardon me, gentlemen," (bowing to them,)" con"fidence is a plant of slow growth." Those who remember the air of condescending protection with which the bow was made and the look given, when he spoke these words, will recollect how much they themselves at the moment were both delighted and awed, and what they themselves then conceived of the immeasurable superiority of the orator over every human being that surrounded him. In the passages which we have cited, there is nothing which an ordinary speaker might not have said: it was the manner, and the manner only, which produced the effect..... This, however, used to escape the observation of the hearers: they were quite blind to Mr. Pitt's manner, and ascribed the whole to what he said; and judging of this by the effect which it produced on them, concluded that what he said was infinitely finer than it really was, or even than any words could be. This was one of the most marvellous qualities of his oratory.'

Several striking anecdotes are given in proof of this, which, though they will not be new to most of Mr. Butler's readers, are highly illustrative. We select one which we do not recollect to have seen elsewhere.

When the Prussian subsidy, an unpopular measure, was in agi tation in the house of Commons, lord Chatham, (then Mr. Pitt) justified it with infinite address: insensibly, he subdued all his audience, and a murmur of approbation was heard from every part of the house. Availing himself of the moment, his lordship placed himself in an attitude of stern defiance but perfect dignity, and exclaimed in his loudest tone: "Is there an Austrian among you? Let him stand

"forward and reveal himself."

Mr. Butler, however, does not, in the height of his admiration, seem to be aware that the marvellous quality ascribed to Lord Chatham's oratory, is the very circumstance which entitles him to rank above all modern competitors for the palm of eloquence, the English Demosthenes.* The test of oratory is, its effect. Language is, at best, but an imperfect instrument, and full half of its meaning is derived from the touch and manner of the performer. We arrive at its import, not by translating another man's thoughts, but by sympathy with them; and that sympathy is created less by his words than by the spirit which breathes in them. By manner, no one will understand mere propriety of gesture or elegant action; for action may express power, which is neither strictly proper nor elegant, and it may be perfectly elegant and accomplished, and yet, unimpressive. We mean by manner, the outward expression of the intellectual character, the visible language of mind, the symbolic characters of moral energy. For it is by moral energy that we are conquered and held in subjugation. This, Lord Chatham appears to have possessed in the highest degree; and when it is said, we should have seen this look and have witnessed that air and action,-the power did not lay in the look or gesture, but in the man; we should have seen him. But even this is not necessary in order to estimate his character: it is enough to know what he could do,-how he could inflict on the object of his severity, and that object, Lord Mansfield, positive suffering for an hour together, by the mere indirect castigation of a speech covertly alluding to him,-how he could frighten almost out of his senses, a chief justice of Chester who dared enter the lists with him,-how he could strike another member of the same honourable house dumb with a look, change at will the current of feeling from broad mirth to breathless attention and solemnity, and awe the house by his mere tread. And not only could he do this, when he sought to awe or to intimidate; by a playful sally, a stroke of wit or of pathos, he

* Lord Chatham was an accomplished Grecian; he is stated to have translated the speech of Pericles inserted in Smith's Thucydides.

would produce effects scarcely less powerful; and one of the most extraordinary instances of his command of the house was, the irresistible effect produced by his taking up the exclamation of Mr. Grenville, Where are our means? where is our money?' and turning them into ridicule, as, slowly pacing out of the house, he hummed the first line of a popular song, Gentle • Shepherd, tell me where.' The man who could do all this, must have been the greatest of modern, and, considering the audience whom he addressed, the greatest of either ancient or modern orators.

[ocr errors]

There is but one other man of whom, in our own day, equal wonders are recorded, and they were wrought on a very different audience, and by means of a different character; but the eloquence of both was irresistible, and in both, it lay chiefly in the manner. Mr. Butler would start back with horror and loathing at the name-it was Whitfield. But Lord Chatham would have estimated him. Whitfield's Sermons furnish no more an idea of the man, than Chatham's speeches do; but what is incontestibly recorded of the power of his oratory on all who were brought within the vortex of his eloquence, proves him to have been as great, or nearly so, in the pulpit, as his Lordship was in the Senate. The fruits of Whitfield's eloquence, though less known to history, will one day appear to have been the more extensive and the more permanent.

What is said of the simplicity of Lord Chatham's diction, and the apparent simplicity of his sentiments, well agrees with the view we have taken of its transcendent character. A speaker may convince, may please, may dazzle without simplicity; but simplicity is an essential attribute of the highest style. It is so in every thing. Grandeur may be rich, ornate, complicate; sublimity is invariably simple. The chorusses of Handel are at once the simplest and the sublimest of musical compositions. What holds good of architecture, of poetry, of music, must needs be true of eloquence. If "proper words in proper places" be a correct definition of a perfect style, clear ideas in simple language, if not a good definition, is a good recipe for a powerful style. This is indeed the raw material of eloquence: all the rest is delivery. But the predicament of the public speaker tends to disturb the current of the ideas, to break the lines and pervert the images which are reflected in it, and to darken the surface of the memory. Hence arises that want of distinctness which disturbs the self-possession of the speaker, betraying itself, if not in hesitation and perplexity, in a certain deficiency of ease, and firmness, and courage, and naturalness, and symmetry in the whole expression of his delivery. It is not enough, therefore, that he is master of his subject; what is chiefly

« السابقةمتابعة »