Living orators. Improved knowledge and taste Tierney, the severe virtues, and high intellect of Ro- All these have passed away; but there are orators still living, who have contended in the same debates, and have won an equal fame. Their portraiture will adorn future histories; but who is there that will not at once fill up this picture of the past, with the transparent clearness, and masterly force of Lord Lyndhurst, and the matchless powers and accomplishments of Lord Brougham? as Progressive excellence in so divine an art as oratory, is no more to be achieved than in poetry or painting,in debate. in sculpture or architecture. Genius is of all ages. But if orators of our own time have been unable to excel their great models, a candid criticism will scarcely assign them an inferior place. Their style has changed, the conditions under which they speak, are altered. They address themselves more to the reason, and less to the imagination, the feelings and the passions of their audience, than the orators of a former age. They confront, not only the members of their own body, but the whole people, who are rather to be convinced by argument, than persuaded by the fascination of the orator. In their language, there is less of study and artistic finish, than in the oratory of an earlier period. Their perorations are not composed, after frequent recitals of Demosthenes1; but give direct 1 "I composed the peroration of my speech for the Queen, in the Lords, after reading and repeating Demosthenes for three or four weeks, and I composed it twenty times over at least, and it certainly succeeded in a very extraordinary degree, and far above any merits of its own."-Lord Brougham to Zachary Macaulay, as advice to his celebrated son, March 10th, 1823. ments. and forcible expression to their own opinions and sentiTheir speaking is suited to the subjects of debate,-to the stir and pressure of public affairs, and to the taste and temper of their audience. The first principles of government are no longer in dispute the liberties of the people are safe: the oppression of the law is unknown. Accordingly, the councils of the state encourage elevated reason, rather than impassioned oratory. Every age has its own type of excellence; and if the Nestors of our own time insist upon the degeneracy of living orators, perhaps a more cultivated taste may now condemn as rant, some passages from the speeches of Burke and Chatham, which their contemporaries accepted as eloquence. But whatever may be the claims of different generations, to the highest examples of oratory, the men of our own age have advanced in political knowledge, and statesmanship; and their deliberations have produced results more beneficial to the people. They have also improved in temper and moderation. In the earlier years of George III., party spirit and personal animosities,—not yet restrained by the courtesies of private society, or refined by good taste,-too often gave rise to scenes discreditable to the British senate. The debates were as coarse and scurrilous as the press. sonalities times. In these excesses, Lord Chatham was both sinned Coarse peragainst, and sinning. In the debate upon the Indemnity of former Bill in 1766, the Duke of Richmond "hoped the nobility would not be browbeaten by an insolent minister "1. a speech which Horace Walpole alleges to have driven the Earl from the House of Lords, during the remainder of his unfortunate administration. 2 Some years later, we find Lord Chatham himself using language repug 1 Dec. 10th, 1766. 2 Walpole's Mem., ii. 410, 411. nant to order, and decency of debate. On the 1st February, 1775, he thus addressed the ministers: Who can wonder that you should put a negative upon any measure which must annihilate your power, deprive you of your emoluments, and at once reduce you to that state of insignificance, for which God and nature designed you.”1 A few days later, the House of Lords became the scene of personalities still more disorderly. Lord Shelburne having insinuated that Lord Mansfield had been concerned in drawing up the bills of the previous session relating to America, Lord Mansfield rising in a passion, "charged the last noble Lord with uttering the most gross falsehoods," and said that "the charge was as unjust, as it was maliciously and indecently urged." In the same debate Lord Lyttelton imputed to Lord Camden “professional subtlety and low cunning."2 Again on the 5th December, 1777, we find Lord Chatham accusing Earl Gower of "petulance and malignant misrepresentation." 3 No man so often outraged propriety and good taste as Edmund Burke. His excessive love of imagery and illustration, often displayed itself in the grossest forms. Who is not familiar with his coarse portrait of Lord North, "extending his right leg a full yard before his left, rolling his flaming eyes, and moving his ponderous frame?" or with the offensive indecency, with which he likened Lord North's ministry to a party of courtesans ? 4 We find Colonel Barré denouncing the conduct of Lord North as "most indecent and scandalous;" and Lord North complaining of this language as "extremely Parl. Hist., xviii. 211. 2 Feb. 7th, 1775; Parl. Hist., xviii. 276, 282. 3 Ibid., xix. 507. Cavendish uncivil, brutal, and insolent," until he was called to order, and obliged to apologise. We find Mr. Fox threatening that Lord North's ministry should expiate their crimes on the scaffold, and insinuating that they were in the pay of France.2 Nay, transgressing the bounds of political discussion, and assailing private character, he went so far as to declare that he should consider it unsafe to be alone with Lord North, in a room3; and would not believe his word. Even of the king, he spoke with indecorous violence.5 Rarer out ages of decorum times. There have since been altercations of equal bitterness. The deepest wounds which sarcasm and invective could inflict, have been unsparingly dealt to political opponents. Combatants "have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adder's poison is under their lips." But good taste and a stricter order in debate, have restrained the grosser outrages to decency. The weapons of debate have been as keen and trenchant as ever; but they have been wielded according to the laws of a more civilised warfare. The first years of the Reformed Parliament threatened the revival of scenes as violent and disorderly as any in the last century; but as the host of new members became disciplined by experience, and the fierce passions of that period subsided, the accustomed decorum of the House of Commons was restored. Indeed, as the Commons have advanced in power Increased and freedom, they have shown greater self-restraint, and of the 1 Feb. 22nd, 1852; Parl. Hist., 5th Feb., 1834. Hansard's Deb., xxii. 1050. 3rd Ser., xxi. 146. Mr. Rigby authority Chair. General standard of debate. a more ready obedience to the authority of the Speaker. They have always been more orderly in their proceedings than the Lords; and the contrast which the scenes of the first twenty years of George III. present to those of later times, can scarcely fail to strike an attentive student of Parliamentary history. What would now be thought of such scenes as those enacted in the time of Sir John Cust, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Mr. Cornwall,-of rebukes and interruptions',-of unseemly altercations with the Chair,-of the words of the Speaker himself being taken down,— and of a motion that they were disorderly and dangerous to the freedom of debate? 2 In concluding this sketch of Parliamentary oratory, a few words may be added concerning the general standard of debate in the House of Commons. If that standard be measured by the excellence of the best speakers at different periods, we have no cause to be ashamed of the age in which our living orators and statesmen have flourished. But judged by another test, this age has been exposed to disparaging criticisms. When few save the ablest men contended in debate, and the rank and file were content to cheer and vote, a certain elevation of thought and language was, perhaps, more generally sustained. But, of late years, independent members,-active, informed, and businesslike,-representing large interests,—more responsible to constituents, and less devoted to party chiefs, living in the public eye, and 1 Scenes between Mr. Rigby and the Speaker, Sir John Cust, in 1762. — Cavendish Deb., i. 342. And between Sir J. Cavendish and the same Speaker, March 9th, 1769.Ibid., 567. Mr. Burke and the same, April 15th, 1769.-Ibid., 878. ambitious of distinction,— Scenes with Sir Fletcher Norton, 2 Feb. 16th, 1770; Parl. Hist., xvi. 807. |