COMMONS ORATORS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1039, 14 December 1912, Page 4

COMMONS ORATORS.

A CONTEMPORARY ESTIMATE BY A RISING UNIONIST. In the Oxford and Cambridge Review, Mr E. E. Smith, M.P., the most noted of the younger speakers in the Unionist Party, discusses the Parliamentary oratory of to-day. He dissent? from the current talk about the decay of parliamentary eloquence. He thinks there are a certain number of members now who could have conformed with striking and even brilliant success to the parliamentary standards of fifty years ago. Mr. Bau'Ouk. Nothing would persuade Mr Smith that there has ever been a time in the history of the House of Commons in which Mr Balfour would not have reached his present ascendency : —“Many people can speak better. I have never heard anyone who can think aloud so brilliantly, so spontaneously, and so conclusively. I have heard him rise to speak on vital questions where it was certain that eveiy word, reported exactly as he uttered it, would be read and re read by hundreds of thousands, with no notes except such as he had hurriedly scribbled on an envelope during the progress of the debate. Often his speech as delivered has produced a great impression, sometimes an extraordinary impression, but T have never heard Mr Balfour speak without reading his speech with a wonder infinitely greeter ; for its structure, its logical evolution, and its penetrating subtlety of thought always supply elements which help him very little at the moment just because it is not possible instantly to appreciate, while listening to him, their amazing excellence.”

Mr. A sou mi

Of the present Prime Minister, Mr F. E. Smith says “He can confine his remarks within reasonable compass simply because he possesses the gift ol never saying a word 100 much ; he always has at his command not merely the appropriate, but the inevitable word ; and it is therefore never necessary for him to use two words where one would express his meaning. Whether he has prepared his speech or whether he is speaking extempore, the one word is always swiftly available. He produces, wherever and whenever he wants them, an endless procession of perfectly coined sentences conceived with unmatched felicity, and delivered without hesitation in a parliamentary style which is at once the envy and the despair of imitators. He never perhaps takes a point very subtle, very recondite, very obviously out of the reach of the ordinary member of the House of Commons.” Mr. Bonar Law.

Here is Mr Smith’s tribute to his present chief: —‘‘Mr Bonar Eaw employs methods ot preparation which are, so far as I know, unique. In his most carefully prepared speeches he makes no notes, but formulates in his mind the sequence of bis argument in the very words in which it is to be expressed, and then by a series of mental rehearsals, makes himself as much master of the whole speech as if he read it from a manuscript ou the table. It might have been supposed that such a method of preparation would have imposed an almost intolerable mental strain, but it appears to cause Mr Bonar Law neither trouble nor anxiety. Mr Bonar Law’s style as a speaker is peculiar to himself. He is simple, perspicuous, and cogent. Very few Latin words overload bis sentences. Indeed, his style and diction resemble those of the late Mr Bright. He possesses a pungency and a degree of combativejmlliaucy.” Mr, LiiOVD George;. Of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Smith speaks with more reserve. Mr Lloyd George, he says, is undoubtedly a speaker ot extraordinary variety, flair, and plausibility. He has three wholly distinct styles of speech. The first is that of Limehouse, the second that of the House of Commons in an excited debate, the third that of the House of Commons when he is concerned in forwarding business and conciliating critics.; — ‘‘His cleverness and address in the third method are beyond all praise. He thanks his opponents for their assistance, he compliments them upon their public spirit, he accepts their cooperation with gratitude, and the whole proceeding is conducted with an ingratiating bonhomie which, at its best, is extraordinarily clever, if at its worst it recalls the emollient properties of highlyscented soap. His second style, that employed iu the combative Party speech iu a full-dress debate, does not impress me equally. He is, indeed, a very adroit controversialist on these occasions, but the methods employed are a little crude. His speeches are wholly lacking iu that literary quality which marks all the best House of Commons oratory, and when he trusts, as he sometimes does, to the eloquence of the moment, it is usually more that of the platform or the pulpit than of the House of Commons.”

Mr. Winston Churchiu.. Of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr Smith says that he could not have made so great a reputation as a speaker without extraordinary ability, or if his perseverance and tenacity had been less dogged, for he hardly belongs to the class of orators who are sometimes called “natural” : —“He bestows upon his important speeches a degree of almost

meticulous preparation ; he elaborates and sometimes overelaborates. Latterly an excessive dependence upon his manuscript has a little impaired the parliamentary success of some of his most important speeches, but his hearers enjoy the compensating qualities of these defects. His speeches are marked by an arresting literary quality.” Mr Smith concludes with a reference to Lord Hugh Cecil. Eight years ago Mr Winston Churchill and Lord Hugh Cecil were intimates, confederates, and, in a sense, rivals. Lord Hugh is a far more spontaneous speaker than Mr Churchill, and has other qualities which no one else in the House of Commons but himself possesses. He unites to the most tenacious combativeness an idealism of view which even those who are most affronted by his c( utroversial bitterness admit in their hearts.