AUTUMNAL BRITISH ELOQUENCE.

Marlborough Press, Volume I, Issue 1, 6 January 1860, Page 3

AUTUMNAL BRITISH ELOQUENCE.

We are now in that period of the year when certain lixed types of the British orator begin to exhibit themselves for the public instruction, and it may be worth while to sketch their relative characters and pretentions. It would, indeed, be very difficult to decide exactly how much the speeches of any given season affect the destinies of the realm; but some effect is unquestionably produced on the popular mind by oratory; and the question lias a kind of importance what sort of oratory that is which fills up the more leisurely and meditative season of the year. It is, indeed, worth notice that some degree of skill in “speaking” is rather common in England. At all events, we expect it from everybody—from all noblemen, quarter-session squires, leaders of strikes, popular merchants, good-natured dinner-givers, and other mpst diverse individuals. All our institutions and our public life favour it. The demand naturally produces the supply, which, accordingly, is perceptibly on the increase. Is this a good or a bad sign? Mr. Carlyle is very emphatic in his condemnation of it; and few will doubt (whether agreeing with him to the lull extent or no) that it is only tolerable in proportion as it is done, first, sincerely, and secondly, well. There is a temptation about speechifying. The great danger, to begin with, is that aSthan may confound it with real wholesome action He has “ said his say ” and been applauded, and he is apt to forget the awkward little requitin', “ What then?” Several of our 5. great guns of oratory only fire blank cartridge : the noise is as great as if there was a shot in, but nothing is clone by it. The audience, too, are apt to feel that there is a certain virtue in applauding such fme noisy sentiment as fills a showy speech, and that this virtue is all that is required of them. Much of our philanthropic eloquence is open to being accused of these weaknesses. Thus, what proportion of actual missionary success is there to the talk which, during the twelvemonth, is poured forth in the cause ? How great is the actual performance in relieving any form of misery compared with the quantity of exhortation which it gives rise to ? It is really worth reflecting on by our platform-men that the most practical of all philanthropists, Howard, did not achieve his work by their form of agitation at all; not to mention that what good they really do is partly neutralised by the opposition which their way of doing it provokes. For it must, we think, be counted among the drawbacks belonging to the oratorical method, that the practice of the art breeds undue conceit and antagonism in the artists. Who has not heard from some of the luminaries of the most gentle and noble of all religions a rancour that would hardly be out of place in the mouth of a sepoy ? As for the ordinary provincial magnaterhetorician, who is peculiarly active just now, we view him with tenderness. His influence is wholly over a class which already looks up to him, and the stir he makes scarcely extends beyond his own county. 1-Ie confines himself, too, almost exclusively to the dinner table; and it is one advantage of our after-dinner system that the eating and drinking tend to rob people’s eloquence of acerbity. No man will be seriously angry on a public subject after three varieties of flesh-meat and the best part of a bottle of wine. Mr. Bright knows this so well, that the reader may have observed that he never chooses a dinner for the scene of one of his invectives. It is always a soiree —an un-English meal, we think ; and the cheerful hue of dessert is absent from his happiest passages. The fault committed in matters rhetorical by tlie provincial magnate (especially by tlie younger generation) is, that he is too apt to assume the lecturer now-a-days. The general diffusion of literature has put a certain skill of this kind within everybody’s reach, and most men of good education can cut a respectable figure in preluding upon an intellectual subject. But in the facility lies the danger. The big man of the neighbourhood should not be too ready to put the measure of his understanding within easy reach of his neighbours. He cannot, in one case out of a thousand, equal in this way the books or lectures of men whose forte or occupation is writing or lecturing. And, while few can judge of the silent value there may be in a man, the amount of his displayed and exhibited faculty in a particular line is more easily appreciable. In short, if the philanthropist should shrink from being a showman, the squire or lord should shrink from being a bore. The number of men who get less credit for their • brains than they ought to do, by merely beiog always trying to get more, is something hardly sufficiently understood. On the whole, and giving its full credit

to our British eloquence, we are inclined to think there is too much of it. The example of America shows that our tendency is to'Carry it too far, and ought to warn us ; for to carry it too far is to risk the pollution of our language for one thing ; but worse than that, the spread of lip-service, oversentimentalism, and weakness of will in things practical. The reader may ask how it is to be checked, nor do we blink the difficulty. We assert, as the result of our own observation, that a British audience is too lenient to bores ! There is a hint to our countrymen, which, judiciously employed, may bring forth good fruit. Perhaps it resembles in its malignity the hint conveyed by the gentleman who shouted “ Don’t nail his ears to the pump !” But we may repeat that cry in a more charitable and sincere spirit. We wish our compatriots not to nail their ears to any “ pump ” who may be taking advantage of their helpless position —as an .audience.— Illustrated Times.