at him with surprise. When our eyes met there was something like a wager of battle in mine, upon which the erudite gentleman instantly changed his invective against antiquity into an invective against me, and concluded by a few words of friendly counsel (horresco referens) to "orator mum," who he doubted not possessed wonderful talents for eloquence, although he would recommend him to show it in future by some more popular method than his silence. I followed his advice, and I believe not entirely without effect. So, sir, you see that to try the bird the spur must touch his blood.'

"The discovery on this occasion of his talents for public speaking encouraged him to proceed in his studies with additional energy and vigor. The defect in his enunciation (at school he went by the cognomen of 'Stuttering Jack Curran') he corrected by a regular system of daily reading aloud, slowly, and with strict regard to pronunciation, passages from his favorite authors. His person was short, and his appearance ungraceful and without dignity. To overcome these disadvantages he recited and studied his postures before a mirror, and adopted a method of gesticulation suited to his appearance. Besides a constant attendance at the debating clubs, he accustomed himself to extemporaneous eloquence in private by proposing cases to himself, which he debated with the same care as if he had been addressing a jury."*

Mr. Macready, in the level part of the character of Mordaunt, in the "Steward," and in some others, has been said to exhibit that very rare acquirement, a perfectly unconstrained and graceful style of expression, accompanied by a cool, quiet, and uncon* Hogg's Weekly Instructor. Blackwood, 1819.

scious self-possession, in which the manners of a gentleman consist. This bearing, so indispensable in the speaker, is rarely to be acquired except by intercourse with good society. No closet theory will impart it so surely as the discipline of communication.

Men of brilliant rather than solid powers dazzle themselves and others with isolated thoughts, too little caring for coherency. In this way Hazlitt has told us that "an improving actor, artist, or poet, never becomes a great one. A man of genius rises and passes by these risers. A volcano does not give warning when it will break out, nor a thunderbolt send word of its approach." To this it is sufficient to reply, that the volcano is not the production of a moment, nor is the thunderbolt. The occasion of the display is sudden, but the collection of power, natural or human, is of slow growth.

CHAPTER VI.

TACT.

In matters not absolutely scientific, the principles of Method are more arbitrary and dependent upon the circumstances in which a speaker finds himself placed. We may abandon the order of nature and follow that of the understanding, where conviction can be more readily effected. This is the province of Tact. Method is straightforward procedure; Tact is adaptation. Method applies to general occasions; Tact to special.

The distinction between Method and Tact is illustrated in the following practical remarks of Paley: "For the purpose of addressing different understandings and different apprehensions, for the purpose of sentiment, for the purpose of exciting admiration of our subject, we diversify our views, we multiply examples. [This is Tact.] But for the purpose of strict argument, one clear instance is sufficient; and not only sufficient, but capable perhaps of generating a firmer assurance than what can arise from a divided attention." [This is Method.]

.

When an opponent urges an objection, one way of replying to it is by endeavoring to prove that the assertion contained in the objection is not true. Another alternative of which we may sometimes avail ourselves is, that if even the assertion be true, it is no objection to our position.

It sometimes happens that the argument advanced against us is really an argument in our favor. Tact discovers and avails itself of these advantages. Method arranges the materials, Tact applies the resources, of reasoning.

It is the judicious application of means that constitutes Tact. In journalism Tact is an indispensable requisite. The history of Mr. Murray's daily paper, the "Representative," published for six or eight months, about twenty years ago, is abundant proof that unlimited command of capital, first-rate literary abilities in every branch of knowledge, and the highest possible patronage, are all insufficient to establish a London morning paper without that commodity which alone lends practical value to the other three, and which is far more difficult to be procured than the three put together. What the princely fortune of

Mr. Murray, and his intellectual Titans of the "Quarterly," and all his regal and legal, and ermined and coroneted, and lay and clerical, and civil and military, friends could not obtain, was the simple but inestimable gift called Tact.*

Hamilton's "Parliamentary Logic" abounds in maxims which that experienced tactician had treasured up, observed, or invented during his public life. Many of these advices are utterly unworthy the imitation of an ingenuous man; but a few may be taken as illustrative of tact, good sense, and shrewdness:

State what you censure by the soft names of those who would apologize for it.

In putting a question to your adversary, let it be the last thing you say.

Distinguish real from avowed reasons of a thing. This makes a fine and brilliant fund of argument.

Upon every argument consider the misrepresentations which your opponent will probably make of it.

If your cause is too bad, call in aid the party: if the party is bad, call in aid the cause.†

Nothing disgusts a popular assembly more than being apprised of your intentions to speak long.

To succeed in a new sphere a man must take tact with him. In nine cases out of ten, method will miss the mark till tact has taught it adaptation. The House of Commons has often illustrated this opinion.

So many things have to be taken into account, that

* London Correspondent of the "Birmingham Journal."

"If neither is good," adds Hamilton, "wound your opponent," which may be parliamentary, but I do not choose to recommend it.

nothing but experience can teach their management. Canning used to say, that speaking in the House of Commons must take conversation for its basis; that a studious treatment of topics was out of place. The House of Commons is a working body, jealous and suspicious of embellishments in debate, which, if used at all, ought to be spontaneous and unpremeditated.* Method is indispensable. Topics ought to be clearly distributed and arranged; but this arrangement should be felt in effect, and not betrayed in the manner. But above all things, first and last, he maintained that reasoning was the one essential element. Oratory in the House of Lords was totally different. It was addressed to a different atmosphere-a different class of intellects-more elevated, more conventional. It was necessary to be more ambitious and elaborate there.

"Fellows who have been the oracles of coteries from their birth; who have gone through the regular process of gold medals, senior wranglerships, and double foists, who have nightly sat down amid tumultuous cheering in debating societies, and can harangue, with an unruffled forehead and an unfaltering voice, from one end of the dinner table to the other; who, on all occasions, have something to say, and can speak with fluency on what they know nothing about, no sooner rise in the House than their spells desert them. All their effrontery vanishes. Commonplace ideas are rendered even more uninteresting by a monotonous delivery; and, keenly alive, as even boobies are, in those sacred walls, to the miraculous, no one appears more thoroughly aware of his unexpected and astounding deficiencies than *See Note D, page 171.