( 125 )

A PROPHECY.

[From the Morning Chronicle, Feb. 8.]

Qualis populea morens Philomela sub unum,
Amissos queritur fœtus, &c. &c.

AS close in poplar shades, her children gone,

The mother nightingale laments alone,
So on the woolsack, round his ample head,
While horrid curls their grateful umbrage spread,
The bright tear mingling with his frequent sobs,
Ill-fated Eldon mourns his frustrate jobs;
Which, from the Treasury nest in evil hour,
Grey, yet unfledg'd, yet unsuspected, tore;
He through the long debate, with streaming eyes,
Wails 'mid the House, loud echoing to his cries.
Alas! no T-r shall afford relief,

No dark associate lighten half thy grief;

Sole at the bar, unpitied shalt thou stand,

Face Whitbread's sneers, and Burdett's clam'rous band
Sole through the courts of Westminster shalt go,
Law's rigid empire, scene of Melville's woe.
Thy tender conscience there, in vain shalt plead,
Thy tottering power which urg'd thee to the deed;
Th' infuriate Commons, kindling as they hear,
Shall teach thy pride a nation's wrath to fear;
But when the Woolsack, lingering, thou shalt leave,
To thy lov'd honours still thy soul shall cleave.
E'en when the hackney coach, conveyance meet,
Shall, rumbling, bear thee to some distant street,
With cries of Conscience" Charing Cross shall ring,
Pall Mall, My conscience" echoing, round shall bring ;,
Thy conscious cheek shall wear its old grimace,
And thy last sigh be utter'd for thy place.

ANSWER TO AN INDELICATE VALENTINE, [From the British Press, Feb. 8.]

VOUR method of wooing a nymph so divine, Was indeed, my dear Richard, a coarse oue And while you set up to be sweet VALENTINE, You're more like his rough brother ORSON.

G 3.

S. W. T.

NEW ORATORY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PUBLIC LEDGER, &é.

SIR,

[Feb. 9.]

AS you have a few days respite from Parliamentary cares, you may perhaps admit some remarks on a species of eloquence which is creeping into our de Jiberative assemblies (I allude to no one in particular), and is so far different from what we have been accustomed to, that it seems to deserve our consideration whether it be really an improvement.

This new mode of oratory has this peculiar to it, that it deals in persons and not in things; and although it begins with avowing its attachment to a particular measure, it seldom ends without showing that its object is a particular man. I grant that there is a facility in such a mode of displaying one's eloquence, which, no doubt, strongly recommends it to some gentlemen. It is far more difficult to copy the style of Demosthenes and Cicero, among the ancients, or of our Pitt's, Burke's, and Fox's among the moderns, than to introduce a very happy and familiar imitation of the language of that district in the city, where, as one of our essayists says, "the best fish is sold, and the plainest English spoken."

There is an advantage likewise, the value of which some gentlemen seem to prize, in being able to substitute a something in lieu of a long train of argument, and direct proof, which shall make as great a noise, and get a man as much popular reputation as if he dealt in the aforesaid legitimate articles of true reasoning and logical application. The latter are qualifications which generally result from a regular education, improved by associating with the best company; that is, with men of enlightened and polished minds.

In our new eloquence, the principal ingredient, and which seems to be preferred to every other, is hassion. Our orator having chosen a topic, that is,

a person (some unlucky public character, of one side or other), immediately kindles his fury, and dresses up his speech with a profusion of vituperative ornaments, borrowed from the copious source hinted at above; and these, exaggerated with a grotesque contortion of body and limbs, a loudness and rapidity of utterance, and occasional exclamations, not far removed from swearing, are now allowed to form the qualifications of an expert orator. But how far an orator, thus qualified, and no otherwise, is likely to benefit his country, or the cause he undertakes, seems to deserve a more serious consideration than has yet been bestowed on the subject. In the mean time, without entering. deeply into the question, I am ready to allow, that although, in my opinion, such orators are not very likely to benefit their country, or their cause, I have known some of them who have been fortunate enough to benefit themselves; and I cannot, therefore, deny that, in their view of the matter, some good is done.

Prejudice, however, in favour of ancient customs and practices, is very strong, particularly with us whỏ have lived long enough to have witnessed past times. It will not be easy to persuade us, that passion is a useful article in argument; or that it is much improved by a dash of personal dislike. The "honourable mover," or "the worthy member" may be quite wrong in what they propose; their data may be erroneous, and their arguments inconclusive; but all this may be proved to full conviction, without assuming as a principle, that they are "d-n'd scoundrels;" or answering every thing they say with a brief declaration, that it is a "d-n'd lie."

There are many reasons that I might bring, to prove that this mode of debating-this new species of eloquence is not very well calculated to answer any good purpose; but I shall confine myself to one only; namely, its inconsistency with those habits in which gentlemen

G 4

gentlemen are usually brought up. It appears quite inconsistent, that one system of manners should prevail in a public assembly, and a very opposite system be established in a private company; that a person should be expected, in the management of his private affairs and private conversation, to preserve the language of a gentleman; while the moment he rises up to adjust the affairs of the nation, he is allowed to assume the manners, and much of the language, of a fishwoman. It is surely not only inconsistent, but even paradoxical, that violence of gesture, intemperance of language, and rudeness of every description, should be thought requisite in a public assembly, which would not be tolerated for a moment in any private company above that of the lowest and most abandoned of mankind. It seems very extraordinary that a "civil tongue," for which we absolutely condition, in the case of our inferiors and domestics, and universally expect in the case of our social friends and companions, should be totally dispensed with in the case of a public speaker.

I remember a story of the captain of a coasting vessel, a strict Dissenter, who applied to some divines of that persuasion for a dispensation to swear at his men, while on board of ship. He assured them that he wanted no such privilege while on land, and disliked the practice as much as the Reverend Gentlemen could possibly do; but at sea, he stated it to be an utter impossibility to get any business done without a frequent round of oaths, of the colloquial kind. What the determination of the worthy captain's spiritual guides was, I know not; but surely our modern orators seem to have adopted his opinion, and think that our public assemblies are not to be kept in order, without the language of the quarter-deck; and that motions cannot be carried otherwise than by an effusion of words calculated to irritate and provoke, which would

NEW ORATORY.

129

would be endured no where else, and upon no other occasion.

You may conclude, therefore, Sir, that I am not very friendly to these innovations in the eloquence of our deliberative assemblies. I have not, certainly, been able to discover the superior advantages of foul language, terms of reproach, and epithets of contempt. Let me not, however, be misunderstood. I do not say that they have no advantage; but merely that I have not been able to discover it. It is probable that such a mode of arguing, if I may so call it, may suit some gentlemen, merely because it is easy, and corresponding to their usual habits. In such a case, if such a case there be, it would be unreasonable to expect any other kind of eloquence from them. All I regret is, that they should have been placed in situations where such language appears foreign to the important purposes in hand. In other places, and in other situations, their peculiar flowers of eloquence might be introduced without exciting any surprise, or departing from any accustomed practices. The language that I shouldthink very unfit for carrying a legislative motion, may yet, for aught I know, be very necessary in turning a waggon in a narrow street; and I should pass over, without much remark, the words used in starting butts, although I might think them very improper in starting objections.

But I have, probably, taken up too much of your room, and shall only add, that, as I have no particuJar assembly, or class of orators, in my eye; I hope those who feel conscious that they are the subject of this letter, will seriously consider, whether a person who is invested with the character of a representative, ought to throw off that of a gentleman.

Iam, Sir, yours,