formed the prince of orators. He was the most Demosthenean speaker since Demosthenes."

In contradiction to this last sentence, Lord Brougham remarks: "There never was a greater mistake, than the fancying a close resemblance between his eloquence and that of Demosthenes; although an excellent judge (Sir James Mackintosh) fell into it when he pronounced him. 'the most Demosthenean speaker since Demosthenes.' That he resembled his immortal predecessor in despising all useless ornament, and all declamation for declamation's sake, is true enough; but it applies to every good speaker as well as to those two signal ornaments of ancient and modern rhetoric. That he resembled him in keeping more close to the subject in hand, than many good and even great speakers have often done, may also be affirmed; yet this is far too vague and remote a likeness to justify the proposition in question; and it is only a difference in degree, and not a specific distinction between him and others. That his eloquence was fervid, rapid, copious, carrying along with it the minds of the audience, not suffering them to dwell upon the speaker or the speech, but engrossing their whole attention, and keeping it fixed on the question, is equally certain, and is the only real resemblance which the comparison affords. But then the points of difference are as numerous as they are important, and they strike indeed upon the most cursory glance. The one was full of repetitions, recurring again and again to the same topic, nay to the same view of it, till he had made his impression complete; the other never came back upon a ground which he had utterly wasted and withered up by the tide of fire he had rolled over it. The one dwelt at length, and with many words on his topics; the other performed the whole at a blow, sometimes with a word, always with the smallest number of words possible. The one frequently was digressive, even narrative and

copious in illustration; in the other no deviation from his course was ever to be perceived; no disporting on the borders of his way, more than any lingering upon it; but carried rapidly forward, and without swerving to the right or to the left, like the engines flying along a railway, and like them driving every thing out of sight that obstructed his resistless course."

Professor Goodrich, in his work on British Eloquence, gives a most admirable summary of the oratorical character of Fox. After quoting the conflicting remarks of Mackintosh and Brougham, he adds:

"When two such men differ on a point like this, we may safely say that both are in the right and in the wrong. As to certain qualities, Fox was the very reverse of the great Athenian; as to others, they had much in common. In whatever relates to the forms of oratory — symmetry, dignity, grace, the working up of thought and language to their most perfect expression-Mr. Fox was not only inferior to Demosthenes, but wholly unlike him, having no rhetoric and no ideality; while, at the same time, in the structure of his understanding, the modes of its operation, the soul and spirit which breathes throughout his eloquence, there was a striking resemblance. This will appear as we dwell for a moment on his leading peculiarities.

(1.) He had a luminous simplicity, which gave his speeches the most absolute unity of impression, however irregular might be their arrangement. No man ever kept the great points of his case more steadily and vividly before the minds of his audience.

(2.) He took every thing in the concrete. If he discussed principles, it was always in direct connection with the subject before him. Usually, however, he did not even discuss a subject-he grappled with an antagonist. Noth

ing gives such life and interest to a speech, or so delights an audience, as a direct contest of man with man.

(3.) He struck instantly at the heart of his subject. He was eager to meet his opponent at once on the real points at issue; and the moment of his greatest power was when he stated the argument against himself, with more force than his adversary or any other man could give it, and then seized it with the hand of a giant, tore it in pieces, and trampled it under foot.

(4.) His mode of enforcing a subject on the minds of his audience was to come back again and again to the strong points of his case. Mr. Pitt amplified when he wished to impress; Mr. Fox repeated. Demosthenes also repeated, but he had more adroitness in varying the mode of doing it. 'Idem haud iisdem verbis.'

(5.) He had rarely any preconceived method or arrangement of his thoughts. This was one of his greatest faults, in which he differed most from the Athenian artist. If it had not been for the unity of impression and feeling mentioned above, his strength would have been wasted in disconnected efforts.

(6.) Reasoning was his forte and his passion. But he was not a regular reasoner. In his eagerness to press forward, he threw away every thing he could part with, and compacted the rest into a single mass. Facts, principles, analogies, were all wrought together like the strands of a cable, and intermingled with wit, ridicule, or impassioned feeling. His arguments were usually personal in their nature, ad hominem, &c., and were brought home to his antagonist with stinging severity and force.

(7.) He abounded in hits-those abrupt and startling turns of thought which rouse an audience, and give them more delight than the loftiest strains of eloquence.

(8.) He was equally distinguished for his side blows, for

keen and pungent remarks flashed out upon his antagonist in passing, as he pressed on with his argument.

(9.) He was often dramatic, personating the character of his opponents or others, and carrying on a dialogue between them, which added greatly to the liveliness and force of his oratory.

(10.) He had astonishing dexterity in evading difficulties, and turning to his own advantage every thing that occured in debate.

In nearly all these qualities he had a close resemblance to Demosthenes.

In his language, Mr. Fox studied simplicity, strength and boldness. Give me an elegant Latin and a homely Saxon word,' said he, and I will always choose the latter.' Another of his sayings was this: Did the speech read well when reported? If so, it was a bad one.' These two remarks give us the secret of his style as an orator.

The life of Mr. Fox has this lesson for young men, that early habits of recklessness and vice can hardly fail to destroy the influence of the most splendid abilities, and the most humane and generous dispositions. Though thirtyeight years in public life, he was in office only eighteen months"

CHAPTER VII.

LORD ERSKINE.

Thomas Erskine was born at Edinburgh on the 10th day of January, 1750. He received the rudiments of his education at the High School of Edinburgh, and the University of St. Andrew's. On account of the poverty of his father, he did not enjoy the advantages of an early classical education. Of Latin he knew but little, and of Greek his knowledge did not extend far beyond the alphabet. But in the literature of his native tongue he was well instructed. In his boyhood, Erskine had his aspirations after literary celebrity; even then he cultivated a taste for oratorical glory. His youthful dreams, however, were not soon accomplished In consequence of the slender patrimony of his father, young Erskine was compelled to seek his fortune in the wide world. At the age of fourteen, he embarked on the ocean as a midshipman in the navy. In this situation he spent four years, visiting among many other countries the West Indies and the coast of North America. It was during one of these voyages to America that he witnessed, as he stepped on shore, that meeting of an Indian Chief with the governor of a British colony, which he afterwards so graphically described in the finest of his speeches, "and made the starting-point of one of the noblest bursts of eloquence in our language."

At the end of four years Mr. Erskine returned to England, and was married in 1770, at the age of twenty. He