however, without being orators, are good speakers, better, at least, in many points than Englishmen; less clumsy, less con fused. They may not be superior in inven tion or in diction, but they possess, as their critic, Mr. James Bryce, admits, more fluency, more readiness, more self-possession. Any American can reel off a creditable, often an eloquent speech at a minute's notice, to the astonishment and envy of an Englishman. They have more quickness, too, in catching the temper and tendencies of an audience, more weight, animation and grace in de livery, and, crowning all this, more humor. Any rules for speaking, the result of Ameri can experience, are therefore well worthy of consideration. Here are some : — I. The speaker must be in earnest. — He must have something to say, of course; but that is not all. He must have, in Carlyle's phrase, a " message to deliver," — must be lieve, or seem to believe, every word he utters. This is what Aristotle calls увчл/ Trums, the power of convincing, and it is as true of the lawyer advocate as of the preacher, the statesman, or the prophet. The lawyer must believe in his own case, however bad it may be. This is where sometimes a good lawyer, because he is a good lawyer, fails as an advocate : he can not argue against his convictions. Rule 2 is this: Never carry a scrap of paper before an audience. Nothing destroys so much the " magnetic contact " which ought to subsist between a speaker and his audience, as reading or reference to papers. Spontaneity is the essence of successful speaking. The late' Bishop of Lichfield's advice to his curates on preaching was: "Write your sermon, read it over three times, throw it into the fire, and preach what you remember of it," — a very good recipe for a speech as well as a sermon. Scarlett, the greatest of verdict winners, never prepared his speeches. He thought out his ideas, and trusted to the inspiration of the moment for the language. Had he
merely fired off speeches at the jury, he would never have got on those good terms with them which led to his being called a "thirteenth juryman." An eminent judge told a friend that he once lost a case on which he felt very sure, though his success ful antagonist was a man not to be compared with him as a lawyer. When asked the reason, he said : " It was very curious; I had all the law and all the evidence, but that fellow Hale got so intimate with the jury that he won the case." It is all very well to say this, " I never carry a scrap of paper before an audience "; but what is a speaker who has not got a good memory to do — a speaker who has not the copiousness and ordered intellect of a Pitt or a Gladstone? A preacher who had relied on his own resources in this way, once got into the pulpit, but when he found himself face to face with his congregation, his ideas vanished, his mind was a blank. He tapped his forehead, but in vain; his ideas would not come. " My friends," he said, " I pity you; you have lost a fine sermon," and he descended the pulpit steps. But all have not this equanimity. A speech, on the other hand, learnt by heart may be a splendid tour de force, but as a speech it must be defective. It dazzles, but does not persuade. Macaulay's brilliant and highly finished orations are an instance. They fell flat in the House of Commons, as Grcville tells, when a light, dashing, vivacious, im promptu speech was applauded to the echo. If, then, you must have, as most must, some mechanical aids, plan out — this is the third rule — a series of a few points as simple and orderly as possible, using catchwords which will suggest the leading thought. This method prompts the memory without overburthening it. It was Mr. Bright's method. The fourth rule is, Plan beforehand for one good fact, and one good illustration or anec dote for each point. This brightens a speech, and gives body to it. But the best-laic! plans are liable to be disconcerted, and we
