Page images
PDF
EPUB

great service in securing favorable attention to our arguments, as well by the variety which they give as by their own nature; for by making our speech appear plain and unstudied, they render us objects of less suspicion to the judge. One of these is a repenting, as it were, of what we have said, as in the speech for Cælius, 'But why did I introduce so grave a character? Of a similar nature, also, are the expressions which we daily use, such as, 'I have hit upon the matter unawares;' or, as we say when we pretend to be at a loss, 'What comes next?" or, "Have I not omitted something?' or when we pretend to find something suggested to us by the matter of which we are speaking. Thus Cicero says, 'One charge of this sort remains for me to notice ;' and, ‘One thing is suggested to me by another.' By such means likewise graceful transitions are effected, as Cicero, after relating the story of Piso, who had given orders, while he was sitting on his judgment-seat, for a ring to be made for him by a goldsmith, adds, as if reminded by the circumstance, 'This ring of Piso's has just put me in mind of something that had entirely escaped me. From how many honest men's fingers do you think that he has taken away gold rings?' Sometimes we affect ignorance of some particular, as, 'But the artificer of those statues— whom did they say it was? whom? You prompt me correctly-they said it was Polycletus.'. . . It gives agreeableness to a speech, moreover, to defer the discussion of some points, laying them up, as it were, in the memory of the judge, and afterwards to reclaim what we have deposited; to separate certain particulars by some figure; to bring others prominently forward; and to exhibit the subjects of our speech under various aspects; for eloquence delights in variety; and as the eyes are more attracted by the contemplation of diversified objects, so that is always more gratifying to the mind to which it directs itself with the expectation of novelty."

CHAPTER VII.

ATTACK AND DEFENCE.

§ 533. ATTACK AND DEFENCE.

6. IN attack and defence the orator makes use of all the means of influencing the hearer which have thus far been noticed; and, in addition to these, he resorts to modes of treatment which are peculiar to these departments of oratory, and deserve special consideration.

§ 534. ATTACK.

The leading quality here is vehemence, and, whatever form the attack may assume, this quality will serve as a great central

force to give it a resistless impetus. Eschines named this as the great characteristic of the oratory of Demosthenes. Longinus afterwards, speaking as a critic, gave the same opinion; and the best modern counterpart of this is found in the oratory of Chatham. Nowhere is this vehemence more imposingly displayed than in invective. The passage in which

Lord Chatham denounces the Earl of Suffolk is a well-known example. It begins:

"I am astonished-shocked-to hear such principles confessed, to hear them avowed in this House or in this country; principles equally unconstitutional, inhuman, and unchristian."

Vehemence is also essential in all cases of menace.

Sometimes the menace is implied, as when Curran, speaking in behalf of Finnerty, utters words in which there is a covert threat:

"Upright and honest jurors, find a civil and obliging verdict against the printer, and, when you have done so, march through the ranks of your fellow-citizens to your homes, and bear their looks as you pass along."

It is also needed in cases of defiance, and may be observed in the following from Grattan's speech against Corry:

"Here I stand ready for impeachment or trial. I dare accusation. I defy the honorable gentleman. I defy the government. I defy the whole phalanx. Let them come forth. I tell the ministers I will neither give them quarter nor take it."

$535. PERSONAL ATTACK.

The fiercest and most violent form of attack is that which is directed against individuals. The object of the assault being a personal enemy, arouses the strongest passions, and calls forth the bitterest language.

The following attack was made on Lord Auckland by Fox, in his speech on the Russian Armament:

"As there was honor to be sacrificed, a stain to be fixed on the national character, engagements to be retracted, and a friend to be abandoned, did it never occur to them that there was one man upon their diplomatic list who would have been pronounced by general acclamation thoroughly qualified in soul and qualities for this service? Such a person they might have found, and not so occupied as to make it inconvenient for them to employ him. They would have found him absent from his station, under the pretence of attending to his duty in this House, though he does not choose often to make his appearance here."

Another example will be found in Fox's speech on the Westminster Election, where he denounces the high-bailiff in language full of the keenest and most stinging reproof:

"There are feelings which even party prejudice cannot dispossess us of. We owe to each other a certain candor; and I am sure I should be thoroughly satisfied to put this matter to the private answer of any man who hears me, if I were only to ask him upon his honor as a gentleman, whether he really believes the return of this high-bailiff is an act of conscience, and whether he thinks that if I stood in Sir Cecil Wray's place, and he had my majority, we should ever have heard of this man's difficulty in giving judgment, or ever been insulted with this mockery of his scruples?"

A great effect is sometimes produced by a pretended representation of the words of an adversary :

"Will the minister say, ‘I travelled to Norwich, to York, to Manchester, to Wakefield, for opinions; I listened to the minority; I looked to Lord Stormont, to the Earl of Guilford; but as to you, my trusty majority, I neglected you!' I had other business for you! It is not your office to give opinions; your business is to confide !"-Fox, RUSSIAN ARMAMENT.

Certain words are here attributed by the orator to his opponent, and artfully introduced by the interrogative form, "Will the minister say?" The language thus reported implies conduct which is at once base in itself, and treacherous and insulting to the ministerial supporters.

§ 536. INCIDENTAL REFERENCE.

An attack of the same kind sometimes assumes the form of an incidental reference. Thus in the same speech Fox accuses Pitt of false shame :

"The right honorable gentleman cannot argue that he kept up the armament in compliance with his engagements with Prussia, when the armament in fact did not exist, and when it had been begun but four or five days previous to his renouncing the objects of it. That could not have been his motive. What, then, was his motive? Why, that he was too proud to own his error, and valued less the money and tranquillity of the people than the appearance of firmness when he had renounced the reality. False shame is the parent of many crimes. By false shame a man may be tempted to commit a murder to conceal a robbery. Influenced by this false shame, the ministers robbed the people of their money, the seamen of their liberty, their families of support and protection, and all this to conceal that they had undertaken a system which was not fit to be pursued."

Here the speaker charges his opponent with "false shame,"

and gives emphasis to the charge by a minute statement of the wrongs and evils resulting from it.

§ 537. SIDE-THRUST.

A blow is sometimes aimed at an adversary in the course of debate. Here there is no sustained attack, but merely a side-thrust in passing. Fox is particularly characterized by this. The following passages are from his speech on the Westminster Scrutiny:

"This person, sir [Lord Kenyon], has upon this day professed and paraded much upon the impartiality with which he should discharge his conscience in his judicial capacity as a member of Parliament in my cause; yet this very person, insensible to the rank he maintains or should maintain in this country, abandoning the gravity of his character as a member of the Senate, and losing sight of the sanctity of his station both in the House and out of it, even in the very act of delivering a judicial sentence descends to minute and mean allusions to former politics-comes here stored with the intrigues of past times, and, instead of the venerable language of a good judge and a great lawyer, attempts to entertain the House by quoting or by misquoting words supposed to have been spoken by me in the heat of former debates, and in the violence of contending parties when my noble friend [Lord North] and I opposed each other."

In this case the speaker turns aside from the discussion of the main argument to attack Lord Kenyon, who had sneered at him for entering into friendly relations with an old enemy, Lord North. This blow is at once unexpected and vigorous. Of the same character is the following:

"An honorable gentleman whom I see in his place, but who, I believe, neither hears nor sees me at this moment [Mr. Jenkinson, who was fast asleep on the Treasury Bench], knows full well that all I am saying is strictly true. . . . That honorable gentleman can attest the veracity of this recital; but it were vain flattery, I fear, to hope that he will rise up tonight and vindicate by his voice and his vote the principles of the cause he then supported."

...

$ 538. DEFENCE.

7. Defence may be characterized by all the tactics of oratory exhibited in attack. As a general thing, the speaker who stands simply on the defence employs more of the language of conciliation; he is less vehement, but more firm; and from the nature of the case he is bound to be apologetic, and therefore modest. But the best kind of defence is that which, by the genius of the orator, is gradually made to quit a defensive

position and resolve itself into attack; in which case it may become as vehement and as bitter as the original aggression which it is designed to repel.

$539. STRICT DEFENCE.

Examples of this may be found in most forensic oratory, where the advocate defends his client; and also sometimes in deliberative oratory, when a statesman defends his policy, especially when a government resists the attacks of the opposition.

$540. INDIRECT REPLY.

Sometimes it is necessary to make an indirect reply. An example may be found in the speech of Sir James Mackintosh in behalf of Jean Peltier.

Jean Peltier published a French newspaper in London, in which there appeared articles that gave offence to Napoleon Bonaparte, who demanded that he should be sent out of the kingdom, and, when this was refused, insisted that he should be tried for libel on a friendly government. It was felt that the acquittal of Peltier might lead to war, and, since a direct consideration of this on a trial would be considered injudicious, the reply was made in an indirect way. The following is a brief summary of the defence :

Ist. It shows that the security of Great Britain requires nothing on the Continent but just dealing between dif ferent powers, and maintenance of peace so far as possible.

2d. That the prosperity of England depends upon the prosperity of other nations.

3d. A free press is needed to expose the ambitious or unjust designs of foreign rulers, and to forewarn her and forearm. her against them.

4th. England has always cherished this freedom, and never thought it good policy to avert the resentment of foreign tyrants by limiting the liberty of the press.

5th. Though valuing peace, she has never tried to gain it by silencing the press and breaking the spirit of the people. 6th. For public spirit is the chief source of national strength; and of all stimulants which arouse it into action, a free press is the greatest.

« PreviousContinue »