cise terms; you should avoid all circumlocutions. The setting forth of the main part of your subject in a concise manner enables the hearers to comprehend it more easily.

5thly. The heads ought not to be multiplied unnecessarily, as this enfeebles the discourse.

Fourth. The argumentative part is by far the most important, being really in itself the end and object for which every oration is framed. The antient orators have established two divisions under this head; the one in which you adduce the proofs and evidence on your own side the question; the other in which you meet and refute the objections of your adversary, Which of these ought to come first in an oration must depend upon circumstances. In general I should say that in an opening discourse, or in the first upon any question, as when a member introduces a motion in either house of parliament, he should first establish the proofs in his own favour, and then proceed to encounter whatever objections he might conceive likely to be urged against him. In a reply, on the contrary, he should first meet the objections of his adversary, and then proceed to establish his own argument.

To attempt to establish rules respecting this part of an oration, would be trifling with your understanding. The arguments must depend upon the nature of the case, and the genius of the orator. There are indeed no rules to produce a strong reasoner; this is beyond the reach of logic or of any other science; it must be the effect of nature and of study. The antients, it is true, endeavoured to supply every deficiency of argument by common-place topics, such as I formerly mentioned, to be used according to the nature of the discourse; these were called loci, and hence orations were classed into the demonstrative, the deliberative, and the judicial. Under the first they considered all the qualities that could attend any person from his birth to his death, for which he could be praised or blamed. Under the second they considered the honesty, propriety, &c. of an action. Under the third they arranged all arguments concerning the relations, accidents, and consequences of things. I am far, however, from thinking these sufficient for all the purposes of an orator, or that they can be suited to the circumstances of every subject. This method may produce declaimers, but can never

form a good orator; they may, however, be consulted with advantage, especially by lawyers; and you will find them in Aristotle, Cicero in his book De Inventione, his Topica, the 2d De Oratore, and Quinctilian. Any person who inclines to see them in English may consult Dr. Ward's System of Oratory.

The arrangement of your arguments must also depend upon the subject, the audience and the object to be achieved, and must be altogether under the regulation of your own tastę and judgment. You will pursue the analytical or synthetical method according to circumstances. In other respects the following instructions may be useful:

1st. When you prepare the argumentative part of your discourse, place yourself in the situation of a hearer, and consider what arguments would have the greatest effect in convincing yourself. As human nature is every where much the same, so it is most probable these arguments will have much the same effect on others.

2d. You must never rest satisfied with pleasing your audience; they may be pleased when they are persuaded there is not a sentence of

truth in your oration. In this part therefore of the discourse the speaker should particularly labour to convince, and reserve the entertaining part for the peroration.

3dly. The topics of your discourse should never be blended in a confused manner; this is so evident that the mention of it is sufficient.

4thly. Your arguments should be so arranged as to support each other; if you are doubtful of your cause, and have but one argument of any strength, place that one in the front, and enlarge upon it, in order to preju dice your hearers in your favour; for if you begin with those that have but little or no force, they will immediately conclude that your reasoning is weak and feeble; but if your subject is clear, and your case a good one, commence with those arguments that are more feeble, and make them grow in strength, or, in technical language, rise in a climax; if you have any circumstances which seem trifling, but which yet cannot be conveniently omitted, Cicero judiciously advises to put them in the middle, where they will be least observed; when your arguments are all weak and feeble, the best way is to take them in a mass, as they will be more

strong than when they are separate; but if they are clear and convincing, it is best to take them separately, that each of them may appear in its clearest light, and have its full effect.

5thly. Never extend an argument to too great a length; this only burdens the memory without influencing the judgment; it takes from the vis and acumen, which is the best characteristic of talent; and rather let your hearers suppose that something is left, to their own fancy and judgment, than that you have entirely exhausted the subject.

The last part of an oration is the peroration or conclusion. This, like all the others, will vary according to the subject, the circumtances, and the genius of the speaker. The best in general, the most useful, and at the same time most common, is a short and forcible recapitulation of the principal arguments, with the inference which the speaker intended to be deduced from them. Men of genius will however by no means confine themselves to this one description of peroration. The vivacity of their imaginations will, as frequently as the circumstances of the case, induce them to take a different course. If an appeal can in this