the latter is properly formulated, the former can be deduced as a matter of course.

In order to formulate the proposition, the student must examine not only § 63, but also the remarks upon Assumption and Presumption in § 69.

In general, a proposition should be drawn up as an assertion in the affirmative, and the wording of it will depend upon the presumption involved.

For example, the best manner of filling the office of judge may be submitted as a subject of debate, whether the judge should be elected, or appointed. How, then, is the proposition to be drawn up and the burden of proof to be determined? Bearing in mind the general truth that there is always a presumption in favor of what is, and against what is not, we can reason thus. Every change is an affirmation which must be sustained. In a state in which the judges are elected, e. g., in New York, the change would consist in substituting appointment for election. Consequently, in New York, the proposition is to be drawn up in this form:

The judges of this state ought to be appointed.

The burden of proof rests naturally with the affirmative. But in a state in which the judges are appointed, the proposition should read:

The judges of this state ought to be elected.

Another example, still clearer, is this. Very recently the manner of choosing United States senators has become a popular question: should they be elected by the people of the respective states in direct vote? Since the Constitution prescribes the present method of election, which can be changed only by means of a constitutional amendment, it is clear that the proposition must be formulated:

A senator ought to be elected by the direct vote of the people of the state.

A statement in alternative form is not a proposition, and therefore is not a proper subject of debate; e. y.: Whether a country life is preferable to a city life.

nor a statement in the form of a question; e. g.:

Are the pleasures of hope more beneficial than those of memory?

Thus worded, neither one of the above statements presents a clearly distinguished affirmative and negative side. Hence a debater speaking in favor of a country life, or of the pleasures of hope, would not know whether the burden of proof rested on him or on his opponent.

The question of country life versus city life, or of hope versus memory, is one in which there is no general presumption. Residents of a city, it is true, might prefer their mode of life; on the other hand, farmers might prefer theirs. But such preferences can scarcely be called general presumptions.

Where there is no presumption, the issue can be determined only by agreement. The debaters must agree among themselves that one form or the other shall be presented as the affirmative. Thus:

A country life is preferable to a city life.

or the opposite:

A city life is preferable to a country life.

In trials at law the burden of proof is a complicated matter, involving many technical rules. In ordinary debate, however, the burden of proof amounts practically to this, that those holding the affirmative should advance a certain body of argument which those on the negative are unable to answer. Reversing the statement, we may say that the debaters on the negative are not bound to do anything more than meet the arguments of the affirmative. But since they have the right, and usually avail themselves of it, to advance arguments that are somewhat more than a mere answer, it is the custom, where there are sev

eral debaters on each side, to let the affirmative have the last word.

210. Definition. This is all-important in debate. The several terms of the proposition should be clearly understood, and the issue drawn as sharply as possible. Thus, to take the questions discussed in § 209 for illustration, who are included in the term judges? All holders of a judicial office, or only those of a certain grade? What is a country life? Does it mean the life of a farmer, pure and simple, or may it include life in a small country town? The term preferable also would need careful limitation. Has it the sense of being conducive to physical well-being, or to intellectual, or to moral, or to pecuniary?

Too often the subjects of debate are improperly stated. They are not drawn up in the form of an affirmative proposition. And even when in the affirmative, they are worded too concisely. The framers of a debatable proposition are apt to treat it as if it were an axiom, the briefer the better. If a single sentence would be too long and involved, the necessary limitations might be introduced in two or three independent sentences.

In judging the merits of a debate, the audience should be governed solely by what the speakers have said, and not by the question itself. An ideal question would be one so nicely balanced as apparently not to lean to either side. But very few questions are thus ideal. One side has usually some slight preponderance, or appeals to the interests and prejudices of the audience. Those who argue for this side have, therefore, a slight advantage. This the audience should disregard, as far as it can. question for it to decide is not, which of the two sides of the proposition is in itself the stronger, but which side has been better presented by its advocates. In other words, not the proposition itself is to be judged, but the treatment of it.

CHAPTER XIX.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

THE following sketch is merely an attempt to present the more obvious phenomena and agencies in the growth of our language from the earliest recorded remains down to the present day. For a fuller and more systematic treatment of this interesting subject, the reader is referred to O. F. Emerson, The History of the English Language, New York; Macmillan. 1894. The subject is treated from a slightly different point of view in T. R. Lounsbury, History of the English Language. Revised ed. New York; Holt. 1894. The works by W. W. Skeat, Principles of English Etymology, Oxford; Clarendon Press. First Series, 1887; Second Series, 1891, offer an extremely valuable collection of data. The First Series ("Native Element") is somewhat difficult for any one unversed in technical philological methods. The Second Series (“Foreign Element") is more easily followed by the general reader.

1. BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST.

211. The language known to us by the name of English was not indigenous to the island of England, but was transplanted thither in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era.

When the island was invaded by the Romans under Julius Caesar, 55 B. C., it was occupied by various tribes closely allied in blood and language. These tribes are commonly designated by the generic name of Britains, and their language is called British. The language was one of a family known to philologists as Keltic. Living representatives of the Keltic family are the modern Gaelic of Ireland (and the Scotch Highlands), Welsh, and the Armorican (or Breton) of the French province of Brittany.

Julius Caesar did not make any serious effort to con

quer the island. The real conquest was begun a century later, 43 A. D., under Claudius, and was practically complete by the end of the first century. During the second, third, and fourth centuries Britain, i. e., that part of the island now known as England proper, was in every sense a Roman military province. But the Highlands of Scotland were never thoroughly Romanized; Wales also was in a large measure independent.

Roman law, Roman civil and military administration, prevailed throughout Britain. But whether the Latin language became a vernacular, or was used only by the Roman officials and their families and immediate dependents, is a point upon which we have not sufficient information.

Early in the fifth century the great Roman empire was threatened at many points on the Continent, and therefore Britain, merely an outlying and comparatively unimportant province, was abandoned.

212. Concerning the coming of the English and their conquest of the island, our knowledge, despite the acutest research of modern times, is still meagre and vague. There are grounds for believing that the English began to gain a foothold along the eastern coast in the latter half of the fourth century. Throughout the fifth century they came in increasing numbers, pushing their conquests up the valleys of the Thames, Trent, Humber, and Tyne. By the year 500 A. D., eastern, central, and southern Britain was in their possession. By the year 600 the whole country, as far north as the Frith of Forth and as far west as Wales and Cornwall, was substantially English.

The native British were either killed in war or reduced to slavery. The British language became extinct. The Christian church, which had been established as an off

* According to one theory, the Armorican of Brittany is the lineal descendant of the ancient British, brought thither by refugees from Britain in this period.