irony, from the "Preface" of "Killing no Murder."' It would be difficult to find a better, if not nobler, specimen than a passage in the speech before us:

But, Sir, I leave this argument; and, to be as good as my word, come to put you in mind of some of their services, and the obligations you owe them for the same. To speak nothing of one of my Lords Commissioners' valour at Bristol,1 nor of another noble lord's brave adventure at the Beargarden, I must tell you, Sir, that most of them have had the courage to do things which, I may boldly say, few other Christians durst so have adventured their souls to have attempted: they have not only subdued their enemies, but their masters that raised and maintained them: they have not only conquered Scotland and Ireland, but rebellious England too, and there suppressed a malignant party of magistrates and laws; and, that nothing should be wanting to make them indeed complete conquerors, without the help of philosophy they have even conquered themselves. All shame they have subdued as perfectly as all justice; the oaths they have taken they have as easily digested as their old General could himself: public covenants and engagements they have trampled under foot. In conclusion, so entire a victory they have over themselves, that their consciences are as much their servants, Mr. Speaker, as we are. But give me leave to conclude with that which is more admirable than all this, and shows the confidence they have of themselves and us: after having many times trampled on the authority of the House of Commons, and no less than five times dissolved them, they hope, for those good services to the House of Commons, to be made a House of Lords.'

Upon the debate of this grand affair (the impeachment of Lord Danby) we are told of a very peculiar speech pronounced by the Earl of Carnarvon, a lord who is said never to have spoken before in that House, who, having been heated with wine, and more excited to display his abilities by the Duke of Buckingham (who

1 Fiennes, condemned to death by a court-martial for cowardice. 2 Colonel Pride, who endeavoured to suppress bear-baiting by a wholesale slaughter of bears.

meant no favour to the Treasurer, but only ridicule), was resolved before he went up to speak upon any subject that would offer itself. Accordingly he stood up and delivered himself to this effect:'

'My lords, I understand but little of Latin, but a good deal of English, and not a little of the English history, from which I have learnt the mischiefs of such prosecutions as these, and the ill fate of the prosecutors. I could bring many circumstances, and those very ancient; but, my lords, I shall go no farther back than the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign: at which time the Earl of Essex was run down by Sir Walter Raleigh, and your lordships very well know what became of Sir Walter Raleigh. My Lord Bacon, he ran down Sir Walter Raleigh, and your lordships know what became of Lord Bacon. The Duke of Buckingham, he ran down my Lord Bacon, and your lordships know what happened to the Duke of Buckingham. Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, ran down the Duke of Buckingham, and you all know what became of him. Sir Harry Vane, he ran down the Earl of Strafford, and your lordships know what became of Sir Harry Vane. Chancellor Hyde, he ran down Sir Harry Vane, and your lordships know what became of the Chancellor. Sir Thomas Osborne, now Earl of Danby, ran down Chancellor Hyde; but what will become of the Earl of Danby, your lordships best can tell. But let me see that man that dare run the Earl of Danby down, and we shall soon see what will become of him.'

This being pronounced with a remarkable humour and tone, the Duke of Buckingham, both surprised and disappointed, after his way, cried out: The man is inspired, and claret has done the business."1

The witty and profligate Lord Rochester was less fortunate when, to win a bet or stimulated by the taunts of his gay companions, he made a similar attempt and began thus: 'My lords, I rise this time. My lords, I divide my discourse into four branches.' Here he faltered and paused. My lords, if ever I rise again

6

1 Parliamentary Debates for 1678.

in this House, I give you leave to cut me off, root and branch, for ever.'1

Conspicuous among the debaters of the Lower House during the ten years preceding the Revolution of 1688, was Henry Booth, afterwards Earl of Warrington, eight of whose speeches are printed from notes supplied or corrected by himself. We give a specimen from ‘A Specch against the Bishops voting in case of Blood: '

It is strange the bishops are so jealous of their cause as not to adventure it on their great Diana, the canon law, by which they are expressly forbidden to meddle in case of blood. Perhaps they would do by the canon law as it is said of the idolaters in the Old Testament, that of part of the timber they made a god and fell down and worshipped it; the rest they either burnt in the fire, or cast it to the dunghill. For they tell you that the canon law was abolished by the Reformation, and that none but Papists yield obedience to it, and, therefore, now they are not tied up by the canon, but may sit and vote in case of blood if they please. I should be very glad if they were as averse to Popery in everything else, and particularly that they would leave ceremonies indifferent and not contend so highly for them, whereby they make the breach wider and heighten the differences amongst Protestants, in the doing of which they do the Pope's work most effectually. I wish they would consent to have a new code of canons, for those that are now extant are the old Popish canons. I like the bishops very well; but I wish that bishops were reduced to their primitive institution, for I fear that, whilst there is in England a Lord Bishop, the Church will not stand very steadily.' 2

It was the author of the Characteristics,' when Lord Ashley and a member of the House of Commons, that turned his temporary embarrassment into an oratorical success. He was speaking on the Bill for granting counsel to prisoners in cases of high treason, when he got confused, but after a short pause continued: 'If I, Mr. Speaker, who rise only to offer my opinion on the Bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I intended to say, what must be the condition of that man who without any assistance is pleading for his life?'

2A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England. From the year 1668 to the present time.' Printed in 1741. Vol. ii. p. 153.

At the meeting of the Convention in 1688, we hear of Sir Thomas Littleton, 'gifted with a vehement and piercing logic, which had often, when, after a long sitting, the candles had been lighted, roused the languishing House, and decided the event of the debate.' There, too, was William Sacheverell, an orator whose great parliamentary abilites were many years later a favourite theme of old men who lived to see the conflicts of Walpole and Pulteney. There too were other veterans, but all were speedily to be thrown into the shade by two young Whigs, who then took their seats for the first time-Charles Montagu and John Somers.1

We are compelled to take the oratorical reputation of each of them upon trust. Lord Campbell says of Somers, that although he sat in Parliament from the beginning of the year 1689 till his death, not much short of thirty years, and during a considerable part of that period led a great party, first in the Lower and then in the Upper House, there is not extant as much of any one speech he delivered as would make half a column of a newspaper; and in the very scanty reports of parliamentary proceedings in the reign of William and Anne, his name is rarely mentioned.'

Macaulay says: His speeches have perished, but his state papers remain, and are models of terse, luminous, and dignified eloquence.' Amongst modern orators, the closest parallel would be Lord Lyndhurst. In no instance do the reports purport to give more than the substance of what Somers said; and the most successful efforts of Montagu have been similarly reduced to little better than a caput mortuum. Thus, we are assured by the historian that the extraordinary ability with which, at the beginning of the year 1792, he managed the conference on the Bill for regulating trials in cases of treason, placed him at once in the first rank of parliamentary orators; but the report of his speech, filling 1 Macaulay's History,' chap. x.

eight pages, is a dry abstract or abridgment of his argument.

One of the severest and best merited rebuffs received by King William was the opposition to the grant to the Earl of Portland in 1695 of sundry lordships with the royalties in Wales, forming a large proportion of the demesnes of the Principality. When this affair was brought before the House of Commons, Mr. Price, ‘a gentleman of great parts,' since one of the Barons of the Exchequer, amongst other pointed things, is reported to have said :

'I shall make no severe remarks on this great man, for his greatness makes us little, and will make the Crown both poor and precarious. And when God shall please to send us a Prince of Wales, he may have such a present of a Crown made him as a Pope did to King John, who was surnamed Sans Terre, and was by his father, King Henry II., made Lord of Ireland, which grant was confirmed by the Pope, who sent him a crown of peacocks' feathers in derision of his power and the poverty of his revenue. I would have us to consider that we are Englishmen, and must, like patriots, stand by our country and not suffer it to become tributary to strangers. We have rejoiced that we have beat out of this kingdom Popery and slavery, and we do now with as great joy entertain Socinianism and poverty, and yet we see our properties daily given away, and our liberties must soon follow.'1

The palm of eloquence in the next generation is, by universal consent, awarded to Bolingbroke, of whom

1 'Parliamentary Debates.' The entire speech was printed in 1702 under the title of 'Gloria Cambriæ, or Speech of a Bold Briton against a Dutch Prince of Wales.' Macaulay referring to it remarks: 'Price was the bold Briton whose speech, never, I believe, spoken, was printed in 1702. He would have better deserved to be called bold if he had published his impertinence while William was living.' According to the reporter in the 'Parliamentary Debates,' 'This short and eloquent speech made so great an impression that Mr. Price's motion was carried by an unanimous consent.' Smollett and Belsham both speak of the effect of the speech as delivered; and it is on record that equally strange language, or impertinence,' was hazarded by Mr. Price, as member of a deputation, before the Lords of the Treasury.