LECTURE XXI.

Public Speaking as regards the prefessional duties of the Barrister or AdvocateAddressing Juries-Common Juries and Special Juries-Addressing the CourtArguing in Banco-Suggestions in reference to the Preparation of Legal Arguments -The Senate-Speaking in Parliament-Business Speeches-Orations-Mr. Gladstone's Opinions on the Training best adapted to form good Speakers-Opening Speech on a Motion of Importance-The Debate-The Reply-Speeches at Elections-Open-air Speaking generally--Injurious Effects often felt by Untrained Speakers-How to Speak in the Open-air audibly, distinctly, and with comparative personal ease and comfort.

E

Here a

IN this Lecture my chief object will be to offer a few brief suggestions to students who intend to make the Bar their future profession, though I hope to touch on a few other topics. In the Pulpit of the Church of England there is no absolute necessity for a man being skilled at all in the art of extempore speaking. He may write his sermon out at full length, and if an able and powerful discourse as regards its composition, and read effectually by one who has well studied and practised the art of reading aloud, a sufficiently powerful effect will be produced. But it is very different at the Bar. man must, unless it is his intention to confine himself to what is called "chamber practice," know something of the art of extempore speaking. A speech carefully written out and read by an advocate would no more be tolerated in any of our courts of justice than it would be in a member in the Senate. The only extraneous aid the barrister can have recourse to in the course of his address to the court or jury consists in the instructions contained in his brief, the notes he may have made, and the suggestions or reminders that may from time to time be tendered him by the other counsel who are associated with him in the cause. The facility of extempore speech is therefore one of the greatest advantages an advocate can possess.

I will assume, then, that the student has, by carrying out some of the suggestions I have already given in preceding Lectures, or by other means, acquired some skill in the art of clothing his thoughts in language on the spur of the moment, and has also gained some little confidence and self-possession by practising at debating societies or other places, where he could find an opportunity, by occasionally speaking. And here at the outset let me say a word by way of warning. Debating societies

are all very well in their way for the purposes I have alluded to; but the style of language, and the manner of delivery, which one too commonly meets with at debating societies, would only be laughed at at the bar, and expose the young advocate to ridicule. Before I received my present appointment here, and devoted myself exclusively to my present vocation as a Lecturer and Teacher of the art of Public Reading and Speaking, I followed the profession of the Bar, and went on circuit and sessions for several years, and carefully noted all I saw and heard in Westminster Hall as well as at assizes in the country; and certainly the experience I thus gained enables me to say, that the first aim of the young barrister should be to study to make his language clear, simple, and pure, and his manner earnest and impressive. Anything like grandiloquence, declamation, poetical flights, and rhetorical appeals, should, as a general rule, be most strictly avoided. The modern taste, and general tone of thought and feeling in our English courts of justice are utterly opposed to all useless declamatory froth, and mere rhetorical display. It is only on very rare occasions that the circumstances of a case afford any just ground for what would be termed any of the higher flights of eloquence. Perspicuity of language and earnestness of manner are in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the chief requisite in an advocate's address. Remember there is scarcely any, if any, branch of public speaking in which so complete a negation of all apparent mere self-display is so imperatively required as at the English bar. The advocate speaks not for himself, but for the client whom he represents, and his object is, or should be, in his speech to promote to the very utmost of his power, consistently with the general principles of morality, the advantage of his client; and the interests of his client are served only by what will persuade the jury or convince the court.

A very little experience in attending the Nisi Prius and Criminal Courts in London and the provinces will show you how much common juries differ in character from each other. A skilled advocate is usually a tolerably good physiognomist, and so accustomed to read character in a great degree from the expression of the countenance. The superior mind will in general control or influence the inferior, and your aim as an advocate must be to persuade at all events the former. How can you

then best discover the superior minds amongst the jury who will have to give their verdict for or against your client? As I have said already, the characteristic expression which nature stamps upon the countenance, is in general a pretty sure index to the mental qualities within; but do not judge by the first glance you take at the twelve men on whom the verdict of the case depends. Watch them closely during the progress of the cause-see how they note, or are affected by, the examination or cross-examination of the various witnesses. If they desire any questions to be put to the witnesses, mark who are the jurymen who do so, and the relevancy or irrelevancy of such questions. All these hints will aid you in finding out who are the intelligent and who are the stupid, who are the obstinate and who most easily impressed, who are calm and patient, and who hasty, impetuous, or prejudiced. Finding as far as possible

what are the mental characteristics of the persons whom you have to address, your aim must be so to frame your speech that not merely the intelligent and patient, but all, may be in the end persuaded or convinced of the truth and justice of your client's case.

In addressing common juries, especially on circuit and at country sessions, I feel assured that the mistake is often committed by young and inexperienced advocates, of using a style of language above that of the ordinary use or comprehension of the persons whom they address If I may use the metaphor, he fails to hit because he shoots over their heads. The language the advocate should study to employ on all such occasions should be marked as much as possible, by simplicity and purity, and the more he eschews in his speech long or high-sounding words, of Latin derivation, and uses instead, wherever possible, synonyms of AngloSaxon origin, the more readily will his uncultivated hearers follow him in his address, and be able to comprehend his meaning. It requires but little practice and experience in our courts to see if a jury understand you. I think I may say you will very soon intuitively feel whether they do so or not. There is a certain look of intelligence and attention even on the face of the most obtuse that tells us whether the words we utter are conveying definite ideas to the minds that we address, or whether they are sounds, and sounds only, which awaken no interest or sympathy. If possible, make yourself understood by all, by the most stupid as well as the most intelligent of the twelve men in the box before you ; secure and retain their attention as far as you can while you are laying all you have to say before them, and endeavour to close your address before signs of weariness and impatience show that their powers of attention are nearly exhausted.

With all popular audiences, but more especially with common juries in London and the Provinces, manner, I am certain, goes a great way; argument in such cases will often be comparatively wasted, but never manner. An appearance of confidence in your client's case, an air of good temper, thorough command over yourself in all emergencies, and unexpected turns the case may take, are half the battle with such classes of hearers. The facts in support of your client's case presented in the strongest and most favourable light, plenty of illustrations, and, when fitting, enlivened by wit, humour, or anecdote, all form powerful weapons in dealing with a common jury in civil or in criminal courts.

With a special jury it is different; and both matter and manner must be adapted to hearers of a superior class of life, wider experience, and higher education, and all that I can say may be summed up in a very few words. Deal with them as you would with any number of gentlemen in the same position of life with yourself. A certain amount of deference in manner with an audience of a superior class is always, I think, judicious, especially at first, but still you may combine with it perfect freedom from all restraint, and, in fact, address them just as a gentleman would address gentlemen. But to know when you have said enough on any topic in your speech, and when to sit down, is an art no less valuable to be acquired in addressing special juries, as in speak

ing to the inferior mind and uncultivated intelligence that usually characterise a common jury.

But now I come to a very different sphere of your professional duties, I mean that of carrying on an argument in Banco as it is technically called, or addressing the Court, that is the judge only. These occasions require a very different tone and manner to that which a counsel would adopt when addressing a jury, whether special or common, and the difference must be always borne in mind. When you address a jury it may be assumed in general that you are speaking to a body of men, neither well acquainted with the law, nor trained to the logical process of carrying out an argument, and drawing strict or necessary conclusions. But it is a wholly different matter when you address yourself to the judges that form the Court, whether of law or equity. Here you speak to intellects greater than your own, more experienced in all the subtleties and nice distinctions of legal argument, of wider reading and longer practice in their profession than the majority of the barristers who address them can possibly pretend to possess. In addressing a jury, especially a common jury, it may be often necessary to go more than once over the same ground, to present the same topic under various aspects, and to resort to such other means as will enable you, in your opinion, eventually to enlighten the dullest man before you, and remove the prejudices of the most obstinate. But all this recapitulation and variety of treatment and illustration would, in addressing the Court, be worse than useless. Here your chief aims must be a clear and logical arrangement of thoughts, perspicuity of language, and condensation of important facts and arguments, supported by cases and authorities of weight that bear directly on the points you are discussing. I do not say that the aids which the study of elocution can give are to be neglected here, for all the graces of voice and manner which are appropriate to such occasions, cannot but increase the effect of what you are saying if it be sound and good, but still here undoubtedly the manner is quite secondary to the matter. The Court has not to be persuaded like a jury, but to be convinced, and the soundness of your argument, and the logical coherence of reasoning from premises to conclusions, are the main things to be attended to in the course of your address. I think the suggestion I have offered before when treating of the construction of speeches in general, the young barrister will find useful here, viz., before addressing the Court to set down on paper an outline of the arguments he intends to use, logically arranged in the order in which he proposes presenting them to the Court, with the names of the cases and the books where they are to be found, written in the margin opposite those portions in the chain of argument on which they particularly bear. This analytic sketch of the argument will enable the young counsel to test, in no small degree, its soundness and coherence, and, at the same time, serve to keep him from wandering away into digressions that do not bear upon the questions at issue. The sketch of the argument should be written clearly, and the various heads and sub-divisions duly classified and marked with numbers, so that the eye may readily fall upon them, and find in a moment what is

wanted. I need hardly say that whilst the language should be terse and perspicuous, the manner should be calm, quiet, and deferential, as it naturally ought to be in addressing men eminent in station and character, and distinguished by learning and ability.

I pass on now to a subject on which I can necessarily touch but very briefly, and on which I can only pretend to offer the result of the experience of others-I mean, the oratory of the senate. It has been my good fortune to number amongst the pupils I have had in the art of elocution, many who have either been, or now are, members of the Legislature, and I have often conversed with them on the subject of the most popular speakers, and the various styles of speaking chiefly adopted in our Houses of Parliament, and the result of the information I have thus gained may be briefly summed up. In both houses there is much more carried on by mere talking, than there is by what is termed regular speech-making, and a member who can talk easily and sensibly, and does not weary his auditors by mere empty platitudes, will almost always carry due weight, and receive a patient and attentive hearing. What is most disliked is a mere pretentious speaker, especially if only a recent addition, whose great ambition seems to be constantly addressing the House upon every occasion when he can catch the eye of " Mr. Speaker," and so see his name in the newspapers next morning.

These men come at last to be considered as the mere bores of the House, and fare accordingly. But a new member who does not thrust himself at once upon the notice of the House, but bides his time, and then a fitting opportunity of expressing his views upon some question easily and sensibly, and in a pleasant unaffected manner, will in general meet with attention, and gradually feel his way. The great occasions of debate, such as Reform Bills, Irish Church Bills, &c., are comparatively rare, and hence the opportunities of hearing a real "Oration from any of our acknowledged great speakers are by no means common. A stranger who is in the habit of taking his seat in the gallery of the House of Commons will find nine times out of ten, that the business of the evening has been carried on far more by mere talking than regular speech-making. Hence, to talk fluently, pleasantly, and sensibly on a topic, to stand up and say what has to be said in clear and brief language, and to sit down before there is the least chance of the House being wearied, is as valuable an art there as it is anywhere else, if not more so, and will almost always meet with its reward in the attention the member will receive on a future occasion.

What may be termed business speeches, are by far the most frequent of all others in our Houses of Parliament, and their general style may be gathered from a statement of their objects. Their purpose not being to awaken passions or feelings, the aim of the speaker should be by a calm, clear, well arranged, and unexaggerated statement of facts and arguments to convince the impartial judgment of the House, and hence all rhetorical flights, and passionate appeals would only be wasted, and expose him to ridicule, derisive cheers, and laughter. The language on such occasions cannot be too plain and unadorned, provided it be well chosen and appropriate. The committees of the whole House form ex