MR. BRIGHT AND OTHER SPEAKERS.
[To THE EDFFOR OF TEE "SPECTAT011."1
Sri',—In your interesting review (Spectator, February 25th) of Mr. Smalley's "Reminiscences," you quote his reluctant com- ment on Lloyd Garrison that, though there was " nothing crooked or shifty in the man's nature," he sometimes produced "an unlucky effect." This admission of an admirer emboldens me to say that, having been present at the Garrison dinner in 1867, I was convinced that we were doing honour to a wise and very good man, but my conviction of his wisdom came to me at second-hand and, as it were, by faith. The chairman was Bright, whose speech was inspired by his abhorrence of slavery. There were other eminent speakers, including Earl Russell, and, in particular, there was a highly instructive address by John Mill. In contrast with these was the hero of the banquet, who, doubtless through shyness, tried to be effective by means of a sort of ill-shapen pleasantry. In his praise of the English adherents of the North he spoke of the Duke of Argyll as " a Peer without a peer "; he complimented Bright by saying that he himself always felt " bright " when reading his speeches ; and he made a friendly reference to Monckton Mines who had lately been made the " Right Honourable Lord Houghton." With what a pleasanter as well as lighter touch has this last-named negrophil been described as "he whom men style Baron Houghton, but the gods call Dicky Mines." Bright's speech, as I heard it, seemed to me magnificent. Indeed, I can still vividly recall the sonorous accents in which he declared that the Northern warriors were animated and sustained by the righteousness of their cause : " Out of weakness they were made strong, they waxed valiant in fight, they turned to flight the armies of the aliens." But when I dwelt on the speech afterwards, I could not help feel- ing that its spirit was volatile. Its fascination was due to the manner more than to the matter—to the transient and irre- producible charm of its delivery. And thus, when the spell was withdrawn, I felt that (to apply Peel's remark on Cobden) the " unadorned eloquence " of Mill gave me more to think about. His discourse was emphatically a "readable speech." Of the readable speeches that I have heard, one of the most striking, in spite of the subject, was the reply of the Attorney- General, Sir A. Cockburn, at the trial of William Palmer for poisoning Cook. My father obtained my admission, during three or four days, to that long-drawn-out cause cerebra of my early youth. He himself objected to Cockburn's reply as too eloquent. He wished that the orator had appealed only to the reason and not at all to the feelings of the jury, and that he had shown more reluctance in declaiming away, so to speak, the life even of a bad man. My own view, on the other hand, was quasi-professional, as it was then my intention to be called to the Bar. Charles Austin told me that Cicero, in his defence of Cluentius, seemed to him a more rhetorical Scarlett. The comparison was, of course, not meant to be taken quite literally; and, with a like reservation, I may say that to my boyish imagi- nation, Cockburn seemed a less rhetorical Cicero.—I am,
Previous page
