favorite art, and yet with what triumph he uses the same defeated argument against another, — exclaiming, “Then why not leave nature, or custom, which is second nature, to do her own work?"

He proceeds, and I go with him heartily:"But many who allow the use of systematic principles in other things, are accustomed to cry up common sense as the sufficient and only safe guide in reasoning." This is exactly what the reverend Doctor himself does in the case of Elocution,—and therefore let him give the coup de grace to his own position.

66

Now, by common sense, is meant, I apprehend (when the term is used with any distinct meaning), an exercise of the judgment unaided by any art or system of rules; such an exercise as we must necessarily employ in numberless cases of daily occurrence; in which, having no established principles to guide us-no line of procedure, as it were, distinctly chalked out,-we must needs act on the best extemporaneous conjectures we can form. But that common sense is only our second best guide that the rules of art, if judiciously framed, are always desirable when they can be had-is an assertion for the truth of which I may appeal to the testimony of mankind in general; which is so much the more valuable, inasmuch as it may be accounted the testimony of adversaries. For the generality have a strong predilection in favour of common sense, except in those points in which they respectively possess the knowledge of a system of rules; but in these points they deride any one

who trusts to unaided common sense. A sailor, e. g., will perhaps despise the pretensions of medical men, and prefer treating a disease by common sense; but he would ridicule the proposal of navigating a ship by common sense, without regard to the maxims of nautical art. A physician, again, will perhaps contemn systems of political economy, of logic, or metaphysics, and insist on the superior wisdom of trusting to common sense in such matters; but he would never approve of trusting to common sense in the treatment of diseases. Neither, again, would the architect recommend a reliance on common sense alone in building, nor the musician in music, to the neglect of those systems. of rules, which, in their respective arts, have been deduced from scientific reasoning, aided by experience. And the induction might be extended to every department of practice. Since, therefore, each gives the preference to unassisted common sense only in those cases where he himself has nothing else to trust to, and invariably resorts to the rules of art wherever he possesses the knowledge of them, it is plain that mankind universally bear their testimony, though unconsciously, and often unwillingly, to the preferableness of systematic knowledge to conjectural judgments."

Now, could any one have furnished a clearer, more logical, or more satisfying answer than the above, to the learned and right reverend Doctor's own objections to a system of Elocution; and to his doctrine, in his Elements of Rhetoric, in favour of "unaided common sense," against "the rules of art”

in delivery, viz.: "The practical rule to be adopted is not only to pay no studied attention to the voice, but studiously to withdraw the thoughts from it, and to dwell as intently as possible on the sense; trusting to nature (i. e. common sense) to suggest spontaneously the proper emphases and tones!"

I am contented that the learned prelate's doctrine should be adjudged on his own arguments, and that his objections to a system of Elocution, which he does not profess, should be answered by his able defence of a system of Logic, of the rules of which he is master.

I have dwelt thus long on the right reverend prelate's opposition to Elocution as an art, because I have felt that his testimony might be of great weight in deterring many from a study pronounced useless or impracticable by so high an opinion, and one deserving great consideration and respect, from the station, erudition, and attainments of its author: and it is therefore a source of satisfaction to me, to find that he has himself-in his Elements of Logic-furnished arguments against himself-in his Flements of Rhetoric-of a clearness and force that no effort of mine could have attained to.*

I will once more take advantage of the same admirable preface, to adopt for my own purpose the language of the right reverend Doctor:

* GOETHE, in his Memoirs, says:

“In Logic, it struck me as strange that I was so to pull to pieces, dismember, and, as it were, destroy those very opera

"I am not so weak as to imagine that any system can ensure great proficiency in any pursuit whatever, either in all students, or in a very large proportion of them: 'We sow many seeds to obtain a few flowers." "

But I am happy to be able to add, that I have been gratified by finding my efforts rewarded by the marked improvement in voice, delivery, expression and gesture, of many pupils who have attended my course of instruction for but a short period and in the still greater advance of those who have patiently, and steadily, and laboriously carried out the system that I have laid down.

I have added to the system a full practice in reading and declamation, extracted from the works of the best authors in prose and verse, and in every variety of style. The mere reading aloud of

tions of the mind which I had gone through with the greatest ease from my youth, in order to perceive the proper use of them."

And BUTLER writes:

·

"And all a Rhetorician's rules

Teach nothing but to name his tools."

HUDIBRAS.

I quote the above by way of protest against the authority of Dr. Whately's name being allowed to decide the question of the value of a system of Elocution. Goethe scoffs at Logic, and Butler mocks at Rhetoric, as mere useless lumber and cumbersome machinery. But I imagine neither Dr. Whately's Elements of Logic nor his Elements of Rhetoric will be the less consulted for the scoff of the poet, or the ridicule of the satirist.

these extracts, as a practice in reading and declamation, after a careful study of the rules and principles laid down in the system, even without an instructor, will be of great advantage to the student. He will reap at least the benefit of accustoming his car to the flow of the language, and so, insensibly, catching something of the strength and spirit of their diction.

If he go a step further, and read them under the direction of a guide who can point out to him the peculiar merits of each, and show him, analytically, how every beauty may be heightened and brought out into strong relief, by the power of Elocution,if he will practise himself with such an instructor on such models, disciplining his ear, his action, and his voice, he may hope to attain a style of oratory clear, manly, forcible, and elegant.*

*It will be observed that frequent reference is made in the course of this work to Dr. Whately's admirable Treatise on Rhetoric, with a view to elucidate the principles of Elocution as a necessary “Element of Rhetoric,” and without which the latter is maimed and imperfect, robbed of one of its limbs, and shorn of half its dignity, its grace and strength.