d
rung, and tested, and tried again and again, before the auditor
acts upon it. Our people hear some great orators as they
witness a play. The delight of taste, even intellectual
gratification, caused by what is well said, is one thing.
Conviction is quite another. The printing-press and the reporter,
the consultation in the jury-room, the reflection in the Judge's
chamber, the delay of the election to a day long after the
speech, are protections against the mischief of mere oratory,
which the ancients did not enjoy.

I heard a debate in the House of Commons in 1860, on the
paper duties, in which Lord John Russell, Palmerston, Gladstone,
and John Bright took part. Gladstone's part was not very
prominent. I now remember little that he said. His image,
as it then appeared, is effaced by his later appearance on
a much greater occasion. Bright spoke admirably, both in
manner and matter. He was an Independent, through giving
general support to the measures of the Government, in which
Palmerston and Lord Russell were the leaders. He complained
bitterly of their acquiescence in what he thought the unconstitutional
attitude of the House of Lords, in refusing to consent to
the abolition of the paper duties, for which the House of
Commons had voted. But the Government, though they had tried
to abolish the duty, were very glad to hold on to the revenue.
Bright had none of the English hesitation, and frequent punctuation
of sentences with--"er"--"er"--which has led some one, speaking
of English orators, to say that "to err" is human. He reminded
me in general, in look, voice, and manner, of the late Richard
H. Dana, although he sometimes threw more passion and zeal
into his speech than Dana ever indulged. Periods followed
each other in easy and rapid flow. He had a fine voice and
delivery, easily filling the hall from his place below the
gangway.

Palmerston, in his jaunty and off-hand way, rebuked Bright
for desiring to make the House of Commons adopt a resolution
which would only show its own helplessness. On the whole,
he seemed to me to get the better of the debate. Bright could
not persuade the House, or the people of England, to make
a great constitutional question out of the paper duties, especially
after the powerful speech of Lord Lyndhurst, who, then more
than ninety years old, argued for the side of the Lords with
a power that no other speaker on the subject rivalled.

I heard Gladstone again in 18