ple of the South in his race for the presidency in 1860, the answer of Lincoln to Douglas' sixth allied him so closely to the antislavery or abolition sentiment that his election was the forerunner of the American Civil War, the greatest conflict of modern times.

ORDER

CULE.

AND

CHAPTER VII.

ARRANGEMENT.- -WIT.-HUMOR-RIDISARCASM.-IRONY.-INVECTIVE.

WHEN the speaker has collected his arguments, prepared his thoughts and ideas, his next care should be to adopt a suitable order and arrangement for their presentation.

It would be difficult to lay down an inflexible rule on this subject. It must in the main be left to the good sense and judgment of the orator himself. This was the opinion of Cicero. His judgment was doubtless based on the almost infinite variety of oratorical power. The speaker may be called upon to denounce and expose some secret danger to the State, when the vehemence of his action will more than offset a faulty arrangement, as in the case of the Catilinian orations; he may be summoned to arouse some strong political passion, where the earnestness of his manner will more than compensate a slight defect in the marshaling of his arguments; or, as in the case of most jury speeches, the interest and excitement of the contest will more than excuse a deviation from a fixed method when the speaker shows animation and fervor. The flexibility of language, too, goes far to aid a loose and (175)

disconnected presentation of a subject. If there are points of great brilliancy, they will hide defects in the plan, for the most perfect collating of thoughts, when considered from a merely logical standpoint, will make but a weak impression on an audience if the manner of delivery be faulty and the speech be lacking in force, vigor and earnestness.

But while no invariable rule can be laid down with reference to a proper order and arrangement, and while in some cases a loose method may be adopted, it should not be supposed that utter negligence in this respect should characterize any oratorical effort. In calm, judicial, deliberative bodies the effect of a speech will very largely depend on a clear collocation of topics, while in tumultuous assemblies a like quality will by no means be without good results; in the former class of speaking, order is indispensable, while in the latter, the most that can be said is that its absence may be excused.

One rule which can be laid down for all public speaking is that the several topics or subjects upon which the orator is to speak, should be separately stated, treated, and considered, and each topic should be concluded before another is taken up. We think this rule of great importance, and one that can be followed without much difficulty. Thus, if the speaker is called upon to discuss the advantage of a certain public measure, it will almost always be found convenient to treat of it under some such heads as its importance, its justice, and its necessity,

or, what may be still better, its importance, its necessity, and its justice, and then distribute the arguments under each head where they belong. For instance, in dealing with the necessity of a measure, we should hold back such points as relate to its justice, morally considered, until that head be reached.

To illustrate, William Pitt, in his speech against the African slave trade, devotes the first part of his argument to the explanation of the expediency of abolishing the traffic, and the latter to its justice.

So where, in dealing with certain topics which bear upon some general subject, each should be touched upon separately.

For instance, in the Webster-Hayne contest, the general drift of both contestants was as to the respective patriotism of the people of the North and the South in their devotion to the Union, as displayed in the attitude of the statesmen of each section on the question of the tariff, the sale of public lands, and internal improvements, all centering on the nature of the general government.

A nice question here presents itself, and that is, in what order these minor topics should be presented. A general answer to this question may be readily given, and that is, they should be treated of in the order of their relative importance, the most important being considered last. What the most important topic is must depend upon the occasion and the nature of the subject, and rests with the judg

ment of the speaker. Daniel Webster, in his speech, took up his side of the Hayne controversy in this order: first, reply to general remarks and allusions of Mr. Hayne outside of the debate; second, the slavery question; third, the land and internal improvement question; fourth, the tariff; and fifth, the nature of the general government as to whether the bond of union was close and strong or loose and weak, and closes with the well-known remarks on the Union. In this arrangement of his topics Mr. Webster followed the plan we have suggested, as, entering on the fifth and last head, he said, "There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty which I feel to be devolved on me by this occasion," and he then proceeds to state his views on the nature of the American Union. Thus it appears he purposely kept back the most important matter till the end, one advantage of which was it gave him an opportunity to deliver his prophet misgivings, commencing with, "When my eyes shall be turned to behold," etc.

While the necessity of dividing and distributing the various topics which will usually have to be touched upon in the course of an address cannot be too forcibly impressed on the learner's mind, it should be remembered that these divisions should appear to be those demanded by the nature of the subject itself, and not a mere formal and arbitrary arrangement, resembling the branches of a tree more than the