It may also be observed, that the civil and criminal judges in Greece and Rome were more numerous

than with us, and formed a kind of popular affembly. The celebrated tribunal of the Areopagus at Athens confifted of fifty judges at leaft. In Rome the Judices Selecti were always numerous, and had the office and power of judge and jury. In the famous caufe of Milo, Cicero fpoke to fifty-one Judices Selecti, and thus had the advantage of addressing his whole pleading, not to one or a few learned judges of the point of law, as is the cafe with us, but to an affembly of Roman citizens. Hence thofe arts of popular elo. quence, which he employed with fuch fuccefs. Hence certain practices, which would be reckoned theatrical by us, were common at the Roman bar; fuch as introducing not only the accused perfon dreffed in deep mourning, but presenting to the judges his family and young children, endeavouring to excite pity by their cries and tears.

The foundation of a lawyer's reputation and fuccefs must be laid in a profound knowledge of his profeffion. If his abilities, asja fpeaker, be ever fo eminent; yet if his knowledge of the law be fuperficial, few will choose to engage him in their defence. Befide previous study and an ample stock of acquired knowledge, another thing infeparable from the fuccefs of every pleader, is a diligent and painful attention to every cause with which he is entrusted; to all the fats and circumftances with which it is connected. Thus he will in a great measure be prepared for the arguments of his opponent; and, being previously acquainted with the weak parts of his own caufe, he will be able to fortify them in the best manner against the attack of his adverfary.

Though the ancient popular and vehement manner of pleading is now in a great measure superseded, we must not infer that there is no room for eloquence at the bar, and that the study of it is fuperfluous. There is perhaps no scene of publick speaking, where eloquence is more requifite. The drynefs and fubtility of fubjects usually agitated at the bar, require, more than any other, a certain kind of eloquence, in order to command attention; to give weight to the arguments employed, and to prevent what the pleader advances from paffing unregarded. The effect of good speaking is always great. There is as much difference in the impreffion made by a cold, dry and confused speaker, and that made by one who pleads the fame caufe with elegance, order and strength, as there is between our conception of an object, when prefented in twilight, and when viewed in the effulgence of noon.

Purity and neatnefs of expreffion is in this fpecies of eloquence chiefly to be studied; a style perspicuous and proper, not needlessly overcharged with the pedantry of law terms, nor affectedly avoiding these, when fuitable and requifite. Verbosity is a fault of which men of this profeffion are frequently accufed; into which the habit of speaking and writing hastily, and with little preparation, almost unavoidably betrays them. It cannot therefore be too earnestly recommended to thofe, who are beginning to practice at the bar, that they early guard against this, while they have leifure for preparation. Let them form themselves to the habit of a strong and correct style; which will become natural to them afterward, when compelled by multiplicity of business to compofe with precipita

tion. Whereas, if a loose and negligent ftyle have been suffered to become familiar, they will not be able, even upon occafions when they wish to make an unusual effort, to exprefs themfelves with force and elegance.

Distinctness in speaking at the bar is a capital property. It should be shown first in stating the question; in exhibiting clearly the point in debate; what we admit; what we deny; and where the line of division begins between us and the adverfe party. Next, it fhould appear in the order and arrangement of all the parts of the pleading. A clear method is of the higheft confequence in every fpecies of oration; but in those intricate cafes, which belong to the bar, it is infinitely effential.

Narration of facts fhould always be as concife as the nature of them will admit. They are always very neceffary to be remembered; confequently unneceffary minuteness in relating them overloads the memory. Whereas, if a pleader omit all fuperfluous circumftances in his recital, he adds ftrength to the material facts; gives a clearer view of what he relates, and makes the impreffion of it more lafting. In argumentation, however, a more diffuse manner seems requifite at the bar than on fome other occafions. For in popular affemblies, where the subject of debate is often a plain queftion, arguments gain ftrength by concifeness. But the intricacy of law points frequently requires the arguments to be expanded and placed in different lights, in order to be fully apprehended.

Candour in ftating the arguments of his adverfary cannot be too much recommended to every pleader. If he disguise them, or place hem in a falfe light, the

artifice will foon be discovered; and the judge and the hearers will conclude, that he either wants dif cernment to perceive, or fairness to admit the strength of his opponent's reasoning. But if he state with accuracy and candour the arguments used against him, before he endeavour to combat them, a ftrong prejudice is created in his favour. He will appear to have entire confidence in his caufe, fince he does not attempt to fupport it by artifice or concealment. The judge will therefore be inclined to receive more readily the impreffions made upon him by a speaker who appears both fair and penetrating.

Wit may fometimes be ferviceable at the bar, particularly in a lively reply, by which ridicule is thrown on what an adversary has advanced. But a young pleader should never reft his ftrength on this dazzling talent. His office is not to excite laughter, but to produce conviction; 'nor perhaps did any one ever rife to an eminence in his profeffion by being a witty lawyer.

Since an advocate perfonates his client, he muft plead his caufe with a proper degree of warmth. He must be cautious however of proftituting his earnestnefs and fenfibility by an equal degree of ardour on every fubject. There is a dignity of character, which it is highly important for every one of this profeffion to fupport. An opinion of probity and honour in a pleader is his moft powerful inftrument of perfuafion. He fhould always, therefore, decline embarking in caufes which are odious and manifeftly unjust; and, when he fupports a doubtful caufe, he should lay the chief stress upon those arguments which appear to him to be moft forcible; rerving his zeal and indigna tion for cafes where injuftice and iniquity are flagrants

ELOQUENCE OF THE PULPIT.

HAVING treated of the eloquence of popu

lar affemblies, and that of the bar, we fhall now confider the strain and spirit of that eloquence which is fuited to the pulpit. This field of publick fpeaking has several advantages peculiar to itself. The dignity and importance of its fubjects must be allowed to be fuperiour to any other. They admit the highest embellishment in defcription, and the greateft warmth and vehemence of expreffion. In treating his fubject the preacher has also peculiar advantages. He fpeaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large affembly. He is not afraid of interruption. He chooses his fubject at leisure; and has all the affiftance of the most accurate premeditation. The disadvantages, however, which attend the eloquence of the pulpit, are not inconfiderable. The preacher, it is true, has no contention with an adversary; but debate awakens genius, and excites attention. His fubjects, though noble, are trite and common. They are become fo familiar to the publick ear, that it requires no ordinary genius in the preacher to fix attention. Nothing is more difficult than to bestow on what is common the grace of novelty. Befides, the subject of the preacher ufually confines him to abftract qualities, to virtues and vices; whereas, that of other popular fpeakers leads them to treat of perfons; which is generally more interesting to the hearers, and occupies more powerfully the imagination. We are taught by the preacher to deteft only the crime; by the pleader to deteft the criminal. Hence it happens that, though the number