sinister direction, because he evidently is under the sway of an ambition of no ordinary kind, and would spare no exertions to advance himself to power, either through direct popular influence or in the regular channels of promotion. The only solution of the difficulty we can offer is, that Mr. Roebuck is a disappointed man. His excessive egotism and high opinion of his own powers led him to expect that he would have received from the great men of the day, not only a more rapid, but also a more substantial acknowledgment. He evidently did not understand the constitution of the House of Commons, or what a mountain of inert prejudice the adventurer has to cut through in order to clear the road to power. He did not see that there, as elsewhere, an apprenticeship must be served, that he who would fain command must first learn to obey. Mr. Roebuck overlooked these conditions of success, and neglected to avail himself of the very favourable impression his first efforts created. He thought to take the citadel by storm, but having rushed to the assault with inadequate means, he failed to make an impression, and has only fallen back in the trenches. Not seeing how much his own arrogance, petulance, and splenetic indulgence in personality, have really caused his non-success, his mind has become embittered as well against individual antagonists as against the members generally, who, he conceives, have not sufficiently acknowledged his merits. As his mind has become more jaundiced, he has grown more bitter and more personal. His speeches have gradually become the reverse of what they used to betheir faults more glaring, their merits more rare. They now abound in assumption and egotism, only occasionally redeemed by vigour, and pointed language and thought. It is more than probable that Mr. Roebuck entered parliament with hopes and objects that were not confined to mere personal advancement. A charitable construction of his conduct will lead us to admit that he looked on his mission as representative of the people in an exalted light-that he saw in it the means of working out great, and, as he believed, necessary changes in the political and so

cial condition of the country. His exaggerated opinion of his own powers led him to choose a line of action that was not likely to lead to a success commensurate with his desires. But the censure which he ought to attach to his own mismanagement, he visits on those whom he assumes to be in a kind of conspiracy against the people; and we are therefore disposed to attribute much of the splenetic humour he displays, not to mere wounded vanity, stinted in its allowance of admiration, but also to a conviction of the moral unworthiness of those whom he insults by his arrogant impertinence-a conviction, mistaken perhaps, but still sincere. Certain it is, however, that the longer he has been in parliament, and the more the disappointment of his ambition has been brought home to him, the more his harangues have increased in virulence, while they have proportionately decreased in power.

The favourable opinion expressed in the earlier part of this paper of Mr. Roebuck's first efforts in the House of Commons has been rather the reflection of a series of favourable impressions produced at intervals during several years, than the result of a balancing of his successes and his failures, or of a critical analysis of his speeches. The more closely we look at his oratory in detail, the more cause we see to find fault with it. the more reason to regret that a want of modesty of spirit should have prevented Mr. Roebuck from submitting himself, humbly and patiently, to that training which is necessary to success in any department of mental exertion, but more especially in the art of public speaking, perfection in which depends so much upon minor accessories. Mr. Roebuck is a very disappointing speaker. His eloquence depends for its force more upon his earnestness, and a bold repudiation of conventional modes of address and moulds of expression, than upon any intrinsic value in the thoughts, or polish of the language. He trusts much to the impulse of the moment, and, to all appearance, does not give his speeches that preparation which even the first orators of the day find to be necessary. His mind is not so well stored with information, nor his

he stood up and presented a petition from an individual unfortunately too notorious. Other members had refused to present it; but Mr. Roebuck believed that the party in question had been unjustly treated, and that was enough to induce him to take up the case. Even those who would have refused to present the petition respected his manliness, for they were conscious that some men of that kind ought to be in parliament, who would be bold enough to advocate the cause even of the outcasts of society. Mr. Roebuck also made a determined stand against the bills for the Bitter Observance of the Sabbath; and the case of the Dorchester labourers found in him an earnest and able advocate. It is to his honour that he does not, as some of his compatriots do, wait till a subject is popular, before he takes it up. A natural restiveness of temper, and an unconquerable love of justice, which he would secure even at the peril of social convulsion, urge him with an irresistible impulse to act upon what he conceives to be the abstract merits of the case, with which he will not allow expediency to interfere. Of course, this spirit sometimes carries him into extremes, and betrays him into wild defiance of constituted authority; but those who would be the most likely to shrink from these extravagancies of an earnest mind cannot refuse to respect the uprightness which sustains Mr. Roebuck against unconquerable prepossessions in the minds of certain classes, and renders him, in respect of many subjects, a model of that very scarce character an independent member of parliament.

It is worthy of remark that Sir Robert Peel, who is, perhaps, the most steady observer of all new comers in parliament, and who readily appreciates and fosters ability, very soon began to notice Mr. Roebuck. As early as the year 1834, he took the trouble to answer, specially, a speech of Mr. Roebuck's in favour of free trade. This was to be regarded at once as a condescension on the part of Sir Robert, and as prima facie evidence that Mr. Roebuck was making way in the House. On many occasions, subsequently, Sir Robert Peel, more than any other party leader, has shewn a

disposition to pay a degree of deference to the opinion of Mr. Roebuck, a compliment which has not been lost on the ever-sensitive vanity of the honourable member. In accounting, however, as we have done, for the kind of influence which Mr. Roebuck's uprightness and consistency early secured for him, we should not omit to state, that during a long pe riod of time his speeches were such as to command the attention of all parties. It was not only that he asserted his principles boldly, but his arguments were well put, and even where, to the eye of pure reason, they might be deficient in cogency, the perseverance and earnestness of the speaker gave them a kind of force. The constant reiteration of propositions, however dogmatic, will secure for them a degree of credence, even when unsupported by proof. One thing Mr. Roebuck's audience were almost sure to hear from him :a lucid exposition of the real question at issue, stript of all the factitious embellishments with which the sophistry or the party prejudices of previous speakers might have invested it. This made his speeches abstractedly useful to those who followed him, while the clearance which he made of the arguments on both sides was sure to please either one party or the other. That Mr. Roebuck should have voluntarily flung away the influence which these various causes had obtained for him, is matter for regret. That he has done so there can be no doubt. His constant indulgence in an irritability which seems uncontrollable, his reckless imputations on the character of opponents, his profuse scattering of personal insults on all around him, friends and enemies alike, and his wanton trials of the patience of the House, have certainly undermined the reputation which he had acquired; and it will almost be as difficult for him to regain the position he formerly held, as it would be for a man of less talent and moral energy originally to attain it. It is not easy to account for so ill-advised a perseverance by Mr. Roebuck in a course of conduct which would bring even the most favourite member of the House into disrepute. It is the more surprising that his talents should have taken this

sinister direction, because he evidently is under the sway of an ambition of no ordinary kind, and would spare no exertions to advance himself to power, either through direct popular influence or in the regular channels of promotion. The only solution of the difficulty we can offer is, that Mr. Roebuck is a disappointed man. His excessive egotism and high opinion of his own powers led him to expect that he would have received from the great men of the day, not only a more rapid, but also a more substantial acknowledgment. He evidently did not understand the constitution of the House of Commons, or what a mountain of inert prejudice the adventurer has to cut through in order to clear the road to power. He did not see that there, as elsewhere, an apprenticeship must be served, that he who would fain command must first learn to obey. Mr. Roebuck overlooked these conditions of success, and neglected to avail himself of the very favourable impression his first efforts created. He thought to take the citadel by storm, but having rushed to the assault with inadequate means, he failed to make an impression, and has only fallen back in the trenches. Not seeing how much his own arrogance, petulance, and splenetic indulgence in personality, have really caused his non-success, his mind has become embittered as well against individual antagonists as against the members generally, who, he conceives, have not sufficiently acknowledged his merits. As his mind has become more jaundiced, he has grown more bitter and more personal. His speeches have gradually become the reverse of what they used to betheir faults more glaring, their merits more rare. They now abound in assumption and egotism, only occasionally redeemed by vigour, and pointed language and thought.

It

is more than probable that Mr. Roebuck entered parliament with hopes and objects that were not confined to mere personal advancement. A charitable construction of his conduct will lead us to admit that he looked on his mission as representative of the people in an exalted light-that he saw in it the means of working out great, and, as he believed, necessary changes in the political and so

cial condition of the country. His exaggerated opinion of his own powers led him to choose a line of action that was not likely to lead to a success commensurate with his desires. But the censure which he ought to attach to his own mismanagement, he visits on those whom he assumes to be in a kind of conspiracy against the people; and we are therefore disposed to attribute much of the splenetic humour he displays, not to mere wounded vanity, stinted in its allowance of admiration, but also to a conviction of the moral unworthiness of those whom he insults by his arrogant impertinence-a conviction, mistaken perhaps, but still sincere. Certain it is, however, that the longer he has been in parliament, and the more the disappointment of his ambition has been brought home to him, the more his harangues have increased in virulence, while they have proportionately decreased in power.

The favourable opinion expressed in the earlier part of this paper of Mr. Roebuck's first efforts in the House of Commons has been rather the reflection of a series of favourable impressions produced at intervals during several years, than the result of a balancing of his successes and his failures, or of a critical analysis of his speeches. The more closely we look at his oratory in detail, the more cause we see to find fault with itthe more reason to regret that a want of modesty of spirit should have prevented Mr. Roebuck from submitting himself, humbly and patiently, to that training which is necessary to success in any department of mental exertion, but more especially in the art of public speaking, perfection in which depends so much upon minor accessories. Mr. Roebuck is a very disappointing speaker. His eloquence depends for its force more upon his earnestness, and a bold repudiation of conventional modes of address and moulds of expression, than upon any intrinsic value in the thoughts, or polish of the language. He trusts much to the impulse of the moment, and, to all appearance, does not give his speeches that preparation which even the first orators of the day find to be necessary. His mind is not so well stored with information, nor his ora

torical powers so well trained and disciplined, as to make this a safe course. As he is an intemperate man, liable to be drawn by the slightest interruption away from his main theme into personal altercations, he is still more open to the risk of not being able to preserve that self-possession which is absolutely necessary to an accomplished orator. An almost necessary conscquence of this reliance on resources which are not always at command is, that Mr. Roebuck, however well informed he may be upon a subject, or however strongly he may feel upon it, is just as likely to break down as to achieve a success. We have known him to rise at the most critical and exciting period of a great debate, when he has intruded himself on the attention of the House, to the displacement of the heads of either party, when there was, perhaps, a general feeling that he was presuming too much thus to stand in the way of a political manifesto or of a division. But still an indulgence has been extended to him because of his original position. He has availed himself of the opportunity thus afforded him to commence a speech, in which he has, perhaps, dashed with a bold and vigorous hand into the very core of the subject, holding the real question at issue up, for the first time, to the attention of his audience, cleared of all the fallacies infused into it by previous speakers. To all appearance he is carrying the House with him. Repeated cheers hail his terse and well-pointed propositions, and his presumption is forgotten in the able exposition he makes of his case. But, suddenly, he says something which provokes an ironical cheer, or a sneer, from some opponent. This stings his amour propre, and off he starts, on the instant, into personality, sometimes uttering, without adequate provocation, unendurable insults and aspersions on character. From that moment his speech, so auspiciously commenced, becomes a failure. His infirmity of temper once touched, he becomes an altered man. There is no longer vigour, sense, argument, or even coherency, in what he pours forth. Yet he has not the discretion to stop, but makes a long, rambling speech, full of feeble repetitions of what he

has so forcibly put, or of offensive personalities, or outrageous defiance of the growing disapprobation of his hearers, until, at last, he fairly tires out their patience, and his display, which, at his commencement, had brought him honour and respect, ends by his being covered with ridicule and contempt.

The same neglect of due preparation, and the infirmity of temper, which thus serve to bring a whole speech to so lame and impotent a conclusion, produce an effect very similar in the materiel of the speeches themselves. For want of a little care his sentences are almost always imperfect. Aiming constantly at an antithetical style, he foils himself, and provokes comparisons, by not having trained his mind into the channels of thought which alone will produce that style with effect. It is not so much a slovenliness, the result of an indifference, as a gross failure, after a deliberate attempt. He is thus a very provoking speaker. Even in his best moments, when you are led on from point to point, in the expectation that the next will be something superlatively good, you are mortified on reflection to find to what little purpose your attention has been occupied, and what a small amount of that tedious and ambitious harangue is worth remembering. Mr. Roebuck has a didactic style of speaking, which also beguiles his hearers, until too late they find that this teacher of men has really nothing to teach. He seems ever on the very brink of success. At each portentous pause, when he seems to have gathered up his strength, you expect to hear some aphorism, some great political truth; but as often you are disappointed, cheated with some pompous but feeble piece of commonplace, ridiculously small as compared with the reflection, or the premises which usher it in. The head may be of gold, but the feet are of clay. In like manner, there is a want of coherency and sustentation in his explanations of political principles or theories. A little care, a little modest pupilage to experience, would make that clear and strong which is now confused, vague, and feeble. You see that the mind of the speaker has not been really brought to bear upon it. It is clear that he wants to

be a philosopher, but has not the enduring patience necessary to constitute him one. He is also too ready to grapple with every subject that comes before him, whether he understands it or not. This leads him to talk on so many questions, that he cannot render himself perfect on any. There is an affectation of simplicity in his reasoning, but as his mind is by no means fertile, he constantly reproduces the same views; and this reiteration, which is intended to simplify and to impress more strongly the mind of the hearer, leads to an involvement which brings about quite the contrary result. When he first appeared in parliament, there was great originality in his style, and especially in his choice of language. But of late he has fallen into the use of many of the established forms of speech among debaters, which are too often only a refuge from imbecility of mind and poverty of language. It is observable that he pushes this conventional phraseology to its extreme limits, with a degree of pedantry strongly characteristic of a little mind. Among the vices of his style of speaking is a habit of dogmatic assertion, persevered in without modesty, either of mind or manner. A constant egotism destroys the symmetry of his speeches by displacing abstract reasoning on the question at issue, or declamation which might influence the feelings; and the irritable temperament we have already described still further distorts and deforms the products of his mind. For a man so ready to attack, it is wonderful how impotent he is in defence. Blind with rage, he strikes about him, right and left, and is unable to defend himself, because, in his fury, he does not see his own vulnerable points. His hot, intemperate passion, runs away with his judgment. You see that he has got hold of a capital idea, which a master-mind, or even an inferior capacity, cool and collected, would work into a powerful sarcasm or a happy retort, but he is so distempered with vindictive feeling, is in such haste to wreak his vengeance on his adversary, that he applies the match too soon, and the explosion harms himself more than any one else. In this respect Mr. Disraeli is far his superior. With the same

disposition to attack, the same love of personality, the same oblivious inclination to gratify private animosity through the medium of public debate, he has the advantage of Mr. Roebuck in his imperturbable selfpossession. However excited may be his feelings, or however bitter his resentments, he never loses his temper. He utters his sarcasms at white heat.

Mr. Roebuck's manner of speaking is unique and original, without being agreeable. He is earnest and violent, without being impressive. He labours under great natural disadvantages. His appearance is not prepossessing, nor has he any of that fascination which invests some public men with an irresistible attraction, and propitiates favour even before they open their lips. Mr. Roebuck is small, even diminutive, in stature, and he has not those symmetrical proportions which, in some little men, supply the want of height. Continual ill-health adds to an appearance of feebleness which not even his mental energy and activity are sufficient to neutralise. His voice is also feeble. It has a harsh, sharp sound, like that which you will often hear from persons of a confirmed ill temper. His face bears a soured expression, and if a smile ever finds its way to the mouth, it is the smile, not of good-humour, but of irony or sarcasm. A livid paleness of complexion may be the result of ill health, but it is more likely to be the consequence of habitually indulging a splenetic disposition.

His exhibitions in parliament, even his most successful ones of late years, present a melancholy spectacle of diseased vanity and overrated powers. Conceive the sort of person we have described, always ill-attired, sometimes culpably slovenly, sometimes extravagantly overdressed, taking up a prominent place in the House, from which he continually lays down the

law to his Radical associates around him, who usually repay his arrogant interference with contemptuous smiles; conceive him keeping up a running commentary of ironical cheers, supercilious smiles, and theatrical gestures, on what is going forward in the House, and attracting attention, which does not always take the shape of pity, towards the absurd