s in his soul. In the style which
he adopted, and which was probably the best suited to his natural
powers, he was all but perfect: lucid, argumentation, frank, at least in
seeming, bland, persuasive; always singularly respectful not only to the
House, but to the humblest member of it; his speeches partook more of
the lecture and less of oratorical display than those of most other
public men with anything like his reputation; but they were admirably
suited to an educated and deliberative assembly like the House of
Commons--and hence he influenced--almost ruled it, as no other man did
before or since. Knowing this, he never felt so happy or so much at home
as in that scene of his labours and his triumphs. His gesture was
inferior: he used it but seldom, and when he did it added neither to the
grace nor effectiveness of his delivery. He sometimes appeared to be at
a loss to know what to do with his arms: at one time he would thrust his
thumbs into the armholes of his vest; at another he would let his arms
fall into a sort of swinging motion at his sides, where he allowed,
rather than used them, to toss back his coatskirts in a confused,
undignified manner.

He never spoke on important questions without careful preparation, as
was always evident from the facts and arguments of which his speeches
chiefly consisted, as well as from their careful arrangement. His voice
was fine, and he had the skill, rare enough in public speakers, of
modulating it with excellent effect.

The happiest portions of his speeches were those in which he
endeavoured, by artful appeals to the good sense and patriotism of his
hearers, to win them over to his views; and the frequent success that
attended such efforts is their highest praise. He seldom attempted an
ambitious flight, and when he did his best friends felt it was not his
true line. He dealt but little in figurative language, except when
argument failed him; still he has left some specimens of much beauty in
this style. In his great speech introducing Catholic Emancipation in
1829, he told Parliament it had but two courses to follow--to advance or
to recede; to advance by conceding the Catholic claims, or to recede by
reimposing those portions of the penal laws already repealed. Dwelling
on the impossibility and insanity of the latter course, he said: "We
cannot replace the Roman Catholics in the position in which we found
them, when the system of relaxation and indulgence began. We have