11. "Now, by my faith as belted knight,
And by the name I bear,

And by the bright Saint Andrew's cross
That waves above us-there!
Yea, by a greater, mightier oath—

And oh, that such should be !-
By that dark stream of royal blood
That flows 'twixt you and me!
I have not sought in battlefield
A wreath of such renown,
Nor dared I hope on my dying day
To win the martyr's crown!

12. "There is a chamber far away

Where sleep the good and brave,
But a better place ye have named for me,
Than by my father's grave.

For truth and right 'gainst traitor's might,
This hand hath always striven,

And ye raise it up as a witness still
In the eye of earth and heaven!
Then nail my head on yonder tower,
Give every town a limb,

And God who made shall gather them;

I

go from you to Him!

13. The morning dawned full darkly,

The rain came flashing down,

And the jagged streak of the levin-bolt
Lit up the gloomy town.

The thunder crashed across the heaven,
The fatal hour was come,

Yet aye

broke in with muffled beat

The 'larum of the drum.

There was madness on the earth below,

And anger in the sky,

And young and old, and rich and poor,
Came forth to see him die!

14. O God! that ghastly gibbet!
How dismal 'tis to see

The great tall spectral skeleton,

The ladder and the tree!

Hark! hark! it is the clash of arms,

The bells begin to toll!

"He is coming! he is coming!
.God's mercy on his soul!"
One last long peal of thunder,

The clouds have past away,

And the glorious sun once more looks down
Amid the dazzling day!

15. "He is coming! he is coming!"

Like a bridegroom from his room,
Came the hero from the prison

To the scaffold and the doom!
There was glory on his forehead,
There was lustre in his eye,
And he never walked to battle
More proudly than to die.
There was colour in his visage,

Though the cheeks of all were wan,
And they marvell'd as they saw him pass,
That great and goodly man!

16. He mounted up the scaffold,

And he turned him to the crowd;
But they dared not trust the people,
So he might not speak aloud.
But he looked upon the heavens,
And they were clear and blue,

And in the liquid ether

The eye of God shone through.
Yet a black and murky battlement
Lay resting on the hill,

As though the thunder slept within:
All else was calm and still!

17. The grim Genevan ministers,

With anxious scowl, drew near,

As you have seen the ravens flock

Around the dying deer.

He would not deign them word nor sign,
But alone he bent the knee,

And veiled his face for Christ's dear grace
Beneath the gallows-tree.

Then radiant and serene he rose,

And cast his cloak away,

For he had ta'en his latest look
Of earth, and sun, and day!

18. A beam of light fell o'er him,

Like a glory round the shriven,
And he climb'd the lofty ladder
As it were the path to heaven!
Then came a flash from out the cloud,
And a stunning thunder-roll,
And no man dared to look aloft
For fear was on every soul.
There was another heavy sound,
A hush, and then a groan,
And darkness swept across the sky,
The work of death was done!

225

LECTURE XIV.

Elocution considered as a Science-Mr. Thelwall's Opinions-The Knowledge of Human Nature and the Philosophy of Mind-The Theory of the Poise-Ancient and Modern Authorities on the Poise of the Voice in Reading and Speaking-Steele's "Prosodia Rationalis"-The Laws of Quantity-The Proper Observance of the Poise essential to good Reading and Speaking-Special Function of the Larynx in reference to Poise-Neglect of the Observance of Poise a frequent Source of Stammering and Stuttering-The Laws of Rhythm-Pauses-Rhetorical words-Mr. Herbert Spencer's Views on Rhythm.

REMEMBER well that the first Lecturer on Public Reading and Speaking who was appointed in this College, the late Rev. A.S. Thelwall-whose name I have already quoted on a former evening-never spoke in his Lectures of the "art" . of Elocution, as people are generally in the habit of calling it; but he always termed it the "science" of Elocution, and claimed for it invariably the rank and dignity of a science. And if we are to take the word "science" in the sense of its original (scientia), as meaning knowledge, I think that a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge on any important subject may fairly be said to reduce such a subject to a science.

I think I should be strongly inclined to follow the example of my late excellent predecessor when lecturing here, and, like him, speak of Elocution as a science. For any instruction that really deserves that character ought to be founded on truly scientific principles, upon an intimate knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the organs of voice and speech, and an accurate acquaintance with the principles of spoken language. Mr. Thelwall always contended (and here I quite agree with him) that a scientific study of Elocution must involve some consideration of the principles of music; for unless we understand so much of that science as to be able to discern how far the principles of music apply to spoken language (as indeed they do in a measure to all vocal sounds), and wherein the music of speech differs from the music of song, we shall not only be destitute of any sure foundation for those rules by which the management of the voice must be regulated, but we shall be liable to many errors and mistakes, and unable to show how various defects are to be remedied. And, moreover, we must have continually to make some reference to a higher and nobler science still, viz., the knowledge of human nature and the philosophy of mind. Indeed, without due attention to this, how shall we be enabled fitly to express, and intelligibly and effectively to communicate to others, the various passions,

emotions, sentiments, and convictions of the human mind? There is nothing more certain than that if the principles we define and the rules we lay down have not constant reference to this high and important department of human knowledge and study, they will most assuredly be in constant danger of failing to have their foundation in truth and nature: for it is mainly by means of spoken language that mind in this life here communicates with mind; and therefore it necessarily follows that not only the words which we employ to express in language our manifold thoughts and feelings, but the manner in which we pronounce such language so as to produce its fullest effect, must have continual reference and adaptation to the nature and constitution of the human mind.

Now, when it has been shown that the principles by which the inflection, modulation, and poise of the voice must be regulated, especially in public reading and speaking, and that the rules by which the errors, mistakes, and defects into which so many readers and speakers fall, are to be corrected and overcome, involve a constant reference to those branches of science to which reference has been made, in order to investigate, ascertain, and point out the true foundations on which they rest, it neither can nor will be long a matter of surprise if Elocution claims and receives the rank and dignity of a science. No doubt it is indeed perfectly true that, when those rules have once been investigated and laid down, and when the scientific principles on which they are founded have been clearly ascertained, it will, generally speaking, be quite sufficient to give to the pupil the result, without entering at large with each individual into the whole logical process of examination and reasoning by which we have arrived at it. Yet still, an educated and scientific instructor should always be prepared to explain fully the rationale of every rule laid down for inflection, modulation, and other elements of Elocution, whenever occasion may require; though of course there is no need of his burdening the mind of every pupil who comes to him for practical instruction, with all the details of the whole process of reasoning by which he has himself come to his conclusions.

When Mr. Thelwall delivered his introductory lecture on Elocution in this college many years ago to a large and distinguished audience, at which I had the honour and advantage of being present, he said, when closing his argument in support of his favourite proposition, that Elocution was a science—

"Let me consider that if Elocution claim to be considered as a science, it must, first of all, have its clear definitions. We cannot lay down our rules for the management of the voice without using certain terms of art, which, in the ordinary course of instruction, will continually recur; and those terms should be clearly defined and strictly appropriated.

"To illustrate this general principle, I need only refer to Euclid, or to any work on any particular branch of mathematics. When these are opened, it will be seen at once that they regularly commence with definitions. If these be not distinctly set forth in the first instance, and strictly adhered to in what follows, there will be endless confusion. Especially it is evident that, if the same word were continually used to express.

things essentially different, there would soon be such confusion and uncertainty, that all hope of coming to clear and satisfactory conclusions would be utterly at an end. Only imagine a teacher of mathematics who should insist on using the same word to designate an angle and a circle! what could be expected as the result but endless confusion?

"These remarks are very important in connection with our present subject. For though, in regard to sciences in general, they are so obvious as almost to deserve the title of mere truisms; yet, with reference to Elocution and the phenomena of spoken language, they have been most strangely and lamentably forgotten; insomuch that many able and learned men have got thoroughly into the habit of confounding things which ought to be distinguished (because, indeed, they are, in their very nature, distinct); and this habit has laid the foundation of many rooted prejudices. Hence it has come to pass that those who have attempted to mark out a wiser course and to proceed upon truly rational and scientific principles in treating of Elocution, have heretofore found too much reason to complain that, even from men of science and learning, they could scarcely get so much as a patient hearing. "For example: What confusion has there been on the subject of accent and quantity! And the term accent itself has been used, and is still continually used, to express ideas which are totally distinct-ideas, indeed, which it is of the highest importance to distinguish-if we would really understand the nature and the principles of spoken language.

"We speak of accents as acute, grave, and circumflex. This mode of speaking has evident reference to the rising and falling of the voice in the musical scale. And when we speak of an Irish accent, a Scotch accent, a provincial accent, or a foreign accent, we have, generally, a reference to the peculiar tones of the voice, which characterise persons who come from different countries or provinces (though sometimes, perhaps, we speak more vaguely, and include, under the term accent, all the peculiarities of pronunciation by which such persons are distinguished; but this is evidently a vague and incorrect way of speaking).

"But when we speak of the accented syllable of a word-when we say that constant, parent, and teacher, are accented on the first syllable, and that exalt, detect, and avoid are accented on the last, is it not evident that we use the word accent in a totally different sense? We commonly call the first syllable in the former words and the last syllable in the latter that on which the acute accent falls; and we use the note or sign of the acute accent, to mark what we call the accented syllable. But has this really anything to do with acute and grave?—with the rise or fall of the voice in the musical scale? Let us endeavour to bring this to the test of careful observation."

Mr. Thelwall then gave his audience an illustration by pronouncing the two following short interrogative sentences:

"Is that a mán?"

"Are you contént?"

Pronouncing these two sentences in the proper way as laid down in the rules of inflection, he said reasonably enough that the individual in his audience must have a very dull or unpractised ear, who did not