1809.] 
transcribed into the journals of the so- 
ciety; and that minutes of the speeches 
of the other members, be regularly taken 
by the secretary, and preserved in the 
‘same record;—That no decision or mc 
be taken, or any question debated i 
this society; the objects being recat 
cal enquiry and oratorical improvement, 
not the strife of prejudice, or the oT 
of dogmatism. 
Besides these regulations, it soon be- 
came apparent that some settled plan 
was desirable with respect to the objects 
of discussion. At first I had satisfied 
myself with the mere exclusion of sub- 
jects of religious controversy and party 
politics; but now, I began to think it 
necessary that the society should have 
for its object the systematic pursuit of 
some important branch of practical at- 
tainment. The most essential objects 
of study in the formation ‘of the imeutal 
character of the orator are, for the sub- 
stance and matter of his discourses, 
history, (including the progress of opi- 
nion, jurisprudence, political economy, 
and constitutional law); for induction 
and sentiment, moral philosophy (in- 
cluding the study and regulation of the 
passions, those parts of logic that are 
not merely technical, and those of meta- 
physics that are not beyond the reach of 
general comprehension); and _ poetry, 
for the depth of pathos and the energies 
of impressive diction.. These then were 
to be the principal okjects recommended 
to the attention of my oratorical pupils, 
But the two latter were obviously to be 
regarded as applicable only to the illus- 
tration and enforcement of that funda- 
mental and indispensable knowledge 
comprised in the former. To have made 
the technicalities of rhetoric, the di- 
lemmas of casuisti'y, the distinctions of 
criticism, or the effusions of fancy, the 
subjects of our declamations, would have 
been to have neglected the foundations, 
while we were employed upon the em- 
bellishments, of the edifice. To be an 
orator to any effective or beneficent pur- 
pose, itis necessary to be an historian. 
To be a British orator, above all things, 
the speaker should have prepared his 
mind by a profound attention to British 
history. In conformity with this mode 
of reasoning, [ adopted for the so- 
. clety, at the beginuing of the year 1808, 
a plan of regular disquisition, from which 
_ it has never since departed (except in a 
‘Single instance, which afforded the mect- 
ing an opportunity of being edified by 
she antiquarian researches of an Honorary 
“this country, 
look, for the origin of the particular in= 
at Mr. Thelwall’s Institution. 155 
member, eminent for his attainments in 
that department of literature)—a plan 
which IL conceived would be equally use- 
ful to the professor of the law, the m- 
cipient senator, the general student, and 
the independent gentleman, This was 
no other than to take, for the subjects of 
discussion, iu regular series, all the pro- 
minent facts and epochs of English his- 
tory: the succession of events, the pro- 
zress of society, arts, and legislation ; 
the rise and decline of customs, ordets, 
and institations ; and the characters of 
tiie respective actors in the great drama 
of national progression. Vhe five fol- 
Jowing questions, which were first in 
this series, will serve to raat the plan 
and object of our enquiries. 1. “* How 
far back into the historical anuquities of 
the respective tribes or nations, who 
have cuntribated to the population of 
can we advantageously 
stitutions which are to be regarded as 
the peculiar advantages of the English 
constitution ?’ And what are the parti. 
cular imstitutions specifically referable to 
the respective people ?"—2. “* How far 
are we in possession of any authentic 
evidence relative to the particular insti- 
tutions of Alfred? What parts of those 
institutions are to be regarded as merely 
¢ 
collated from former Eottls and tradi- 
tions? ~What parts as having originated 
in himself and his immediate counsel- 
lors? And how far did those institutions 
survive the suecessive shocks of the 
Danish and Norman conquests ?”-—3, 
“ In what nations, or amoung what dif- 
ferent tribes, chav hare contributed to the 
population of modern Europe, will any 
vestiges of the trial by jury be found. 
What | is the evidence of its having been’ 
one of the institutions of Alfred (original 
or adypted)? Or how far it may be cone 
sidered as introduced or modified by the 
Normans ?”’—4, © How far are we to 
consider the feudal institutions as inno- 
vations introduced by the Norman con- 
quest? How tar were they practically 
inconsistent with the previous state of 
political organization ainong the Saxons? 
And what were their operations on the 
morals and bagpiness of the commu- 
nity?”?—=5. “ Which ought to be con 
sidered as the greatest char acter, Evbert, 
(who founded the English monarcl.y,) 
Canute the Great, or W illiain the Con- 
queror ?” 
In this manner have we proceeded 
for two successive sessions, investigating 
every event and circuinstance of import- 
BACs 
