gence of his genius. In a word, Erskine is more the logician and man of business. Curran is more the orator and the poet. Passing to our own country-is it not astonishing that in a republic, the genial element of oratory, we have not a single example of the higher order of eloquence? In Virgi nia, we have several logicians, but not an orator. Yet the people, having before them no superior instance, have been pleased to bind the laurel around the brow of let us suppose a character, and call him SULPITIUS. Sulpitius is neither a logician nor an orator. He wants that clear and vigorous penetration which is necessary to distinguish the strong points of a subject, and to arrange them to advantage. Hence that heterogeneous chaos, that prolixity and confusion, which characterize all the offspring of Sulpitius's brain, and which leave the hearer without one strong impression. As an orator he is equally unfortunate. His imagination is jejune in the extreme. Take any one splendid paragraph from the speeches of Curran or Erskine, mark in them the genuine effusion of creative genius! Mark how the figures rise spontaneously from the subject! Observe how they are embellished with all the ornament of unlaboured thought and language, and with what swelling energy they are supported throughout! Compare with these the issue of Sulpitius's mind. The watery, sickly figure just makes its appearance in order to show that it has no business there; and being deserted in the moment of its birth, it sinks and dies in its own weakness; while the impotent genius of Sulpitius, unnerved by the effort, drops, in all the majesty of bathos, into a style, not merely plain, but feeble, cold, and languid; a few moments recruit his imagination, and he travails with some new figure, which, like its predecessor, is doomed to be strangled or forsaken at its birth. A tissue of abortions like these, constitute Sulpitius's title to the name of an orator. Let me warn the youthful candidate for oratorial glory, to beware of considering Sulpitius as having attained the summit of oratory, and of adopting him as his model. In spite of the popular prejudice in his favour, he has not even the mechanical qualities of an orator. His person is good, and his gesture is easy; but his attitudes are frequently awkward, and his delivery often interrupted. Fluency is not his property. You are forced constantly to perceive that he is hunting musical words and, being some times thrown out in the chase, he manifests his embarrassment by stammering and rolling his eyes with perplexity to the ceiling.. I have been led to this analysis of the character of the supposed SULPITIUS, for the benefit of such of our youth as aim at the character of eloquence. It is my wish to show them, that if they desire to excel, they must look to something beyond the achievements of this speaker. Let them study the defences of Curran and Erskine-let them endeavour to catch their spirit. When they shall have done this, the citizens of America will hear, applaud, and imitate. It is not correct to blame Virginia for want of orators of the higher class, whilst we recollect the brilliant talents of PATRICK HENRY. But even at present, in all our courts, we find a number of very respectable speakers; and, in congress, Virginian eloquence generally conducts the vanguard. Some of her speakers in that body, have borne the same share in the opinion of the republic, which the tenth legion bore in the confidence of Julius Cæsar. Our country is young; but it has done wonders in its time; and if it can preserve its republican forms, there is no doubt, in due time, it will emulate, if not surpass, whatever we have heard of Greek or Roman oratory. THE TRIAL OF ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. ESQ. FOR THE PUBLI IN the latter end of December, 1792, Mr. Rowan was arrested by virtue of Mr. Justice Downes's warrant, on a charge of distributing a seditious paper. Mr. Downes having assured Mr. Rowan, that the examinations, upon which the warrant was grounded, would be returned to the clerk of the crown, and that they would, he supposed, be in course by him laid before the next term grand jury, Mr. Rowan, instead of going to gaol, in pursuance of his own opinion, followed the advice of his law friends, and gave bail for his appearance in the king's bench, to answer such charges as should be there made against him. During the succeeding Hilary term, Mr. Rowan daily attended in the king's bench, and on the last day of that term finding that no examinations had been laid before the grand jury, against him, he applied, by counsel, to the court, that the examinations should be forthwith returned, particularly, as Mr. Attorney-General had, in the course of the term, filed two informations, ex officio, against him, the one for the same alleged offence of distributing a seditious paper, and the other for a seditious conspiracy; whereupon Mr. Justice Downes, who was on the bench, having asserted that he had on the first day of the term, returned the examinations to the clerk of the crown, and the clerk of the crown having said, that from the multiplicity of the examinations returned to him on the first day of the term, and even on that day, he had not time to look them VOL. I. G Peta Gansevoort. over, the court refused to make' any order. Mr. Rowan daily attended the king's bench on the following Easter term, until the same was nearly spent, and finding that no bills were sent up to the grand jury against him, he moved the court, by counsel, that the recognisance entered into by him and his bail should be vacated, and publicly declared, that if this motion was not granted, he would surrender himself in discharge of his bail. The Attorney-General consenting, the motion was granted, and the recognisance was vacated. P In the above-mentioned Easter term, a motion was made, on behalf of Mr. Rowan, to fix certain days for trial of the informations filed ex officio against him, and the Attorney-General having agreed to the appointment of two days in the ensuing Trinity term, viz. the 3d and 7th days of May, those days were accordingly appointed for the purpose. However, in the Easter vacation, the Attorney-General served a notice on Mr. Rowan, stating, that he would not proceed to trial on those days, but he would apply to the court to appoint other days, grounded on an affidavit to be filed, of which notice would be given; nothing was done upon this notice, and no affidavit was filed, or motion made thereon, and the venire, the process necessary for empannelling juries on the days appointed, having been, after being issued, kept by Mr. Kemmis, the crown solicitor, instead of being delivered to the sheriff, a motion was made on behalf of Mr. Rowan, in the last Trinity term, that the venire should be delivered to the proper officer, in order that the trials might be had on the days appointed, in case the court should not grant any motion the Attorney-General might make for postponing the trials. This motion was opposed by the Attorney-General; hé declared, that there was error in the information for distributing a seditious paper. Mr. Rowan offered to agree to an immediate amendment of the information, or that a fresh one should be filed and pleaded to instanter, or that he would release all errors; all these offers were severally refused. The object of the Attorney-General appeared to be to postpone the trials, and though only one of the informations was stated to be informal, yet the day appointed for the trial of the other, which was supposed to be formal, passed away without trial, equally with the day appointed for the one which was stated to be informal. The Attorney-General afterwards withdrew the information stated to have been informal, and filed another in the stead thereof. Many of Mr. Rowan's friends suspected, that the motive for postponing the trials was the expectation of having, under the shrievalty of Mr. Giffard, juries more favourable to government prosecutions, than they could entertain any hopes of having during the shriev alty of Mr. Hutton.* In Michaelmas term last, the Attorney-General applied to the court, that a day should be appointed for the trial of the information for distributing a seditious paper; the court would not appoint a day in that term, but appointed a day for the trial of that information in Hilary term following. The following information was filed by his majesty's attorney-general, ex officio, against Arch. H. Rowan, Esq. viz. KING'S BENCH. Of Trinity term, in the 33d year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the third, now king of Great Britain, &c. in the year of our Lord 1793. County of the City of Dublin, to wit: BE IT REMEMBERED, That the Right Hon. Arthur Wolfe, attorney-general of our present sovereign lord the king, who for our said lord the king prosecutes in this behalf, in his proper person comes into the court of our said lord the king, before the king himself, at the city of Dublin, in the county of the said city, on the 8th day of June in the same term, *There were strong grounds for this suspicion. Mr. G. was a captain of militia, had a lucrative office in the custom-house, and was then conductor of a government newspaper. The whole producing not less than 2,000. a year! |