The diction of all the speakers was good in varying digress. In almost every instance it same that the speakers had first carefully read up their characters, then written (and as carefully) their speeches, thirdly, committed them so well to memory that they were without exception letter perfect. There was a sameness about all the speeches in the treatment of the various subject, a general "bookiness" and cold narration of historical facts. In only one instance, that of Mr. McEldowney, was there anything like feeling expressed. This speaker became warm rather than impassioned in his utterance, and always at the right place and moment. He evidently eympathised with bright quite as much as he admired him, and became, naturally, really eloquent at times. Mr. him and became, naturally, eloquent at time. Mr. Evans's speech on William the Silent obviously owed much to Motley. It was a rather good biographical summary, and delivered in an easy, graceful fashion. Mr. Watson's speech on Abraham Lincoln should have given those who were judges of the competition much food for thought. It was a well-delivered speech, telling at times, admirable for was a well management of voice and gesture. Mr. Rutherford could have made much of John Nicholson from a literati point of view—he did; although the blue page 48 pencil would have reduced the script of the speech by two-thirds with advantage. Mr. Monaghan's study of Alfred the Great was in most respects satisfactory, but it was also sometime too much like a paraphrase—that, of course, unconsciously—of a reputable smaller English history. Mr. Monaghan's voice was strong and his enunciation exemplary, but it was not made sufficiently clear that he was on intimately sympathetic terms with the character of Alfred. Mr. Hall-Jones was in real earnest at times about Cecil Rhodes, but he, too, was unconvincing. His speech was an admirable exposition of learning by rote. His voice was clear, carried well, was nicely modulated, and pronunciation was a strong point in his delivery. Mr. Leary, in his handling of Richelieu, waxed very eloquent. He was prodigal of his adjectives and liberal with his metaphor. When he "came out strong", the audience did not take him so—and laughed when it should have been awed. Anxious lest his twelve minutes should expire before his story was recalled off, Mr. Leary was exceedingly rapid—his sentences gushing out with extraordinary rapidity. His subject matter was good, and showed an appreciation of Richelieu's character, and some attempt at an impartial, judicial analysis of it. Mr. Oram, too, had a heavy stock of adjectives, which he seemed anxious to dispose of within the shortest possible time and at much below cost. The speech could have been reduced with advantage. But the convention of the platform were faithfully adhered to, and the matter was excellent. It could not be said, however, that it was an overwhelmingly powerful speech. That it was thought by members of the society to be the best of the octave of speeches was subsequently demonstrated, the ballot resulting as follows:—

• Mr. Oram, 63 marks, 1.
• Mr. McEldowney, 59 marks, 2.
• Mr. Watson, 45 marks, 3.