more frequently by the single word, the state, has probably suggested to your minds either a confused and indistinct idea, or an idea very different from that, which it imports. When I speak of the state of a controversy, you would naturally conclude, that there must be a controversy or disputed point to be settled, and that its state meant its situation in point of time; indicating the progress, made by the parties, and discovering the ground still to be gone over. nary signification of the words, would be the idea, which the state of the controversy would convey. The state of the controversy among rhetoricians means quite another thing. It is the quod erat

Such, in the ordi

demonstrandum of the mathematicians. It is the mark, at which all the speaker's discourse aims; the focus, towards which all the rays of his eloquence should converge; and of course varies according to the nature and subject of the speech. In every public oration the speaker ought to have some specific point, to which, as to the goal of his career, all his discourse should be directed. In legislative or deliberative assemblies this is now usually called the question. In the courts of common law it is known by the name of the issue. In polemical writings it is sometimes called

the point. In demonstrative discourses it is dilated into the general name of the subject; and in the pulpit the proper state is always contained in the preacher's text. It belongs therefore to every class of public speaking, and is not confined to judicial or deliberative oratory, where alone you would at first blush suppose the term controversy could properly be applied. It is indeed probable, that it first originated in judicial contests, where it always remained of most frequent use. To the other classes it was transferred by analogy. Whoever speaks in public must have something to prove or to illustrate. Whatever the occaion or the subject may be, the purpose of the orator must be to convince, or to move. Every speech is thus supposed to be founded upon some controversy, actual or implied. Conviction is the great purpose of eloquence, and this necessarily presupposes some resistance of feeling or of intellect, upon which conviction is to operate.

I told you that the state of the controversy was one of the most important points of consideration in the whole science of rhetoric. As I have explained it to you in its broadest acceptation, it is to the orator what the polar star is to the mariner. It is the end, to which every word he utters ought

directly or indirectly to be aimed; and the whole art of speech consists in the perfect understanding of this end, and the just adaptation of means to effect its accomplishment. This may perhaps appear to you to be so obvious and so trivial a truth, as to require no illustration. And yet you will find throughout your lives, in the courts of law, in the legislature, in the pulpit, nothing is so common, as to see it forgotten. Our laws have found it necessary to provide, that in town-meetings nothing shall be acted upon by the inhabitants, unless the subject, or state of the controversy, has been inserted in the warrant, which calls them together. In all our legislative bodies rules of order are established for the purpose of confining the speakers to the subject before them; and certain forms even of phraseology are adopted, into which every question must be reduced. Yet even this is not sufficient to restrain the wandering propensities of debate. There is a formal rule in the British house of commons, that "no member shall speak impertinently, or beside the question." A rule, which I believe none of the legislative assemblies in our country has thought proper to adopt; and whoever has been present at a debate in the parliament of Great Britain has perceived at least with

as strong demonstration the inefficacy, as the nccessity of such a regulation. In the courts of law so essential and so difficult is it to bring parties or their counsel to a point in litigation, that no cause can be given to a jury, or come to the judges for decision, by the practice of the common law, until the written pleadings have brought the case to an issue, and until that issue has been joined, Now this issue, in judicial trials, as I have already observed to you, is what the ancient lawyers and rhetoricians denominated the state of the controversy. But so loose and so various are the acceptations, in which terms of science are often received in their popular usage, that I find it necessary to explain to you the real meaning even of these two words, issue and pleadings; one of which is liable to be misunderstood by a very vulgar, though not uncommon misapplication; and the other, because in common discourse it is used to signify a different idea. I have heard a divine in the pulpit say, that we might join issue in such or such a remark of some celebrated writer; meaning that we might assent to the remark, and agree with the writer. But to join issue does not mean to agree; it means precisely the contrary. To join issue with a writer is directly to deny what he affirms, or affirm

what he denies, and to put the question upon trial. A divine therefore should be cautious not only how, but upon what he joins issue; lest he should find himself unawares denying exactly what he intends to affirm, or affirming what he means to deny.

The case is different with pleas and pleadings. By these words almost every person, excepting professional lawyers, understands the speeches of the counsel to a judge or a jury; and you familiarly say, I heard such a lawyer plead such a cause, and he spoke well or ill; he made a good or a bad plea. The expressions in this sense are not incorrect, because the universality of their usage has forced them into lawful currency. But to a member of the bar pleas and pleadings mean the part of a law-suit, which is written; not that, which is spoken. They mean the allegations and counter allegations of the parties to a suit; the charge and the answer; the reply and rejoinder; the conflict of opposing assertions, which must all be in writing, and by the means of which the parties must come to some specific point of fact, or of law, affirmed on one side, and denied on the other, before the cause can be tried, or the lawyers argue the issue. The pleadings must all be finished, before