tinctly heard, must have been very strong. Yet there is too much apparent trickery in this, to bear frequent repetition. His manner is well adapted for argument, and for the expression either of satire or of chivalric sentiment.’
‘Mr. John Neal addressed my girls on the destiny and
vocation of Woman in this country. He gave, truly, a
manly view, though not the view of common men, and
it was pleasing to watch his countenance, where energy
is animated by genius. He then spoke to the boys, in
the most noble and liberal spirit, on the exercise of
political rights. If there is one among them who has
the germ of a truly independent man, too generous to
become a party tool, and with soul enough to think, as
well as feel, for himself, those words were not spoken
in vain. He was warmed up into giving a sketch of
his boyhood. It was an eloquent narrative, and is
ineffaceably impressed on my memory, with every look
and gesture of the speaker. What gave chief charm to
this history was its fearless ingenuousness. It was
delightful to note the impression produced by his
magnetic genius and independent character.
‘In the evening we had a long conversation upon Woman, Whigism, modern English Poets, Shakspeare, — and, in particular, Richard the Third, — about which we had actually a fight. Mr. Neal does not argue quite fairly, for he uses reason while it lasts, and then helps himself out with wit, sentiment and assertion. I should quarrel with his definitions upon almost every subject, but his fervid eloquence, brilliancy, endless resource, and ready tact, give him great advantage. There was a sort of exaggeration and coxcombry