THE SPEAKER—AMERICAN AND ENGLISH.
ONE of the undisputed results of the late Session in the House of Commons has been the establishment of the reputation of Mr. Gully as an entirely worthy occupant of the Speaker's chair. It is agreed that he has exhibited in a high degree those qualities which are peculiarly associated with the best traditions of the Speakership of the House of Commons,—in particular, dignity of bearing, thorough knowledge of the principles of Parliamentary procedure, promptitude and firmness in applying these principles to the constantly varying situations and emergencies of the House, and complete detachment from party prejudices, preferences, and prepossessions. And this fact of Mr. Gully's success is recognised both as a signal justification of the action of the leaders of the Unionist party in promoting his re-election in the new Parliament, although he had been the nominee of their opponents when very little known in the House, and had only filled the chair for a few months ; and as a strong support to the continued practice of the English theory that in the choice of the presiding officer of a repre- sentative Chamber party considerations ought to be put aside. It is a little strange that at this season there should have appeared a thoughtful and learned work by an American lady, Miss M. P. Follett (Longmans, Green, and Co.), on the office of Speaker of the American House of Representatives, setting forth the steady development of a type of public servant differing so widely in its essential attributes from any with which we have become practically familiar, that its delineation creates, at any rate in the first instance, a shock of repulsion. To a politician of ordinary English training and experience nothing, for example, can well sound more totally contrary to the fitness of things than the statement that "each Member" of the House of Representatives " asks himself in regard to the various candidates" for the Speakership, " Will this man constitute the Committees as I wish, and will he allow the Bills which I favour to be brought in ? ' " These questions at once illustrate some of the most striking differences in the functions of the Speakers of the House of Representatives and the House of Commons respectively, and in the spirit in which they are expected to discharge those functions. In the latter Assembly the appointment of Committees rests with the Committee of Selection, which itself is appointed by the House. In the former the Speaker nominates all Committees. That, by itself, might not amount to a vital difference. Probably, if our Speaker at Westminster had the nomination of the Committees, he would produce much the same results as are actually produced by the Committee of Selec- tion; and even if, which is inconceivable, he were capable of being influenced in such a matter by other objects than that of constituting subordinate tribunals of inquiry reflecting the political colour of the House as a whole, but, for the rest, so composed as to bring to bear the most competent opinion in the House on the classes of questions to be dealt with, the House at large might be safely relied on to make good any mischief that had been done. At Washington things are very different. There, on the one hand, the composition of the Committee to which it may be referred is vital to the fate of any project of legislation. For all the practical work of legislation is done in the Committees. The second, as well as the first, reading of all Bills is taken as a matter of course in the House, and apparently it is rare for more than an hour or two to be allowed to any Bill when reported from Committee. On the other hand, in the selection of Committees it is clearly recognised that the Speaker gives his own faction in the party which elected him the preference, and that he will also feel bound to balance the relative strength of the delegation from different States. Further, he will quite possibly have to fulfil engagements—on this point Miss Follett writes -with some reserve, but her meaning seems clear—to persons who supported him as candidate for the Speakership on the understanding that places on Committees would be found for them, for business ends. It is to one or other of the Standing Committees, some fifty in number, of the House of Representatives that every, or almost every, Bill is referred, and it is at the discretion of the Speaker to which of the group of Committees dealing with subjects more or less cognate to that of any particular Bill, the reference shall be made. Thus we see that the American Speaker appoints all the small legislative tribunals by which the character and the fate of Bills are determined, and selects, wherever from the nature of the case there is any choice, the particular tribunal to which each individual measure is referred. But these are only some of his great powers. That of " recognition " of Members desiring to speak—the conventional allowing his eye to be caught—which in the British House of Commons is simply used in order to secure fair debate, is, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a mighty engine for influencing the course and character of legislation in accordance with his own views. Thus "certain subjects are privileged, as contested election cases, revenue Bills, printing and accounts, conference reports." Other Bills get a hearing either by unanimous consent, or under a suspension of the rules, or by having a day set apart for their consideration. But before "any of these privileges can be obtained, the persons desiring it must be recog- nised by the Speaker." The result is that during the last ten days of Congress, when the rules may be suspended at any time, the Speaker's room is "crowded day and night with Members begging for recognition. The struggle on the floor is severe. The time is brief. Twice on March 3rd, 1887, Carlisle" (one of the strongest of recent Speakers) "had the minute-hand of the clock turned back. The last moments often show a scene of disorder and confusion, but the able Speaker guides this tumultuous body to the accomplishment of his own ends."
The italics are ours, and our English readers generally will, we are sure, feel that they call attention to features in American Parliamentary practice which have a very ugly look. That the powers which we have mentioned as possessed by American Speakers, and others of great im- portance which we cannot enumerate here, must be liable to very grave abuse in the hands of really unscrupulous men, is indeed sufficiently obvious. But a, perhaps the great, point of Miss Follett's book is that to whatever abuses the powers of the Speaker may be liable, the risks connected with them are worth running, if indeed they are not almost trifling, compared with the ineffectiveness for useful legislation and for coherent policy in financial' affairs which Mr. Bryce's chapters on the American Con- gress have rightly taught us to associate in a special degree with the House of Representatives. Want of leadership is the dangerous complaint of which, profoundly sagacious as they were, the authors of the American Constitution left the seeds in the House of Representa- tives. Miss Follett's theory, which she expounds with remarkable force and lucidity, is that a succession of Speakers, and especially those of more recent years, such as Blaine, Randall, Carlisle, and Reed, have, as it were,. said to themselves, one by one, 'This great legislative coach has no regular driver. It must be driven, or much damage will result to the nation. I am on or near the box, and though I am not, perhaps, authorised to hold the reins, I will do what I can to keep the horses straight.' And she also holds, and gives good reason for the opinion, that the House itself, notwithstanding a good deal of kicking at the times when any new assertion of authority, or new interpretation of old authority, has been made by the Speaker, has in practice recognised the real and per- manent value of the steadily growing powers of the chair. For our own part, on the not extravagant though possibly disputable assumption that a nation like the United States does need a considerable amount of legislation, we are inclined to agree with Miss Follett that the marked development of the powers of the Speaker may be a real good as compared with the working of the House of Representatives under the existing system of separation of legislative and executive authority. But we do not think it possible for a Speaker who leads or drives the House in the manner of some recent occupants of the chair to be also an effective maintainer of the dignity of the Assembly which he so controls, nor in our opinion is it possible for any legislative Assembly to hold, in the long- run, the respect of the people, which does not cherish a tender regard for the dignity and seemliness of its proceedings.
Previous page
