gangways near him. "Speaking in the House," says an American writer, "is like trying to address the people in the Broadway omnibuses from the kerbstone in front of the Astor House. . . Men of fine intellect and of good ordinary elocution have exclaimed in despair that in the House of Representatives the mere physical effort to be heard uses up all the powers, so that intellectual action becomes impossible. The natural refuge is in written speeches or in habitual silence, which one dreads more and more to break."

It is hard to talk calm good sense at the top of your voice, hard to unfold a complicated measure. A speaker's vocal organs react upon his manner, and his manner on the substance of his speech. It is also hard to thunder at an unscrupulous majority or a factious minority when they do not sit opposite to you, but all round you and behind you as is the case in the House. The Americans think this an advantage, because it prevents scenes of disorder. They may be right; but what order gains oratory loses. It is admitted that the desks are a mistake, as encouraging inattention by enabling men to write their letters; but though nearly everybody agrees that they would be better away, nobody supposes that a proposition to remove them would succeed.1 So too the huge galleries add to the area the voice has to fill; but the public like them, and might resent a removal to a smaller room. The smoking shocks an Englishman, but not more than the English practice of wearing hats in both Houses of Parliament shocks an American. Interruption, cries of "Divide," interjected remarks, are not more frequent-when I have been present they seemed to be much less frequent-than in the House of Commons. Applause is given more charily, as is usually the case in America. Instead of "Hear, hear," there is a clapping of hands and hitting of desks.

The method of taking a division by calling on each party to stand up, first the ayes and then the noes, is more expeditious than the English plan of sending men into opposite lobbies, but the calling of the roll, which one-fifth of half the House can and frequently does demand, is slower. Both methods of dividing are less dramatic than the English, and neither compels a man to vote, for if you wish to abstain, you need not rise; and when the roll

1 The House decided in 1859, at the end of one Congress, that the desks should be removed from the Hall (as the House is called), but in the next succeeding session the old arrangement was resumed.

is called you may refrain from answering to your name, or may slip outside the bar.

There is little good speaking. I do not mean merely that fine oratory, oratory which presents valuable thoughts in eloquent words, is rare, for it is rare in all assemblies. But in the House of Representatives a set speech upon any subject of importance tends to become not an exposition or an argument but a piece of elaborate and high-flown declamation. Its author is often wise enough to send direct to the reporters what he has written out, having read aloud a small part of it in the House. When it has been printed in extenso in the Congressional Record (leave to get this done being readily obtained), he has copies struck off and distributes them among his constituents. Thus everybody is pleased and time is saved.1

That there is not much good business debating, by which I mean a succession of comparatively short speeches addressed to a practical question, and hammering it out by the collision of mind with mind, arises not from any want of ability among the members, but from the unfavourable conditions under which the House acts. Most of the practical work is done in the standing committees, while much of the House's time is consumed in pointless discussions, where member after member delivers himself upon large questions, not likely to be brought to a definite issue. Many of the speeches thus called forth have a value as repertories of facts, but the debate as a whole is unprofitable and languid. On the other hand the five-minute debates which take place, when the House imposes that limit of time, in Committee of the Whole on the consideration of a bill reported from a standing committee, are often lively, pointed, and effective. The topics. which excite most interest and are best discussed are those of taxation and the appropriation of money, more particularly to public works, the improvement of rivers and harbours, erection of Federal buildings, and so forth. This kind of business is indeed to most of its members the chief interest of Congress, the business which evokes the finest skill of a tactician and offers the severest temptations to a frail conscience. As a theatre or school either of political eloquence or political wisdom, the House has been inferior not only to the Senate but to most

1 I was told that formerly speeches might be printed in the Record as a matter of course, but that, a member having used this privilege to print and circulate a poem, the right was restrained.

European assemblies. Nor does it enjoy much consideration at home. Its debates are very shortly reported in the Washington papers as well as in those in Philadelphia and New York. They are not widely read, and do little to instruct or influence public opinion.

This is of course only one part of a legislature's functions. An assembly may despatch its business successfully and yet shine with few lights of genius. But the legislation on public matters which the House turns out is scanty in quantity and generally mediocre in quality. What is more, the House tends to avoid all really grave and pressing questions, skirmishing round them, but seldom meeting them in the face or reaching a decision which marks an advance. If one makes this observation to an American, he replies that at this moment there are few such questions lying within the competence of Congress, and that in his country representatives must not attempt to move faster than their constituents. This latter remark is eminently true; it expresses a feeling which has gone so far that Congress conceives its duty to be to follow and not to seek to lead public opinion. The harm actually suffered so far is not grave. the European observer cannot escape the impression that Congress might fail to grapple with a serious public danger, and is at present hardly equal to the duty of guiding and instructing the political intelligence of the nation.

But

In all assemblies one must expect abundance of unreality and pretence, many speeches obviously addressed to the gallery, many bills meant to be circulated but not to be seriously proceeded with. However, the House seems to indulge itself more freely in this direction than any other chamber of equal rank. Its galleries are large, holding 2500 persons. But it talks and votes, I will not say to the galleries, for the galleries cannot hear it, but as if every section of American opinion was present in the room. It adopts unanimously resolutions which perhaps no single member in his heart approves of, but which no one cares to object to, because it seems not worth while to do so. This habit sometimes exposes it to a snub, such as that administered by Prince Bismarck in the matter of the resolution of condolence with the German Parliament on the death of Lasker, a resolution harmless indeed but certainly superfluous and possibly obtrusive. A practice unknown to other countries is of course misunderstood by them, and may provoke resentment. The

resolution requesting the British Government to suspend the execution of O'Donnell, the murderer of the informer Carey, was adopted by the House as a mere matter of form, nobody, except a few Irish members, desiring it, and not even they expecting it to produce any effect. A bill brought into the House in the session of 1886 requesting the President to summon a commercial Congress of all transatlantic republics to form a species of American commercial league, produced alarm in the British West Indies and led to solemn questions in the British House of Commons, while few people in America noticed it. American statesmen keep their pockets full of the loose cash of empty compliments and pompous phrases, and become so accustomed to scatter it among the crowd that they are surprised when a complimentary resolution or electioneering bill, intended to humour some section of opinion at home, is taken seriously abroad. The House is particularly apt to err in this way, because having no responsibility in foreign policy, and little sense of its own dignity, it applies to international affairs the habits of election meetings.

men.

Watching the House at work, and talking to the members in the lobbies, an Englishman naturally asks himself how the intellectual quality of the body compares with that of the House of Commons. His American friends have prepared him to expect a marked inferiority. They are fond of running down congressThe cultivated New Englanders and New Yorkers do this out of intellectual fastidiousness, and in order to support the rôle which they unconsciously fall into when talking to Europeans. The rougher Western men do it because they would not have congressmen either seem or be better in any way than themselves, since that would be opposed to republican equality. A stranger who has taken literally all he hears is therefore surprised to find so much character, shrewdness, and keen though limited intelligence among the representatives. Their average business capacity did not seem to me below that of members of the House of Commons of 1880-85. True it is that great lights, such as usually adorn the British chamber, are absent: true also that there are fewer men who have received a high education which has developed their tastes and enlarged their horizons. The want of such men depresses the average. It is raised, however, by the almost total absence of two classes hitherto well represented in the British Parliament, the rich, dull parvenu, who has bought himself into public life, and the perhaps equally

unlettered young sporting or fashionable man who, neither knowing nor caring anything about politics, has come in for a county or (before 1885) a small borough, on the strength of his family estates. Few congressmen sink to so low an intellectual level as these two sets of persons, for congressmen have almost certainly made their way by energy and smartness, picking up a knowledge of men and things "all the time." In respect of width of view, of capacity for penetrating thought on political problems, representatives are scarcely above the class from which they came, that of second-rate lawyers or farmers, less often merchants or petty manufacturers. They do not pretend to be statesmen in the European sense of the word, for their careers, which have made them smart and active, have given them little opportunity for acquiring such capacities. As regards manners they are not polished, because they have not lived among polished people; yet neither are they rude, for to get on in American politics one must be civil and pleasant. The standard of parliamentary language, and of courtesy generally, has been steadily rising during the last few decades; I am not sure that it is now lower than in the British House of Commons, where those same decades appear to have witnessed a decline. Scenes of violence and confusion such as occasionally convulse the French chamber, and were common in Washington before the War of Secession, are now unknown.

On the whole, the most striking difference between the House of Representatives and European popular assemblies is its greater homogeneity. The type is marked; the individuals vary little from the type. In Europe all sorts of persons are sucked into the vortex of the legislature, nobles and landowners, lawyers, physicians, business men, artisans, journalists, men of learning, men of science. In America five representatives out of six are politicians pure and simple, members of a class as well defined as any one of the above-mentioned European classes. The American people, though it is composed of immigrants from every country and occupies a whole continent, tends to become more uniform than most of the great European peoples; and this characteristic is palpable in its legislature.

Uneasy lies the head of an ambitious congressman,1 for the

1 The term "Congressman" is commonly used to describe a member of the House of Representatives, though of course it ought to include senators also. So in England "Member of Parliament means member of the House of Commons, though it covers all persons who have seats in the House of Lords.