IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 /. 
 
 {./ 
 
 
 :/ 
 
 
 (A 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 51 
 
 IIM 
 
 112 
 
 2.5 
 
 122 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 1 6 
 
 
 .a 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 % 
 
 m. 
 
 'm o^ 
 
 m ■> 
 * 
 
 /a 
 
 '/ 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 4^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <> 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 
 ^^ 
 
 rv 
 
 #5 
 
 #-^\ 
 
 M 
 
 \> 
 
 ^%,^' 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtach^es 
 
 □ Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents ' 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 D 
 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt6 filmdes A nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires: 
 
 0This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
tails 
 
 du 
 odifier 
 
 une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or ilfustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contiin the symbol --^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "I, or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film^s en commen9ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui compo te une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 ^.^aos, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 diffarent reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 enti^'ely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 9rrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 >n d 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
/ 
 
©HE Br^IJITISH 
 
 7 
 
 VI'JHSC'S 
 
 ©HB pMBF^IGAN 
 
 SYSTEM OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 A. II. F. LEFROY, M.A. (oxon.) 
 
 BAlUilSTER-AT-LA W. 
 
 Being- a paper read before the Toronto Hranoh of the Imperial Federation 
 I-ea^Mie on Thursday, December I'jth, 1890. 
 
 -•-♦-^ 
 
 TORONTO: WILLIAMSON & CO., 
 PUBLISHERS, MDCCCXCI. 
 
L^FRoy^ ^,^, f; 
 
 
 i 
 
i 
 
 t i 
 
 f 
 
 CONVINCED that to Canadians, of 
 the present geneiation especially, 
 nothin^j can, from a public point 
 of view, be of more importance 
 than that we should possess an 
 adequate appreciation of the essen- 
 tial features and the advantages 
 of the British institutions, and forms of popu- 
 lar liberty, under which we live, as compared 
 with the institutions of the Americans, the writer 
 of the present paper ventures to publish it as a 
 very modest contribution towards that end. It 
 at all events points out some of the more obvious 
 characteristics of our British parliamentary system, 
 as contrasted with the Congressional system of the 
 United States. 
 
 Toronto, February 9th, 1891. 
 
' 
 
XHK BRITISH 
 
 vr<RS(\s 
 
 ^^■^ 
 
 FHK AMERICAN 
 
 
 SYSTEM OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 HE policy of Imperial Federation 
 or consolidjition, involves necessarily 
 " very different considerations to the 
 people of one part of the Empire, to 
 
 J\) &/L' what it does to those of another. 
 ^^/^j 'J'o us in Canada it seems an almost 
 universal opinion that this policy pre- 
 sents itself as the only practicable al- 
 ternative to that of continental union, or, as it is 
 perhaps somewhat unfairly called, annexation to 
 the United States. This being the case, I trust 
 that the subject of this paper will not be con- 
 sidered foreign to the proceedings of a Canadian 
 branch of the lea^jue. Nothinof can be more certain 
 than that, should the policy of continental union 
 prevail, Canadians must come under the national 
 
 
6 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 system of the Anicricans. It is just conceivable, 
 though very improbable, that the separate local gov- 
 ernments in the various States into which the 
 Dominion would then be divided, would be permit- 
 ted to retain their present imrliamentary system ; 
 but in all federal matters, we should have to accept 
 the American system. And if it should occur to the 
 mind of any one that the Americans might alter 
 their system to suit us, it may be sufficient to ob- 
 serve that under their Constitution no measure to 
 amend the same can come into effect unless it has in 
 its favour the concurring vote of not less than fifty- 
 eight separate legislative chambers in the various 
 States, independently of the Federal legislature, in 
 which a double two-thirds majority must be ob- 
 tained ;* so that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, an American 
 critic, to whom I shall very often have occasion to 
 refer, in his lucid and interesting essay on congres- 
 sional government, says that no impulse short of 
 the impulse of self-preservation, no force less than 
 the force of revolution, can nowadays be expected 
 to move the cumbrous machinery of formal amend- 
 ment of the Constitution of the United States.-f* 
 
 *Constitution of United Status, Ait. 5. 
 tCongressional Government (Boaton, 1887), p. 24Ji. 
 
 
Sijmtem of National Government. 
 
 T 
 
 
 It follows, therefore, that if on a comparison of the 
 two systems we find i^ood reason to consider that the 
 British system, which is at present our own, is far 
 preferable to that of our neij^hbours, a valuable 
 weapon foi- Canadian use is added to the armoury 
 of the Federation league. 
 
 Fortunately there are many and famous writers 
 to aid us in forming an opinion ; an<i let me say at 
 once that I do not aspire this evening to earn any 
 reputation for originality. My aim is to lay before 
 you some of the things which political thinkers of 
 established reputation have to say about the two 
 systems which we propose to contrast ; and I warn 
 you therefore that this paper will be as full of 
 quotations as the illiterate theatre-goer found 
 Shakespeare's play of Hamlet. 
 
 Foremost among recent writers on the subject 
 stands, of course, Mr Bryce, and I shall have so 
 often to call liim to my support in criticising the 
 American system, that I feel almost l)Ound to ob- 
 serve that an American advocate nnght very often 
 cite with considerable effect one passage in Mr. 
 Bryce's American Commonwealth to confute another. 
 The fact is that, though Mr. Bryce finds fault with 
 the institutions of the Americans in detail, he often 
 
8 
 
 The Ihitish versus The American 
 
 praises them in the lump. It wouhl ))e shock- 
 ing to say that he hedges. I would rather shel- 
 ter myself under the words of his reviewer in 
 the London Times, and .say " that if he ever 
 drops a word of severity, he hastens to knock 
 the edi^e off his criticism by a timely admission. 
 To all his verdicts is appended a rider of extenuating 
 circumstances."* For example, in one place he states 
 that he who would desire to draw an indictment 
 against the American scheme of government might 
 make it a long one, and for every count in it cite 
 hitrh American authoritv, and adduce evidence from 
 American history. But he immediately hastens to 
 add that a European reader would greatly err if he 
 were to conclude that their scheme of government 
 was, for the purposes of the country, inferior to the 
 political system of any of the great nations of the old 
 woild.i* He scarcely notices the fact, however, that 
 in Canada we have the. British Cabinet and Parlia- 
 mentary system applied to our Federal Government, 
 and certainly he does not attempt to show that the 
 many advantages which he declares that system to 
 possess in England, are less applicable to it when 
 
 * Times, Dec. 2(Jth, US88. 
 
 t American Commonwealth, Vol. 1, p. iiOO. 
 
 
Si/>^fem of NafionnJ G(»rervmvi}f. 
 
 9 
 
 f 
 
 adopted in this country. In one place he does in- 
 ileed observe, with .soniethin<; of a sneer, tliat the 
 example of our Provincial legislatures, in each of 
 which there is a responsible ministry sitlini; in tlie 
 letnslature, does not seem to reconnnend tlie adop- 
 tion of that system for in/itation by the Anieriean 
 States.* But the fact is that neitlier Mt-. Ihyce nor 
 his eminent contemporary, Professor Dicey, seem 
 to have devoted much attention as yet to the political 
 phenomena of this Dominion. It is to Ik; hoped 
 that Professor Ashley will be able to persuade them 
 that, as h<i siivs, to the scientific student of politics, 
 Canada is of interest in tlie experiment which it is 
 making in the combination of Cabinet Government 
 with a Federal system.^ 
 
 As may have been already conjectured, I do not 
 purpose dwelling this evening upon any of the ad- 
 vantages which may be supposed to accrue to us 
 from having at the apex of our {(olitioal system 
 the representative of our ancient and historic mon- 
 archy, rather than a mere passing politician elected 
 for four years, whose very mediocrity often recom- 
 mends him as a safe candidate to the party tacticians. 
 
 */h., Vol. 1, p. 525. 
 
 tCon«titutinnal l£i.stury of C'uuiula, p. Ki. 
 
10 
 
 The Britwh versm The American 
 
 Possibly to those who admit of no sentiment in this 
 matter, and, also, take a very superficial view of 
 it, it may be sufficient to say with Mr. Phelps, 
 American Minister to England, that this is after all 
 principally a difference in form. " The Monarch 
 reigns for life, but does not govern ; the President 
 governs for four or eight years, but does not reign."* 
 Still less do I intend to take up your time with 
 platitudes upon the evils of the constantly recurrino- 
 Presidential elections. 
 
 So, too, we cannot do more than glance at the 
 fact that the Senate and the House of Representa- 
 tives, which, as everyone knows, are the two Houses 
 constituting Co-gress, possess substantially equal 
 and co-ordinate power, a state of tliiiifrs existing in 
 no other great country in the world, whence arises, 
 says Mr. Bryce, frequent collisions between the two 
 Houses.t " Congress was weakened," he says, " as 
 compared with the British Parliament in which one 
 House has become dominant, by its division into 
 two co-equal houses, whose disagreement paralyses 
 legislative action." 
 
 J- 
 
 r 
 
 * Mim-tecnth Century. ISraidi, ]N8i\ 
 tAniorican Coniuumwealtli, Yd. 1, p. Is;}, 
 :f/6.,j). 37H. 
 
 :> f 
 
System of National Government. 
 
 11 
 
 In the same way, we can only glance at what Mr. 
 Woodrow Wilson calls the '' treaty-man ing power 
 of the Senate."* " The President," says the same 
 American critic, "really has no voice at all in the 
 conclusions of the Senate with reference to his 
 di[)lomatic transactions, or with reference to any of 
 the matters upon which he consults it; and yet with- 
 out a voice in the conclusion there is no consulta- 
 tion. * * The Senate, when it closes its doors 
 upon going into * executive session,' closes them 
 upon the President as much as upon the rest of the 
 world."f We have seen a very recent example of 
 the working of this system in the rejection by the 
 Senate of the [)roposed Fisheries Treaty with Great 
 Britain. 
 
 What I wish to concentrate attention upon this 
 evening, for it is of the most far-reaching conse- 
 quences of all, is the diii'erent relation which exists 
 between the President and his Secretaries of State 
 on the one hand, under the American system, and 
 the Premier and other members of the Cabinet under 
 the Biitish system, and between the Executive and 
 Congress on the one hand, and the Cabinet and 
 
 ^Congressional Government, p. /iO, 
 t/6.,p. 233. 
 
12 
 
 The Br'(fis!i, versus The Aoncrlcan 
 
 Parliament on the other hand, and therefore I will 
 call your attention at once to the concluding words 
 of Article 1, Section 6, of the American Constitu- 
 tion which pi'ovide that " No ])er.son holding any 
 ottice under the United States shall be a member of 
 either House during his continuance in otKcc." " The 
 founders ol the American Constitution," says John 
 Morley, in his delightful life of Kobert Wal[)ole, "as 
 all know, followed Montesquieu's phrasus, if not his 
 design, about separating Icgislatuie from executive, 
 bv excludinu* ministeis from both Houses of Con- 
 gress. This is fatal to any reproduction of the 
 English system. The American Cabinet is vitally 
 unlike our own on this account."* 
 
 Under the American system, therefore, the Presi- 
 dent and the Secretaries of State cannot be members 
 either of the House of Representatives or of the 
 Senate; they are under no direct responsibility to 
 Congress of any kind; nor can they take any direct 
 part in initiating or debating any measure. Under 
 the British system, on the other hand, the Jilinisters 
 of the Crown not only may, but nuist, have seats in 
 one or other House of Parlianunit, and are directly 
 
 > V 
 
 *\Valpole (Twelve Iui^'IIhIi HtateHmcn Series), \\ l'\\. 
 
iSyetem of NaUoaal Govervinnif. 
 
 V\ 
 
 f 
 
 responsible to the poi)iilar house. In the words of 
 Bagehot, constantly referred to as the most acute 
 of English constitutional writei-s, the Cabinet under 
 our system is a board of control chosen by the legis- 
 lature out of persons whom it trusts and knows, 
 to rule the nation * Cabinet Ministers form a 
 committee of the legislature, chosen by the majority 
 for the time being. 'J'hey are accountable to the 
 legislature and must resign office as soon as they 
 lose its confidence, or else dissolve Parliament and 
 accept whatever verdict the country may give. They 
 are jointly as well as severally liable for their acts. 
 " The essence of responsible government," said the 
 late Lord Derby, " is that mutual bond of responsi- 
 bility one for another wherein a government acting 
 by party go together, frame their measures in con- 
 cert, and where, if one member falls to the irround 
 the others almost as a matter of course, fall with 
 him.""!- None of these principles hold true in Amer- 
 ica. The President is not responsible to Congress 
 for his acts. His ministei-s do not sit in Conirress. 
 and are not accountable to it, but to the President 
 their master. Congress may request their attend- 
 
 *The English Constitution, 5th ed., p. 13. 
 tCentral Government, by H. D. Traill, p. 20. 
 
14 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 ance before a committee, as it may require the at- 
 tendance of any other witness, but they have no 
 opportunity of expounding and justifying to Con- 
 gress, as a whole, their own, or rather their master's 
 policy. Hence an adverse vote of Congress does not 
 affect their or his position. They are not present 
 in Congress to be questioned as to matters of admin- 
 iistration which arise, and yet an American writer 
 himself admits "that the only really self-govern- 
 ing people is that people which discusses and in- 
 terrogates its administration."* In America, again, 
 the administration does not work as a whole. It is 
 not a whole. It is a group of persons, each individu- 
 ally dependent on and answerable to the President, 
 but with no joint policy, no collective responsibility. 
 Borrowing freely from Mr. Bryce, I may sum- 
 marize the difference thus : With us and in Encr- 
 land, if the Executive ministry displeases the House 
 of Commons, the House passes an adverse vote. 
 The ministry have their choice to resign or to dis- 
 solve Parliament. If they resign, a new minis- 
 try is appointed from the party which has proved 
 . ,*f strongest in the House of Commons, and co- 
 operation being restored between the legislature and 
 
 ^Congressional Government, p. 303. 
 
 J 
 
 ( 
 
System of National Government. 
 
 15 
 
 the executive, public business proceeds. In America, 
 a dispute between the President and Congress may 
 arise over an executive act or over a bill. If over an 
 executive act, an appointment or a treaty, one 
 branch of Congress, the Senate, can check thePresi- 
 dent, that is, can prevent him from doing what he 
 wishes, but cannot make him do what they wish. 
 If over a bill which the President has returned to 
 Congress unsigned, the two Houses can, by a two- 
 thirds majority, pass it over his veto, and so end the 
 quarrel; though the carrying out of the bill in its 
 details must be left to him and his ministers, whose 
 dislike of it may rtJider tliem unwilling and there- 
 fore unsuitable agents. Should there not be a two- 
 thirds majority, the bill drops ; and however 
 important the question may be, however essential 
 to the coantry, some prompt dealing with it, either 
 in the sense desire<l by the majority in Congress or 
 in that preferied by the President, nothing can be 
 none till the current term of Congress expires.* 
 
 The American Constitution in its attempt to 
 create a number of etlective checks and balances has 
 produced a system from which dead-locks cannot 
 fail to ensue, and which at a time of crisis may 
 
 •* American Commonwealth, Vol. 1, page 282. 
 
h; 
 
 The British cerfms Tlte American 
 
 i! 
 
 eii(lan<^er the veiy lii<;licst iiitoiests of the nation. 
 The efficient secret oi tlie English Constitution, 
 says Bagehot, may bo described as the close 
 union, the nearly complete fusion, of the ex- 
 ecutive and legislative powers.* The fundamental 
 defect of the American systeui, to quote an 
 American critic in the North American Revieiu, 
 seeais to be in the separation and diffusion of 
 power and res})onsibility.-I- Executive and legisla- 
 tive, says Woodrow Wilson, are separated by a 
 a hard and fast line, which sets them apart in what 
 was meant to be independence, but has come to 
 amount to insolation ; | while cabinet government, 
 on the other hand, is a device for bringing the execu- 
 tive and legislative branches into harmony and 
 co-operation without uniting or confusing their 
 functions. It is as if the majority in the Commons 
 deputised its leaders to act as the advisers of the 
 Crown and the superintr^n dents of the public 
 business, in order that they might have the advan- 
 taore of administrative knowledgfe and trainincf in 
 advising legislation and drafting laws to be submitted 
 to Parliament. 
 
 *The English Constitution, p. 10. 
 
 fVol. III., p. 331. 
 
 :}:Congressional Government, p. 147. 
 
System of National Oovernmenf. 
 
 17 
 
 [I . 
 
 We must not, too, omit to notice that Congress, 
 though in the literary theory of the American con- 
 stitution, it should confine itself to the proper work 
 of legislation, and not usurp the functions of the 
 executive, has not hesitated to endeavour to do 
 the latter. Mr. Wilson declares that though the 
 form of their Constitution is one of nicely -adjusted 
 ideal balances, the actual form of their present 
 Government is simply a scheme of Congressional 
 supremacy.* Congress has entered more and more 
 into the details of administration, until it has 
 virtually taken into its own hands all the sub- 
 stantial powers of Government.*f* At the same time, 
 he says, the secretaries, that is the executive 
 ministers, though not free enough to have any 
 independent policy of their own, are free enough to 
 be very poor, because very unmanageable, servants. 
 Once inst>alled, their hold upon their offices does 
 not depend upon the will of Congress. They may 
 make daily blunders in administration and repeated 
 mistakes in business, may thwart the plans of Con- 
 gress in a hundred small, vexatious ways, and yet all 
 the while snap their fingers at its dissatisfaction or 
 
 *Congres8ional Government, p. 6. 
 
 fib.t p. 45. 
 B 
 
18 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 displeasure.* Thus, as under our system, we find 
 Parliament, or rather the popular House, concentrat- 
 ing in itself all real powers, so under the American 
 system Congress apparently endeavours to do the 
 the same, but with the great disadvantage, not ex 
 isting under the British system, of having the exe- 
 cutive ministers separate from it, and holding office 
 by an independent tenure. 
 
 Now, it must not be supposed that the Americans 
 deliberately adopted their present system in pre- 
 ference to the existing British system. The prin- 
 ciple of Cabinet Government, says Mr. Hearn, in 
 his work on the GovernmeLt of England, seems to 
 have been altogether unknown in America at the 
 time of the Revolution. Neither in the writings of 
 Hamilton or of Jefferson, nor in the debates upon 
 the organization of their new Government, can we 
 discover any indication that the statesmen who 
 framed the Constitution of the United States had the 
 least acquaintance with that form of Parliamen- 
 tary Government which now prevails in England.^ 
 The fact is that the system had not fully developed 
 itself at that time even in England itself, and 
 
 ♦/6., p. 272. 
 
 tGovemmeut of England, p. 213. 
 
System of National Oovei^ment. 
 
 19 
 
 though some consider the second Rockingham min- 
 istry of 1782 the first of the modern ministries, Mr. 
 Hearn holds that it is in Lord Grenville's adminis- 
 tration in 180G that we first find our modern 
 system ot ministries permanently and comj'letely 
 established.* Not that the Fathers, as the founders 
 of the American Constitution are called, did not 
 look to the England of their own day in framing 
 their scheme. It ma}' be somewhat startling to be 
 told that the Americans have in their President 
 embalmed King George III. But, says Sir Henry 
 Maine, in his work on Popular Government, the 
 Constitution of the United States is in reality a 
 version of the British Constitution, as it must have 
 presented itself to an observer in the second half of 
 the last century. It is tolerably clear, he says, that 
 the mental operation through which the framers of 
 the American Constitution went was this : they 
 took the King of Great Britain, went through his 
 powers, and restrained them wherever they appeared 
 to be excessive or unsuited to the circumstances of 
 the United States. It is remarkable that the figure 
 they had before them was not a generalised English 
 king nor an abstract constitutional monarch: it 
 
 »ii., p. 227. 
 
" 
 
 20 
 
 The Brltlfth versus The American 
 
 was no anticipation of Queen Victoria, but George 
 III. himself whom they took for their model. The 
 present British system of Oabinet Government was 
 exactly the method of government to which George 
 III. refused to submit, and tlie framers of the 
 American Constitution took George III.'s view of 
 the kingly office for granted. They give the whole 
 executive Government to the President, and they 
 do not permit his ministers to have seat or speech 
 in either branch of the Legislature. They limit 
 his power and theirs, not, however, by any contri- 
 vance known to modern English constitutionalism, 
 but by making the office of President terminable at 
 intervals of four years.* It may very well be that 
 the Americans improved upon the system of Govern- 
 ment at that time existing in England, but they 
 cribbed, cabined, and confined their new scheme 
 within the four limits of a written constitution, 
 whereas the British system has been permitted to 
 proceed in a course of natural and spontaneous 
 development. It is worth while to have dwelt for 
 a moment on this to explain the apparent paradox 
 
 that so intelligent a people as the Americans should 
 possess a system of Government so open to criticism. 
 
 *Populftr Government, pp. 207. 212, 213. 
 
System of National Oovemment 
 
 21 
 
 " The English Constitution," says one of them, 
 " was at that time in reality much worse than our 
 own ; and, if it is now superior, it is so because its 
 growth has not been hindered or destroyed by the 
 too tight ligaments of a written fun<lamental law."* 
 What then are the evils incident to the Ameri- 
 can system which we say are so great that Canadians 
 should never dream of exchanging their own system 
 of National Government for it ? Mr. Bryce sums 
 up many of them in one general expression. There 
 is, he says, in the American Government, considered 
 as a whole, a want of unity. Its branches are un- 
 connected ; their efforts are not directed to one aim, 
 do not produce one harmonious result. The sailors, 
 the helmsman, the engineer, do not seem to have 
 one purpose or obey one will, so that instead of 
 making steady way the vessel may pursue a devious 
 or zig-zag course, and sometimes merely turn round 
 and round in the water. For the present all is 
 comparatively well, for that vessel sails upon a 
 summer sea.*f- 
 
 To be more specific, I will enumerate some of the 
 more obvious defects of the Ameiican system, in 
 
 *C()Hgressioiial Government, p. '.iU. 
 t American Commonwealth, Vol. 1, pp. 287, :m. 
 
22 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 the words of no mere academical critic, but of 
 Story himself, one of the most brilliant names 
 upon the roll of American jurists. In his Commen- 
 taries on the Amciican Constitution he says : " The 
 heads of departments are, in fact, by the exclusion 
 from Congress of all persons holding office, prevented 
 from proposing or vindicating their own measures 
 in the face of the nation in the course of debate, and 
 are compelled to submit them to other men, who 
 are either imperfectly acquainted with the measures, 
 or are indifferent to their success or failure. Thus, 
 that open and public responsibility for measures 
 which properly belongs to the executive in all Gov- 
 ernments, and especially in a republican Govern- 
 ment, as its greatest security and strength, is com- 
 pletely done away. The executive is compelled to 
 resort to secret and unseen influence, to private 
 interviews and private arrangements, to accom- 
 plish its own appropriate purposes, instead of pro- 
 posing and sustaining its own duties and mea- 
 sures by a bold and manly appeal to the nation in 
 the face of its representatives. One consequence of 
 this state of things is, that there never can be 
 traced home to the executive any responsibility for 
 the measures which are planned and carried at its sug- 
 
 I 
 
System of National Oovernment, 
 
 23 
 
 gestion. Another consequence will be (if it has not yet 
 been) that mea.. 'res will be adopted or defeated by 
 private intrigues, political combinations, irrespon- 
 sible recommendations, and all the blandishments 
 of office and all the deadening weight of silent 
 patronage. The executive will never be compelled 
 to avow or support any opinions. * * It will 
 assume the air of a dependent instrument ready to 
 adopt the acts of the legislature, when, in fact, its 
 spirit and its wishes pervade the whole system of 
 legislation. If corruption ever eats its way silently 
 into the vitals of the Republic, it will be because the 
 people are unable to bring responsibility home to 
 the executive through his chosen ministers."* And 
 so to exchange the grave, judicial language of Judge 
 Story, for the lighter style of Mr. Bryce : " Not un- 
 commonly there is presented the sight of an ex- 
 asperated American public going about like a 
 roaring lion, seeking whom it may devour, and 
 finding no one."t 
 
 But now let me call attention to some matters 
 which do not lie so obviously upon the surface. It 
 
 ^Commentaries on the American Constitution, 4th ed., yol. 1, 
 p. 614, seq. 
 tAmericftn Commonwealth, vol. ?, p. 320, 
 
24 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 is necessary for every legislative body to evolve 
 some kind of organization. Debarred from having 
 the ministers of the day as a ruling committee con- 
 trolling all business, as with us, the Houses of 
 Congress took the alternative of distributing 
 business among a number of committees, to each of 
 which is assigned a specific class of subjects. In 
 1888 there were in the American Senate 41 standing 
 committees, each appointed for two years, and con- 
 sisting of from 3 to 11 members each, and in the 
 House of Representatives there were 54 standing 
 committees, each appointed for a period of two 
 sessions, and consisting of from 3 to 16 members 
 each. We may confine our view to the House of 
 Representatives, but the system in both Houses is 
 the same; and I shall take what I have to say 
 principally from the American writer, to whom I 
 have so often referred already, Mr. Wilson, though 
 he is entirely confirmed in what he says by the 
 independent testimony of Mr. Bryce. The way 
 business is divided among these committees is indi- 
 cated by their names, of which some of the principal 
 are Ways and Means; Appropriations; Banking 
 and Currency ; Rivers and Harbours ; Railways 
 and Canals ; Foreign Affairs ; Naval Affairs ; Mili- 
 
System of National Government 
 
 25 
 
 tary Affairs, and Public Lands. Now, to some one 
 of these small standing committees, each and ever> 
 bill is referred, and it is positively startling to any 
 one accustomed to the free and open debate of a 
 British Parliament, to find that all legislation is at the 
 mercy of the particular committee to which it is 
 assigned. These committees deliberate in secret, 
 and no member speaking in the House is entitled to 
 state anything that has taken place in committee 
 other than what is stated in the report of that com- 
 irittee. They are practically under the control of 
 their chairmen, who are strict party men appointed 
 by the speaker, who is himself under the American 
 system a staunch and avowed partisan, making 
 smooth whenever he can the legislative paths of 
 his party, and the most powerful man in the House 
 by virtue of his function of appointing these chair- 
 men of the standing committees. "I know not 
 how better," says Wilson, « to describe our form of 
 government in a single phrase than by calling it a 
 Government by the chairmen of the Standing 
 Committees of Congress."* But these chairmen of 
 committees do not constitute a co-operative body 
 like a ministry. '' They do not consult and concur 
 *Congre8gic »ftl Government, p. 102. 
 
T 
 
 26 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 in the adoption of homogeneous and mutually 
 helpful measures ; there is no thought of acting in 
 concert. Each committee goes its own way at its 
 own pace. It is impossible to discover any unity 
 or method in the disconnected and, therefore, un- 
 systematic, confused and desultory action of the 
 House, or any common purpose in the measures 
 which its committees from time to time recom- 
 mend."* 
 
 We will now glance for one moment at the way 
 legislation is conducted under this system. In 
 the first place, as to the initiation of legislative 
 measures. Under the British system, which I can- 
 not too often repeat we now enjoy in Canada with 
 the many other privileges of British subjects, 
 public bills fall into two classes — those brought in 
 by the ministry of the day as responsible advisers 
 of the sovereign, and those brought in by private 
 members. In neither House of Congress, on the 
 other hand, are there any such thing as Government 
 bills. With us a strong cabinet can obtain the con- 
 currence of the legislature in all acts which facilitate 
 its administration ; it is, so to say, the legislature. 
 In America the initiative of legislation actually 
 
System of National Government. 
 
 27 
 
 belongs to nobody in particular. Any member may 
 introduce a bill or resolution upon any subject in 
 which he feels an interest. A dozen of these may 
 be presented upon the same subject, which differ 
 entirely from one another. 
 
 Let us then sketch after Woodrow Wilson* the 
 experience of the new member who goes to Wash- 
 ington as the representative of a particular line 
 of policy, having been elected, it may be, as an 
 advocate of free trade, or as a champion of pro- 
 tection. He can introduce his bill on the pro- 
 per day, but that is all he can do. If he supposes, 
 says Mr. Wilson, as he naturally will, that after his 
 bill has been sent up to be read by the clerk, he 
 may say a few words in its behalf, and in that belief 
 sets out upon his long-considered remarks, he will 
 be knocked down by the rules at once. The rap of 
 Mr. Speaker's gavel is sharp, immediate, and peremp- 
 tory. He is curtly informed that no debate is in 
 order; the bill can only be referred to the appropriate 
 committee. For there is no debate at all allowed 
 upon the first or the second reading of bills, which 
 amongst other things, prevents the public being 
 necessarily apprised of the measures which are 
 
 ^Copgresaional Government, p, 64 seq. 
 
^ 
 
 28 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 before Congress. Without debate, then, the bill is 
 committed, and we are told, the fate of bills com- 
 mitted is generally not uncertain. As a rule, a 
 bill committed is a bill doomed.* When it goes 
 from the clerk's desk to a committee-room it crosses 
 a Parliamentary bridge of sighs to dim dungeons of 
 silence, whence it will never return. The means 
 and time of its death are unknown, but its friends 
 never see it again. It is perfectly easy for the 
 committee to which the bill has been referred, and 
 therefore common, to let the session pass without 
 making any report at all upon bills deemed objec- 
 tionable or unimportant, and to substitute for 
 reports upon them a tew bills of the committee's 
 own drafting; so that thousands of bills expire 
 with the expiration of each Congress, not having 
 been rejected, but having been simply neglected. 
 There was not time to report upon them. The 
 practical effect of this committee organization of the 
 House is to consign to each of the standing com- 
 mittees the entire direction of legislation upon those 
 subjects which properly come under its consideration. 
 When the committees do report to the House, it 
 might be supposed full debate would })e allowed. 
 
 *lb„ p. 69. 
 
System of National Oovermmnt. 
 
 29 
 
 Not so. It seems simply incredible, but it rests 
 upon the authority of Senator Hoar, of Massa- 
 chusetts, whose long Congressional experience, we 
 are told, entitles him to speak with authority, that 
 most of the committees have at their disposal dur- 
 ing each Congress but two hours each in which to 
 report upon, debate, and dispose of all the subjects 
 of general legislation committed to their charge.* 
 And even that space of time is not allowed to free 
 and open debate. The reporting committee man is 
 allowed to absorb a great part of it, and as to the 
 rest, the Speaker recognises only those persons 
 who have previously come to a private understand- 
 ing with the maker of the report, and these only 
 upon their promise to limit their remarks to a cer- 
 tain number of minutes.f So that our new member, 
 says Mr. Wilson, finds that turn which way he may, 
 some privilege of the committees stands in his path. 
 The rules are so framed as to put all business under 
 their management ; and as his first session draws 
 towards its close he learns that under their sway 
 freedom of debate finds no place for allowance, and 
 his long-delayed speech must remain unspoken.| 
 
 *Congre8sional Government, p. 72. 
 
 t Von Hoist's Constitutional Law of the United States, p. 109, note. 
 
 JCongreasional Government, p. 71. 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
I 
 
 30 
 
 The British versus The American 
 
 What chance, we may well ask, would a Lord 
 Shaftesbury or a Plimsoll, or even a Gladstone, or 
 any of the great reformers and philanthropists, whose 
 names lend lustre to the records of the Parliament 
 oi Great Britain, have had under such a system as 
 that prevailing in Congress ? It is highly probable 
 that they would have effected nothing, even if they 
 had ever reached Congress at all, which is very 
 doubtful ; but fortunately they had to do with a 
 Parliament where there is no such practice of referr- 
 ing different classes of business to special committees, 
 but where every subject of importance is fully and 
 freely debated in committee of the whole House. 
 The House of Commons, it is true, has its com- 
 mittees, even its standing committees, but they are 
 of the old-fashioned sort, which merely investigate 
 and report, not of the new American type, which 
 originate and conduct legislation. Nor are they 
 appointed by the Speaker. They are chosen with 
 care by a committee ot selection, composed of mem- 
 bers of both parties. But the lobbyist, the intriguer, 
 and the wielder of improper influences have every 
 facility afforded them in the American system of 
 small committees, conducting their proceedings with 
 closed doors And that Americans themselves 
 
System of National Government. 
 
 31 
 
 recognise this difference is indicated by the following 
 interesting extract from the Rochester Herald, which 
 I clipped from a newsi)aper last year : " The people 
 of this country are jjleased beyond measure," it says, 
 " with the efforts bein^ made in Canada to set rid 
 of the boodlers now rusticatinor there for their 
 country's good. A great cry has been made about 
 the boodlers lobbying against Dr. Weldon's bill. 
 The power of these criminals to prevent its. passage 
 is not so great as many persons think. If the 
 Government says it can go through it will go 
 whether there is a lobby against it or not. That 
 institution cannot be worked so well in the Cana- 
 dian Parliament as in this country. In Congress, 
 for instance, one man is able to block legislation for 
 an indefinite period, if he so chooses ; at Ottawa no 
 such blocking can be done, and the bill will come 
 up in its turn."* 
 
 There remain two other most important matters 
 to which I would like briefly to refer before bring- 
 ing this paper to a close. John Stuart Mill, in his 
 essay on Representative Government, arrives at a 
 twofold division of the merit which any set of 
 political institutions possess, namely the degree in 
 
 ^Toronto " Empire/' March 15th, 1889. 
 
8t 
 
 TJie British versus The A merican 
 
 which they promote the general mental advance- 
 ment of the community, and the degree in which 
 they bring the individual intellect and virtue of its 
 wisest members more directly to bear upon the Gov- 
 ernment, and invest them with greater influence in 
 it.* How then do the British and American systems 
 compare in this respect ? Under which system are 
 the best men and the best minds of the community 
 most likely to be drawn into public life, and allowed 
 to wield the most unfettered influence when they 
 get there, and which system is likely to conduce 
 most to the enlightenment and mental advancement 
 of the general public ? The head of the British 
 Cabinet to-day, says John Morley, corresponds in 
 many particulars, alike in the source of his power 
 and in the scope of his oflicial jurisdiction, with the 
 President of the United States.f Which system 
 then is likely to bring the better man to these 
 exalted positions ? I will take the answer from 
 Mill, one of the most impartial of critics When 
 the party which has the majority in Parliament 
 appoints its own leader, he tells us, he is always one 
 of the foremost, and often the very foremost person 
 
 ^Representative Government, People's ed., p. 12-13. 
 fLif e of Walpole, p. 165. 
 
 1 
 
 !■ 
 
 I I 
 
System of Kafioval Govermnent. 
 
 
 If, 
 
 .n political life; while the President of the Unite,! 
 .States ,s almost always a,, obscure n.an, or one who 
 has.ra.nea any re,,utation he ,„ay possess in some 
 other fi,.l,l M,..,n politics.* An,] Mr. l;«gehot puts the 
 •san.e thought in this way : " tJn.ier a Presidential 
 Constitution the j-relinnnary caucuses which choose 
 the President need not care as to the ultimate Ht- 
 "fss of the .nan they choose. They are solely co.i- 
 cerned with hi« attractiveness as a can.lidate ■ they 
 nee.l not .ega.d his etfi.-iency as a .ule.. If they 
 elect a ma., of weak jud^.nent, ho will rehm his 
 stated term; eve., though he show the hesrjud,r. 
 me.,t, at the end of that tern, there will be by ccstl- 
 tut.onal destiny another election. But under a 
 nunisterial gove.-nment there is no such ti.xed 
 desti.iy. The government is a removable gove.-n- 
 ■uent, its tenure dejiends upon its conduct. If a 
 party in power were so foolish as to choose a weak 
 man for its head, it would cease to be i.i powe.' It.s 
 judgment is its life. * • A Ministerial Government 
 IS car.ied on in the face of day. Its life is in debate. 
 A President may be a weak man ; yet if he keep 
 
 good ministers totheendofhisadministration.hemay 
 notbe found out-it may still be a dubious cont.o- 
 
 *llepre8«ntativt' Government, i>. 105, 
 
34 
 
 The BHtiah versus The American 
 
 I 1 
 
 versy whether lie is wise or foolish. But a priiiio 
 minister must show what he is. He must meet 
 the Hous*; of ('ominons in debate ; he must l)e able 
 to guide that assembly in tin; manngemeiit of its 
 business, to gain its ear in every emergency, to rule 
 it in its hour of excitement. He is conspicuously 
 submitted to a seareliing test, and if he fails he 
 must resign."* 
 
 Next, let us consider under which system the 
 remainder of the ministry of the day are likely 
 to be composed of the better men. *' At each 
 change of party," says Bagehot, " the President 
 distributes, as with us, the principal otlices to his 
 principal supi)orters. He has an opportunity fur 
 singular favouritism ; the minister lurks in the 
 ottiee ; he need do nothing in public; he need not 
 show for years whether he is a lool or wise. The 
 nation can tell what a Parliamentary meml)er is by 
 the open test of Parliament; but no one, save 
 from actual contact, or by rare position, can tell 
 anything certain of a Presidential nunister."'f' But 
 I will turn to Mr. Wilson, for corroboration : 
 " Among the great purposes of a national Par- 
 
 *The English Constitution, p. 65-6. 
 tTh« Eujilish Constitution, p. 203. 
 
 V 
 
 : ; 
 
 M 
 
System of National Government, 
 
 35 
 
 V- 
 
 
 liarnent/' he say.s, "are these two, tirst. to train 
 men fur })ractical statesmanship ; and secondly, to 
 exhibit them to the country, so that, when men of 
 ability are wanted, they can be found without 
 anxious search and perilous trial. In those frovern- 
 ments which are administered by an executive com- 
 mittee of the legislative body, not only this trainin^r 
 but also this cxhilntion is constant and complete! 
 The career which leads to cabinet otHce is a career 
 of self exhibition. The self-revelation is made in 
 <lebate, and so is uiade to the nation at large as 
 well as to the ministry of the day, who are lookincr 
 out for able recruits, and to the Commons, whose 
 ear is quick to tell a voice which it will consent 
 to hear, a knovvled,Lro which it will pause to heed. 
 But in (Governments like the American, in which 
 iegislativf. and ^'xecutive services are altogether 
 dissociated, this training is incomplete and this 
 exhibition almost entirely wanting."* 
 
 Ami generally let us consider which system is most 
 likely to attract the best minds of the country into 
 public life. To look only to our .own times, for it 
 would not be fair to compare a less democratic age 
 with ours in this respect, where are the Gladstones 
 
 *ConKre88ional Government, p. 25], 
 
36 
 
 Tke British vermis The American 
 
 and the Beaconsfiolds, the Forstcrs and tlio Flartin^'- 
 tons, the SaliHburvs and the Halfuiirs, tlic SUiflbrd 
 Northcotes and the Bri^ditsof American politics, not 
 to mention the scores of other names of men of the 
 hiMiest attainments and sciejitific or literary enii- 
 nence who have adorned tlie henches of the British 
 llonse of Connnons in our «^reneration i Do they 
 exist in public life in America ^ Let an American 
 answer : " We have always had ph^rity of excellent 
 lawyers," lie says, " thon<^h we have often had to do 
 without even tolerable administrators, and seem des- 
 tined to endure the inconvenience of hereafter doing 
 without any constructive statesmen at all. * * 
 The forms of government in America have always 
 been unfavourable to the easy elevation of talent 
 to a station of permanent authority. * * We 
 have no great prizes of leadersliip, such as are 
 calculated to stimulate men of strong talents to 
 great and conspicuous })ublic services. * ♦ y 
 cannot insist too much upon this defect of con- 
 gressional government, because it is evidently rad- 
 ical. Leadership with authority over a great ruling 
 party is a prize to attract great conipetitors, and 
 is in a free Government the only prize that will 
 attract great competitors. Its attractiveness is 
 
t^ystem of National Governmfnf. 
 
 37 
 
 alMindjmtly illnstratpd in the o|)(Mations (.f' tlie 
 Hritisli sy.stciri. * ^ A part in tlio life ofC-on- 
 ^'ress, on the contrary, thonirh tlie best career opened 
 to men of ambition by our systeDi, has \u\ priz(» at 
 its end iLjreatci' than membersliip r.f some one of 
 !Hiiner(»us eoniinittees, none of whicli has the dis- 
 tinction of suj)remaey in policy or of km-o 'iiised 
 anthoj'itv^ to do nio'-c; tlian suji-Lrest."* 
 
 And now, in conclusion, whicli system mosi n- 
 duces to creatinjL,' an intelli^'ent and an ecbieative 
 intercHt in the f^eneral publi<- about tlie affairs nf 
 t}ie C(»untry ( 
 
 In America, says Hryce, politicians do not aspiie 
 to the function of formini,' opinion. There is less 
 disposition than in Knrope to exfx'ct lij^dit and 
 leadin<( on public affairs from speakers or w riters. 
 Oratory is not directed towards instruction, l»ut 
 towards stinnilation. The structure of the Govern- 
 ment, he says, ])rovides tlie re((uisite inacliinery 
 neitlier for formin<4' nor for <j^uidinLf a poj)ular 
 opinion, disposed of itself to recognise only broad 
 and patent facts, and to be swayed ordy by such ob- 
 vious reasons as it needs little reflection to folio w.-f- 
 
 '•Conj.MeHHioiial Goverrunent, pp. 190, li03, 20(;, 211. 
 t American Commonwealth, vol. 2, pp. 230, 24(». 
 
3S Th£ Brituh versus The American. 
 
 So inucVi for Mr. Bryce's testimony. Now let us 
 lu ar Bageliot : " Cabinet Government educates the 
 nation ; the Presidential does not educate it, and 
 may corrupt it. It has been sai<l tliat P:ngland 
 invented the phrase 'Her Majesty's opposition;' 
 that it was the first Government which made a 
 criticism of administration as much a part of the 
 polity as administration itself. This critical opposi- 
 tion is th.} consecpient of cabinet government. 
 The great scene of debate, the great engine of popu- 
 lar instruction and i)olitical controversy, is the 
 legislative assembly. A speech there by an eminent 
 statesman, a pai(y movement by a groat political 
 combination, are the best means yet known for 
 ai-ousing, enlivening, and teaching a people. The 
 cabinet system ensures such debates, for it makes 
 them the means by which statesmen advertise 
 themselves for future and confirm themselves in 
 present guvernmrnts. * * The deciding catas- 
 trophes of cabinet governments are critical divisions 
 preceded by fine discussions. * * And debates 
 which have this catastroplio at the end of them— or 
 may liave it— are sun^ to be listened to, and sure to 
 sink deep into the national mind. * * On the 
 other hand, the debates in the American Goneness 
 
 tr 
 
System of National Gofjemmenf. 
 
 39 
 
 rr> 
 
 liave little teachin.; efficacy ; it is the cliaracteristic 
 vice of Presidential Government to deprive them of 
 that efficacy ; in that Government a debate in the 
 ie-islature lias little effect, for it cannot turn out 
 the executive, and the executive can veto all it 
 decided."* Finally, let me call Mr. Woodrow Wilson, 
 for I have desired this evening to cite, as it were,' 
 expert testimony for every criticism adduced. This 
 is what he says in his work on Congre.ssional 
 Government: "The chief, and un,,uesti(,nably the 
 most essential object of all discussion of public busi- 
 ness is the enlightenment of public opinion ; and, 
 of course, since it cannot hear the debates of the' 
 comniittees, the nation is not apt to be nmch in- 
 structed by them. * * They have about them 
 none of the searching, critical, illuminating character 
 of the higher order of Parliamentary debate, in 
 which men are pitted against each other as equals, 
 and urged to sharp contest and masterful strife by 
 the inspiration of political principle and personal 
 ambition., tlirough the rivalry of parties and the 
 competition of policies. They represent a joust 
 between antagonistic interests, not a contest of 
 ^!!!!!^__!^ could scarcely either inform or 
 *Th« English Constitution, pp. ly, 170. 
 
40 
 
 21)6 British vcrsm The American 
 
 elevate public opiniim even if they weie to obtain 
 its heed.* * * " Why is it," he asks, " that many 
 intelligent and patriotic people throughout this 
 country, from Virginia to California — people who 
 beyond all (piestion, love their State and the Union 
 more than they h)ve their cousins over the sea — 
 subscril)e foj- the London papers in order to devour 
 the Parliamentary debates, and yet would never 
 think of troul)ling themselves to make tedious pro- 
 gress through a single copy of the Congressional 
 Kecoi d ? Is it because they are captivated by the 
 old-world dignity of royal England, with its nobility 
 and its Court pageantry, or because of a vulgar 
 desire to appear better versed than their neighbours 
 in foreign affairs, and to affect familiarity with 
 iiritish statesmen ? No, of course not. It is 
 because the Parliamentary debates are interestinir 
 and ours are not. * * Every important dis- 
 cussion in the British House of Commons is an 
 arraignment of the ministry by the opposition — an 
 arraignment of the majority by the minority ; and 
 every vote is a party defeat or a party triumph. 
 The whole conduct of the Government turns upon 
 what is said in the Commons, because the revela- 
 
 X> 
 
 ^CougreHiiioual Goveruiiieat, pp. 83, 85. 
 
System of National Government. 
 
 41 
 
 f ' 
 
 1 
 
 >^;> 
 
 tions of debate often change votes, and a ministry 
 loses hold upon power as it loses hold upon the con- 
 fidence of the Commons. * * It is, therefore, for 
 these very simple and obvious reasons that the 
 Parliamentary debates are read on this side of the 
 water in preference to the Congressional debates, 
 They affect the ministers, who are very conspicuous 
 persons, and in whom, therefore, all the intelligent 
 world is interested ; and they determine the course 
 of politics in a great empire."* 
 
 Will Canada, as a part of that empire, consent to 
 exchange that perfected system of Parliamentary 
 Government, which, with other self-governing 
 British communities, she has received from the 
 hands of Great Britain, for a system which, on the 
 testimony of even Americans themselves, is so full 
 of serious drawbacks, and is so convenient to the 
 organizers of the caucus, the convention, and the 
 machine, to the lobbyist, the intriguer, and the 
 demagogue ? Rather let us maintain intact and in 
 full working order that remarkable system, as John 
 Morley calls it, which combines unity, steadfastness, 
 and initiative in the executive, with the possession 
 of supreme authority alike over men and measures 
 
 *Congre88ional Government, p. 94-5. 
 
i 
 
 42 
 
 The Bntiili versus The American 
 
 by the House of Coiniiioiis,* that whenever and so 
 often as Providence sends us men of true Jight and 
 leading, of statesmanlike gifts and cai)acious minds, 
 they may find the appropriate machinery ready to 
 their hands, that devoting themselves to public life, 
 they may gatlier up alike the reins of executive and 
 legislative power, and guide a grateful and consent- 
 ting nation forward along a well-ordered course of 
 advancement and reform. Very foolish should we be 
 if we ever allowed the good ship Canada to forsake 
 that noble British squadron that, led by the flag- 
 ship of Old England, passes down the stream of 
 history under the Union Jack. Very foolish should 
 we be, if we ever allowed any inducements to draw 
 this country away from tlie broad current of British 
 liberty and progressive development. 
 
 *Life of Wal])ole, p. 142. ^ 
 
 ■ J 
 
 
 a 
 
, ^trr^4' 
 
 
 >)' 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 »«^4