THE SPEAKER’S CHAIR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19761, 12 April 1926, Page 12

THE SPEAKER’S CHAIR.

IN BRITAIN’S PARLIAMENT. MEMORIES OF LORD ULLSWATER. THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS IK THE HOUSE. Thirty-seven years spent fa the House of Commons, and 16 of ibem In the Speaker’s Chair, should have made the author of "A Speaker’s Commentaries'’ an authority on proceedings in Parliament during an eventful period (says the Melbourne Argus). The Right Hon. James William Lowther, Viscount Ullswater, has this service to his credit, and has unfolded his experiences in two volumes which, while they provide an interesting running commentary of events, provide no sensations. Mr Lowther, as he was known to his associates and to the public outside Westminster, kept out of the maelstrom of politics for the greater part of his time, and it is probably this detachment from the hurly-burly which Tendered him most eligible for the high post which he held with distinction for a term only eclipsed by two of his 129 predecessors during 550 years. When he retired in 1921, it was to the accompaniment of tributes from all sections of Parliament, and with the consciousness that he had set a standard of conduct which will serve as a model for many generations of successors. Lord Ullswater is his own best critic of fitness. Discussing his qualifications for the high honour that befel him, ho writes:— ‘T was not a finished or accomplished speaker. I had only a limited vocabulary, and was not quick at putting Into suitable words the opinion which I desired to express. However, 1 had two invaluable assets —patience and caution—and, being of a somewhat phlegmatic disposition, I was prepared to endure what had to be endured without impatience or irritability.” When he succeeded Speaker Gully, the worst of the Irish "scenes" which had involved forcible removal of unruly members, had ended, but he was not without hi® own troubles, chiefly those arising out of the suffragette demonstrations. In the hands of a more imaginative and more apprehensive occupant of the chair, these might easily have been fomented Into very grave outbreaks. But Speaker Lowther saw in them merely infractions of the rules of the House, and dealt with them solely from the point of view of upholding the dignity of Parliament and protecting the rights of members. REGARD FOR CONVENTION. The author, whose father had shown the same qualities of forbearance and scrupulous regard for convention during long service in the diplomatic corps, acquaints the reader with details of his home and school life from childhood. These chapters, it not exactly Important, afford an intimate picture of the days when the aristocracy was a real and conscious factor in government. It is easy to detect from his observations the change that has taken place in recent years, more particularly since the war. Hunting, house parties, and a yearly visit to the Continent,,employed the leisure hours; the serious task- was service for the country from a sense of duty to the Throne as the symbol of the nation. Speaker Lowther embodied without flaw all the qualities of_ an English gentleman and a publicspirited citizen. So conscientious was he that during all the years that he served either as speaker or as Chairman of Ways and Means he never once slumbered at his post. And he had to listen to 50,000 speeches! Many notable statesmen came under the author’s notice, and, though he does not hestitate to express his appreciation or otherwise of them, he makes no pietence to having had exceptional opportunities for forming his judgments. In fact, as Speaker he purposely avoided close relationships. Mr Joseph Chamberlain won his warm admiration for his great self-sacrific-ing efforts in the latter days of his physical afflictions; Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman surprised him by his powerful leadership of the House when Prime Minister; and Mr Bonar Law, though they had crossed swords over the latter’s penchant for interjecting, held him spellbound by his ability to express his mind clearly and cogently. The author was a member before Mr Asquith entered the House, and heard his maiden speech. “I recollect,” he writes, “that it was followed by a speech from Sir Henry James, in which he laid a trap for an unsuspecting House, and fairly caught it, for he said that Mr Asquith’s maiden speech (which bad, in fact, been a brilliant one) gave no promise of any future promise or distinction. At this pronouncement there were loud protests. . . Then Sir Henry went on calmly to complete his sentence by saying: “because the promise has already been fulfilled.’ ” The author commends Mr Asquith for his firm administration and his dignified and convincing statesmanlike and patriotic speeches. “As the years went on, however, it seemed as if he were losing his grasp of the helm; the policy of ‘wait and see’ took too prominent a place.” He was doubtful about Mr Asquith's successor, Mr . Lloyd George, ‘‘far-up to-that time (1916) he had not been a lucky politician though brilliant..as a debater, he had not whollv convinced the people of his administrative capacity. “The next two years,” he adds, “were to show that I was wrong, and that my doubts were without solid foundation.” . Speaking of Sir Edward Grey, as he was then, he describes his speech on August 3, 1914, as “the greatest and most thrilling occasion I ever witnessed in the House.” The author had &- full share of the sorrows which the war that followed brought in its train. . NOTABLE PEOPLE. It is not only of the persons whom he met in the Parliamentary arena that „Lord Ullswater writes. He has carefully recorded the numerous official and semiofficial functions outside Parliament, at many of which ho was brought into touch with notable people, and of the majority of them he has something unusual to relate. In fact, he writes of these occasions with the least amount of reserve. At a banquet given at the British Embassay in Paris in January 1920, he saf next to Field-Marshal Foch, whom he ventured to ask why he' had agreed to the Armistice instead of pushing the enemy farther back, if not exactly as far as Berlin? Foch’a reply was that “he did not feel justified, after the Armistice had been asked for, in losing any more soldiers’ lives in the attempt to push forward, and that, as a matter of fact, the Allied advance had then reached the farthest limit of .which it was capable without a reorganisation of the whole combination of forces, which would have entailed much delay.” Foch also told him in reply to another question, that he had never lost a night’s sleep during the war on account of anxiety as to the ultimate result. There are many anecdotes told, but some of the best would suffer it repeated without the proper setting that the author is able to give them.. One would dearly like to know the Irish member “with a keen sense of Imperial affairs” who, Mr Asquith having been deposed in 1916 in favour of Mr Lloyd George, “because he could ’ not win the war.” wished in 1918 for the same reason to depose Mr Lloyd George in favour of himself! At a dinner given at the Speaker's House in 1909 to meet the visiting delegates of the Russian’ Duma author’s wife, mistaking Mr M’Kinnon Wood (recently appointed Viceroy of India) for a Russian, introduced him as such to Mrs Austen Chamberlain, "la femme du Ministre de Finances dans la derniere Duma,” meaning the last English Parliament. Each, thinking the other was a .Russian, carried on a conversation in French until some chance expression revealed to both the mistake under which they laboured. The author was an enthusiastic amateur “theatrical" in his day, sometimes appearing as “Mr ■ Lowther R. Cade.” He also knew Charles Brookfield, the Examiner of Plays and prince of good storytellers. One of the latter’s stories which he recalls concerns a lost dog which was advertised for in the following terms: “Lost, a spaniel called Ben. answers reluctantly to “D —n you, come here ! ’ ” During a memorial service for Queen Victoria, held at Frogmore, a little bird flitted about the chapel. At the conclusion Princess Christian said to Queen Alexandra: “I think that was dear mamma’s soul which visited us in the shape of that little bird.” To which Queen Alexandra replied :“I don’t think so. That nasty little bird made a mess of my hat. and dear mamma’s soul would never have done that.” One can imagine the subject of conversation at an Embassy dinner, at which the story was told of the boy who translated “J'y suis, J'y reste,” as, "I am a Swiss, so I do no work.” After the ceremony of knighting the author's brotiX,.’,- CncU, nickname in the army had been “Meat,’ King George told him that he felt Incilfef to say, “Rise, Sir Loin.” A golf club sco retary wrote to one of the members condoling with him on the loss o? his wife, and offering sympathy, but t.ie effect of the letter was spoilt by the addition of the following: P.S.—We, too, have had our troubles. Yesterday two strangers came to to the golf house and Insisted on ordering tea.” When his father was at the Berlin Embassy the author and the future Kaiser, William 11, were playmates. The latter, he says, insiste I upon always commanding our toy armies, and always claimed, though he had not always achieved, the victory.” Of the ex-Crown Prince, he relates that at the coronation of King George he behaved with a levity unsuited to the solemn and Important occasion.