312. In bringing this treatise to a close, it will not be deemed out of place, to make a suggestion or two for the benefit of those persons, who may be called upon to act as presiding officers, for the first time.

313. One of the most essential parts of the duty of a presiding officer is, to give the closest attention to the proceedings of the assembly, and, especially, to what is said by every member who speaks. Without the first, confusion will be almost certain to occur; wasting the time, perhaps disturbing [p162] the harmony, of the assembly. The latter is not merely a decent manifestation of respect for those who have elevated him to an honorable station; but it tends greatly to encourage timid or diffident members, and to secure them a patient and attentive hearing; and it often enables the presiding officer, by a timely interference, to check offensive language, in season to prevent scenes of tumult and disorder, such as have sometimes disgraced our legislative halls.

314. It should be constantly kept in mind by a presiding officer, that, in a deliberative assembly, there can regularly be but one thing done or doing, at the same time. This caution he will find particularly useful to him, whenever a quarrel arises between two members, in consequence of words spoken in debate. In such a case, he will do well to require that the regular course of proceeding shall be strictly pursued; and will take care to restrain members from interfering in any other manner. In general, the solemnity and deliberation, with which this mode is attended, will do much to allay heat and excitement, and to restore harmony and order to the assembly.

[p163]
315. A presiding officer will often find himself embarrassed, by the difficulty, as well as the delicacy, of deciding points of order, or giving directions as to the manner of proceeding. In such cases, it will be useful for him to recollect, that—

The great purpose of all rules and forms, is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the expression of their deliberate sense.

————???————

Note: The so-called “cloture” has the same end as the American previous question; it is intended to cut debate short. The English previous question works to continue debate, and a new scheme had to be devised in 1882. Then it was that the French cloture was adopted and naturalized. Under the Cloture act the Speaker of the House or the Chairman of Committee may say when he thinks the subject before the House or the Committee has been sufficiently discussed, and if a motion be made “That the question be now put,” he shall put the question. If 200 members are in favor of putting the question, or if less than 40 oppose it and more than 100 are in favor, he shall put the question on the principal question before the House or the committee at once. In this country, when a member reports a bill from his committee he moves that the previous question be put at the end of one hour; debate is therefore limited to one hour. In England, [p164] a member, calling up a bill for its second reading, moves the previous question, and votes against his motion. If the previous question should be ordered, he would feel grievously disgusted—so would the American Congressman, if the previous question should not be ordered.