on all
occasions, there would be much greater concentration of force upon
special points, and the work of Committee would get on faster. As to the
second class of amendments, I do not think that these are suitable for
an open discussion. They should rather be given as suggestions privately
to the promoter of the measure. But, be the matter small or great, I
contend that nothing should bring about a vote in the House of Commons
that has not already acquired a proper minimum of support.

I am very far from presuming to remodel the entire procedure of the
House of Commons. What I have said applies only to the one branch, not
the least important, of the passing of bills. There are other
departments that might, or might not, be subjected to the printing
system, coupled with the twentyfold backing; for example, the very large
subject of Supply, on which there is a vast expenditure of debating. The
demand for twenty names to every amendment would extinguish a very
considerable amount of these discussions.

There is a department of the business of the House that has lately
assumed alarming proportions--the putting of questions to Ministers upon
every conceivable topic. I would here apply, without hesitation, the
printing direct and the plural backing, and sweep away the practice
entirely from the public proceedings of the House. No single member
unsupported should have the power of trotting out a Minister at will. I
do not say that so large a number of backers should be required in this
case, but I would humbly suggest that the concurrence of ten members
should be required even to put a public question. The leader of the
Opposition, in himself a host, would not be encumbered with such a
formality, but everyone else would have to procure ten signatures to an
interrogative: the question would be sent in, and answered; while
question and answer would simply appear in the printed proceedings of
the House, and not occupy a single moment of the legislative time. This
is a provision that would stand to be argued on its own merits,
everything else remaining as it is. The loss would be purely in the
dramatic interest attaching to the deliberations.

[ALTERNATIVE SCOPE FOR ORATORY.]

The all but total extinction of oral debate by the revolutionary sweep
of two simple devices, would be far from destroying the power of speech
in other ways. The influence exerted by conversation on the small scale,
and by oratory on the great, would sti