rusive matters at present neglected. The mere
quantity of work is too great for an assembly to do well. If this amount
cannot be lessened--and I do not see how it can be--there are still the
six competing vehicles at old Temple Bar. The single legislative rail is
crowded, and the only device equal to the occasion is to remove some of
the traffic to other rails. Let a large part of the speaking be got rid
of, or else be transferred to some different arena.

[EVERY BODY ENTITLED TO CONTROL SPEECH-MAKING.]

I regard as unassailable Lord Sherbrooke's position that every
deliberative body must possess the entire control of its own procedure,
even to the point of saying how much speaking it will allow on each
topic. The rough-and-ready method of coughing down a superfluous speaker
is perfectly constitutional, because absolutely necessary. If a more
refined method of curtailing debates could be devised, without bringing
in other evils, it should be welcomed. The forcible shutting of anyone's
mouth will always tend to irritate, and it is impossible by any plan to
prevent a minority from clogging the wheels of business. The freedom of
print seems to me one good safety-valve for incontinent speech-makers;
it allows them an equal privilege with their fellows, and yet does not
waste legislative time.

I remember hearing, some time ago, that our Chancellor of the Exchequer
was induced, on the suggestion of the _Times_, to put into print and
circulate to the House beforehand the figures and tables connected with
his financial statement. I could not help remarking, why might the
Chancellor not circulate, in the same fashion, the whole statement, down
to the point of the declaration of the new taxes? It would save the
House at least an hour and a half, while not a third of that time would
be required to read the printed statement. I believe the first thing
that would occur to anyone hearing this suggestion would be--"so the
Chancellor might, but the same reason would apply to the movers of
bills, and to all other business as well ".

* * * * *

Our English Parliamentary system having been matured by centuries of
experience, has become a model for other countries just entering upon
representative government. But the imitation, if too literal, will not
be found to work. Our system supposes a large gentry, staying half the
year in London for pure pleasure, to which we may add the rich men of
business re