In legislation by Parliament, the forms allow repetition of the debates at least three times in both Houses.  This is rather a cumbrous and costly remedy for the disadvantage, in debate, of having to reply to a speaker who has just sat down.  In principle, no one ought to be called to answer an argumentative speech on the spur of the moment.  The generality of speakers are utterly unfit for the task, and accordingly do it ill.  A few men, by long training, acquire the power of casting their thoughts into speaking train, so as to make a good appearance in extempore reply; yet even these would do still better if they had a little time.  The adjournment of a debate, and the reopening of a question at successive stages, furnish the real opportunities for effective reply.  In a debate begun and ended at one sitting, the speaking takes very little of the form of an exhaustive review, by each speaker, of the speeches that went before.

It is always reckoned a thing of course to take the vote as soon as the debate is closed.  There are some historical occasions when a speech on one side has been so extraordinarily impressive that an adjournment has been moved to let the fervour subside; but it is usually not thought desirable to let a day elapse between the final reply and the division.  This is a matter of necessity in the case of the smaller corporations, which have to dispose of all current business at one sitting; but when a body meets for a succession of days, it would seem to be in accordance with sound principle not to take the vote on the same day as the debate.

* * * * *

[ASSUMPTIONS AT THE BASIS OF ORAL DEBATE.]

These few remarks upon one important element of procedure are meant to clear the way for a somewhat searching examination of the principles that govern the, entire system of oral debate.  It is this practice that I propose to put upon its trial.  The grounds of the practice I take to be the following:—­

1.  That each member of a deliberative body shall be provided with a complete statement of the facts and reasons in favour of a proposed measure, and also an equally complete account of whatever can be said against it.  And this is a requirement I would concede to the fullest extent.  No decision should be asked upon a question until the reasonings pro and con are brought fairly within the reach of every one; to which I would add—­in circumstances that give due time for consideration of the whole case.

2.  The second ground is that this ample provision of arguments, for and against, should be made by oral delivery.  Whatever opportunities members may have previously enjoyed for mastering a question, these are all discounted when the assembly is called to pronounce its decision.  The proposer of the resolution invariably summarizes, if he is able, all that is to be said for his proposal; his arguments are enforced and supplemented by other speakers on his side; while the opposition endeavours to be equally exhaustive.  In short, though one were to come to the meeting with a mind entirely blank, yet such a one, having ordinary faculties of judging, would in the end be completely informed, and prepared for an intelligent vote.