of such an operation would not have enough to recommend it.  The chief speakers might be expected to present a sufficiently broad point for criticism; while the greater number are well content, if allowed to give their own views and arguments without reference to those of others.  And not to mention that, in Parliament, all questions of principle may be debated several times over, it is rare that any measure comes up without such an amount of previous discussion out of doors as fully to bring out the points for attack and defence.  Moreover, the oral debate, as usually conducted, contains little of the reality of effective rejoinder by each successive speaker to the one preceding.

The combined plan of printing speeches, and of requiring twenty backers to every proposal, while tolerable perhaps in the introduction of bills, and in resolutions of great moment, will seem to stand self-condemned in passing the bills through Committee, clause by clause.  That every amendment, however trivial, should have to go through such a roundabout course, may well appear ridiculous in the extreme.  To this I would say, in the first place, that the exposing of every clause of every measure of importance to the criticism of a large assembly, has long been regarded as the weak point of the Parliamentary system.  It is thirty years since I heard the remark that a Code would never get through the House of Commons; so many people thinking themselves qualified to cavil at its details.  In Mill’s “Representative Government,” there is a suggestion to the effect, that Parliament should be assisted in passing great measures by consultative commissions, who would have the preparation of the details; and that the House should not make alterations in the clauses, but recommit the whole with some expression of disapproval that would guide the commission in recasting the measure.

[DIFFICULTIES OF PRINTING IN COMMITTEES.]

It must be self-evident that only a small body can work advantageously in adjusting the details of a measure, including the verbal expressions.  If this work is set before an assembly of two hundred, it is only by the reticence of one hundred and ninety that progress can be made.  Amendments to the clauses of a bill may come under two heads:  those of principle, where the force of parties expends itself; and those of wording or expression, for clearing away ambiguities or misconstruction.  For the one class, all the machinery that I have described is fully applicable.  To mature and present an amendment of principle, there should be a concurrence of the same number as is needed to move or oppose a second reading; there should be the same giving in of reasons, and the same unrestricted speech (in print) of individual members, culminating in replies by the movers.  If this had to be done 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.