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 still be exercised.  While the conferences in private society, and the addresses at public meetings, would continue, and perhaps be increased in importance, there would be a much greater activity of sectional discussion, than at present; in fact, the sectional deliberations, preparatory to motions in the House, would become an organized institution.  A certain number of rooms would be set aside for the use of the different sections; and the meetings would rise into public importance, and have their record in the public press.  The speaking that now protracts the sittings of the House would be transferred to these; even the highest oratory would not disdain to shine where the reward of publicity would still be reaped.  As no man would be allowed to engage the attention of the House without a following, it would be in the sections, in addition to private society and the press, that new opinions would have to be ventilated, and the first converts gained.