Among the innovations that are justified by the principle of avoiding at all points hurried decisions, there is nothing that would appear more defensible than to give an interval between the close of a debate and the taking of the vote.  I apprehend that the chief and only reason why this has never been thought of is, that most bodies have to finish a mass of current business at one sitting.  In assemblies that meet day after day, the votes on all concluded debates could be postponed till next day; giving a deliberate interval in private that might improve, and could not:  deteriorate, the chances of a good decision.  Let us imagine that, in the House of Commons, for example, the first hour at each meeting should be occupied with the divisions growing out of the previous day’s debates.  The consequences would be enormous, but would any of them be bad?  The hollowness of the oral debate as a means of persuasion would doubtless receive a blasting exposure; many would come up to vote, few would remain to listen to speeches.  The greater number of those that cared to know what was said, would rest satisfied with the reports in the morning papers.

* * * * *

We need to take account of the fact that even greater moderation in the length of speeches would not entirely overcome the real difficulty—­the quantity of business thrown upon our legislative bodies.  Doubtless, if there were less talk upon burning questions there would be more attention given to unobtrusive 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.