be a greater extension given to maxims and forms of procedure already in
existence?
* * * * *
[OBVIATING HURRIED DECISIONS.]
First, then, we recognize in various ways the propriety of obviating
hurried and unpremeditated decisions. Giving previous notice of motions
has that end in view; although, perhaps, this is more commonly regarded
simply as a protection to absentees. Advantage is necessarily taken of
the foreknowledge of the business to prepare for the debates. It is a
farther help, that the subject has been already discussed somewhere or
other by a committee of the body, or by the agency of the public press.
Very often an assembly is merely called upon to decide upon the adoption
of a proposal that has been long canvassed out of doors. The task of the
speakers is then easy--we might almost say no speaking should be
required: but this is to anticipate.
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.
Now, I am fully disposed to acquiesce in this second assumption
likewise, but with a qualification that is of considerable moment, as we
shall see presently.
3. The third and last assumption is as follows:--Not only is the
question in all its bearings supposed to be adequately set forth in the
speeches constituting the debate, but, in point of fact, the mass of the
members, or a very important section or proportion of them, rely upon
this source, make full use of it, and are equipped for their decision by
means of it; so much so, that if it were withdrawn none of the other
methods as at present plied, or as they might be plied, would give the
due preparation for an intelligent vote; whence must ensue a degradation
in the quality of the decisions.
It is this assumption that I am now to challenge, in the greatest
instance of all, as completely belied by the facts. But, indeed, the
case is so notoriously the opposite, that the statement of it will be
unavoidably made up of the stalest commonplaces; and the novelty will
lie wholly in the inference.
The ordinary attendance in the House of Commons could be best described
by a member or a regular official. An outsider can represent it only by
the current reports. My purpose does not require great accuracy; it is
enough, that only a very small fraction of the body makes up the average
audience. If an official were posted to record the fluctuating numbers
at intervals of five minutes, the attendance might be recorded and
presented in a curve like the fluctuations of the barometer; but this
would be misleading as to the proportion of effective listeners--those
that sat out entire debates, or at all events the leading speeches of
the debates, or whose intelligence was mainly fed from the speaking in
each instance. The number of this class is next to impossible to get at;
but it will be allowed on all hands to be very small.
Perhaps, in such an inquiry, most can be made of indirect evidences. If
members are to be qualified for an intelligent decision in chief part by
listening to the speeches, why is not the House made large enough to
accommodate them all at once? It would appear strange, on the
spoken-debate theory of enlightenment, that more than one-third should
be permanently excluded by want of space. One might naturally suppose
that, in this fact, there was a breach of privilege of the most
portentous kind. That it is so rarely alluded to as a grievance, even
although amounting to the exclusion of a large number of the members
from some of the grandest displays of eloquence and the most exciting
State communications, is a proof that attendance in the House is not
looked upon as a high privilege, or as the _sine quâ non_ of political
schooling.
[EVIDENCE OF THE INUTILITY OF THE MERE SPEAKING.]
If it were necessary to listen to the debates in order to know how to
vote, the messages of the whips would take a different form. The members
on each side would be warned of the time of commencement of each debate,
that they might hear the comprehensive statement of the opener, and
remain at least through the chief speech in reply. They might not attend
all through the inferior and desultory speaking, but they would be ready
to pop in when an able debater was on his legs, and they would hear the
leaders wind up at the close. Such, however, is not the theory acted on
by the whips. They are satisfied if they can procure attendance at the
division, and look upon the many hours spent in the debate as an
insignificant accessory, which could be disregarded at pleasure. It
would take the genius of a satirist to treat the whipping-up machinery
as it might well deserve to be treated. We are here concerned with a
graver view of it--namely, to inquire whether the institution of oral
debate may not be transformed and contracted in dimensions, to the great
relief of our legislative machinery.
Of course, no one is ignorant of the fact that the great body of members
of Parliament refrain altogether from weighing individually the opposing
arguments in the several questions, and trust implicitly to their leaders.
This, however, is merely another nail in the coffin of the debating
system. The theory of independent and intelligent consideration, by each
member, of every measure that comes up, is the one most favourable to
the present plan, while, even on that theory, its efficiency breaks down
under a critical handling.
It is time now to turn to what will have come into the mind of every
reader of the last few paragraphs--the reporting of the speeches. Here,
I admit, there is a real and indispensable service to legislation. My
contention is, that in it we possess what is alone valuable; and, if we
could secure this, in its present efficiency, with only a very small
minimum of oral delivery, we should be as well off as we are now. The
apparent self-contradiction of the proposal to report speeches without
speaking, is not hard to resolve.
To come at once, then, to the mode of arriving at the printed debates,
I shall proceed by a succession of steps, each one efficient in itself,
without necessitating a farther. The first and easiest device, and one
that would be felt of advantage in all bodies whatsoever, would be for
the mover of a resolution to give in, along with the terms of his
resolution, his reasons--in fact, what he intends as his speech, to be
printed and distributed to each member previous to the meeting. Two
important ends are at once gained--the time of a speech is saved, and
the members are in possession beforehand of the precise arguments to be
used. The debate is in this way advanced an important step without any
speaking; opponents can prepare for, instead of having to improvise
their reply, and every one is at the outset a good way towards a final
judgment.
[DEBATES INTRODUCED BY PRINTED STATEMENTS.]
As this single device could be adopted alone, I will try and meet the
objections to it, if I am only fortunate enough to light on any. My
experience of public bodies suggests but very few; and I think the
strongest is the reluctance to take the requisite trouble. Most men
think beforehand what they are to say in introducing a resolution to a
public body, but do not consider it necessary to write down their speech
at full. Then, again, there is a peculiar satisfaction in holding the
attention of a meeting for a certain time, great in proportion to the
success of the effort. But, on the other hand, many persons do write
their speeches, and many are not so much at ease in speaking but that
they would dispense with it willingly. The conclusive answer on the
whole is--the greater good of the commonwealth. Such objections as these
are not of a kind to weigh down the manifest advantages, at all events,
in the case of corporations full of business and pressed for time.
I believe that a debate so introduced would be shortened by more than
the time gained by cutting off the speech of the mover. The greater
preparation of everyone's mind at the commencement would make people
satisfied with a less amount of speaking, and what there was would be
more to the purpose.
We can best understand the effects of such an innovation by referring to
the familiar experience of having to decide on the Report of Committee,
which has been previously circulated among the members. This is usually
the most summary act of a deliberative body; partly owing, no doubt, to
the fact that the concurrence of a certain proportion is already gained;
while the _pros_ and _cons_ have been sifted by a regular conference and
debate. Yet we all feel that we are in a much better position by having
had before us in print, for some time previous, the materials necessary
to a conclusion. At a later stage, I will consider the modes of raising
the quality and status of the introductory speech to something of the
nature of a Committee's Report.[19]
The second step is to impose upon the mover of every amendment the same
obligation to hand in his speech, in writing, along with the terms of
the amendment. Many public bodies do not require notice of amendments.
It would be in all cases a great improvement to insist upon such notice,
and of course a still greater improvement to require the reasons to be
given in also, that they might be circulated as above. The debate is now
two steps in advance without a moment's loss of time to the constituted
meeting; while what remains is likely to be much more rapidly gone
through.
The movers of resolutions and of amendments should, as a matter of
course, have the right of reply; a portion of the oral system that
would, I presume, survive all the advances towards printing direct.
There remains, however, one farther move, in itself as defensible, and
as much fraught with advantage as the two others. The resolution and the
amendments being in the hands of the members of a body, together with
the speeches in support of each, any member might be at liberty to send
in, also for circulation in print, whatever remarks would constitute his
speech in the debate, thereby making a still greater saving of the time
of the body. This would, no doubt, be felt as the greatest innovation of
all, being tantamount to the extinction of oral debate; there being then
nothing left but the replies of the movers. We need not, however, go the
length of compulsion; while a certain number would choose to print at
once, the others could still, if they chose, abide by the old plan of
oral address. One can easily surmise that these last would need to
justify their choice by conspicuous merit; an assembly, having in print
so many speeches already, would not be in a mood to listen to others of
indifferent quality.
[THE MAGIC OF ORATORY NOT DONE AWAY WITH.]
Such a wholesale transfer of living speech to the silent perusal of the
printed page, if seriously proposed in any assembly, would lead to a
vehement defence of the power of spoken oratory. We should be told of
the miraculous sway of the human voice, of the way that Whitfield
entranced Hume and emptied Franklin's purse; while, most certainly,
neither of these two would ever have perused one of his printed sermons.
And, if the reply were that Whitfield was not a legislator, we should be
met by the speeches of Wilberforce and Canning and Brougham upon slavery,
where the thrill of the living voice accelerated the conviction of the
audience. In speaking of the Homeric Assembly, Mr. Gladstone remarks, in
answer to Grote's argument to prove it a political nullity, that the
speakers were repeatedly cheered, and that the cheering of an audience
contributes to the decision.
Now, I am not insensible to the power of speech, nor to the
multitudinous waves of human feeling aroused in the encounters of
oratory before a large assembly. Apart from this excitement, it would
often be difficult to get people to go through the drudgery of public
meetings. Any plan that would abolish entirely the dramatic element of
legislation would have small chance of being adopted. It is only when
the painful side of debate comes into predominance, that we willingly
forego some of its pleasures: the intolerable weariness, the close air,
the late nights, must be counted along with the occasional thrills of
delirious excitement. But as far as regards our great legislative
bodies, it will be easy to show that there would still exist, in other
forms, an ample scope for living oratory to make up for the deadness
that would fall upon the chief assembly.
A friend of mine once went to Roebuck to ask his attention to some point
coming up in the House of Commons, and offered him a paper to read.
Roebuck said, "I will not read, but I will hear". This well illustrates
one of the favourable aspects of speech. People with time on their hands
prefer being instructed by the living voice; the exertion is less, and
the enlivening tones of a speaker impart an extraneous interest, to
which we have to add the sympathy of the surrounding multitude. The
early stages of instruction must be conducted _vivâ voce_; it is a late
acquirement to be able to extract information from a printed page. Yet
circumstances arise when the advantage of the printed page predominates.
The more frequent experience in approaching public men is to be told,
that they will not listen but will read. An hour's address can be read
in ten minutes: it is not impossible, therefore, to master a
Parliamentary debate in one-tenth of the time occupied in the delivery.
A passing remark is enough to point out the revolution that would take
place in Parliamentary reporting, and in the diffusion of political
instruction through the press, by the system of printing the speeches
direct. The full importance of this result will be more apparent in a
little. There has been much talk of late about the desirability of a
more perfect system of reporting, with a view to the preservation of the
debates. Yet it may be very much doubted, whether the House of Commons
would ever incur the expense of making up for the defects of newspaper
reporting, by providing short-hand writers to take down every word, with
a view to printing in full.
* * * * *
[SECONDING EXTENDED TO A PLURALITY OF BACKERS.]
[PROPORTIONING OF BACKERS.]
Before completing the survey of possible improvements in deliberative
procedure, I propose to extend the employment of another device already
in use, but scarcely more than a form; I mean the requiring of a
seconder before a proposal can be debated. The signification of this
must be, that in order to obtain the judgment of an assembly on any
proposal, the mover must have the concurrence of one other member; a
most reasonable condition surely. What I would urge farther in the same
direction is that, instead of demanding one person in addition to the
mover, as necessary in all cases, there should be a varying number
according to the number of the assembly. In a copartnery of three or
four, to demand a seconder to a motion would be absurd; in a body of six
or eight it is scarcely admissible. I have known bodies of ten and
twelve, where motions could be discussed without a seconder; but even
with these, there would be a manifest propriety in compelling a member
to convince at least one other person privately before putting the body
to the trouble of a discussion. If, however, we should begin the
practice of seconding with ten, is one seconder enough for twenty,
fifty, a hundred, or six hundred? Ought there not to be a scale of
steady increase in the numbers whose opinions have been gained
beforehand? Let us say three or four for an assembly of five-and-twenty,
six for fifty, ten or fifteen for a hundred, forty for six hundred. It
is permissible, no doubt, to bring before a public body resolutions that
there is no immediate chance of carrying; what is termed "ventilating"
an opinion is a recognized usage, and is not to be prohibited. But when
business multiplies, and time is precious, a certain check should be put
upon the ventilating of views that have as yet not got beyond one or two
individuals; the process of conversion by out-of-door agency should have
made some progress in order to justify an appeal to the body in the
regular course of business. That the House of Commons should ever be
occupied by a debate, where the movers could not command more than four
or five votes, is apparently out of all reason. The power of the
individual is unduly exalted at the expense of the collective body.
There are plenty of other opportunities of gaining adherents to any
proposal that has something to be said for it; and these should be plied
up to the point of securing a certain minimum of concurrence, before the
ear of the House can be commanded. With a body of six hundred and fifty,
the number of previously obtained adherents would not be extravagantly
high, if it were fixed at forty. Yet considering that the current
business, in large assemblies, is carried on by perhaps one-third or
one-fourth of the whole, and that the quorum in the House of Commons is
such as to make it possible for twenty-one votes to carry a decision of
the House, there would be an inconsistency in requiring more than twenty
names to back every bill and every resolution and amendment that churned
to be discussed. Now I can hardly imagine restriction upon the liberty
of individual members more defensible than this. If it were impossible
to find any other access to the minds of individual members than by
speeches in the House, or if all other modes of conversion to new views
were difficult and inefficient in comparison, then we should say that
the time of the House must be taxed for the ventilating process. Nothing
of the kind, however, can be maintained. Moreover, although the House
may be obliged to listen to a speech for a proposal that has merely half
a dozen of known supporters, yet, whenever this is understood to be the
case, scarcely any one will be at the trouble of counter-arguing it, and
the question really makes no way; the mover is looked upon as a bore,
and the House is impatient for the extinguisher of a division. The
securing of twenty names would cost nothing to the Government, or to any
of the parties or sections that make up the House: an individual
standing alone should be made to work privately, until he has secured
his backing of nineteen more names, and the exercise would be most
wholesome as a preparation for convincing a majority of the House.
If I might be allowed to assume such an extension of the device of
seconding motions, I could make a much stronger case for the beneficial
consequences of the operation of printing speeches without delivery.
The House would never be moved by an individual standing alone; every
proposal would be from the first a collective judgment, and the reasons
given in along with it, although composed by one, would be revised and
considered by the supporters collectively. Members would put forth their
strength in one weighty statement to start with; no pains would be
spared to make the argument of the nominal mover exhaustive and
forcible. So with the amendment; there would be more put into the chief
statement, and less left to the succeeding speakers, than at present.
And, although the mover of the resolution and the mover of the amendment
would each have a reply, little would be left to detain the House,
unless when some great interests were at stake.
Of course the preparation of the case in favour of each measure would be
entrusted to the best hands; in Government business, it would be to some
official in the department, or some one engaged by the chief in shaping
the measure itself. The statement so prepared would have the value of a
carefully drawn-up report, and nothing short of this should ever be
submitted to Parliament in the procuring of new enactments. In like
manner, the opponents and critics could employ any one they pleased to
assist them in their compositions, A member's speech need not be in any
sense his own; if he borrows, or uses another hand, it is likely to be
some one wiser than himself, and the public gets the benefit of the
difference.
* * * * *
[OBJECTIONS TO DIRECT PRINTING OF SPEECHES.]