in Committee. Such Bills are discussed, not only clause by clause, but word by word. A member can speak but once on any question when the House is sitting. He may speak as many times as he pleases on any question in Committee. In fact, debate on an amendment may be protracted to any length, according to the number and volubility of Members who desire to talk on it, if the Minister in charge of the Bill does not lose patience and bring the discussion to an end by moving the closure. Debate in Committee of the whole House is much more businesslike than debate in the House with the Speaker in the Chair. There is, occasionally, a set debate on an important amendment-a "field night"-on which all the oratorical forces of each Party are brought into action; but, as a rule, in Committee, Members talk in a conversational fashion, and argue the points in brief pointed speeches.

The Bill, as I have said, is considered clause by clause. When all the amendments to a clause have been disposed of, the Chairman puts the question-"Clause 1" or "Clause 20" (as the case may be) "the question is that 'this clause stand part of the Bill," or, if it has undergone alteration, "that this clause as amended stand part of the Bill," and on that question the principle of the clause may be again debated, no matter how minutely it may have been discussed, as amendment after amendment was moved to the clause. A Bill is not rejected in Committee. If, however, a vital principle of a Bill is successfully attacked, or, if an important clause is rejected, the Bill is not only dropped, but the Administration, on whom a vote of censure has, in fact, been indirectly passed, resignsthus throwing upon the Opposition the responsibility of carrying on the Government-or appeals to the country to decide the issue in a General Election.

Nevertheless, a Bill occasionally undergoes substantial alteration or expansion in Committee without bringing disaster to the Government. The Minister in charge puts down many amendments with a view to removing defects in the measure from his point of view, and these, of course, are carried. Modifications proposed by followers of the Government are also often accepted. Moreover, there are compromises designed to gain support for the Ministry by satisfying the claims of important minorities, or to disarm or appease the Opposition, but leaving unaffected the main principle of the measure. All the ability of the House-its practical experience, its acquired knowledge-are brought to bear on the improvement of a big Bill in Committee, and when at last that stage is concluded, when the Chairman puts the question, "That I report this Bill with amendments to the House," and it is agreed to, there has been fashioned as good a piece of legislative workmanship as is possible for the trained intelligence of the Legislature to effect, working under the limitations of the Party system.

The House of Commons recognized in 1882 that it is impossible for it to do itself, and within its own Chamber, the vast amount of legislative work, which, owing to the ever widening extension in all directions of the operations of Government it is now called upon to perform. It decided, therefore, to delegate some of its functions to Committees or sections of itself. It appointed two Standing Committees for the consideration of all Bills relating to law and to trade. These Committees are respectively known as the "Grand Committee on Law Bills," and the "Grand Committee on Trade Bills." This devolution of work has proved one of the most valuable reforms ever introduced into our Parliamentary procedure. Each Standing Committee consists of

sixty-eight Members, and is intended to be a sort of microcosm of the whole House, having upon it a proportional representation of the various parties, interests or classes in the Assembly. The Members are nominated by the Committee of Selection-a small body of the oldest and most experienced men in the House, appointed for this special purpose, who are guided by the principle of having all parties and all sections of opinion in the House fairly represented on these Grand Committees. The Committee of Selection also add to the Grand Committee, as specialists, fifteen Members who are conversant with the subject of the particular Bill which has been sent to it for consideration.

Accordingly, when a Bill dealing with questions of law or with trade matters has been introduced in the House of Commons, in the way already described, and is read the first time, and the second time, it is committed to the Standing Committee on law or on trade, as the case may be. Each Standing Committee sits, with a Chairman, in one of the Committee-rooms upstairs, from 12 o'clock until the hour the House meets, on alternate days, until its labors are over. Twenty members form a quorum. Clause after clause is considered, amended, rejected, or adopted, exactly as in the case of a Bill before a Committee of the whole House. These Standing Committees impose a heavy additional strain upon the Members who are nominated to serve on them. But the burden is, as a rule, cheerfully borne. Many a Member of talent and business capacity, who, probably because of the lack of a glib, eloquent tongue, has failed to make himself a prominent figure on the larger stage of the House, transfers his ambition for distinction to the rather obscure shades of the Committee-rooms. The reporters are admitted to the meetings of the Standing Committees, but

the newspapers allot to the discussions not a tithe of the space which they would devote to the same Bills before the Committee of the House; and no record of the proceedings is taken by shorthand writers for the Parliamentary Debates (as "Hansard" is now known), although similar proceedings on identical Bills in the Committee of the whole House are fully reported. But, notwithstanding the absence of this incentive of publicity to devotion to duty or perhaps, as some should say, because of its absence-the details of Bills so referred to Standing Committees are carefully considered, the discussions are brief and to the point, and, as a rule, the Acts of Parliament which go through this ordeal will bear favorable comparison, as regards freedom from blots and contradictions, with the statutes that have passed through the Committee of the whole House.

When a Bill has emerged triumphantly from the Committee stage the worst of its troubles are over, in the House of Commons at least. The Speaker is sent for-if the Committee be one of the whole House-the mace is again placed upon the table and the House resumes. The Chairman of Committees, standing by the Chair with a copy of the Bill in his hand, reports to the Speaker that the measure has passed through Committee. If a Bill be reported to the House without amendment it may be read a third time forthwith, and its career in the House of Commons is thus brought to a termination. But as that never happens in the case of a big Government measure, a day is fixed for the fourth stage of a Bill, known as "the report stage," and the Bill is reprinted if it has been at all amended in Committee.

On the report stage amendments may again be moved to the clauses of the Bill, or new clauses may be proposed, or the Bill may even be recommitted to the Committee again, if it has been

found that matters which can only be properly dealt with in that stage have been overlooked. However, the report stage is usually brief, the amendments being generally confined to points that have not been dealt with in Committee. It must be added, however, that in the case of a controversial Bill which has been referred to one or other of the Standing Committees the deliberations upstairs have little restraining influence on the same questions being debated at length in the House on the report stage, Then comes the fifth and last stage of the Bill-"the third reading." There is a set debate in which the principles of the Bill are attacked and defended, as at the second reading stage. But the Bill cannot now be altered in any way. It must be either adopted or rejected, and that question is decided by a division. Of course, it is read the third time. The defeat of a Bill on its third reading in the House of Commons is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

The Bill then goes to the House of Lords. It was the custom formerly for the Minister in charge of a Bill which passed the Commons to bring it up to the Lords. The second Reform Bill was brought up to the Lords on September 22, 1831, by Lord John Russell, who had conducted it through the Commons, and Lord Althorp, the Leader of the House. The Ministers were accompanied by close on two hundred Whig Members, who assembled at the Bar of the House of Lords, and burst into loud cheers when Lord John Russell handed the Bill to Lord Chancellor Brougham. But a different procedure is now followed. The Clerk of the House of Commons brings the Bill to the Bar of the House of Lords, where he hands it over to the Clerk of the Parliaments. "A message from the Commons," says the Clerk of the Parliaments, "desiring your lordships' concurrence in the first reading of the Education Bill." The Bill is then read

the first time; and is again reprinted for distribution among the Peers.

The Commons, by insisting that all great measures should be initiated and moulded by them, and then sent to the House of Lords, would seem tacitly to acknowledge that the proper function of the Peers is to amend and revise the legislation of the House of Commons. But, as a rule, these Bills reach the Lords under conditions which afford insufficient time for due deliberation and revision. For months the Lords are comparatively inactive. In the earlier part of the Session, having no work to do, they sit, day after day, scarcely long enough to boil an egg. Then towards the end of the Session, in the hot days of July and August, the Bills come tumbling up in crowds from the Commons. In 1905 a most instructive return was prepared in the House of Lords showing (1) the dates upon which Bills mentioned in the Speeches from the Throne during the last Parliament were introduced into the House of Commons; and (2) the dates when such Bills were transmitted to the Lords. In 1901 the Factory and Workshop Bill, presented to the House of Commons on March 28, did not reach the Lords till August 14, the same date as the Youthful Offenders' Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on June 20. In 1902 the Licensing Bill, submitted to the Commons on January 30, was not read a first time in the Lords until July, while the autumn sitting, which was held that year, had begun before the London Water Bill, the Patent Law Amendment Bill, and the Education Bill, presented in January, February, and March respectively, reached the Peers. In 1903 the Peers had to wait until the month of July was nearly ended before they could deal with the great Irish Land Bill and the London Education Bill, introduced in the Commons in March and April respectively. In 1904 the Licensing Bill, presented to

the Commons on April 20, was sent up to the Lords on July 29, while the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill and the Shop Hours Bill, both of which originated in the Commons on April 26, were respectively received by the Lords on August 10 and August 11. Yet a Bill in the House of Lords has to pass through the same identical five stages again, as in the Commons. The Lords may agree with the Commons in the principles of the measure by reading it a second time, and yet may alter it substantially in matters of detail during the Committee stage. But, however trivial the alteration may be, the Bill, after it has passed the third reading in the Lords, comes back again to the other House for the consent of the Commons to the Peers' amendments. The Commons may agree or may not agree with the Lords in their amendments. they agree, well and good. If they refuse to agree, the Lords' amendments are struck out and the Bill is sent back to "the other place" (as the House of Lords is called in the House of Commons) in its original form.

If

Should

both Houses remain inflexible the Bill is dropped, at least for the Session, and the dispute is referred to the electorate, in whom the ultimate controlling power is vested. It is on compromise, however, that the smooth working of the Constitution depends, and usually a compromise smooths, in the end, the differences between the two Houses. The Bill accordingly is passed, and remains with the Lords for the Royal Assent which it must receive in order to acquire validity.

Such is the long and elaborate process by which a Bill passes through both Houses towards its transformation into an Act of Parliament by the Royal Assent. Nevertheless, a Bill may pass through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament and receive the Royal Asseat in the course of a single day.

Such rapid law-making is secured by the suspension of the Standing Orders of both Houses which regulate procedure in regard to Bills. It is resorted to only in a national crisis. The Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland during the Fenian troubles in 1866, and the Explosive Bill during the dynamite scare in 1883, were each passed in a single day. The Standing Orders are also suspended by common agreement towards the end of a Session, in order to wind up business quickly. Owing to the facilities afforded by the telegraph and special trains for rapid communication the Royal Assent is often given by Commission at the end of the Session to measures within two hours of the third reading by the Lords. The King, say, is at Windsor. The Commission, containing the titles of all the Bills to which agreement by both Houses is expected has been despatched to his Majesty. On the day of prorogation a telegram that the Bills have passed through all their stages is sent to the King, and he forthwith sends a messenger by special train to London with the Letters Patent, authorizing the giving of the Royal Assent by Commission.

The most curious, and certainly the most picturesque, scene to be witnessed at St. Stephen's in connection with the evolution of an Act of Parliament, is the announcement in the House of Lords of the Royal Assent. In theory, it is from the King all legislation proceeds. Parliament but agrees. All statutes open with what is called "the enacting clause," which is as follows:

Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons, and by the authority of the same.

In practice, however, the power of the Crown in regard to legislation has never, since the reign of Henry VI.,

been more than a right to express assent or dissent to Bills which have passed both Houses of Parliament. This right, according to the theory of the Constitution, still exists. Therefore, before any Bill which has passed both Houses of Parliament is declared to be the law of the land it must be presented to the King and receive the Royal Assent. But Bills are not now laid before the Sovereign that he may exercise his independent judgment upon them, rejecting some and approving others as he thinks fit. The "veto" of the Sovereign to reject Bills according to the bias of his own personal views has completely lapsed. He could not personally say "nay" to any of them. He is bound, of course, to act on the advice of his Ministers. Yet according to the theory of the Constitution it still exists unimpaired in all its pristine force. The ficton, however, has its

uses.

Just as the assent of the Crown is really the assent of the Ministers, by whom the Bills have been introduced, so the veto of the Crown is really the veto of the Ministers. It affords to Ministers the opportunity of dropping a Bill, even after it has passed beyond the control of both Houses of Parliament. If it were found desirable at the twelfth hour not to place a Bill on the Statute Book, the Sovereign need only say "Nay," on the advice of the Ministers, and the measure would be as dead as if it had been rejected on a division in the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

Even in the days of George III., who endeavored to rule as well as to reign, the giving of the Royal Assent was but a matter of form. Lord Eldon has told the story of his visit as Lord Chancellor to Kew to obtain the assent of George III. to certain measures. He was reading a list of the titles of the Bills and explaining briefly their provisions, when the King interrupting him said, "You are not acting correctly. You should do

one of two things: either bring me down the Bills for my perusal, or say as Thurlow once said to me on a like occasion. Having read several of the Bills, Thurlow stopped and said to me, 'It is all damned nonsense trying to make you understand them, and you had better consent to them at once."'

What really happens now is that, when a number of Bills await the Royal Assent in the House of Lords, their titles are submitted to the King by the Clerk of the Crown, and are set forth in the Letters Patent, signed by the King and issued under the Great Seal, appointing a Royal Commission, consisting of five peers, to go through the strange and picturesque ceremony of approving these Bills on behalf of his Majesty. Then the House of Lords meets for the ceremony. The five Lords Commissioners are seen in scarlet robes and three-cornered hats, all in a row, on a bench beneath the imposing Throne. In front of them is the scarlet Woolsack-like a comfortable wellpadded lounge-on which rests the glittering Mace and the embroidered sachet which is supposed to hold the Great Seal. The centre figure is the Lord Chancellor. At a nod from him "Black Rod," the messenger of the Lords, goes to the Lower Chamber to summon the Commons, as both Houses must be present at the ceremony, and in a few minutes he returns with Mr. Speaker, attended by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and followed by a crowd of Members who congregate at the Bar or overflow into their galleries. The Lords Commissioners retain their seats when the Speaker and the Commons appear at the Bar, but they raise their hats in acknowledgment of the profound bow of the First Commoner. The Reading Clerk at the table gabbles through the Royal Commission, a long proclamation engrossed on parchment, in which is set forth, with much circumlocution, in the name of the King, that his Majesty has