On the merits, I submit, Sir, sub-rule (2) should go. You cannot be asked to rule out an amendment merely because it is ‘verbal’, ‘grammatical’ or `formal’. I submit, the powers which you have got already, the great traditions which we have hitherto built up and the great rules of the House of Commons and other Parliaments which are before us are quite sufficient. The most important thing is the good sense of the Members and Movers. In this respect, so far as I am concerned, Sir, I am perfectly willing to obey the slightest wishes of the House properly expressed, privately or publicly. What are you going to do with regard to mistakes of a similar nature which lurk everywhere in the Constitution? Not that these mistakes show any lack of power or draftsmanship on the part of the eminent authors of the Bill; but every Bill should be revised. We have not got a second Chamber. The Bill has not gone through a Select Committee. At an earlier stage, I suggested a select Committee; that is the place where drafting amendments and other things could be coolly and properly discussed. That was ruled out on the ground that it was dilatory. Some of the amendments were carelessly described by eminent members as merely dilatory or of a frivolous nature. I think the word `frivolous’ cannot be applied to any Member of this House. If there is anything frivolous, the rules give you ample power to rule them out. I submit from every possible point of view, from the point of view of general convenience, from the point of view of general efficacy of the rules which have been found efficacious so far, these new rules should be dropped.
