Compared with some of the other great questions involved in Reconstruction, mere reforms in the law may often seem almost trivial, but they have the advantage of being easier to handle than social and economic reforms. It is not so difficult to state exactly what is wanted, to embody the proposals in definite shape in a Bill, and to pass it if the Parliamentary machine is properly used. The incapacity of Parliament to deal with remedial legislation embodied in a Bill clearly drawn is often exaggerated. A reform merely in Parliamentary procedure would go far to remedy the existing congestion. A case could be quoted from very short Parliamentary experience where a private member, surprised at getting first place in the ballot, adopted a friend's suggestion to attempt a long-needed practical reform. The subject has too much technical difficulty to be explained here, but the Bill was drafted in an hour or two, passed the House of Commons early one afternoon without alteration, and the House of Lords with slight verbal changes. It became law in two or three weeks, and the Act is now used with beneficial results in the Courts almost daily. A real injustice was prevented and practical inconvenience removed, but the measure was nearly wrecked by some theorists who wished to extend the principle of the Bill logically, as they said, but in a manner which would have made it virtually unworkable, without benefit to a single human being. A small matter, but instructive. Much may be learned from the procedure of Grand Committees. In some, at least, the average length of speeches is about three minutes, and they are confined to the definite point in hand. Members vote according to their view of the merits, knowing what they are voting about, and may defeat the Government without causing a political crisis. A case has occurred where the representative of the Government, who knew little of the subject in question, was left in a minority of one against a solid vote of the rest of the Committee. "Downstairs" the point might have been decided the other way by a score or two of members rushing in, as Sir George Trevelyan once described it, "between two mouthfuls of soup," asking, "Are we Ayes or Noes?" and shepherded into a division lobby accordingly.