MR. ACLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will, at the earliest possible date, consistently with the progress of public Business, propose to the House further amendments of the procedure of the House, with the object of diminishing the loss of time at present caused by the practice of reading out Notice of Questions in the House, and by the excessive number of Questions, the answers to many of which it might not be essential that they should be given by Ministers in their places in the House?
§ MR. ONSLOWBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I have another to ask him on the same subject. It is this—Whether, in order to save the time of the House, he could not prevail upon Members of the Government to give their answers to Questions in plain and straightforward language, and not in long, circumlocutory, and complex speeches?
MR. GLADSTONEI have no answer to give to the last Question which has just been put. With respect to the Question of my hon. Friend, it is an indication of a desire very extensively and very naturally felt, and I must say quite justified by the position in which we still find ourselves with regard to the Business of the House. But I am very doubtful whether advantage would 668 be gained by opening up a single point of procedure; and I think the subject must wait until it can be considered upon a larger scale, the Question being one not by any means as easy of solution as it may at first sight appear to be. No doubt I should say that in 99 cases out of 100 it would be much better if Notices of the Questions were not given at such length; but there are cases in which it is not improper that Notice should be given, and which may even require that Notice should be given.