§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that twelve hon. Members occupied the time of the House for ten hours between them in the debate of Monday last; and whether he 639 would give facilities during the course of this session for moving a Resolution on the subject of duration of speeches.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have caused the report of the debate on Monday last to be analysed, not as regards the arguments, but in reference to time occupied by speakers; and I find that the Leader of the Opposition occupied seventy-eight minutes, my right hon. friend seventy-two, and that I was guilty to the extent of fifty-three minutes, leaving 267 minutes for the remaining nine speakers, an average of half an hour each. Some of the nine speeches occupied less than half an hour, while others were very distinctly over half an hour. I can only express my regret that so few speakers were able to take part, not so much in regard to that particular debate, for it was on a subject upon which the House was engaged for several nights before, but because I admit that the length of speeches does, and must, exclude from participation in discussion a large number of Members competent to express opinions; and if each of us in his own sphere—I speak as a sinner myself, not as a saint preaching to sinners—if we could—those who have not to expound a policy or deal with a whole policy—confine ourselves to what we conceive to be novel in argument there would be a manifest advantage. I cannot, in the present state of business, promise to give my hon. and gallant friend time for the discussion of this question, and if I did promise, on the average I have just described to the House, only three speakers would be able to express their opinions.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the proper remedy is not Home Rule.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have never denied that Home Rule would get rid of some of the speeches to which we have to listen.