SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 September 1887)

LORD DENMAN
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to limit speeches in Parliament, except in certain cases, to a quarter of an hour. He would state the reason which had induced him to bring forward this seemingly rash and adventurous Bill. It was that he had lately noticed a marked difference between the progress made with the business at the meetings of the International Convention for the Diminution of Intemperance held in Brussels, and in the Westminster Town Hall. In Brussels, where there was no limit to speeches, the proceedings lasted seven days; but in Westminster, where the Chairman had the power of shortening speeches—and by regulation papers to be read were limited to a quarter of an hour, and speeches to 1334 five minutes—the result was that the whole business was transacted in one day. The mere notice to anyone that his speech had lasted a certain time need no be considered offensive, and Dr. Cameron, M.P., who was in the chair, had to check a Chevalier who, in reading his paper, exceeded his allotted time. It seemed hardly necessary in their Lordships' House to prescribe any limit to speeches; but he must be allowed to say that in the debate on the Irish Land Bill his Grace the Duke of Argyll —whom he regretted not to see in his place to hear his observations—as a Liberal Unionist, protracted the debate to a great extent by referring to matters not before their Lordships. In that House they knew nothing of Liberal Unionists. Their Lordships only knew that there was a Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and until it was legitimately repealed it was the law of the land. A noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) on the Conservative side of the House also delivered, a short time ago, a speech on the defects of our armaments. It might have been made shorter by a reference to documents. A noble Earl who sat on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had been shown up by a humorous reporter in this House with the remark that he referred to every topic under Heaven. There could be no doubt, however, that lately the noble Earl's speech was above an hour in length, and at the end of it he alluded to Mr. Bradlaugh, as if the hon. Member had control over the legislation of this country. He (Lord Denman) ventured to think that reference was clearly surplusage. He wished to speak of his noblo Friend with respect. He knew that the noble Earl was a very good landlord, however much he might be attacked by individuals. In the House of Commons, Mr. Caine had, on the Rules of Procedure, made an attempt to limit the duration of speeches, giving a preference to Privy Councillors. If the hon. Member brought forward his Rule again, he (Lord Denman) hoped he would consider whether the duration of all speeches might not be shortened considerably. He had been stopped himself at the Diocesan Conference at Nottingham, and he would always be glad to abridge any remarks he might have to make by reference to documents and other publications. He 1335 would move that the Bill be now read a second time, and that if their Lordships could not read it a second time, that they would reject the measure.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
The noble Lord cannot move an alternative as well.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)
said, he was very much interested in the speech of the noble Lord, and he concurred with him in his desire to limit the duration of speeches in Parliament. He did not think, however, that the speeches in their Lordships' House were too long, although, no doubt, a good deal of time was consumed. He thought it was hardly wise that legislation of this character should be initiated in that House. If it were necessary to bring anything of the kind forward, the other House was the place where it should be initiated. He would advise the noble Lord not to press his measure forward. He would move that it be read a second time that day three months.

LORD DENMAN
Move the rejection, too, please.