*LORD DENMAN, in rising to call the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances under which the Clerk of the Parliaments refused to insert a notice by the Lord Denman, said: My Lords, owing to the peculiar circumstances attending the preparation of the Bill which I had the honour to present to your Lordships' 1038 through my being unable to read, I was obliged to employ an amanuensis, and what I thought the most objectionable part of the Bill was left out. I begged the printer to send me a proof, but he did not do so. The words which were left out were "when necessary to limit." Now, my Lords, I have had great practical experience in this House, and I have seldom heard in it any speech which I should have wished to be shortened; but there is so much said about not detaining your Lordships, and noble Lords still go on without knowing how long they are speaking, that really I think the quiet announcement or ascertainment of the length of a speech could do no harm and could offend no one. The other night the noble Lord the Earl of Dunraven spoke for three-quarters of an hour, but I am sure if my Bill had passed the noble Marquess who opposed him would not have got up to prevent him going on. As during the last few Sessions the Lord Chancellor has fully established the Rule that the Order to read a Bill a second time is a reality, I humbly submit that that Rule should now prevail. The newspapers report that a Bill is rejected, but the Motion for the rejection of a Bill is a different thing from a Motion for its Second Reading. The noble Marquess thought I was trespassing very much in interfering alone with Government measures which he wished to be carried; but, really, to postpone a Motion for 10 months does seem to me to be a very severe mode of treating so old a person as myself. I think some little indulgence should be given to the age of one who has been a constant supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and one who wishes to be respectful to every Member of this House. I stated that I would move this as a matter of privilege; but not seeing it in the list as a Notice, I did not dare to move. My Motion was that the Order for the postponement of the Second Reading of the Duration of Speeches Bill should be rescinded. That was a proceeding which the Lord Chancellor thought not impossible, as it appeared that some Bills had been put in and had been read a second time when the House was not sitting. My Lords, I am not afraid of offending the memory of those who are gone, because I only speak the truth—De mortuis nil nisi verum. The 1039 origin of all the difficulty about Second Readings was that Lord John Russell, being hampered with the Reform Bill in 1856, at first put it off for three months to a time when he knew the House would not be sitting. I would now have ventured to move that the Motion for reading the Bill a second time passed on the last occasion be rescinded; but as it has not been placed on the Paper, I would only ask that it might be put on the Paper with notice at some day after Easter that the reasonableness of the proposal might be considered. Since that time I may be allowed to mention that a measure has been introduced on the subject into the House of Commons; but only 116 voted upon it, 72 being against the Second Reading, and 44 for it. It does really seem to me that as this is a mode of expediting the business of Parliament, which has been so very successful in other Assemblies, it ought to be followed here, and I hope your Lordships will not make it impossible for this Bill to be carried this Session. In the other House the hon. Member has declared that he will bring in the Bill next Session, but that may be at some distance yet, and it certainly would be a convenience if such a measure were passed. It has been stated that I entirely base my Bill upon the meetings of working men on the railway at Derby. They have the Scripture read to them while they are eating their breakfasts, and at the end of half an hour the organ is played, but the speaker always manages to conclude before that time. With regard to that being a libel upon this House I say nothing; bat I thought it was very severe, and I bought up every copy I could of the magazine in which it appeared in Derby and in London. But I must say this, in reference to speeches in this House: The noble Marquess at the head of the Government is always short and always interesting. I quite agree with that; but, at the same time, I must remind your Lordships that his speeches very often act as a dinner bell, for directly they are concluded all the Members present go out. My intentions are honest, and I do not like being cut short, as I feel I am. I could not hear the question proposed, and therefore I could do nothing but protest against it afterwards. The Standing Order of this 1040 House is that no Member shall speak a second time except to explain some part of his speech. Now, we often have replies upon Motions touching upon the speeches of those who oppose the Movers, and it really is very necessary for the purpose of debate that there should be some notice given of the opposition to any measure. One may not be always suppressed. I certainly remember when at Eton the late Premier Marquess of this country, Lord Winchester, putting my head under water; and he kept it there until I really did not know whether it would come up again; however, I may say he has been a great friend of mine ever since—he was then Lord Wiltshire, and we were always afterwards the best of friends. I hope when I wish to speak on such a subject as that of Sheriffs with which I am thoroughly well acquainted, I shall not be obliged to retire speechless as happened on one occasion, because it is perfectly well known that when 8 o'clock approaches nobody will hear any speech made. The noble Lord, Earl Wemyss, spoke until a quarter to 8, and then adjourned the House, and the next day the Earl of Dunraven spoke, and in that way two whole evenings were taken up. I had come up myself on this very Bill as to the Duration of Speeches being the first in the Order of the Day, and I desired to speak, but the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies came and told me I was quite wrong. I really wish that the speeches might begin later and be carried on in a more uniform manner. I beg to put myself in the hands of the House, and I am entirely at their mercy.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary to go into the noble Lord's defence of his Bill. It certainly shows the working of a very sensitive conscience that he should bring in a Bill against the length of speeches, and I can only hope that he may be successful, at all events, if not in this Chamber, in "another place." But I do not believe that any other person has found the Debates in this House too long. The real point to which the noble Lord directs our attention is one affecting the position of the Clerk at the Table, 1041 and it is one which is rather interesting to this House, because it raises a constitutional difficulty. The noble Lord put down on the Paper a Motion for taking up the Bill at an earlier period than 10 months. There is no doubt that in the other House the Speaker would not have allowed that Motion to appear, and if it had appeared he would not have put it to the House. But in this House we have such a traditional distrust of the nominee of the Crown, who sits on the Woolsack, that in order to preserve our independence we give him no power whatever. I have always thought that is a mistake, because it lands us in this difficulty: that we have nobody who has the duty of determining the business of our House. I really think in these circumstances it is impossible to find fault with the Clerk at the Table for removing Motions from the Paper which are obviously such as the Speaker of the House of Commons would not admit, and which the Lord Chancellor in this Chamber would not admit if he had the power that is possessed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is an anomalous way of arriving at the result, but I think the Clerk at the Table did what was quite right in removing the notice from the Notice Paper.
*LORD DENMANI merely wish to ask the House if I may put a Motion upon the Paper for next Session to rescind the Order for putting off the Second Reading of this Bill for so long a period as 10 months?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNext Session? Oh, certainly.
*LORD DENMANThen I may put a notice on the Paper that this Resolution for the Second Reading at the end of 10 months be rescinded?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Lord must give Notice of Motion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Lord is entitled to give notice of what he likes by word of mouth, but, of course, if it is out of Order the House will not proceed to the consideration of it. I apprehend if it is grossly out of Order the noble Lord is not entitled to have it put upon the Notice Paper.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI quite agree with what the noble Marquess has said upon the subject of the noble Lord's Motion.