§ LORD KILMATNE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the two Front Benches. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to ask the leave of the House to make a slight alteration in the wording of my Motion as printed. I want to leave out the word "two" so that it will read "the Front Benches" instead of "the two Front Benches." I hope that I may find support from many noble Lords who, like myself, feel that the length of speeches delivered in this House might be curtailed with advantage. I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House since I was elected in 1911 and I have sat through some long and important 852 debates. I take the debates on the Parliament Bill, the Irish debates, and the debates on the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and Prayer Book revision as examples. In such long debates lasting two or three or four days, a great number of Peers desire to speak, but after two speeches have been delivered by the Government spokesmen and two by the Opposition there remains very little of importance that has not been said. Most of the other speeches are simply a rehash, as a rule, of what has been said before, but put perhaps in rather different language.
§ The result is that noble Lords leave the Chamber and go and sit in the Library until the end is in sight. I am perfectly sure that the main reason why the average number of Peers attending our debates is so small is on account of the long speeches. On a fine summer evening or afternoon any one accustomed to an open air, active life finds it a considerable strain to come and sit here for several hours listening to speech after speech, for one has to be specially trained, I think, really to enjoy this sort of thing after the novelty has worn off. I think a good many noble Lords, after sitting through one or two of our major debates, make up their minds then and there not to attend the House again unless they have a very urgent Whip. I have listened in the past with pleasure and enjoyment to speeches in this House of more than an hour's duration by great speakers like the late Lord Rosebery, the late Lord Morley, Lord Curzon and others. I have also had to listen to others of half that length which were a weariness of the spirit. Quite recently I listened to a speech in this House during which the speaker repeated himself at least five times.
§ In bringing forward this Motion I have in mind another debating assembly to which I had the honour to belong for many years. I refer to the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in Dublin, which sits for four days every May. In that assembly there is a President and an Assessor who govern the procedure. There, as in every other debating assembly, when an important subject comes up a great many members have something to say; after a time the large audience gets impatient and there are cries of "Vote, vote." Then when a 853 speaker rises in his place the President asks him if he desires to speak. If he says "Yes," the President says "You may speak, Mr. So-and-so, but as time presses I can only allow you ten minutes"; and so on with any subsequent speaker. Now we have no President in this Chamber, but the Lord Chancellor or whoever occupies the Woolsack in his absence is in fact in much the same position as the Speaker in the House of Commons.
LORD KILMAINEWell, I only mean to suggest that the Lord Chancellor, when he is on the Woolsack, is in relatively the same position. Perhaps I am wrong. It occurred to me that possibly the House might consider entrusting the Lord Chan cellor with the regulation of our debates—
LORD KILMAINE—and give him authority to impose a time limit on all speeches except from the Front Benches. I exclude the Front Benches because it is inevitable that introductory speeches and winding up speeches must be fairly lengthy. As for the rest, it has been my experience that a speaker should be able to say all that he has to say that matters, without undue padding or vain repetitions, in fifteen or twenty minutes, or sometimes less. I would like to see the Lord Chancellor empowered to request members to limit their remarks to ten or fifteen minutes when he considers the subject of the debate has been sufficiently ventilated. There are various forms of speeches—lectures, addresses, sermons and speeches at any public debate or assembly. Some have to be long, but in most cases the shorter they are the more they are appreciated. I have listened to sermons, for instance, the only effect of which was to make me wish to go out and break all Ten Commandments one after the other. I see by the comments in the daily Press that the House of Commons is supposed to need curtailment of speeches far more than this House does and than various, efforts to bring that about have been tried but have failed. But, my Lords, they are not quite as polite in another place as we are here, and I fancy that when a speaker goes on longer than is welcome the Members can call "Divide, divide." It 854 has to be a pretty hardy speaker who can go on for long in face of obvious opposition.
The real point is that a love of debate is a gift or the result of careful training. May I instance the noble Viscount who leads the House? He always appears to me thoroughly to enjoy the proceedings. It is not so with many of us. We come to this House, not because we enjoy coming, but because we think we may be doing the country or the Government a bit of good by coming. This Chamber is not a restful or soothing place to begin with. The atmosphere to many of us is overheated; there is a glare of light in the eyes; the colour of the benches is one which is never found in any hospital or nursing home; and we come here in clothes which we would far rather not be wearing. Then, when we listen to speaker after speaker, mostly on the lengthy side, till the subject of debate becomes absolutely threadbare, the deadly feeling of extreme boredom comes over us and our one desire is to escape—and we do escape to the Library or the tearoom.
Possibly it is not fully realised by many people what a very important part boredom can play in people's lives. It is a matter of temperament. To highly strung or nervous people the feeling sometimes becomes so acute that they simply must escape somehow from the surrounding cause. Many girls leave their homes for this reason; for better or worse, wives leave their husbands; and husbands leave their wives and families sometimes for the same reason—sheer, desperate boredom. Nobody can look at any photograph or picture of the Prince of Wales without feeling that His Royal Highness must have suffered intensely from many of the things he has had to do. But the members of the Royal House are trained from infancy for public duty and service, and the way in which they carry out those onerous duties wins the love of most and earns the respect of all. Many members of this House have not been so trained. Some, perhaps, like myself, were brought up to think that to excel in field sports and games was the main duty of a gentleman. In these days of rush, slowness in any form is irritating—a slow train, a batsman taking an hour to make sixteen runs, and so on. But far the most irritating thing of all is too prolonged an oration. It is in the hope that if this 855 Motion is adopted it may lead to a better average attendance in this House and to the shortening of debates that I have ventured to bring the Motion before the House. I leave it to the judgment of the House.
§ Moved to Resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the Front Benches.—(Lord Kilmaine.)
THE CHAIKMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)Before my noble friend replies I should like to say one word. The Motion apparently excludes those matters which are dealt with by the noble Lords on the two Front Benches; that is to say, Government Bills and Government business; but I wish to oppose the Motion very strongly on behalf of those of your Lordships who wish to discuss Private Bills. Your Lordships will remember that a short time ago there was a Bill introduced in this House with regard to the Sussex Downs. That Bill was the subject of a debate of some length in your Lordships' House, a debate in which a large number of speakers took part. If a Motion of this kind were adopted by your Lordships' House, the desire of many noble Lords to put their views before the House would be frustrated. In the interests therefore of the promoters and opponents of Private Bills, I very much deprecate this Motion being agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, the noble Lord who has put this Motion on the Order Paper I think failed to realise the true reason for the length of time taken in. the delivery of speeches in this House. It is the practice of reading speeches, contrary to the accepted rules of this House, which makes the debates as long as they are to-day. It is perfectly true that the responsible Ministers on the Front Bench are under a practical obligation to read much of their speeches, for the reason that they have to quote figures accurately and they are certain to be held liable at some later stage of their careers for every word which they utter, in the responsible positions which they hold. But that does not apply to noble Lords on the Back Benches, and if the noble Lord will take a little advice and will refrain in future from reading his speeches, and other noble Lords will 856 do the same, the debates in this House will proceed very much more rapidly than they do. Having made that remark I have nothing further to say; but the practice is not one to be encouraged, and I regret that the noble Lord should have moved the Motion which he has moved and have taken so long to do it from his brief.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion and asked for your Lordships' acceptance of it has delivered a speech in which he has narrated to us many of the drawbacks and sadnesses which are inherent to life. He has developed them all from his antipathy (if I may use the expression) to long speeches in your Lordships' House. He thinks that some step should be taken, and I think he would attribute the authority to the Lord Chancellor, to curtail the speeches which members of your Lordships' House are allowed to deliver. When I saw the Motion on the Paper I was glad to read the last portion of it, because I should have thought the noble Lord's indictment might have been properly directed towards myself. In recent years I have ventured to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence at great length on many occasions, and your Lordships have always treated me with that great consideration and indulgence which I hope that the speeches I have delivered on behalf of the Government have deserved.
The noble Lord exempts the occupants of the Front Benches from his censure— because I look on this more as a Motion of censure than as anything else—and he allows them to continue their headlong career of long speeches while the other members of your Lordships' House are to be restricted. I am sorry to think of the empty Benches which I see around me at the present moment and also on many occasions when there are important debates in this House. The noble Lord desires to curtail the speeches which fall from noble Lords who occupy the Back Benches. I believe that this is quite a novel Motion in your Lordships' House; in fact I have not been able to find that a debate on this subject has ever taken place in this House. The noble Lord has discovered a wrong which he is hoping to right by obtaining your Lordships' acceptance of the Motion which is on the 857 Paper. This is a subject which has been raised elsewhere on more than one occasion, but I am inclined to think that chore is a great distinction between your Lordships' House and not only another place in this country but legislative assemblies in different parts of the world.
The procedure in another place is that debates are curtailed, not by the laying down of some definite length of speech, but by methods which we all deplore, such as the closure and the guillotine. On balance it has been decided that it is necessary that those methods should be adopted for the purpose of bringing to an end debates which might go on for an undue length of time. My noble friend who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Ullswater), when ho exercised authority in another place, was very instrumental in curtailing debates taken part in by those who were not altogether actuated by a desire for the progress of business. His authority on those occasions was exercised with such consideration and such skill that I am sure that the youthful obstructors (if there were such people at any time in another place) found their activities curtailed by his friendly authority. But whilst there might be such instincts in the minds of members who sit in another place, that has never been a feature of your Lordships' House.
During the time while I have had the honour of occupying a seat in your Lordships' House I have never seen anything approaching what goes by the familiar name of obstruction. I think your Lordships will agree that our debates are very much on the short side rather than on the long side; and I venture to say, as one who is not at all a young member of this House, that I regret that there are not more and longer speeches delivered in your Lordships' House. After all, the whole object of the existence of legislative assemblies is not really exactly what their names would imply. We look on them as assemblies for the purpose of the ventilation of the views and the expression of the opinions and the grievances of the nation. While it is unfortunate that debates in another place must for other reasons be curtailed, still I do feel that when we have opportunities of free discussion in this House, and when the experience of every one of us is in the direction of inspiring the feeling that there are members of your 858 Lordships' House who can make contributions of a very valuable character to debates, it would be a great misfortune if we laid down that by some authority accorded to the Lord Chancellor there should be a curtailment of those speeches, which I think most of your Lordships are only too anxious to hear.
The noble Lord has made the assertion that the reason of the small attendances in your Lordships' House on most occasions is that Peers are not willing or anxious to come and listen to speeches which he thinks are unduly long. I am inclined to think, and I believe your Lordships will agree with me, that that is not the reason for the small attendances in your Lordships' House. That is a subject on which there is perhaps a great deal to be said, and I am sure that there are many grounds which could be put forward for the opinion that the reason the attendance is not as large as one would like it to be is the great change which occurred in this House some twenty years ago. That may be said to be, and it is my opinion that it is, probably the main reason why the attendances of noble Lords in this House are not very large. But I think that we must also remember that a great many of your Lordships occupy their time in carrying on day in and day out work in those parts of the country where they live, which perhaps is not of so obvious a character as the work in this House, but which is a great contribution to the service of this country. There are also financial considerations. Many of your Lordships' predecessors were in a position to come up to London, and spend their time in attending the House and carrying out their duties as legislators. Their successors have probably found themselves unable to do that, and prefer, and have of necessity, to reside in those districts in which they have lived for probably generations past.
When one considers all these reasons one will find that the reason put forward by the noble Lord for the small attendance in this House is one which would not have occurred to any of your Lordships. I can think of no occasion on which a speech from the Back Benches could really come under the condemnation of any one of your Lordships, and speaking as one of those who sit on the Front Bench, and who is desirous of obtaining from 859 your Lordships all the assistance we can get, I wish it were possible to encourage more of your Lordships to attend this House, and more of your Lordships who are in the early days of your existence to take part in our debates. I wish something could be done, not to deter such members from speaking, or to induce them to curtail their speeches, but to encourage them to make speeches 'and to put forward their views. I think that the views which are put forward before your Lordships are of an instructive and very valuable character, and I wish that more could be done to encourage the placing of those views before our Legislative Assembly.
I think one can say that the debates which take place in this House have a distinct value. I think the fact that our debates are reported in the newspapers means a great deal to the people of this country. They look to this House for its opinion on all the great subjects of the day, and I think one can say that in the debates which we listen to in this House they are not disappointed. There is no subject on which some of your Lordships are not able to make a valuable contribution, either from your own personal experiences or from your knowledge, and I feel that I am carrying your Lordships with me when I say that I sincerely hope that no Motion will ever appear in the annals of this House which suggests that we should curtail the speeches which your Lordships desire to deliver to your fellow members. I have nothing to add but I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.