LENGTH OF SPEECHES

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 26, 31 July 1939, Page 16

LENGTH OF SPEECHES

—♦ COMPLAINT IN COMMONS In raising the question of over-long Parliamentary speeches, and the silencing of back-benchers which they entail on important occasions, Mr. Edwards and Captain Cazalet provided the Speaker .with one of his "rare chances to make a speech, says the "Daily Telegraph." Captain Fitzßoy's observations on Parliamentary brevity were witty. It is a pity thai his duties normally condemn him V silence. Possibly the Speaker's best hit was his story of Disraeli, who advised a newcomer to Westminster not to speak, on the ground that it was better for the House to wonder why he did not speak than to wonder why he did. Captain Fitzßoy pointed out, as he has before, that he has no power to reduce the length of speeches. He could only offer, advice. He remarked that his advice had always fallen either on deaf ears or unruly tongues. Captain Cazalet, in his strong protest against the time ex-Ministers occupy in debate, was voicing no new grievance. Just the same complaint was made in 1897 by Major Rasch. the then member for South-east Essex In moving that "the duration uf Parliamentary speeches has increased, is increasing', and should be abated." he observed that some names kept on reappearing in debates like recurring decimals. That 1897 motion was not carried. Nor was a Bill on the same subject j little earlier. As long ago as 1849 Lord John Russell tried to get the consent of the House to a time limit, and failed. Scottish members, with their voluntary time limit of twenty minutes on Scottish evenings, have se+ an example that might be more widely followed.