The Press. MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1895. THE TIME LIMIT IN PARLIAMENT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9230, 7 October 1895, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1895. THE TIME LIMIT IN PARLIAMENT.

Last year the House reformed its antiquated Standing Orders, its rules of procedure, and adopted a time limit for speeches. Except upon ano confidence debate, a Financial Statement, the Appropriation Bill, and one or two other occasions, no M.H.R. can speak for more than half an hour, but on the big occasions he can go not thirty but sixty minutes. All the turgid wind-bags, all the bores, were furious at this hour and half hour limit. The new rules have been in force for almost two whole sessions and are on the whole popular. The time limit has eradicated monstrous license of speech. Certain well known members, whom it is not necessary to specify, loved to catch the Speaker's eye at 7.30, and then would rage and

rave and rant for three solid hours till the adjournment at 10.30. They always chose this time for their displays, as it gave them full galleries— other quieter, patient men had to take the small hours after midnight and talked to empty benches and tired reporters. No matter how M.H.R-'s fretted and protested, this happened time after time. A wearied House and jaded audiences might curse, but there was no remedy. On one occasion, it is said, the present Premier stretched out the proofs of his Hansard speech along the floor of the lobby—and then he paced along measuring them, at the end exclaiming " Thirty-two feet, by Heaven." Fancy one speech, over thirty feet of talk—mostly drivel. The time limit has altered this—vastly for the batter. The bores are squelched by the Speaker at the end of sixty and often at the close of thirty minutes. The change is a blessed one. It gives life and variety to the House and to Hansard. The speeches are more varied ; more members talk than formerly. Hansard reflects the House more truly, for the bores do not fill its pages and members who formerly were dumb dogs, now no longer overshadowed by the bores, freely give their opinions. The time limit kills all stonewalling upon the second reading of a Bill. Once Mr. W. L. Pices stonewalled a measure, talking for twenty-four hours straight on end—to-day another Bees could only talk for one hour. Mr. Joyce once talked for seven hours, but that was for a set purpose, to obtain time for his friends. Hβ never offended by making long speeches. Such stonewalling is impossible to-day, though it might be carried on in Committee on a limited scale. Since the time limit Parliamentary orators talk rather faster, afraid of Mr. Speaker's startling bell, but that is working its own cure, because the Hansard proofs come back in such a state as to sicken the fast talkers. Mr. Ward at his fastest can out-talk the fastest short-hand reporter that ever lived. Members who gabbled for fear of the time limit are learning that gabbling will not help. One outcome is that, a3 Bageiiot wittily defSy. it on another occasion, "M.P.s M.H.B.'s are baing educated to leave out the padding. Then, again, wiser ones put their best things early in their speeches, for fear of having them rung off by the bell. Speeches are less wordy, more concise, better reasoned. They contain far less rhetoric, fewer attempts at eloquence, are terser, more businesslike. The present House is more garrulous than any previous one. There is no descendant of " Singlo-speech Hamilton." There are no M.H.R's like General Forester, M.P., who for forty-six long years represented MuchWenlflbk, and never once made a speech. Would any New Zealand constituency tolerate such a silent member for forty-six years? Sir Charles Burrell, who for a time was " father " of the House of Commons, sat in it for nearly sixty yeass, and spoke only once in all those six decades, and that was when he introduced the great work of his life—a Bill providing that housemaids should not clean windows from the outside. A Mr. Biddell proposed in the House of Commons that members' speeches should be limited to ten minutes— to check the waste of time by wordy bores. The London County Council strictly enforces a time limit with great success; a larger time limit is acting well in our House. Some of the finest of Disraeli's speeches were in the neighbourhood of thirty minutes, and some of the best speeches in our Parliament are well within the time limits. Certainly a time limit makes the House more attractive to onlookers.

When reforming it 3 rules the House forbade discussion upon the first reading, upon the "going , into Committee" stage, and upon the question that "this Bill do pass." Whereas obstructive M.H.B.'s could talk in the House on five separate occasions on each Bill, now they can talk but twice—once on the second reading and again on the" third reading after it has been amended in Committee. These rules enormously curtail obstruction, and have cut out enormous quantities. of wearisome repetition speeches. They greatly expedite the passage of Bills and facilitate the progress of business. In Committee on a Bill too, great improvements have been made. Speeches are limited to ten minutes and the Chairman calls upon each member who rises in turn. Formerly some men sat in front of the Chairman's chair, caught his eye time after time, and other M.H.E.'s ranged along the walls got no chance—were literally political wall-flowers. Now, if an M.H.B. has had one speech, the Chairman calls on all the others, who rise, and not till the others have had their turn does the first man get in again. This is delightfully crushing to the pushing bores. They no longer have the monopoly—and in Committee speaking is far more general. Another good result—it stifle 3 quarrels. A makes a Committee speech. B savagely replies to it. A, hot and angry, rises to reply; but other members pop up, and A cannot reply for half an hour, and bj that time his anger has cooled, or he has been in the lobby to

smoke, and comes back in calmer mood. The new rule of taking speakers in turn crushes out many a bitfcer quarrel. Each man can talk only four times on a single clause. After his four "rounds" are exhausted he must sit silent till the next clause. Certainly the House gains far more than it loses by the new rules. Debates are shorter and fewer, Bills go through more quickly, obstruction is largely diminished—though it will never b-3 done away with until the English closure rules are adopted. As to its effect upon the parties in the House the time limit most affects the Premier and the Treasurer. The former now can only make three hour speeches whan touring the country. Mr. Ward, as Mr. Heice neatly puts it, " rattles it o'lt like a machine," and by talking so fast gets a ninety-minutes' speech into sixty minutes of time. He and the Premier can now never weary the House for more than an hour at a spell. The time limit sometimes cuts short Sir Robert Stout, Captain Russell and Mr. T. McKenzie, but the other frequent Opposition speakers, as Messrs Mitchelsox, Allex, Buchanan, Newman, Bell, G. Hutchison, Fraser and Heke, are usually brief. Mr. Te Ao is the briefest of all.