HC Deb 25 June 1900 vol 84 cc920-2
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the memorial presented to him by 198 Members of Parliament representing all parties, asking Her Majesty's Government to grant special facilities for passing into law this session the Bill for Prohibiting the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children, and, considering the interest felt in; the country in respect of this Bill, whether he will accede to the request contained in. the memorial.

MR. EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

Will the right hon. Gentleman, before answering the question, consider whether he will grant similar facilities for a Bill equally important—namely, the Midwives Bill, which has passed through the Grand Committee?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will answer the two questions together. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say-that I am well aware that the Bill to which he refers is one which, both in the country and in the House, has excited a great deal of interest and commands a great deal of support. [An HON. MEMBER: And opposition, too.] The suggestion made, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman when we were discussing the taking of the time of the House on Monday last was that an additional Wednesday in addition to the two already granted should be given to private Members so as to give this Bill and other private Members' Bills a chance of coming on.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

That is not my suggestion. I made no definite suggestion.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never do.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that he gave a hint.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No, Sir. I only adduced the case of this Bill as a flagrant instance of the unfair way in which our rules at the present time work. That was the whole scope of what I said. I dwelt upon the effect on this Bill of that unfair action.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course, I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his own speech. At all events, I took a different view at the time, and I took some trouble after that speech to consider whether the granting of an additional Wednesday would have any effect on this Bill. Looking over the measures which necessarily stand before it under the rules, I found that the granting neither of one Wednesday nor of two or even three Wednesdays would probably have any effect on its fate. There then remains to be considered the only alternative policy, which is whether additional ordinary Government time should be given to the Bill—whether it should be given, in other words, privileges as a Government measure. I am not aware that that has ever been done for a controversial measure, except with the single case of the Eight Hours (Miners) Bill, and I do not think that that is an example which would induce any leader of the House to favour exceptions of this character. I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman were in my place, and if he were of opinion that this was a controversial Bill, he would find it impossible to grant the facilities he asks. There remains only the question whether this is a controversial Bill or not. I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with its prospects as a controversial measure, and I understand that those who think it uncontroversial do so because it passed the Second Reading with little or no discussion. It must be borne in mind by the House that the Second Reading came on under very unexpected circumstances, by a Parliamentary accident, and that what occurred on that occasion offers no sufficient indication of the degree to which the Bill would be opposed if it came on at a well-known and fixed time for Parliamentary discussion. Of course, it would be quite out of order now to discuss the merits of the Bill, but I observe it does contain two principles which I am quite certain would lead to a considerable amount of discussion. In the first place, it lays down that the publican who does not know the age of a child, and who necessarily has no means of knowing it, is to be punished for giving that child liquor, while the parent who does know the ago is not to be punished for sending the child to get liquor. That is a point on which there must be discussion. Another point is that, while it is to be made illegal to send for liquor a boy of fifteen, it is to be legal to send a girl of sixteen. That is a point which will, and which ought to, provoke discussion in this House; and in these circumstances it is impossible for me to regard the Bill as an uncontroversial measure. That being the case, it is in accordance with the principle which not only I, but my predecessors, have followed, to decline the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.