HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (BIRTH OF A SON) (Hansard, 12 March 1964)

§ The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)
I beg to move. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty and to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a Son to Her Majesty, and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to Her faithful Commons by this happy event. When the good news was received on Monday evening that the Queen and Prince Philip had had a son there was spontaneous rejoicing all over the country. This Motion enables us to send congratulations to Her Majesty and to the Duke of Edinburgh from this House on our behalf and on behalf of the constituents whom we represent.
I think that this is an occasion, of which we are glad to take advantage, to reaffirm our loyalty to the Sovereign. We are grateful that we are able sincerely to do much more than that because we have watched with respect and admiration the way in which the Queen and Prince Philip, while never stinting themselves in public service and public duty, have, nevertheless, been able to maintain their private life and to set aside time for their children. However demanding the claims of public life may be, it is important for us to be reminded that private duties and private joys are no less important.
The happiness of the birth of a child we have all experienced in our families and those of our relations and friends, and we share the joy of the Queen and of the Duke of Edinburgh and the sister and brothers of the new prince, to whom we would wish a very long and a very happy life, and we humbly send to Her Majesty our affectionate congratulations.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)
I rise on behalf of the Opposition, and those whom we represent in the country, to second the Motion which the Prime Minister has just moved in terms which I think all of us would wish to echo and to applaud.
On the last occasion when the House had the privilege of considering and passing a similar Motion the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. 674 Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), said that it was the first time that the House had had such a Motion before it for over 100 years, I think, since 1857.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that for over that century we as a nation, as a people, had been privileged to see the monarchy enter more closely into the hearts and affections of our people, not least because of the factor mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness and their family are unstinting in the work they put in in visiting not only parts of this country, but of the entire Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the Head.
I think it right to say, also, that whereas every family will have shared in the happiness occasioned by this event, so many more millions of our people now feel that they know Her Majesty and His Royal Highness more closely and more intimately than was possible in past generations because of the new media of communication, the radio and television, And that they therefore will be able to join all the more fully in the rejoicing which it is now the duty and pleasure of this House to pronounce upon by accepting the Motion.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I join in the congratulations offered to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and support the Motion.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I rise to support the Motion and to suggest to the Prime Minister that he has lost a magnificent opportunity because he has not gone far enough. In view of the number of Royal babies arriving this year, it would have been a splendid occasion for the Government to announce that a sum of money—say £5 million—would be granted to the maternity services so that a great improvement might be made in the conditions under which other babies are born.
This Motion would have been appreciated far more in my constituency had I been able to say that the Government were to pro ride money for the financing of a new maternity unit at the hospital at Ballochmyle.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has been very gracious and generous 675 in moving the Motion. The news appeared in the newspapers when they should have been reporting the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at Coventry. On turning to The Times, of all papers, to read carefully the speech made by the Prime Minister at Coventry I was disappointed to find that that newspaper had given about 12 inches of space to the Royal baby and only 2½ inches to the Prime Minister. The first squeak of the Royal baby drowned the voice of the British Prime Minister.
I was greatly disappointed with the Press. Most of the newspapers did not report the Prime Minister, except on an obscure page in an obscure paragraph. It was surprising that the only London newspaper which reported the Prime Minister's speech that day was the Daily Worker——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember the purpose and intent of the Motion.

§ Mr. Hughes
Yes, Sir.
With those reservations and with those remarks—which, I believe, should be regarded as of approval—I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.