AMENDMENT MADE IN NEW REGENCY BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1937, Page 7

AMENDMENT MADE IN NEW REGENCY BILL.

RULER'S UNFITNESS.

Successor to Hjive no Voice

In Declaration.

LIVELY turn of debate. United Press Association. —Copyright. (Received 1 p.m.) LONDON, February 4. Lively passages between the socalled "wild men of the Left" and Sir John Simon, Home Secretary, and Earl Wintertcm (Con., Horsham) occurred in the committee stage of the Regency Bill in the House of Commons. Mr. J- C. Ede (Lab., South Shields), on the first clause which lays down that the Sovereign attains majority at 18, said an ordinary minor could not manage' an estate and citizens cannot vote, or a peer or member of the House of Commons take a seat until 21. Sir John Simon recalled that Queen Victoria came to the Throne at 18, and he did not think there was any justification for departing from the traditional ageThe clause was adopted without a division. On Clause 2, Sir John Simon moved gn amendment making it possible for four or more persons, instead of three or more, to declare the Sovereign incapable of performing Royal functions. He explained that there might be an equal division among six. Mr. G ; Mander (Lib., Wolverhampton) and Mr. Ede thought that no member of the Royal Family ought to be associated with the matter, the

former arguing that the person next succeeding would be in a difficult position if he had to decide whether the Sovereign was insane or not. There might be feeling in the country and the person ascending the Throne should not be the subject of controversy. Communist's Protest. "I protest against an attempt to deceive the House and the country into ;the belief that this is a permanent bin," said Mr. W. Gallacher (Com., West Fife). "It is directed against the present Monarch, and the House is •Iready discussing, before his Coronation, how it is going to find a substitute for Mm." Earl Winter ton described Mr. Gallacher's Suggestion as a monstrous assumption which could only be made by someone who approached the subject with a distorted brain. Mr. J. Maxton (1.L.P., Bridgeton, Glasgow): What's your justification for contradicting him? Earf Winterton: His statement is without foundation Mr. Maxton. He insinuates that there is something in the personal position of the King which makes the bill necessary. It is a monstrous statement and is quite untrue. Mr. Maxton: The noble lord is, of course, a master of vituperation. Mr. Gallacher, resuming his speech, described Earl Winterton's intervention •8 an ignorant presumption and accused him of "serving out insults as it pleases his high majesty." He added that every Regency Bill hitherto had related to the heir apparent if he were a minor. This bill related to the reigning Monarch. Sir John Simon, replying, recalled the last illness of King George V. and said it was possible for him to perform necessary duties to the end but, suppos-' ing a case in which the Monarch was completely and suddenly rendered incapable from physical illness or mental disease, the country under the existing Constitution, would be without means of securing the appobitment of a Regent. Nothing Suspicions in Bill. The Home Secretary said there was no truth whatever in the statement that there was something suspicious about the bill. He would be prepared, if it were the wish of the House, to exclude from the list of persons making a declaration in the case of incapacity, the one who would become Regent.

"I think we should retain the husband or wife of the Sovereign, but I propose to exclude the person next in the line of succession. I would achieve this by changing six to five, instead of three to four."

The clause was agreed to as amended. The bill passed the third reading without division.