LEFTIST ATTACK

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 113, 6 February 1937, Page 9

LEFTIST ATTACK

Regency Bill Passes Commons COMMUNIST’S CHARGE “Directed Against Present Monarch” MR. MAXTON IN A DUEL By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Ccpyright. (Received February 5, 5.5 p.m.) Ixindon, February 5. The Regency Bill passed its third reading without division in the House of Commons last night. Lively passages between so-called wild men of the Left and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Sir John Simon, and Lord Wintertoil (Conservative, Horsham), occurred in the committee stage. Mr. J. C. Ede (Labour. South Shields), on the first clause laying down that the Sovereign attains his or her majority at 18 years of age, said that an ordinary minor could not manage an .estate, citizens could not vote, or a peer or commoner take his seat until he was 21. Sir John Simon recalled that Queen Victoria came to the Throne at 18 years of age. He did not think there was any justification for departing from the traditional age. The clause was adopted without a division. On clause 2 Sir John moved an amendment making it possible for four or more persons, instead of three or more, to declare the Sovereign incapable of performing the Royal functions. He explained that in the ease of three out of six there might be equal division. ‘‘Feeling in the Country.” .Mr. G. Le M. Mander (Liberal, East Wolverhampton), and .Mr. Ede thought that no member of the Royal Family ought to be associated in the matter, the former arguing that the person next succeeding would be in a difficult position if be bad to decide whether the Sovereign was insane or not. There might be feeling in the country and lhe person ascending the Throne should not be a subject of controversy. "I protest against an attempt to deceive the House and the country into the belief that this is a permanent Bill.” said .Mr. IV. Gallacher (Communist. West Fife). "It is directed against the present Monarch and the House is already discussing before the coronation how it is going to find a substitute for him.”

Lord Winterton described Mr. Gallachers suggestion as a monstrous assumption which could only be made by someone who approached the subject with a distorted brain. Mr. J. Maxton (Independent Labour, Bridgeton): What is your justification for contradicting him? “Monstrous Statement.” Lord Winterton: The statement is without foundation. Mr. Maxton insinuates that there is something in the personal position of the King that makes the Bill necessary. It is a monilrmis statement, and quite untrue. Mr. Maxton: The noble lord is. of course, a master of vituperation. Mr. Gallacher, resuming his speech, described Lord Winterton's intervention as an ignorant presumption and accused him of "serving out insults as it pleases his high majesty.” He added that every Regency Bill hitherto bad related to the Heir Apparent if he was a minor. The present Bill related to the reigning Monarch. Sir John Simon, replying, recalled, the last illness of Kin" Georve V. and said it was possible for him to tierform the necessary duties to the end. But supposing, a case in which the Monarch was completely and suddenly rendered incapable from physical ill- ■ ess or mental disease thejtountry. under the existing Constitution, would be without means of securing the appointment of a Regent. “Nothing Suspicious." Sir John said there was no truth whatever in the statement that there was something suspicious about the Bill. He would lie prepared, if it were the wish of the House, to exclude from the list of persons making the declaration in a ease of incapacity the one who would become Regent. “I think we should retain the husband or wife of the Sovereign.” he said, “but I propose to exclude the person next in line of succession, and would achieve this by changing six to five instead of three to four.” The clause was agreed to as a mended. Sir John moved an amendment to another clause deleting words .saying the Regent must be resident in the United Kingdom, and substituting the words “domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom.” He said it had been explained tiiat the Regent might tie a person acting as a Governor-Gen-eral in a Dominion or might be in a Dominion for a temporary purpose, and thus not resident but domiciled in the United Kingdom. The amendment was adopted. Gap of Three Years. Mr. Maxton asked why the Regent must be 21 while the King could be 18. The Attorney-General. Sir Donald Somervell, replied that there must be a Regent when the heir to the Throne was under 18. The potential Regent might be only a few months older. It was thought there should be a minimum gap of three years. The Bill was sent to the House of Lords, which, tired of waiting, had adjourned.