THRONE OF RUMANIA

Evening Star, Issue 19699, 28 October 1927, Page 7

THRONE OF RUMANIA

FRINGE CAROL'S INTENTIONS

QUEEN MARIE MEETS COUNCIL,

Press Association—By Telegraph-Copyright.

LONDON, October 26. Messages filtering through from Vienna and Pails give rather contradictory versions of the position in Rumania. There is.no confirmation of the report that martial law_ exists or that Bucharest is virtually in a state of siege, “though it is admitted that public buildings are guarded. Some ground exists for the reports that Queen Mario attended a meeting of the Regency Council, at which a brisk discussion took place with M. Bratiano arising out of _ their reported conflict of views regarding Prince Carol's treatment. Tho council is believed to contemplate a broad coalition, which is regarded as hopeless in View of the hostility of tho Liberals and the peasants. The latter are supporters of Prince Carol. Some are of the opinion that tho course is advocated in the hope of deposing M. Bratiano.

M. MANOILESGU’S ARREST*

PRINCE CAROL 'GRIEVED.

PARIS, October 26. Prince Carol expresses grief at the airest of M. Manoiiescu, which he interprets as indicating that tho Rumanian Government fears a movement favorable to Prince Carol, because M. Manoiiescu conveyed letters repeating. Princo Carol’s statement in ‘Le Matin’'on July 22 announcing that ho would be a candidate for the throne. It was forbidden republication in Rumania.—A. and N.Z. and 1 Sun ’ Cable.

PROTEST in PARLIAMENT

RENUNCIATION IRREVOCABLE

LONDON, October 27. (Received October 28, at 11.40 a.m.)

‘The Times’s’ Bucharest correspondent says that in Parliament M. Bratiano, referring to M. Manoiiescu, declared that the Government was doing its utmost to resist attempts to overthrow the order which wus legally established. The Deputy' Maniu protested against M. Manoilescu’s imprisonment and trial by a military court instead of by a civil court. Discussion on Prince Carol’s attitude might be inopportune) at present, but people had a right to express their opinion thereon. Parliament did not represent the nation,,am] the Premier ought to resign to enable the dynastic question to be legally settled.' , _ . M. Bratiano replied that Prince Carol’s renunciation was legalised by the Constitution, which was unalterable until the King’s majority, after which Prince Carol could never occupy the throne by heredity—henco tho atetmpts to secure his return outside constitutional methods wore prosecutable.