In the Public Eye

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 272, 1 November 1932, Page 10

In the Public Eye

Mr A. Henderson. Mr Arthur Henderson, who has relinquished the leadership of the British Labour Party, is affectionately known to the members of the movement as “Uncle Arthur.’’ He has also been known as the man ‘ ‘ who always has his way.’’ Illness kept him at his home during the last national election, in which he lost his seat, and that illness has been responsible for his decision to yield .the leadership to someone who is still a member of the House of Commons. Mr Henderson was one of the successes of the last Labour Cabinet. When the Ministry was announced the critics accepted the choice as good save for Mr Henderson. Yet he was to prove the outstanding figure in a Government which pursued a policy of muddleinent in internal affairs and saw itself frustrated in one aim after another. In strong contrast to this was the manner in which British policy was controlled at the Foreign Office and international accord promoted. Mr Henderson gained the credit for this and it was due to him. He continued his post of Chairman of the Disarmament Conference even after quitting office because he was impressed with the importance of the part he can play in the international field. Mr Henderson was born in 1863 in a humble district of Glasgow, but his family left there when he was only a small lad. When he left school he became a moulder in the great ironworks of Robert Stephenson. He has been a lifelong member of the Wesleyan Church, and is a lay preacher who is welcomed in many pulpits. Mr Henderson has taken a special interest in the National Brotheihood movement, which organisation arranged for a conference between English employers and Labour leaders at the Mansion House some years ago, under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor of London. This movement, founded about thirty years ago, and of which Mr Henderson has twice been president, seeks to win back to a religious view of life the great mass of the people who are drifting away from the church. Mr J. Bracken.

A football captain, a graduate in agriculture, a Government official, a professor, and a Premier, have been some of the roles of Mr J. Bracken, the first citizen of Manitoba, who listened to the woes of the farmers of that province last week. Mr Bracken was born in 1883, Ontario, the scene of his birth, being the State which also sent Mr C. A. ’Dunning, the prominent Saskatchewan politician, to the West. Mr Bracken began his education at the Brockville High School in Ontario and then went to the Ontario Agricultural College, where he distinguished himself at his studies, winning three scholarships and a medal. He graduated with honours in 1906, and was a member of the first stock judging team to bring the international trophy for stock judging from the Live Stock Show, Chicago, to Canada, so it may be seen that he knew something of practical farming and passessed a judgment which would ensure the respect of the farmers in the great agricultural and pastoral country where he was to make his career.

Mr Bracken became Manitoba representative of the Dominion Seed Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Superintendent of Fairs and Farmers’ Institutes for Saskatchewan. In 1909 he was appointed Professor of Field Husbandry at the University of Saskatchewan, and there he remained until 1920, when he was appointed President of the Manitoba Agricultural College. In the years after the War the farmers in Manitoba obtained political power and invited him to become Premier of the State. This post he has filled for the past ten years. The Winnipeg Convention unanimously elected Bracken leader, and he found a seat in a far northern electorate.

There has been a remarkable link between Mr Bracken and two other men who became Premiers, one of them the Mr Dunning, already mentioned, who became Premier of Saskatchewan, the other, Mr J. E. Brotvnlee, who became Premier of Alberta in 1925. King Carol. The return of Queen Helen of Rumania to the country to visit her young son has once more informed the world that Carol and his Royal wife have parted. The parting is not new; Helen left King Carol in May of this year, and the Rumanian Government soldier castle at Mamaia for the sum of £30,600 the purchaser being revealed as the Ministry of War. This was the imposing edifice which Carol gave her after his ascension of the throne in the middle of 1930.

The exploits of Carol made the Rumanian Throne a party to more scandal than almost any other house in living memory. In 1918, when he was 25, Carol startled the Court by Ids elopement with a beautiful girl named Zizi Lambrino whom he took to Odessa and married. His father sent instructions for the Prince to be brought back and Carol refused to go. Later, however, he returned, the marriage was annulled and Carol made the first of his threats to renounce the Throne. The King and the Government, however, had faith in the work of time, and toward the end of 1919 they were rewarded by the discovery that Carol had broken with Mme. Lambrino, whom once ho had assured he “would never cease to regard as wife.’’ A trip abroad was suggested, and the Prince left for India, Japan, and America. He returned in 1921 and general rejoicing marked his marriage to Princess Helen of Greece. Prince Michael was born of this marriage. Four years later the Prince was found to have entered upon a liaison with a Jewess named Mme. Lupescu. The King was scandalised at this discovery and ordered the Prince to London, where he attended the funeral of Queen Alexandra. From London the Prince went to Italy, and there he met Mme. Lupescu again. He declared that he would not return to Rumania, offered to renounce the Throne, asked not to be considered even a member of the Royal Family-, and caused immense I excitement in his country. The King sent a high official to interview him, j pleaded with him as a sou, a husband, i

a father, a Rumanian Prince, and • soldier, but could not move the obstinate heir. For the fourth time Carol renounced the Throne and stayed in Italy. King Ferdinand lost all hope. He summoned a Crown Council on December 31st., 1925, and dealt with ths situation. Within a few days the National Assembly accepted the Prince’• renunciation, passed a law settling the succession, and provided for a Regency. Prince Michael, then only four years old, was recognised as heir, and when King Ferdinand died in 1925 Prince Michael became King Michael. In these intervening years Carol moved around Euroue. In 1928 he visited England and stayed at Godstone in Surrey. On May 16th Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, then Home Secretary, told the House of Commons that “Since his arrival event! have occurred which made it necessary for me to ask him to curtail his visit and leave the country as soon as possible.’* In June, 1930, Carol again surprised the world by returning to Rumania and becoming King. It seemed a spontaneous coup d’etat, but it was more than that. The move came as the final act in a long drama of politics. Queen Marie, Carol’s mother, had been the power behind the Rumanian Throne. She had allied herself with the Bratianus, the powerful banking brothers which dominated the country for so long. For about 60 years they were the real Government of Rumania. Both Bratianus were reactionary, Carol was a Liberal and opposed them. After the world war, Rumania, now larger and more enlightened, began to realise the implications of the Bratianu regime. The decade before 1930 held a series of conflicts between the powers of reaction and the more liberal thinkers. Carol’s departure from his country was not entirely due to his affair*. It was due to a desire to escape fromQ the rule of the Bratianus. His absence from the. country did the rest. Slowly

he became the centre of a legend; he was the fairy prince of the nation who would one uay return and deliver the peasants from the rule of powerful bankers they hatedThen politics began to work for Carol. The Transylvanian Party, headed by Dr. Juliu Maniu, which favoured the forms of Western democracy, began to fight the despotic methods of the Government. Transylvania had been under the rule of Hungary before the war and when it became Rumanian found the change in many respects for the worse. Allying themselves with the National Peasants’ Party, the Transylvanians withdrew from Parliament and indicted the Bratianu “Liberal” Party as the enemies of the country. The Government could have crushed the opposition in the Chamber, for they had an overwhelming major, ity, but they took fright. The Regency Council was permitted to call Manin and his friends to power. Trouble continued in the Royal house. Prince Nicholas fell in love with a Mine, baveanu and wanted to retire from Government as his older brother Carol had done. The Queen Mother forbade \ him. Princess lleaua became engaged k to Count Hochberg, the youngest sou of the Prince of Pless. The Qucqa Mother made her break the engagement and took her to Egypt to make her forget. There was a wave of feeling against this royal manager and the Regency Council, in her absence, ordered her name expugned from the Prayer for the Royal Family. The Queen was in bad favour with the Government because of an interview which they interpreted as an attack upon them. The Caroliats now wer* encouraged to establish contact with the Maniu Government and fear of th* looming Liberal coup d’etat made the Government agree to a Carol movement. He was seen, agreed, and in * short time was placed upon the Throne. But the return of the Prince to become King did not bring about reconciliation with Helen. There were reports that they were to start life together again and that Michael had paved the way to an understanding, but these were never entirely confirmed. In May, 1931, it was stated that Queen Helen had been ordered to leave Rumania. Last May she did leave.