ATTACK ON PRINCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18943, 14 February 1925, Page 9

ATTACK ON PRINCE.

LABOUR IN COMMONS. ——— BOLD TAUNTS AN® GIBES. SOME AMAZING SPEECHES. ANTI-ROYALISTS' DARING. / AFRICAN TOUR OPPOSED. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. (Received 7.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z.—Sun. LONDON. Feb. 12. An attack upon the Prince of Wales was made by members of the Labour Party to-day in the HouSe of Commons. A vote in the estimates of £2OOO toward the cost of the Prince's visit to South Africa was being debated. Mr. D. Kirkwood, Labour member for Dumbarton, protested against the vote, and moved an amendment that it be redaced. " This is humbug," he said. " The Prince of Wales should first see his own country, particularly Glasgow. Individuals connected with the Labour Party have stated that the members of the Royal Family have endeared themselves to the working classes. I do not believe it. " I do not envy the Prince," continued Mr. Kirkwood. " Rather I pity the poor man for being trotted about the world like a clown. I want to protest against the way in which big financiers are using the Prince for their own ends, not to strengthen the brotherhood of man." Bitterness of Working Classes. Continuing, Mr. Kirkwood said that one reason why he did not envy the Prince was that he, the speaker, had got his health and independence, and was only responsible to his Creator. Cries of "order" and "shame." Mr. Kirkwood turned upon his interrupters and retorted: "I say, shame on you who are responsible for the awful conditions under which the class from which I sprung have to live, move and have our being. "They sent me here to tell you that your days are numbered. I want to draw public attention to the treatment which r, member of the working classes gets when he stands up here to tell you who are ruling the actual feeling of the workers. An Invitation to Dinner. Continuing, Mr. Kirkwood said : " I was invited by Lord and Lady Blythewood to dine with the Prince at Glasgow, but I refused to dine with this commonlycalled ' young' man, who is over 30 years of age. Mr. Wheatley and I and some of our colleagues, however, asked the Prince to dine with us at a restaurant so that we could show him the slums of Glasgow. " I promised to guarantee the Prince absolute security on my personal life. (Laughter.) Lord Blythewood replied to our invitation, saying it could not bo accepted. "If a battleship is included in the Prince's tour, it will cost little short of £1,000.000. Why spend that on the Prince ? He gets £33,736 a year from the Duchy of Cornwall. That is not bad. to go on with, and he will get another £IO,OOO a year when he is married. The chairman called Mr. Kirkwood to order. .• Ministerial Anger Evoked. Mr. John Wheatley, formerly Minister for Health in the Labour Government, intervened. He said Mr. Kirkwood was entitled to argue that the Prince's income was sufficient to pay for, the trip to South Africa. The member for Dumbarton went on to say the Prince could easily pay for this mission, himself." He ended his remarks amid loud and frequent cries of " order " from the Ministerial Benches, the members of which were now thoroughly angry. They were making continual interjections and kept rising to points of order, till Mr. Kirkwood was forced to sit down. Mr. E. Scrvmgeour, Independent member for Dundee, said: '"There is nothing practical in the Prince's tour." Mr. S. Saklatvala, Communist member for Battersea North, said: "I object to this misuse of public funds; but, if we must have a British Empire, we must have a ' Royal knob ' and pay for it." Loud cries of " order." " No Use For Royalty." Mr. G. Buchanan, Labour member for Glasgow (Gorbals), Mr. J. Bromley, Labour member for Barrow-in-Furness, and Mr. J. Westwood, Labour member for Midlothian and Peebles, similarly opposed the vote. Mr. Buchanan,, who seconded Mr. Kirkwood's amendment, said: "Why pamper this young man ? I cannot see any use for Royalty at all. They have played absolutely no part in society, and are grossly overpaid." The Rev. C. Stephen, Labour member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, said that commercial circles were interested in the Prince's tour of Argentina. Therefore they ought to pay his expenses. Another Labour member asked if it was the function of Kingship to go round as a commercial bagman to the capitalists of the world. "Vote Overwhelmingly Carried. Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. Walter Guinness, Conservative member for West Suffolk, in defending the vote, declared that the Prince of Wales had ungrudgingly carried out (he duties which he was called upon to perform. His Royal Highness' visits to the. Dominions would not prevent the Prince from carrying out iho work which Mr. Kirkwood was so anxious he should perform. The House negatived the amendment by 304 votes to 90. Many Socialists absented themselves from the debate. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. J- 11. Thomas, Mr. J. R. Clyncs, and Mr. Sidney Webb, of the late Labour Cabinet, all supported the Government. Mr. Arthur Henderson abstained from voting. ~ The newspapers comment, some angrily and .gome tauntingly, on labour's attack upon the Prince. The Dailj Express describes it as a " burlesque attack," which, however, gained significance because Mr. Wheatley, an ex-Minister and a possible Labour Prime Minister, egged on Mr. Kirkwood, though he did not make a "speech." The Morning Post says it, is sure that rto one feels more keenly than dojs the Prince of Wales the terrible conditions under which many human beings have to live. "But no single individual can remove them," the paper adds, " not e'en &lr. Kirkwood."