THE REGENCY BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23106, 4 February 1937, Page 9

THE REGENCY BILL

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE SECOND READING CARRIED (British Official Wireless) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph-Copyright) RUGBY, Feb. 2. The Regency Bill passed its second reading in the House of Common? by 305 votes to 1. Mr J. R. Clynes and Sir Archibald Sinclair supported the Bill for th? Labour and Liberal oppositions. The Home Secretary (Sir John Simon) explained that the Bill, if it became law, would provide permanent machinery for use in case of need, instead of Parliament requiring to pass special legislation when the need arose, as had occurred in the case of all previous Regency Acts on the Statute Book. The provisions had been explained to the dominion Prime Ministers in May, 1935, and were found to be generally acceptable, though it was clearly entirely a matter for each dominion to decide whether legislation of its own might be necessary now or hereafter. A dominion, with its Gov-ernor-General, got its ordinary day-to-day business done in the name of the Crown, despite the incapacity of a Sovereign, so that their position was different from the United Kingdom and the colonies, in which the present Bill was designed to be effective.

A COMMUNIST'S VIEWS

LONDON, Feb. 2.

Mr J. Maxton (Independent Labour) said he found nothing in common with the viewpoint expressed by the previous speakers. "As far as democratic and Socialist thought is concerned," he said, " we are progressing backwards in seriously and solemnly discussing the putting of the effective control of the realm permanently in the hands of four or five absolutely unknown persons. When one starts trying to put over on the mass of educated people to-day that the monarchy has some intelligent justification as a governmental form, you have to go on from step to step keeping up the delusion, which, in my opinion, received its quietus when the conception of the Divine right of kings was thrown overboard and when it received a terrible shock only a few weeks ago." Mr W. Gallacher (Communist) declared: "The Bill expresses a complete lack of confidence in the monarchy. There is not only the fact that you had the abdication of a Monarch who had been represented as the last word in the ideal man, but you have now a Monarch no one is sure of. No other explanation of the Bill can be given than that the Government does not expect the present Monarch to last out his time."

Mr G. Buchanan (Independent Labour) declared that the Government was passing the Bill for all time because it was afraid to allow a future democratic Chamber to examine the monarchy as it would any other problem. He asked: Were regents better than an ordinary man or any 20 commoners? Sir Donald Somervell (Attorneygeneral), winding up the debate, said he did not wish to enter into a controversy whether Mr Maxton was sane and the rest of the House insane. It reminded him of the story of a man who returned from a jury and declared that 11 more obstinate men he had never met.—(Laughter.) EXTREMISTS* SPEECHES (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, Feb. 2. Three extremists, Messrs Maxton, Gallacher, and Buchanan, made remarkable speeches against the Bill, and challenged a division. Messrs Gallacher and Maxton were nominated as tellers for the " Noes," with the result that there was a minority of only one, as the tellers do not vote. Sir John Simon moved the second reading. He pointed out that the Bill left no doubt as regards the identity of the regent, although there might be circumstances in which it might be thought that the QueenMother would be the best regent. It was possible that a different view might be held. Mr Gallacher: "Hear, hear. Sir John continued that it had been thought better, therefore, to leave no place for controversy. The most natural person to choose was the one next in line of succession. Mr J. R. Clynes said this was not the moment for discussing the general position of the Throne. I shall say no more than that. He added: "It is accepted as a serviceable and popular .institution by all classes in the land. It belongs not only to England, but to the Empire —(cheers)—which emphasises the argument I have already adduced of more frequent visits to the more remote parts of the Empire." Sir Archibald Sinclair supported the Bill. He suggested that there was some need for amendment m committee, but he did not indicate in which direction.