THE REGENCY BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23108, 6 February 1937, Page 13

THE REGENCY BILL

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE THIRD READING CARRIED (British Official Wireless) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) RUGBY, Feb. 4. The Regency Bill passed its third reading without a division in the House of Commons. LIVELY EXCHANGES CRITICISM FROM THE LEFT LONDON, Feb. 4. Lively passages between the socalled " wild men " on the Left and Sir John Simon and Earl Winterton occurred in the committee stage oi the Regency Bill in the House of Commons. Mr J. C. Ede (Lab.), on the first clause laying down that the Sovereign- attains his majority at 18, said an ordinary minor could not manage his estate. Citizens could not vote nor a peer or commoner take his seat until he was 21. Sir John Simon recalled that Queen Victoria came to the throne when she was 18. He did not think there was any justification for departing from the traditional age. The clause was adppted without a division. , On clause 2 Sir John Simon moved an amendment making it possible for four or more persons,instead of three or more, to declare a Sovereign incapable of performing the royal functions. Mr G. Mander (Lab.) 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 he had to decide whether a Sovereign was insane or not.; There might be feeling in tha country, and the person ascending the throne should not be subject to controversy.

"I protest against the attempt to deceive the House and the country into the belief that this is a permanent Bill," said Mr W. Gallacher (Communist). " 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." Earl Winterton described Mr Gallacher's 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): What is your justification for contradicting him? Earl 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 monstrous statement and quite untrue.

Mr Maxton: My noble lord is, of course, a master of vituperation. Mr Gallacher, resuming his speech, described Earl Winterton's intervention as ignorant presumption, and accused him of " serving out insults as it pleases his high majesty." He added that every Regency Bill hitherto had related to the Heir Apparent, if he was a minor. This Bill related to the reigning monarch. Sir John Simon, replying, recalled the last illness of King George V, and said it was possible for him to perform his necessary duties to the end, but, in a case in which a monarch was completely and suddenly rendered incapable, from physical illness or mental disease, the country, under the existing Constitution, would be without means of securing the appointment of a Regent. Sir John Simon said there was no truth whatever in the statement that there was something suspicious about the Bill. He would be prepared, if it were the wish of the House, to exclude from the list of persons making the declaration in the case of incapacity, the one who would become Regent. "I think we should 'etain the husband or wife of the Sovereign," he said, " but I propose to exclude the person next in line of succession. I would achieve this by changing the number of members from six to five instead of from three to four." The clause was agreed to as amended. CLAUSE AMENDED LONDON, Feb. 5. (Received Feb. 5, at 9 p.mO Sir-John Simon moved an amendment to another clause deleting the words saying that the Regent must be resident in the United Kingdom, and substituting the words " domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom." Sir John Simon said it had been explained that the Regent might be a person acting as Gov-ernor-General in s dominion, or might be in a dominion for a temporary puroose. and thus not resident 'but domiciled in the United Kingdom. The amendment was adopted. Mr Maxton asked why the Regent must be 21 while the King could be 18. Sir D. B. Somervell (Con.) replied that there must be a Regent when the heir to the Throne was under 18. A potential regent might be only a few months older. It was thought that there should bo a minimum gao of three years The Bill was read a third time without division, and sent to the ; House of Lords which, tired of waiting, had adjourned.