ABDICTION BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 295, 14 December 1936, Page 8

ABDICTION BILL

BRISK PASSAGE AND ASSENT SPEECHES IN COMMONS INDEPENDENT LABOUR AMENDMENT LONDON, Dec. 11. The Abdication mlt has passed both the nou,e of (Junnnuiu and inc House ol Lords, and nas received tile Kuyai AsseiL. The Prime ivunister, i.lr Stanley Baldwin, was cneered as ne enicrea the House of Commons to move me second reading or the Bill. ’He saia it concerned me Dominions as mucn as hngiand. “Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and boutn Ainca desire to associate themselves wim tne Bill,” he said. “Mr de Valera nas seal a message to me tnai ne proposes to call tne Dail to deal witn me position of the Irish Free State. Tne BJi Is necessary because the Act of Settlement does not provide lor the contingency ol abdication, and it is aloo necessary specifically to eliminate His Majesty s issue and descendants from tne succession. In respect to King Edwards proposed marriage, ii would clearly be wrong for the provisions ot the Royal Marriage Aci Lu apply to one wno, after an Aodicalion Act had been passed, ceased to have any right of succession.” The Deader of the Opposition, Mr C. R. Attlee, who was received with general cheers, said: “I desire to support the Bill to carry out His Majesty’s wishes and close a chapter in history with the least possible delay.

One essential is that the people's will shall prevail. We want the nation to return as soon as possible to the urgent problems of peace and to the situation at home and abroad. A great disservice has been done to constitutional Monarchy by the vulgar and unreal halo with which some have invested it. The continuance of the old-fashioned ceermonial of surrounding the Monarch with persons drawn from a narrow, privileged class has hampered him and sometimes frustrate his good intentions. The keynote of the Monarchy should be simplicity, which will bind the King and the people more closely than ever.” (Cheers). The Liberal Leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, briefly declared that he unconditionally supported the Bill. Mr Maxton’s Amendment Mr J. Maxton (Independent Labour Party) moved as an amendment: “That the House declines a second reading to a Bill which is necessitated by circumstances clearly showing the danger to England and the Empire inherent in a hereditary monarch. It is a time when the peace and prosperity of the people require a more stable and more efficient form of Government of a Republican character, with closer contact and more responsive to the will of the people.” “Like the Leader of the Opposition,” he said, “I am chiefly concerned with the condition of the people and the economic problems of the age, but we are also confronted with one of the most important political problems the House has ever had to consider. The step we are taking today is reactionary, and we shall be doing a wrong and foolish thing if we do not seize the opportunity to establish completely h democratic form of Government, sweeping away hereditary principles.” A number of members left the House talking loudly when the Rev. Campbell Stephen (Independent Labour Party) rose to second the amendment. He declared that the only argument was that it was the sole link binding the Empire. “If that is true,” he said, “it is held by a weak link, but I consider that the Empire is not held together by sentimental attachment for a particular

Royal Family, but by long association and basically by economic interests. The idea of connecting tne Dominions with a particular family will inevitably lead the Empire to the fading away of the monarchial system and to the great significance of maintaining the present economic order, and therefore it is important to abolish it.” Greatness of the Throne The Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, said he could best interpret the feeling of the House if he did not deal at length with the amendment. (Cheers). it was unfortunate that the affair should have given rise to such an amendment. “It is true, ’ he added, “that what has happened has inexpressibly shocked the r>iiusn people. I don't mean merely the events of yesterday, but the incidents and rumours leading up to it, but this only demonstrates how deeply the conception of constitutional Kingship is embedded in our hearts, The Throne is far greater than the life or experiences of any individual.” Mr Austen Chamberlain (Conservative) said: “I am the oldest member of the House, and represent a constituency of poor streets and mean houses where people bear the cruellest hardships and suffering, but those very people see a friend in the King and a safeguard in the Monarchy. It is right that a member representing the poor should repudiate in their name Mr Maxton’s suggestion that the Monarchy is a castle of class privilege.” Mr Gallacher (Communist) denounced Mr Chamberlain’s speech as cant and humbug. The second reading was carried by 403 votes to 5. King’s Income Diverted Mr G. D. Hardie (Labour) asked in the Committee stage: “VVnat is this gentleman going to get now that he is out of a job? Will he carry with him the income of certain estates that are said to be his?” Sir Dennis Herbert said that the question was out of order. Mr Morgan Jones (Labour): Will the King receive any money from the State? There was no reply. The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell) said that the sources from which the King’s income was derived were the Civil

List, and the revenues fioni the Ducnies of Cornwall a.iu Lancaster. When the liiil became law the revenues going to the present King would go to his successor, and King Edward would cease to draw- any of the revenues to which tne Crown was entitled. Action which the House might subsequently take was outside today's discussions. Replying to other questions whether tne omission oi’ the title “Defender of the Faith” had anything to do with the Coronation not being held, Sir John Simon replied in the negative, but added that it was a fact that King Edward had not included that tide among his descriptions. In moving the third reading, MrBaldwin said: “As the Kings assent to the Bill will be His Majesty’s last act I would not like it to go to the House of Lords without saying that thougn we have this duty to perform and do so unanimously we shall always remember affectionately the wholehearted and loyal service His Majesty has given the country as the Prince of Wales and for a short time as King. We are grateful for all his work, and we shall not forget him.” Ex-King’s Designation Mr H. B. Lees Smith (Labour) asked what the designation of tne King would be after the passing oi the Bill. The Attorney-General said that must be a matter for the new King to deal with when the time came. The only question as far as titles were concerned was that of the titles whicn His Majesty had by virtue of being King, and all other titles merged with tne Kingsnip, ceased to exist. Mr Lees Smith asked for further information as to the procedure in regard to the Dominions. The Attorney-General replied that as Australia and New Zealand had not adopted the Statute of Westminster, therefore, as a matter of strict law, an Act of the British Parliament amending the Act ot Settlement would be applied to those Dominions, but they desired that their express consent should be recited in the present Bill. The Free State had adopted the Statute of Westminster and was entitled to have its own legislation.

Mr G. Buchanan (Ind. Labour Party) intimated tnat he and his his friends would not force a division on the third reading, as they had already registered their protests. They reserved the right to oppose subsequent legislation on tne subject. The sitting was suspended until the Royal assent was given to the Bill. Shortly before 2 p.m. Mr Baldwin announced that the Accession Council would meet on Saturday morning to approve the Proclamation of the new King. The House would take the oath of allegiance at 2.45 p.m., and meet at the usual hour on Monday, when the Prime Minister would bring in a message from the new King and move the Address in Reply. The House would rise for the Christmas recess on December 13. The House then adjourned. In the House of Lords The final scene in the House of Lords was extremely simple. Lord Halifax, in moving the second reading of the Bill, emphasised His Majesty’s desire for expedition. Lord Snell (Labour) and Lord Mottistone (Liberal) indicated their agreement.

The Committee and report stages followed in formal and rapid succession and the Bill passed the th’rd reading in six minutes. The Commons were then summoned and both Houses were informed that the King had not chosen to be present personally but had appointed a Royal Commission to give his assent.

It is officially revealed that King Edward ceased to be King and that the Duke of York succeeded to the Throne at 1.52 p.m., at the moment that the Royal Commission gave the Royal assent to the Bill.