PLAGE IN DEMOCRACY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 122, 25 May 1937, Page 9

PLAGE IN DEMOCRACY

THE ROYAL FAMILY

LABOUR URGES CHANGES

"FALSE STANDARDS"

PROGRESS TO THE CLASSLESS STATE

CTnlted Presa association—By Elect/lc Tel»erapb—Copyright. (Received May 25, 11.20 a.m.) LONDON, May 24. The question whether the time has arrived to modify the "pomp and circumstance" of the monarchy was. raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. C. R. Attlcc, on behalf of the Labour Party when the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Neville- Chamberlain) moved a scries of resolutions giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Civil List, which maintained the total at £410,000. Mr. Chamberlain explained that no provision was made in the event of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth because the committee felt it was impossible at present to know what would be the conditions then, prevailing or what provision, if any, it would be proper to make. x In moving that the provision be limited to a year only, Mr. Attlee said that the Labour Party's opposition was not associated \vith Republicanism or the running of the monarchy on cheap lines, but they could not acquiesce in establishing false standards for a long period. The present conception of suitable provision rested on the idea of a century ago. "We, live in a democratic age" he said, "and don't make a god of an ordinary man. The King rules not only here but in" the Dominions, those great democracies where people socially are more democratic than here." UNFAIR AND UNHEALTHY. Alluding' to the Coronation, Mr. Attlee said there was no question that the people liked a certain amount of pomp and circumstance, but there was a difference between occasional displays of pageantry and the continual observance of ritual. It was not right that the King should be expected, always to live on parade or that he and his family should always.be in the public eye. In recent years there had been far too much boosting of Royalty in\the Press and by. wireless. It was unfair to the monarch and unhealthy to the community. He did not underestimate the importance of n the monarchy, but the greatest of its responsibilities was not comparable with the responsibility of the House of Commons. There might be grave political mischief if the conditions under which the King lived meant cutting him off from the masses of the people or surrounding him with influences operating in one direction only. "We are looking to the future," said Mr. Attlee, "believing that the country is moving rapidly from a class state to a classless state. We don't believe that the enveloping ,of the Royal Family with a continual round of obsequience makes for strengthening of the monarchy," ' There should be a revision in consultation to see how the Royal Family could best be fitted into democracy, he said. ' ... . '■;