THE ROYAL FAMILY

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19878, 6 May 1936, Page 8

THE ROYAL FAMILY

TRIBUTES IN PARLIAMENT.

i V- v:.. _. -~ 1 l i rnlsnns or common PEOPLE. i t ._-; i ATTACK ox MONARCHICAL SYSTEM i ’— .:‘:ww (omciai wlraxeuJ ’ (neceived May 0. 3 p.m.) RUGBY, May 5. ‘ Several Left supporters in the ilousr of Commons (lid not hesitate to .iltm-k the Monarchical system when Mr Neville liliumherlnin, llhancellor ot the hixrhvfurr, brought up the report or the King's oi\il list. . The ()fliL'i‘di spokesman of the La< ibour Party. Mr F. i’ethick Lawrence, thowever, saint the party recognised the Crown as the hulwurk ot‘ «lemooratie government. Labour (lid not favour 5 extravagant ceremony, but. believed ‘the waste attending past courts had been almost eliminated. The present Kim: hud a more direct and more inti—muto association and friendship with the common people than perhaps an) .monzu'rh since Charles 11. 1 Sir A. Sinclair said the House should :nni approm'h the question in a nigglii’nj.,r ‘.spirit, boruuso there had been nothing toggling in the spirit in which the ‘lioyal Family imd performed its duties ! Mr .J. McGovern (Labour) said that lit he were a Conservative he would be [entirely satisfied with the present Royal ili'amiiy. but the sgstom of parasitic-a] imonarchy was an outrage at the pre~ ‘sent age. Proposal Considered Outrageous. .‘lr McGovern said the proposal to {provide the King with £IIO,OOO for this personal purse was outrageous, it icontrasted with the 17s a week given ito an unemployed man. i Mr A. McLaren (Labour): “The tHouse is not giving the King anything." i Mr McGovernproceeded to refer to line Monarchy as a purely decorative ijob. and a symbol of exploitation and ‘roohery. He described the Monarchial ‘institution as a useless thing in a mod‘ern State. Mr G. 0. Hal-die (Labour) contrasted the £IO,OOO provision for the possible wife or the King with the condition of ; children heim; horn in the East End oi ‘ Glasgow that night. He protested against the provision for relatives ofi the King, whereas other people had to i keep their own relatives. He also oriti- i risen the £70,000 [or the Queen- l Mother \\iliie widows received 75 6.1‘ or haif—u—rrown. lie did not. believoi ‘that the King would approve it he was . a free agent. i Sir S. Crinps believed that thesei iiarge sums were necessary in the pre- i ‘sent circumstances. which arose from} the traditional demands of aristocracy. ‘ i _\ii- \\'. (tallncher (Communist) ithought the Government. ought to have [a sense of shame in bringing the pro—posals before the House. Amendments Defeated. Many members explained and defended the votE. Mr Lawrence‘s amendment. to redure the amount by £IOOO as aprotest, was defeated by 238 votes to 102. An amendment. by the Rev. C. ‘Stephen to omit additional provision ‘t‘or the Duke and Duchess of York and ili‘lF‘it‘ children was defeated by 261 \ote-s to 22. An amendment to delete provision for the prospective Queen and the chil—it‘ll'en of the marriage was defeated by 2772 votes to 17. ’ 'i‘wn Government resolutions were carried by 22.3 votes to t 7 and 291 iwtos to 3, and a third with a division.