/
19361211_reps_14_152.xml
2027 lines (2027 loc) · 221 KB
/
19361211_reps_14_152.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1936-12-11</date>
<parliament.no>14</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>5</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>2898</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House of Representatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1936-12-11</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ABDICATION OF KING EDWARD VIII</title>
<page.no>2898</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2898</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4O</name.id>
<electorate>Wilmot</electorate>
<party>UAP</party>
<role>Prime Minister</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYONS, Joseph Aloysius</name>
<name role="display">Mr LYONS</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I regret to have to inform honorable members that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General the following message sent by His Majesty the King : - "After long and anxious consideration I have determined to renounce the Throne towhich I succeeded on the death of My father, and am now communicating this, My final and irrevocable decision.Realizing as I. do the gravity of this step, I can only hope that I shall have the understanding of My peoples in the decision I have taken and the reasons which have led Me to take it. I will not enter now into My private feelings, but I would beg that it should bo remembered that the burden which constantly rests upon the shoulders of a Sovereign is so heavy that it can only be borne in circumstances different from those in which I now find. Myself. I conceive that I am not overlooking the duties that reston Me to place in the forefront the public interests when I declare that I am conscious that I can no longer discharge this heavy task with efiiciency or with satisfaction to Myself. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I have accordingly this morning executed an Instrument of Abdication in the terms following: - </para>
<para>I, Edward the Eighth, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Emperor of India, do hereby declare My irrevocable determination to renounce the Throne for Myself and for My descendants, and My desire that effect should be given to this Instrument of Abdication immediately. </para>
<para>In token whereof I have hereunto set My hand this tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, in the presence of the witnesses whose signatures are subscribed. (Signed) Edwardr.I.' </para>
<para>My execution of this Instrument has been witnessed by My three brothers, TheirRoyal Highnesses the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Duke of Kent. </para>
<para>I deeply appreciate the spirit which has actuated the appeals which have been made to Me to take a different decision and I have, before reaching My final determination, most fully pondered over them. But My mind is made up. Moreover, further delay cannot but be most injurious to the peoples whom I have tried to serve as Prince of "Wales and as King, and whose future happiness and prosperity are the constant wish of My heart. I take My leave of them in the confidenthope that the course which I have thought it right to follow is that which is best for the stability of the Throne and the Empire and the happiness of My peoples. I am deeply sensible of the consideration which they have always extended to Me, both before and after My accession to the Throne, and which I know they will extend in full measure to My successor. </para>
<para>I am most anxious that there should be no delay of any kind in giving effect to the Instrument which I have executed and that all necessary steps should be taken immediately to secure that My lawful successor, My brother. HisRoyal Highness the Duke of York, should ascend the Throne. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>EDWARDR.I</title>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">
<inline font-style="italic">I</inline>ask leave to make a statement in regard to this matter, and at a later stage to move a motion. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Beasley</name>
</talker>
<para>- There will be no "gag"? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4O</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>UAP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYONS, Joseph Aloysius</name>
<name role="display">Mr LYONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is there any objection to the Prime Minister being given leave to make a statement and to move a motion? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9C</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Garden</name>
</talker>
<para>-i object, to leave being given. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>Leave not granted. </para>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lyons)</inline> agreed to with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the members of the House - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable me to make a ministerial statement to the House in regard to the Abdication of His Majesty the King and also to move, without notice, a motion in connexion therewith. </para>
</quote>
<para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4O</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYONS, Joseph Aloysius</name>
<name role="display">Mr LYONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- In presenting the message that I have just read, I desire to set out briefly the history of this matter so far as it concerns the King and his advisers. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9C</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Garden</name>
</talker>
<para>- I thought that the <inline font-style="italic">motion</inline> of the Prime Minister was for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable something to be done. The right honorable gentleman is making a statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I declared carried the motion that the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Prime Minister to make a statement and subsequently to move a motion. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2899</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4O</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYONS, Joseph Aloysius</name>
<name role="display">Mr LYONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- In presenting this message I desire to set out briefly the history of this matter so far as it concerns the King and his advisers, and particularly the part taken in the dis cussions by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The cause of His Majesty's abdication, as honorable members know, is his desireto marry a <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson,</inline> and his deliberate personal conclusion that such a marriage would in all the circumstances be inconsistent with his remaining upon, the Throne. <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> is a lady of American birth, twice divorced, whose first and second husbands . are still living. The decree nisi for her divorce from the second of those husbands has not yet been made absolute. </para>
<para>On the 28th November I received from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. .</inline> Baldwin, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a secret and confidential cable informing me that he had had conversations with His Majesty the King about <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson;</inline> that His Majesty had stated his intention to marry <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson;</inline> but that at the same time His Majesty had said that he appreciated that the idea of her becoming Queen and her children succeeding to the Throne was out of the question, and that consequently he contemplated abdicating and leavingthe 'Duke of York to succeed to the Throne. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> having told His Majesty that he would like a few days to think this over, His Majesty had subsequently asked <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> Baldwin's views on a. new proposal, namely, that special legislative provision should be made for a marriage to <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> which would not make her Queen and would not. entitle her issue to succeed to the Throne. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> informed me that he had advised His Majesty that he did not think there was any chance of such an arrangement receiving the approval of Parliament in Great Britain; also that the assent of the dominions would be essential to the carrying out of such an arrangement. He invited my personal views. X then communicated with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> offering my personal view - since at that time the whole matter was highly secretand confidential - that the proposed marriage, if it led to <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> becoming Queen, would invoke widespread condemnation, and that the alternative proposal or something in the nature of a specially sanctioned morganatic marriage would run counter to the best popularconception of theRoyal Family. </para>
<para>There having arisen in certain sections of the press a rumour ihat a conflict existed between the King and his advisers, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> informed me on the 4th December that there was no foundation for the suggestion that any advice by Ministers had been tendered or that any conflict between His Majesty and his Ministers existed. On the 5 th December, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> further informed me that, in view of the fact that Hia Majesty the King was still contemplating as a possibility the contracting of a morganatic marriage with <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson,</inline> the British Cabinet had felt it necessary that he, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin,</inline> should make a statement in the House of Commons making it clear that the British Cabinet regarded that course as utterly impracticable, and that, from the information which had been received, it was satisfied that this course would similarly not be acceptable to the dominions. Pursuant to this <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> made the proposed statement in the House of Commons and subsequently advised His Majesty accordingly. At the same time <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> suggested that I might convey to His Majesty the opinion of his Government in the Commonwealth of Australia. On the 5th December I did so, informing His Majesty of the views of my Government, and in particular stating that any proposal that <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> should become Consort and not Queen, and that her issue should be barred from succession would not be approved by my Government, nor on my advices could any government be formed in the Commonwealth Parliament which would be prepared to sponsor legislation sanctioning such a course. What I said on that occasion has since received the confirmation in this Parliament of the honorable the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Curtin).</inline> My communication to His Majesty was formally acknowledged by his private secretary. </para>
<para>For several days thereafter His Majesty took into consideration the views not only of his Ministers in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia, but also of the Governments of the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Dominion of New Zealand, all of which, I was advised by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin,</inline> were substan- tially in agreement with the opinions expressed by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia. </para>
<para>On the 10th December <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> advised me that His Majesty's determination remained unalterably fixed and that His Majesty had informed him that it was his desire to abdicate. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> added that his Government was making a final appeal to His Majesty, but that it feared that there was no chance of His Majesty changing his mind. Having received that information, I at once forwarded, through His Excellency the Governor-General, a message to His Majesty the King expressing the deep sympathy of the Commonwealth Government, and its sincere regret that His Majesty should feel it necessary to take such a step, and begging, in the name of His Majesty's subjects in the Commonwealth of Australia, that His Majesty would reconsider his decision and continue to reign over us. </para>
<para>His Majesty did not feel able to reconsider his decision, and his message which I have just read to the House is the melancholy result. </para>
<para>I cannot conclude this narrative without emphasizing that His Majesty's decision to abdicate was in no sense advised by any of His Majesty's Governments, and was neither directly nor indirectly the outcome of any pressure exerted by them. </para>
<para>Little remains to be said. I know that I am expressing the opinion of every member of this Parliament, and of the Australian public, when I say how deeply we regret His Majesty's decision, and how profoundly grieved we all are at this sudden termination of a reign which seemed so full of golden promise. </para>
<para>But His Majesty's decision is irrevocable, and it is proper that his wishes should be carried out. We must turn our eyes to the future, and set about the business of confirming in the occupancy of the Throne His Royal Highness the Duke of York, who, on the effectuation of His Majesty's abdication, becomes the successor to the Throne. </para>
<para>I appeal to members of this Parliament, and to the people of Australia, to show to our new sovereign all that loyalty and affection which they showed to his brother and his father, and I am certain that this appeal will not be in vain. </para>
<para>Any alteration of the law affecting the succession to the Throne is now a matter of concern to every British dominion, as well as to the United Kingdom. For that "reason I am submitting to the House a motion, the substance of which is that this House approves of the legislation which has already been introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom giving effect to the King's abdication, excluding his issue from the succession, and allowing the occupancy of the Throne to go to the Duke of York as on a demise of the Crown. The motion itself is being submitted in both' Houses of this Parliament in order to give effect to the Constitutional Convention recorded in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which sets out, in substance, that any alteration of the law affecting the succession to the Crown requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions. </para>
<para>I move - </para>
<para class="block">That- </para>
<para>Whereas His Majesty King Edward the Eighth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, has, by an Instrument of Abdication executed on the tenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred, and thirty-six, been pleased to declare that He is irrevocably determined to renounce the Throne for Himself and His descendants, and has for that purpose executed an Instrument of Abdication and has signified His desire that effect thereto should be given immediately: </para>
<para>And whereas a Bill intituled An Act to give effect to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication and for purposes connected therewith has been introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom : </para>
<para>And whereas it is proposed to be enacted by that Bill that immediately upon the Royal assent being signified thereto the Instrument of Abdication so executed shall have effect, and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be King, and there shall be a demise of the Crown, and, accordingly, the member of the Royal Family next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges and dignities thereunto belonging, and His Majesty, His issue (if any) and descendants of that issue shall not, after His Majesty's abdication, have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly, and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 shall not apply to His Majesty after His abdication, nor to the issue (if any) of His Majesty or descendants of that issue : </para>
<para>And whereas it is by the Preamble to the Act of the United Kingdom known as the Statute of Westminster, 1931, among other things provided that it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to that Statute that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the <inline font-style="italic">members</inline> of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne should thereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: </para>
<para>And whereas the Bill intituled An Act to give effect to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication and for purposes connected therewith will, upon the Royal assent being signified thereto, involve an alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne and it is desirable that the Parliament of the Commonwealth should assent to such alteration : this House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth hereby assents to such alteration. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2901</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009FQ</name.id>
<electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
</talker>
<para>.- It would be idle to say that this is not a day of supreme importance to the people of Australia and to all the people of the British Empire. We are faced with the fact that King Edward VIII. has abdicated the Throne, and has abdicated it because he desired to marry a lady, and in marrying her sought that the law in respect of the marriage of the King should be so altered that his wife would not be Queen of England, and, therefore, not in every way his mate and equal, and, furthermore, that any children who should be born would not come in the first line of succession. It appears clear from the statement that the Prime Minister has just read to the House, and from the circumstances attendant upon it, that abdication represents the definite intention of His Majesty. I quite agree that the course that he contemplated was one which this Parliament would not support. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Honorable Members. - Hear, hear! </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009FQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Further, I say that the Australian Labour movement, as a movement, would not have agreed, in any circumstances, to confer upon the wife of any man, even though he should be King, a status less than that which would be the inherent right of her wifehood as the wife of her husband. Therefore, as the King sought special legislation to accommodate his convenience in his choice- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9C</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Garden</name>
</talker>
<para>- Who said so? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009FQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Prime Minister has just said so, and I accept, unreservedly, the statement which he has made. All through this week we have asked for the facts, and to-day we have had them. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KX7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some of them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009FQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Having had the facts, I think, fully and completely- honorable Members. - Hear, hear! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Beasley</name>
</talker>
<para>- That view is notshared by all of us. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009FQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CURTIN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- It may not be, but I speak as the Leader of the Opposition in this House and as the Leader of the Australian Labour movement in this Parliament, and the judgment which I make in assessing the value or otherwise of the statements that I make is a judgment I shall answer for anywhere and everywhere. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>I regret very much that His Majesty King Edward VIII. should have relinquished the Throne. He came to the Throne after years of difficulty through which the Empire has passed. He had made himself probably the most prominent and conspicuous symbol of the unity of the British speaking people, for he had travelled through every part of the dominions. He knew the 'people of the dominions probably better than anybody who had previously held the office which came to him. It is a matter of deep regret that he should find it necessary from his own personal point of view to relinquish that office. I have only to say that there appears to me to be nothing for this Parliament to do but to carry the motion which the Prime Minister has moved. The succession to the Throne goes naturally and logically to the Duke of York, as the brother of His Majesty. Australia believes that the King is the symbol of the union of the community constituting the British Commonwealth of Nations, and it will give to the successor of King Edward that loyalty and allegiance which it gave to him. We all hope - I hope - that in the reign of the King who is to succeed King Edward the work which can be done for civilization by the British Empire will be of such a character as to make even more stable the institutionalism which it has developed and which has played so important a part in the history of the world. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate>West Sydney</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I am sure that the House would agree that during the last few days we have passed through, a. set of circumstances in our country unknown to us in the history of this generation. During that period the only source from which honorable members could obtain any information concerning happenings in regard to matters of vital concern to the British Empire was through the channel of the newspapers. We were summoned to attend a meeting of this House last Wednesday. The reason for attending was not clearly defined. We knew only through the press of rumours that the present King proposed to abdicate and that, arising from the abdication, it would be necessary for this Parliament to pass certain legislation. Well, we met here last Wednesday. The first endeavour of myself and other honorable members was to ascertain the facts behind the controversy which was raging throughout the world. The House was denied the opportunity to secure these facts. Attempts were made to do so, but all our efforts were frustrated by Government supporters applying the gag. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable, member must not reflect upon a decision of the House. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2902</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- We wished to inform our minds on the subject so that we could arrive at clear and just conclusions in regard to it. However the facts and information were denied to us. To-day, for the first time, we have heard from the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lyons)</inline> a statement which he claims provides the House with all the knowledge which it should have in regard to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Curtin)</inline> has accepted unreservedly what the Prime Minister has said as complete information. The Leader of the Opposition, like every other honorable member, is entitled to form his own conclusions us to whether he will accept unreservedly all that the Prime Minister has said on this subject, but I wish to say respectfully that I disagree with him. I do not believe that all the facte have unreservedly been placed before the House in the statement made by the Prime Minister. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L08</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROSEVEAR, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Rosevear</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nothing thathe said was worth smothering up. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- My reason for saying that is because of what happened in the British House of Commons when this controversy started just about a week ago. The British Prime Minister caused to be published in the British press references to the effect that if the King refused to accept the advice offered to him he would resign, and that he was in a position to inform His Majesty that the Leader of the Opposition would refuse to form a government. That information was published broadcast. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NAIRN, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr Nairn</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was subsequently denied by <inline font-weight="bold">Major Attlee.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is just the point to which I was leading. Of course i t was denied, and flatly denied ; but there was no attempt by the British Prime Minister to inform the world that the statement concerning <inline font-weight="bold">Major Attlee</inline> was untrue. Apparently the British Prime Minister or some of his advisers made the statement deliberately for the express purpose of bringing about the situation referred, to in the motion dealing with the abdication, which has just been moved. Bight through the events of this week there has been a series of publications in the form of propaganda deliberately designed, in my opinion, to bring about the unfortunate result which has been made known to us this morning. I wish to say that I am not satisfied that all the facts in relation to this matter have been made known. I shall not be satisfied, nor should any other honorable member be satisfied, until a complete file of all the cablegrams and telephonic communications and conversations that have passed between this Government and the British Government is laid upon the table of this House or of the Library. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMPSON, Victor</name>
<name role="display">Mr Thompson</name>
</talker>
<para>- What good would that do? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would do this good, that honorable members would not be treated like children in this matter, but would have the opportunity to carry equal responsibility for what has happened in this most momentous issue that the Parliament, the country and the Empire have ever faced. We are at least entitled to that. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTY</name.id>
<electorate>BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CAMERON, Archie</name>
<name role="display">Mr ARCHIE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the honorable member a part of the official Opposition to-day? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2903</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEASLEY, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr BEASLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am here, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> respectfully to offer my observations on this subject and not in any way to undermine or pass any adverse comment upon any of my colleagues. They share with me the right to express any opinion they have as to the facts of this situation. Those who agree with me will endeavour, as far as we can, to elicit from the Government the fullest information that is possible so that we shall be able properly to discuss this question with the country at large, for I must say that the issue does not end with the resolution that may be passed, nor will it completely satisfy every section of the British dominions, for their love and admiration for the gentleman who is abdicating the Throne is so widespread that it will never die in the hearts of the people over whom he has reigned. It is because of that that I desire this information be made known. Whether this is the laughing matter it seems to be to some honorable members is a question to be determined in the years that lie ahead. I have said that I do not accept unreservedly all the Prime Minister has said in regard to this matter. I do not do so because of the propaganda and false statements in regard to this matter that have been circulated throughout the world, particularly in Great Britain during the last week. There is some reason, not yet disclosed, for the declaration of the Prime Minister of England that he would refuse to carry on, and for his observation in regard to the attitude of the Opposition in the House of Commons which, apparently, as we are now aware, was a lying statement so far as the leader of that party was concerned. Due to these things and the purpose of the propaganda behind them, I believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> had in mind the creation of an atmosphere essential to the accomplishment of the final result of forcing the abdication of the King. It is for these reasons that I seek further information in regard to this matter. Apparently we are not to be informed as to whether the Prime Minister here supported entirely all of these developments overseas. Only seven hours before Parliament met yesterday the Prime Minister saw fit to cable to His Majesty advising him that it was the wish of his Government and the Australian people that he should not abdicate. Why were not those observations made last Friday? Why did he not then convey to King Edward the opinion of the Australian people that His Majesty should not abdicate ? Why did he postpone his cablegram to the King until all this propaganda had had its undoubted effect upon the situation? I am entitled to say that the Prime Minister only forwarded that cablegram after a lapse of seven days when he found that the pulse of public opinion in Australia was to the effect that it honestly resented any action that might be taken here or abroad that would force the circumstances which we are discussing this morning. If that cablegram had been sent seven days ago, namely on Friday last, it would have had a big effect on the atmosphere created by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> and others associated with him in the British House of Commons. But it was left till the last moment. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it was left to the stage when the Prime Minister already knew what action was to be taken - until the British Prime Minister had advised him exactly as to what was happening. In the light of all the facts, when the cablegram was despatched the Prime Minister knew the King had decided to abdicate. It is not unkind of me to say that. Certainly it does not seem to me to be a straightforward attitude for him to have adopted in such a time of crisis, if he firmly believed that the step now taken by the King should not have been taken. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>But there are other aspects of this question. It cannot be denied that the circumstances existing during the ten and a half months of the reign of Edward VIII. have brought about a state of affairs which has not met with the approval of the conservative element in British politics. His Majesty has shown a tendency to mix with the masses of the ^people. He has brought to the forefront the unsatisfactory conditions of the working class in England with a view to their immediate remedy. He has gone among the more unfortunate sections of the people in England. He has drawn attention to the necessity for relieving unemployment and removing slums so that his subjects might live decently. Undoubtedly, his efforts in this respect have exerted a powerful influence on the London County Council, and it has launched an extensive scheme to improve the housing conditions of the people coming under its control. Harbouring these thoughts in regard to the developments which have taken place during the period of the reign of Edward VIII., and also while he was Prince of Wales, we believe that behind this move and behind the propaganda indulged in overseas during the last week there are other and more deep-seated reasons than those already stated for the action taken by the British Government. </para>
<para>The King has seen fit to abdicate. Upon that decision none of us can offer any further comment. It was an issue upon which he had to decide for himself; but we regret it. He has passed from the sphere in which we all believed he would exercise a great influence for good, the benefits of which, I think, would have been shared by all, not only his subjects in the British dominions, hut also people generally throughout the world ; an influence which would Lave resulted in breaking down the strong opposition which is continuously manifesting itself against the development of social progress throughout the world. It "was to him that we looked for leadership in such matters, and it is because of the loss we have sustained in that respect that we deeply regret what has occurred. </para>
<para>His brother, the Duke of York, will take his place on the Throne. We shall extend to him, without reservation, all the courtesy, dignity and allegiance due to him as the occupant of the Throne. It is not my intention to make any reference that may bear the interpretation of disrespect, but I must say that, while we wish him well, we deeply regret the passing from the throne of Great Britain of the most democratic King who has ever occupied it, and who has exerted a great influence for the betterment of social conditions over the nations of the world. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2905</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
<party>UAP</party>
<role>AttorneyGeneral</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I do not propose to say anything about the general question which the House is considering, beyond that I should like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Curtin)</inline> on lifting this discussion far above any petty controversy. My purpose in rising is to address myself to a question on which this House, I think, is entitled to have further information, and that is the question of the constitutional position with which we are confronted this morning. I propose to express my views on this matter with some care, because the event with which we have been dealing is without any precedent in the constitutional history of our race, and it is, therefore, proper that the Government, through me, should put on record its view of the constitutional position - its view of the various steps which fall to be taken when one King abdicates the Throne and another is in a position to succeed to it. In the first place I wish to deal with this matter entirely apart from the questions raised by the Statute of Westminster, and, indeed, by the new dominion status generally. I, therefore, propose, in the first instance, to discuss it as briefly as I can as a matter of British constitutionalism, and I shall indicate to what extent that position seems to me to require modification in the light of the position now occupied by the dominions. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>This is the first occasion in the whole course of the constitutional history of our people on which a King has voluntarily abdicated the throne. Edward II. was deposed. Richard II. executed a deed of resignation, but, subsequently Parliament drew up articles against him and he was, in substance, deposed. James II., in 1688, was, in substance, driven out of the Kingdom and the Convention Parliament resolved that the King having " violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom has abdicated the Government and the Throne is thereby vacant". Subsequently, the "Declaration of Rights", recited that James had abdicated the Government and the Throne was thereby vacant. The subsequent growth of constitutionalism in Great Britain, however, has been such that it is now the received view that a ruler's abdication cannot be properly carried out without an act of Parliament. Honorable members have had put in their hands this morning a roneoed copy of the bill which has been introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and because the motion submitted by the Prime Minister refers to that bill, I am addressing myself to this matter in order that honorable members may be put into a position to understand just why that bill has been introduced, and just why this motion has been submitted. As I have said, the received view is that a royal abdication cannot be properly carried out without an act of parliament. The basis of this view is to be found in the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. In connexion with the succession to the throne that view is compendiously stated by Dicey in his <inline font-style="italic">Law of the Constitution,</inline> 8th edition, page 41, as follows : - </para>
<quote>
<para>This supreme legislative authority of Parliament is shown historically in a large number of instances. The descent of the Crown was varied and finally fixed under the Act of Settlement, .12 and 13, William III., c.2.; the King occupies the Throne under a Parliamentary title; his claim to reign depends upon, and is the result of, a Statute. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Another great constitutional authority, Maitland, in his <inline font-style="italic">Constitutional History of England,</inline> page 344, expresses a similar view somewhat more hesitantly - </para>
<quote>
<para>There is, I think, no way in which a reigning King can cease to reign save by his death, by holding communion with the Church of Rome, professing the Popish religion or marrying a Papist, and possibly by abdication. I cannot regard the events of 1327, 1399 or 1688 as legal precedents. I can deduce no rule of law from them ; they seem to me precedents for a revolution, not for legal action.If we had a very bad King, we should very probably depose him; but unless ho consented to an <inline font-style="italic">Act</inline> of Parliament depriving him of the Crown, the deposition would be a revolution, not a legal process. Even the King's power to abdicate, except by giving his assent to a Statute declaring his abdication, may, as it seems to me, be doubted. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Tas well-La ngmead, in his <inline font-style="italic">English Constitutional History,8th</inline> edition, pages 206-7, says- </para>
<quote>
<para>But the theory of indefeasible hereditary right, fortified as it was by the Stuart addition of a sanction <inline font-style="italic">jure divino,</inline> utterly failed to take permanent root, and was finally extirpated by the revolution of 1688 and the subsequent -Act of Settlement, which entailed the Crown on the descendants of Sophia of Hanover. In that statute, Parliament, for the last time in our history, exercised its paramount right to settle the succession to the Crown; a right founded not. only in reason, but in the ancient principles of our constitution, and supported by long usage and a uniformity of theory and practice for centuries prior to the revolution. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The same view is taken in Halsbury's <inline font-style="italic">Laws of England,</inline> second edition, vol. VI., pages 393-4, in which reference is made to the power of the Crown and Parliament to limit and bind the succession having been expressly affirmed by statute. </para>
<para>I do not desire to multiply references to leading authorities, but the passages I have quoted will be sufficient to show that the succession, to the British Throne in modern times depends essentially upon statute. It seems to me to follow inevitably from that fact that any alteration in the succession could not be brought, about merely by a Royal Proclamation or by a Deed of Abdication, but, must be achieved by the exercise of the power of Parliament. What is contained in a statute can he modified only by a statute. That is why the Deed of Abdication exhibited this morning is not, of its own force, sufficient to bring one reign to an end and cause another to begin. That is why, in the Parliament of the </para>
<para class="block">United Kingdom to-day there is being discussed a bill to take up the Deed of Abdication; to give effect to it and to make those consequential changes which are necessary upon an alteration to the succession to the Throne. </para>
<para>It is of the greatest importance, constitutionally speaking, that the force of these propositions should be admitted and recognized, since the power of the Crown to-day depends upon its place in a well-balanced constitutional structure,. and not upon either the personal authority of the sovereign, or upon older ideas of his prerogative and rights. </para>
<para>Honorable members will observe that references are made in the motion and in the bill to two statutes, the Act of Settlement and the Royal Marriages Act. Each contains a section which requires some explanation. By virtue of section 1 of the Act of Settlement 1700, and of the Succession to the Crown Act 1707. the succession to the Throne is settled upon the heirs of the body of the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, being Protestants. </para>
<para>The Royal Marriages Act 1772, section 1, provides that, with certain exceptions, no descendant of George II. shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of the King signified under the Great Seal, declared in Council, and entered in the Privy Council books. Since the consent of the King to his own marriage would appear to be rather anomalous, there has been a fairly general view that the Royal Marriages Act does not apply to the ruling sovereign. The operation of each of these acts must be considered if effect is to be given by Parliament to an abdication. In the case of the Act of Settlement and the Succession to the Crown Act, it is necessary to exclude from thesuccession the abdicating monarch and any children he may in future have. In the case of the Royal Marriages Act, it is desirable that the abdicating monarch should be freed from the restrictions upon his marriage contained in the act, restrictions which, while probably not attaching to him as King, would certainly attach to him if he had ceased to be King. </para>
<para>The King's abdication, therefore, is being made to-day the subject of a bill for an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. That act will give effect to His Majesty's declaration of abdication, will bring about a demise of the Crown and the succession to the Throne of the member of the Royal Family next in succession under the law, will bar from the succession the abdicating King, his issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, and will exclude him from the operation of the Royal Marriages Act. </para>
<para>Honorable members will notice that I have used the phrase "demise of the Crown ". I desire to offer an explanalion of those words because they are of importance to this Parliament, and to the other parliaments of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I now quote Halsbury's <inline font-style="italic">Lawn of England,</inline> second edition. The appropriate passage states - </para>
<quote>
<para>The Sovereign is regarded as legally immortal, the maxim of law being that "the King never dies ". The death of the Sovereign in his natural body is, therefore, termed legally his demise, meaning the transfer of the kingdom <inline font-style="italic">(demissio)</inline> to his successor. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">For very many years the demise of the Crown had the effect of dissolving Parliament, vacating offices under the Crown, discontinuing legal processes, and so on. These disabilities have, in the interest of stable and continuous government and administration, been gradually removed from time to time. It is some long period of time since the demise of the Crown led to a dissolution of Parliament, and the last of the disabilities were removed as the result of certain trouble that arose on the death of Queen Victoria and the accession of Edward VII. The Demise of the Crown Act, 1901, completed the process by providing - I quote the exact words - that - the holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, shall not bc affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown. </para>
<para>Honorable members will at once see the significance of that. If it were not for a provision of that kind, commissions issued to Governors-General, Governors, and those holding office under the Crown might all be affected and, in many eased terminated. It was earlier provided, as I have said, that the demise of the Crown should not affect the duration of an existing parliament. </para>
<para>As it is desired that all the benefit of this ameliorating legislation should be preserved on the abdication of the present King, and the accession of the new one, the legislation introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the motion introduced in the Commonwealth Parliament have both referred to the demise of the Crown, have both sought to approximate what is now being done to a demise of the Crown and to give that act legal effect in order that the consequences that I have described may follow from it. </para>
<para>That, as I see it, is the constitutional position that exists apart from the Statute of Westminster and apart from the new dominion status. </para>
<para>It is now necessary that I should say a few further words about the effect of the problem of the dominion status on what would normally, as I have described it, be the constitutional position. In 1926, at the Imperial Conference held in that year, a most famous resolution was carried, the best-known provision of which was in these terms: - </para>
<quote>
<para>That Great Britain and the self-governing dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Subsequent thereto, a further Imperial Conference was held in 1930, of which the honorable member for Batman <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Brennan)</inline> can speak with first-hand knowledge. The deliberations of that conference gave rise to the passing of the Statute of Westminster through the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1931. The Statute of Westminster was assented to on the 11th December, 1931, and, by virtue of its terms, came into force on that date in the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2907</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOLLOWAY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr Holloway</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is still on our notice-paper. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2908</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
</talker>
<para>- Its principal operative provisions shall not come into force in the Commonwealth of Australia until adopted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and, I am reminded by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Holloway),</inline> the bill is on our notice-paper. It has received its first reading. Certain of the provisions of the statute undoubtedly operate within the Commonwealth of Australia of their own force. The chief among these is the famous preamble which contains what I suppose are the most important recitals with regard to the position of the dominions or indeed any other governing bodies ever contained in an English Statute. That preamble contains two recitals in particular which are material to our purposes. They are the second recital and third recital. The second reads - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The third is- </para>
<quote>
<para>And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said dominions as part, of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of the dominion. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">It will be seen by honorable members, if they care to look again at the two recitals which I have just read, that to some extent they overlap. My own view is that the material recital for the present purposes is the second and not the third. I say that because it is the second which deals specifically with the succession to the Throne. That recital makes it clear that, in the present case, the alterations of the law touching the succession to the Throne, which are now being submitted to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, require the assent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. That leaves one question which is, perhaps, a rather dry and technical question, to be considered, and that is the way in which this Parliament is to record its assent to the legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2908</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKER, Francis Matthew</name>
<name role="display">Mr Baker</name>
</talker>
<para>- What would the position be if this Parliament chose not to give its assent? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2908</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
</talker>
<para>- If this Parliament, by whatever method it chose, refused to record assent, then the Constitutional Convention would not have been carried out, and a very grave question would arise as to whether the alteration of the succession would have any effect. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2908</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr James</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would upset the plot to depose the King. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2908</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not want to bandy words about those entirely mythical delusions from which the honorable member is suffering. Upon reflection I see that the word " mythical " is redundant, and I shall just say " delusions ". </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Commonwealth Parliament is being invited to express its assent by resolution of both Houses and not by act of Parliament. It is proper that I should explain to honorable members why that course has been chosen. There are two good reasons for adopting the course of giving assent by resolution. The first is that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is engaged in the business of assenting to a legal proposal, namely, an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which itself can have no operation without the. Royal assent. Therefore it would appear to me that to go through the formality of a second Royal Assent to the same proposition would involve something in the nature of an anomaly. In the second place, it is highly doubtful whether the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the powers of which are enumerated in section °51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, has any direct power of its own motion to pass a substantive law dealing with the succession to the Throne. I have examined the provisions of section 51 and can find in it no legislative power which seems to me to touch the succession to the Throne. On the contrary, it is worthy of note that the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act recites that the people of the various Australian colonies "have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ". My own opinion is that this Parliament has no such power. But in anybody's opinion the question of its power would be open to very great doubt. The most complete examination that has been made of these aspects of the Statute of "Westminster was made in a very elaborate, learned and informative opinion given last year to the Government of Victoria by Professor K. H. Bailey, professor of public law in the University of Melbourne. That opinion has been printed and circulated, and I shall be glad to arrange for any honorable member who would like to have it to be provided with a copy. It is an extraordinarily stimulating document. In the course of it, and dealing with this point, Professor Bailey very largely discusses the effect of section 2 (2) of the Statute of Westminster itself. That section is not yet in force in Australia, and consequently his views have to be modified to that extent. But at the same time he states quite clearly a conclusion to which I personally adhere. That conclusion, which is stated at page 9 of his opinion, is in these terms - </para>
<quote>
<para>Not without some anxiety, as I have said, I have come to the conclusion that the new Convention concerning the succession recited in the preamble of the statute, does not oblige me to a construction of section 2, which would actually add new subject-matters to the legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I have taken the responsibility of advising the Commonwealth Government that that also is my own opinion and that, for both reasons, the correct procedure in the present case is for the Parliament of the Commonwealth, by resolution of both Houses, to indicate its assent to the proposed alteration of the law touching the succession to the Throne. </para>
<para>In conclusion, may I say this: I have stated with some fullness the constitutional position as I see it, in remarkable and unprecedented circumstances. Although very naturally our interest is directed to, and our emotions are stirred by, the personal drama of the King's proposed marriage, our primary duty as a Parliament in a British community is to preserve the constitutional rights of both the Parliament and the people, established in their modern form 30Q years ago, and brought to full power by generations of our predecessors in the responsibility of government. </para>
<para>Honorable Members. - Hear, hear ! </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2909</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPN</name.id>
<electorate>Bourke</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BLACKBURN, Maurice</name>
<name role="display">Mr BLACKBURN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - We are now passing through a period of crisis, the significance of which we shall not be able to understand for a long time, and the results of which we cannot foresee. The British State has been described as a charter of anomalies. It reconciles a traditional monarchy having all the habit of obedience behind it, with the fullest realization of parliamentary democracy. The powers of government, formerly personally exercised by the King, are now exercised by him on the advice of certain persons. Executive acts are done by him on the advice of Ministers; acts of Parliament are his acts, but can only be passed with the advice and consent of the legislature. In theory, he still judges, and as far as we are concerned, he is the final judge. An appeal to the Privy Council is an appeal to His Majesty. All these things, as I have said, are consistent with the fullest parliamentary democracy. We have the advantage of a system that has behind it the habit of obedience, the habit that the people have developed from realizing that the monarchy goes on from time to time without interruption ; that the eldest son naturally succeeds his father as King. Twice there have been great dislocations of this system - in the year 1399 and again in the event that is described as the English Revolution. I pass over the military revolution of 1642, which culminated in the execution of the King. Two revolutions have been executed by act of Parliament. In 1399, Parliament either accepted the abdication of Richard II. or deposed him, and then decided that the Royal power should be vested in a younger branch of the Royal house - the House of Lancaster - passing over the elder branch, the House of York. We know that, within the course of a century, there occurred in England a great civil war between the deposed or pretermitted elder branch and the preferred younger branch; that struggle resulted in the destruction of parliamentary institutions in England and the arbitrary rule of the Tudors, which the Stuarts attempted to continue. The other change was the English Revolution. One can say that it was not until the accession of GeorgeIII. in 1760 that the new House was safely on the Throne. All these occurrences indicate that it is of tremendous importance to us that we should not disturb the continuity of the Royal succession and should not make changes in it except under the greatest possible force of necessity. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I feel constrained to say that I do not accept the statement made by the right honorable the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lyons)</inline> as a full and complete relation of all the unfortunate events that have led up to the present position. I base that on the internal evidence of his own statement. The right honorable gentleman has said that he advised that the marriage of the King to a twice-divorced woman, and her acceptance as Queen, would meet with general disapproval. I submit that that clearly indicates that it was in the contemplation of both the Sovereign himself and his Imperial advisers that the King would marry the lady of his choice and make her the Queen of England, and that the proposal for a morganatic marriage was only an alternative. If that be not so, then I do not understand the Prime Minister's statement, and cannot understand other statements that I have read. From what the Prime Minister has said, it appears to he perfectly obvious that there was in contemplation the possibility of the King marrying this lady and making her the Queen Consort of England, and the children of the marriage becoming heirs to the Throne. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2910</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Menzies</name>
</talker>
<para>- The King at no stage suggested it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2910</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BLACKBURN, Maurice</name>
<name role="display">Mr BLACKBURN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Then I think that the Prime Minister did a great wrong in giving voluntarily advice that was unnecessary - in suggesting that the people of this country would not tolerate the King marrying the person whom he wished to marry. The law of England and of Scotland recognizes divorce. An Englishman or a Scotsman may marry freely a divorced person. There is only one restriction, and it shows the exact tenor of the British law. Let me remind honorable members that the act of 1857 merely gave to judges the power to grant divorces, which Parliament had been granting for nearly two centuries previously; prior to that enactment a rich man could obtain a divorce by act of Parliament but a poor man was denied such relief. Ten out of fifteen of the bench of bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, voted for the second reading. That law contained the significant provision that a divorced person should be as free to marry as though his spouse were dead. It also provided that a clergyman of the Church of England should not be compelled to marry the guilty party to a divorce; but it went on to say that, although he himself might refuse to marry such a guilty party he could not permit his parish church to be used by another person for the solemnization of such a marriage. Here we are dealing with a lady who has been twice divorced ; she was the petitioner in both cases and the divorces were obtained by her. There is no suggestion that she was the guilty party. This is the very point which was raised before the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in 1912. The Bishop of St. Albans, in evidence before the commission, pointed out that under the law as it then existed in England, an English clergyman was compellable to marry a man who, by the law of his domicil, had obtained a divorce on the ground of incompatability. In protesting against that provision in the law, His Lordship did not ask that a remarriage in such circumstances should he rendered unlawful; he merely asked that a clergyman should he protected against punishment if he refused_ to marry the divorced person. The Royal Commissioners replied that while they respected the feelings of the people represented by the Bishop of St. Albans, they reminded him that a great number of people, both laity and clergy, had a different opinion and that their freedom of conscience and action must also be pro- tected. Scotland has had divorce laws since 1560, and, since 1573, desertion has been regarded as a ground for divorce. As Lord Salvesen j>ointed out, there have been no cases of persons divorced in Scotland being refused remarriage in the Episcopal Church, of which the Church of England is a branch. Outside of England, the church is a voluntary association which makes any rules it likes for its own members, but in England it is subject to the law. As the Chancellor of the Diocese of St. Albans said, there is no difference between the law of England and the law of the Church of England. A person cannot be punished for celebrating a marriage within the law; in fact, he is legally bound to do so. lt seems to me very wrong that in a matter entirely affecting his private relations, the King should have been interfered with. He is as much entitled to make his own choice as Queen Victoria was, when she chose her Prince Consort without consultation with anybody; she herself has said that she told Prince Albert that she wanted to marry him, and then broke the news to the Privy Council that she intended to marry him. King Edward VIII. was similarly entitled to make his own choice, and I think it is a tremendous calamity that the tranquility of this country and the habit of obedience should be dislocated by persons thrusting .their advice on His Majesty in a matter affecting his own personal relations. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that no parliament could countenance either a. morganatic marriage or such an alteration of the law as would put the wife of the King in a lower position than that occupied by the consorts of past kings. But I believe that that project was proposed only because officious persons - and I am not excepting the Prime Minister - have forced upon the King gratuitous advice that his marriage to the woman of his choice would not meet with the approval of his people. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2911</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Menzies</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was the only proposition ever made by His Majesty. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>WARD (East Sydney) [11.441.- After having listened to the discussion this morning I think it will at least be agreed by a majority of the right-think ing members of the community that the decision of the monarch to abdicate was not a voluntary one; he was compelled to take the course he did. However, nothing teaches like experience, and 1 feel sure that much good will come out of the experience through which the people of this and other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations have passed during the constitutional crisis. It has long been stated in the speeches and propaganda of the Labour party and other organizations which hold similar views that the monarch is nothing more than a symbol of British imperialism and the capitalist class, but the result of all their work is as naught in comparison with the education that the workers have received as a result of the disclosure of the details of the conspiracy which has now reached its culminating point. A great deal has been made of the proposed marriage of the King. I am satisfied that that was not the only objection which the British Government had to the King remaining on the throne. Personally, I believe that the King, as a member of the community, exercises very little power. That has been pointed out very clearly to-day by the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> and the honorable member for Bourke <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Blackburn).</inline> The King is a mere cypher who is expected to give approval to the decisions of the dominating class in the community. The only offence the King has committed, which is unforgiveable by these people, is that of not being prepared on all occasions to say what they wanted him to say or do what they wanted him to do. As a matter of fact, though these imperialists to-day say that the King should not have proposed marriage at all to n divorced woman, not one of them, and not one honorable member of this chamber, has suggested that there is anything wrong with the character of the woman whom His Majesty proposed to marry; not one member of the British Parliament or of this Parliament has suggested that she is immoral. Why, may I ask. have we this sudden desire on the part of these self-styled puritans to protect the morals of the King? We are now discussing the happenings of the past few weeks, but the American journals for months past have been full of the King's relations with <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson.</inline> While the King was holidaying in Europe in company with this woman it was known in the United States of America and in other parts of the world that there was some sort of alliance between them. But these moralists shut their eyes to the true circumstances because so long as the King was prepared to act in every way as they desired as the mouthpiece of British capitalism they were prepared to permit him to live an immoral life; he could have had <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> as his mistress, and not one voice of protest would have been raised by members of this Government or the Government of the United Kingdom. They said they were not prepared to agree to a morganatic marriage, and, as the 'Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Curtin)</inline> has said, with that viewpoint the Opposition agrees. I am not ready to believe, however, that the suggestion put forward as an alternative to abdication was made voluntarily by the King, because, in examining the statement made by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lyons)</inline> this morning, we find that the information that the King proposed to marry <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> first came under the notice of the right honorable gentleman on the 28th November last. On that date this Parliament was in session, and in reply to questions addressed to him in regard to the matter the Prime Minister said that he had no information to convey to honorable members. At that time he had not conveyed to the British Government the views of the Australian Government in regard to the proposed morganatic marriage; and. according to his own statement, the views of the Australian Government were not conveyed to the British Government until the 5 th December, just one week after he had received the intimation from the British Government that the King proposed to marry <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson.</inline> It is evident that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> had informed the King that, if he married <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson,</inline> she would become Queen of England; that the Government would not agree to this; and that the King then suggested the morganatic marriage as a compromise. I should like to know upon whose authority the Prime Minister acted when he con- veyed to the British Government an assurance that no government would be formed in the Commonwealth of Australia if the present Government were to resign as the result of the King's rejection of the advice tendered to him. The right honorable gentleman stated that he had sufficient information to warrant his making that intimation to the British authorities. As a matter of fact, he had no authority to make such a statement, and thereby mislead opinion abroad as to the attitude of the Australian Labour party in this crisis. I believe that the Prime Minister has been guilty of a conspiracy with the leaders of the British Government to bring about the deposition of the King. The reason why they desired to do this is that His Majesty declined to act as a pliable tool in the hands of the British imperialists who have been directing the operations of the British Government. If the King had been prepared to do just what he was expected to do and to say the things expected of him, he could, according to the standards set up by many honorable members opposite, have had as many mistresses as he wanted. The mere fact that the King proposed marriage to <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> has only been used as a pretext in this particular instance. I warn honorable members that there is no occasion for them to be very elated over the success of the Government which they support, in enforcing abdication of the King, because no action by any other member of the British Commonwealth of Nations has so weakened the position of the Crown as has the action taken by the present Government. The great majority of people had believed in the past that the ruling monarch was the symbol of unity among the various peoples composing the British Commonwealth of Nations. The King was popularly supposed to he the personal guarantor of the liberties of every individual subject, when, as a matter of fact, he was not in possession of sufficient power to preserve even his own liberty. I believe that every right-thinking person will agree that no section of the community is entitled to privileges above those enjoyed by any other section: likewise, no man, from the highest to the lowest, should be debarred from enjoying the same privileges as arc enjoyed by his fellows. In my opinion, the King was quite within his rights in choosing this woman to be his wife. It has been stated that the principal, objection to the selection by the King of this lady for his wife was that she had been divorced on two previous occasions. Speaking from memory, I understand that certain members of the Government who objected to the King marrying a divorced woman have themselves adopted that practice in the past- </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2913</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! Personal references of that nature in regard to honorable members arc distinctly out of order. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2913</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JAMES, Rowland</name>
<name role="display">Mr James</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is the truth that hurts. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2913</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KX7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WARD</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is not a reflection on honorable members, because they were quite within their legal rights in so acting; but the point 1 wish to emphasize is that they are attempting to set up for the King a standard of conduct different from their own. The fact that the governments of Great Britain and the dominions have refused to recognize the right, of the King to marry whomsoever ho pleases, and their submission of that advice to him was, in my opinion, in this ease an affront to a friendly nation, the lady in question being a subject of the United States of America. According to some statements published in. the press, and the utterances of many honorable members of this House in the lobbies since this discussion arose, <inline font-style="italic">I</inline> understand that one of the objections to M'rs. Simpson becoming the wife of the King was that her mother at one. time kept lodgers in Baltimore; there would be no objection, I gather, if the King had chosen a wife from a selected few who had been indicated to him. If <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> had been one of the eligible princesses of one of the European courts, I do not suppose that honorable members would have made a close examination of the morals of the proposed wife. All that they would have been concerned about was whether the wife chosen by the King was a member of a particular class in the community, and that her personal influence would be in the direction of inducing the King to continue to act as the dominant capitalist class desired. According to their viewpoint, the King's offence was not his intention to marry, but first that he chose a woman whom, the English "snobs" regarded as a commoner; and secondly, that he was directing attention to matters which he considered that, he, in his capacity of Sovereign, should bring under the notice of the Government. Evidently the Conservative party - which is of the same political colour as the Government party in this Parliament - disapproved of the fact that the King had moved among the unemployed and visited working-class areas in which the workers were striking, with a view to obtaining better conditions. Prom the viewpoint of the capitalists the King had been very difficult to handle. He was not prepared, when visiting those areas, to deliver speeches which had been carefully prepared for him. On at least one occasion, His Majesty indicated his support for striking workmen against capitalistic domination by making a donation of £1,000 to their strike funds for the purpose of assisting their womenfolk and children. The donation in itself was not a large amount, in comparison with the income cf (he King; but the unforgiveable sin which he had committed was the fact that he, as Sovereign, had indicated by his action, that he disapproved of the policy of the capitalists of Great Britain in oppressing the working class and unnecessarily inflicting starvation conditions upon them. That was his sin! It is stated that the King's act of abdication was voluntary. Who is to say whether or not it was voluntary? Who is to say whether or not the Prime Minister fold honorable members all the facts of the case in the statement which he made to this Parliament The reigning monarch has not had the opportunity to speak in this regard. The parliaments from one end of the British Commonwealth of Nations to the other have been silenced by the various parties which dominate them at the moment. They have not had an opportunity to obtain the full facts or to express their opinions upon the abdication. The whole of the broadcasting systems, and the newspapers, which are generally controlled by the capitalists who wanted the deposition of the King, have been able, by innuendo and suggestions of immorality on the part of Hi3 Majesty and the woman whom he desired to marry, to blind the people to the real issue involved. My advice to the people is not to become greatly excited in connexion with the fact that we have one monarch on the throne in the place of another. The workers will still have to sweat and toil for British capitalism and imperialism. What they should learn as the result of the abdication of King Edward VIII. is that, in this country, a dominant class are determined to maintain their position in the social structure, and are ruthless in dealing with any person who may do anything contrary to their bidding, whether he be King or pauper. The workers should further realize that justice will never prevail throughout the length and breadth of the British Commonwealth of Nations until our economic fabric has been completely reconstructed. That is one lesson which they should learn from the abdication of the King. They should profit from the experience gained in this matter, and prepare for the future. They should also determine that, at the earliest opportunity, they will prevent or terminate this rule of the oppressors - not only in Australia, but also throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations - whose sole objective in obtaining and retaining control of parliaments and all the machinery of government, is to sweat and exploit the people in order that the selected few of the community may live in luxury and ease at the- expense of the great majority. That is the value to the workers of the present situation. The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> outlined the various legal processes that will be necessary in order to give effect to the act which had already been forced on the King himself by the conspiracy between the Baldwin Government in Great Britain and the antiLabour Government of Australia. We have no alternative but to accept them. It is true that the King has declared, by his own hand, that his step is irrevocable, and that there can be no turning back from the course which he himself has decided to take. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">But honorable members should have an opportunity to examine closely all the available evidence and to study all the details. We should not be satisfied to accept the declaration of the Prime Minister in this chamber this morning that all the facts have been presented to the House. The oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, taken by ministerial members in this chamber some time ago, was not so much an oath of allegiance to the King personally as it was an oath to maintain the existing economic system. That is the only oath of allegiance that those honorable members generally have taken. My advice to the workers is to remember that a day will come, just as soon as they are prepared so to will it, when the reign of the dominant class will end. They will be relieved of their ills which have been brought about by the dominance of the same class as has successfully conspired to bring about the deposition of a reigning monarch who was sufficiently outspoken not only to express sympathy with the working classes but also to say with determination that their conditions would have to be improved. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2914</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9C</name.id>
<electorate>Cook</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr GARDEN</name>
</talker>
<para>.- Whether one regards the monarchial system as excellent or merely the best possible in the stage of political evolution in which mankind finds itself, any legislative act or suggestion which affectsthe condition, status, or freedom of the reigning monarch is of vital, even if only temporary, interest to every man, woman and child within the British Empire. We have been called together under most peculiar circumstances. Outside the score of a musical comedy or the pages of a. sensational historical romance, I know of nothing comparable with the circumstances with which the members of this House are now faced. At such a time it behoves us to face the crisis as calmly as a medical man would face a crisis in the sick room: Our duty is to consider the motion without the heat and prejudice of partisanship. Let us shed that hypocrisy which plays such a tremendous and catastrophic part in some of the big issues of public life, and display courage, coolness, honesty and knowledge which should be the only standards to guide us in the revision of legislative enactments or decrees. Since the House can arrive at a just, honest and honorable decision only by considering human souls in the communion of social service let me present the subject to the House as it appeals to me. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>In 1914 - that year of disaster and pathetic memory - Great Britain was rent almost asunder with industrial turmoil. Those who " had not " were very rightly questioning the right and the privilege of those who had plenty to make a travesty of that old British boast: " Britons never shall be slaves ". Alas ! We know too well what happened. The desire of the people of Great Britain for industrial emancipation was crashed into oblivion by the haying of the hounds of war. How far the entry of Great Britain into that welter of carnage was an excuse to smash the hopes of the workers, I do not know. I can but suspect. History has yet to give an answer. </para>
<para>When the war was over the people of the British Empire found that many of their most cherished ideals had been buried beneath the debris of the conflict. We came out of that war more enslaved than we had been for a century. The evils attendant on a man-manufactured war became accelerated in action, and accentuated in intensity and audacity by a man-manufactured depression which settled upon the world like the soot of hell desecrating the pristine purity of the dews of heaven. So we muddled on. The corpses of those who fell in the grim struggle for existence became the cobblestones on the path of life over which troop those who still stagger on. They are hopeless, bereft of faith, and sullenly conscious that the vultures of exploiters are feasting alike upon their bodies and upon that great communal activity which we call the national soul. </para>
<para>In the course of time King George died, and King Edward succeeded to the throne. As Prince of Wales King Edward had seen, on the corpse-strewn fields of Europe, the evils of governments. He had seen the evils of capitalism in the workless hunger-infested areas of England, Scotland and Wales. By land, sea and air he had travelled. There is not one spot that he visited, where though God is worshipped in name, he did not find the idols of mammon supreme, and the ideal of justice subordinated to the expediencies of temporal inequalities and iniquities. As a man he must have seen and appreciated to the full, the terrible fact that hypocrisy was the dominating, aye, the domineering dictator of civilization. In the fullness of time the Prince became a King - that rare specimen of all kings - who appraised at their true value, the words of Shakespeare, " The evil that men do lives after them ". King Edward did not, would not, and probably could not, permit his advisers to make him accept sordid convention as constitutionalism. We heard of the critics at his accession who said : " His new responsibilities will prevent him from giving utterance to radical thoughts. He is now a King". Fortunately he was a King who subordinated the glories of office to the majesties of manhood. Conditions in the Empire over which he ruled are not as they should be and he said so. He said, in effect, that the shame and sham of starving communities in England and Wales cried aloud for prompt reform and instant redress. I desire to he assured that the offence for which the King is now being subjected to an iniquitous inquisition is not the articulation of his spiritual ardour, which dared to condemn all that tended to brutalize and destroy that greatest of God's creation, the mammal Man, to arrest the development of man and desecrate the glories of progress with retrogression. I realize that the King has given offence to a section of the church, because, it is alleged, he desired to marry a woman who had been twice divorced. I do not propose to question the religious scruples of any man, but I say with all the earnestness that I can command, that it is hypocritical for British or dominion legislatures to attack the King, or the lady on whom his choice has fallen, because the contemplated action is contrary to the laws of the church. It is these legislatures which have made divorce easy. I do not know if any honorable member is a divorced man; but I know that honorable members have given tacit, approval to our divorce' laws. That being so, it is hypocrisy to take the attitude that has been adopted. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2916</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The word "hypocrisy " is unparliamentary, and the honorable member must not use it in regard to honorable members. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2916</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9C</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDEN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr GARDEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- All I can say is that in a House in which sinners predominate, 1 refuse to cast the first stone. At least by this method I can obey the judicial law that the Nazarene imposed upon His followers : " Judge not, and ye shall not he judged ; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." Insofar as the King is concerned, I appreciate his outspokenness against the worst evils of capitalism, and I agree with his indictment of that godlessness which prates of godliness - "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." Moreover, I would direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that the founders of the Commonwealth in their wisdom made it obligatory upon members of this House to put before the people by referendum any proposed amendment of the Constitution. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution. That carries with it a moral obligation. If I am not to be foresworn - if I am to remain loyal to the Australian Constitution - I must submit to my masters, the people, every question of constitutional reform. The Prime Minister and his friends may, or may not, recognize that a moral obligation rests upon every one of us to consult the people in every matter of constitutional alteration and amendment. The King is part of the Constitution. Whatever may be denied to the King in any other part of the Empire, should not be denied to him in Australia. After a short reign of a little more than ten months the King has been dethroned by a Machiavellian intrigue of backstairs origin. The most popular monarch ever to succeed to the Throne has been removed even before he could be crowned. Instead of being a royal cypher, King Edward VIII. proved himself a. most capable leader of intelligent action in the cause of the underdog. But such an assault upon the citadel of the princes of privilege could not be tolerated even from a King! So Edward VIII. was dethroned. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>We now have an opportunity, by means of this motion, to express the opinion that every citizen of the British Commonwealth of Nations should enjoy equal rights. Certain speakers have made it clear that sonic subjects of the King do not enjoy the same rights as others of his subjects. This should be remedied. Why should we not take the opportunity to assert the view that this great question should he submitted for consideration throughout the Empire? The Attorney-General, in the course of his speech, cited certain constitutional authorities to indicate that some inhabitants of the British Empire have no rights whatsoever in respect to the occupancy of the Throne. If the King in his wisdom had chosen a bride from among such people Parliament would have had to recognize the choice. I submit, therefore, that now is the time to take action to ensure equality to every person who claims citizenship in the British Commonwealth of Nations. If that were clone, no such question could arise in any subsequent problem relating to succession to the Throne. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2916</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MC</name.id>
<electorate>Fawkner</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOLT, Harold</name>
<name role="display">Mr HOLT</name>
</talker>
<para>.- This week has been one of very considerable strain upon the feelings of private members of this Parliament. We assumed from the message to return received by us after we had left Canberra last week-end that it would probably bc necessary for us to pass legislation this week consequent upon the contingency which has now arisen. Although we knew, in our own minds, that therewas a distinct probability of this eventuality arising we had no information before us to enable us to decide for ourselves whether such a crisis was inevitable. For that reason the week has been particularly trying. We should have been very much easier in our minds had we known whether the views of His Majesty the King himself upon this crisis had been obtained by the Government, and also whether some message of loyalty and encouragement had been despatched to His Majesty from the Government. Wo should have welcomed this information, for it would have shown us clearly that His Majesty's own opinions upon the particular issues raised had been ascertained. In the absence of such information we, as private members, were not in a position to form a definite opinion as to the desirability of or necessity for, any proposed course of action. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">The statement of the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lyons)</inline> to-day has clarified our minds considerably. The right honorable gentleman lias told us - and this is one of the most significant of the statements that he made to-day - that the Xing himself expressed to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Baldwin</inline> the view that a marriage by which <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> would become his Queen was out of the question. Many of us who would have been prepared to hold that it was the right of any man, whatever Iris station, to choose his own wife, were convinced by the statement of the Prime Minister that it was not, at any stage, the intention of His Majesty that <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> should become his Queen. Therefore, the statement by His Majesty that it was his desire to marry <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Simpson</inline> in circumstances which would not make her his Queen undoubtedly clarified the. position. AVe have also been informed that there were direct communications between this Government and the King himself, and that the Prime Minister, with the concurrence of the Government, and with, I believe, the full approval of the people of Australia, sent to His Majesty <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> message expressing loyalty and urging 1 1 i in to reconsider his decision to abdicate. The occurrence which has befallen us is to me a major calamity. From my earliest recollections the present King, first as Prince of Wales, and latterly as King, lias had my complete allegiance. Many of us in this chamber have lived during the reigns of several monarchs; but those of us who have grown to maturity in the years following the war, and who have known only King George V. and his son as monarchs have always regarded the latter with feelings of peculiar loyalty. Even when he was Prince of Wales we looked upon him as our future Ruler. The knowledge that lie has now relinquished the throne strikes us the more deeply because we have long realized his lively appreciation of the difficulties and perplexities of those who reached adult age in the years following the war. Ife realized so clearly that we were passing through a period of great social and economic change, during which institutions that had been the bulwarks of other generations had been severely criticized, and many of them shaken. Because we believed that he understood us. and we looked to him to lop off from the tree of tradition the dead brandies which threatened to interfere with its healthy growth within the British Empire, we realize with feelings of the utmost dismay his impending abdication. .1 repeat that, had His Majesty chosen to select any woman, to whom lie was legally entitled to be married, as his Queen, I, for one, would not have hesitated in my loyalty to him. We have, however, the satisfaction of knowing that the King who is to follow him is his own brother, and that, obviously, there has been the fullest discussion between the members of the Royal Family in regard to the abdication and the succession to the throne. We have also the happiest recollections of the visit to Australia of the Duke and Duchess of York, and I am certain that all honorable members of this House, and, indeed, all the people of Australia, will tender to them the same allegiance, and will repose in them the same trust, as they have at all times given to King Edward VIII. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2917</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNP</name.id>
<electorate>Griffith</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKER, Francis Matthew</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>.- The subject which this Parliament is discussing to-day is of great importance to Australia. Notwithstanding that, on the Prime Minister's own admission, the possibility of the present situation arising has been known to the Government since the 28th November, Parliament is now asked merely to acquiesce in a <inline font-style="italic">fait accompli.</inline> That position was foreseen by the Opposition before Parliament adjourned last week, for it will be remembered that one member of 1he Opposition and one supporter of the composite Government referred to the projected marriage of the King and the important constitutional issues involved, and suggested that the opinion of Parliament should lie obtained. The Government, however, net only declined to give to the Parliament any information, but it also refused to give to it an opportunity to discuss the matter. Accordingly, Parliament adjourned; but, a few days later, it was summoned hurriedly. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Even then, after honorable members had assembled from all parts of Australia, it met merely to enable the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lyons)</inline> to make a statement, which contained no information of value. So far, Parliament ha3 heard only one side of the case. Despite the risk of being accused of lowering the tone of the debate, I express the opinion that it is the duty of members of this Parliament to probe this matter and to express their views, in relation not only to the attitude of the Government, but also as to the responsibility of Parliament in this matter. Even though it may be too late to remedy what I can only describe as a monstrous injustice, I see no reason why members of this Parliament should not express their opinions. </para>
<para>The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> has dealt fully with the legal position, and I have no intention to discuss the subject from that standpoint, other than to say that it appears that Parliament must vote either for or against the motion to support the action of the British Government in deciding to place a new King on the Throne. Should it record a negative vote, Australia would be without a King. There is a possibility that, in that event, Great Britain also would be without a King. I base that opinion on the language contained in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster that " any alteration in the law, touching the succession to the Throne shall thereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ". The Attorney-General has said that refusal to agree to the motion would not affect Australia, but I suggest that it would affect, not only Australia, but also Great Britain, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand. Unless the Parliament of each of those countries carries a similar resolution, or passes legislation to the same effect, the act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom would probably not be effective in causing the Duke of York to become King of Great Britain. As I have said, this Parliament has no alternative; it must either accept or reject the motion now before it. In the circumstances, the King having signified his intention to abdicate - he was placed in such a position that he had no choice but to abdicate - we also are in the position of having no choice. Foreseeing the position which has arisen, the Opposition urged that Parliament should be allowed to express its view, so that King Edward VIII. might know whether there was, in the parliament of one of his dominions, support for any other course which he might have suggested. The Prime Minister refused to give to the Parliament any information relating to the communications which passed between the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the United Kingdom and the other British dominions. What meagre information honorable members have obtained has been gathered from the press reports of statements published in the English newspapers. It has been said in Great Britain that the dominions, particularly Australia, took the lead in this matter, and that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was strengthened in its determination by the knowledge that the governments of the dominions were behind it. It was also stated that the people of the dominions supported their governments; but it was impossible to say whether that was so, or not. There was no authority for saying that any dominion parliament supported the Baldwin Government. Judging by the remarks made by the honorable member who has just resumed his seat, we have reason to believe to-day that all members of the Government party do not acquiesce in the advice given by the Prime Minister. That view supports the argument of honorable members on this side of the House, that the matter under discussion should have been debated openly in Parliament before it was too late to do so, in order that this Parliament could have by its vote expressed its opinion on the question at issue. The Opposition sought repeatedly to have this procedure followed, but was met by a conspiracy of silence on the part of the Government, with the result that His Majesty, in addition to not being a King, in the position to make his own beliefs known, was unable to learn the views of his subjects, except those that were individually cabled overseas. </para>
<para>Numerous statements have been made in the press in regard to this matter which have been proved to be quite untrue. In the first place, we were led to believe that the Baldwin Government took the first step. Several days later it became common knowledge that it was the King who took the first step by asking the Government of Great Britain for its opinion on certain aspects. As we were informed by the Prime Minister to-day - and I have no reason to disbelieve the statement - the King consulted the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and informed him that it was his intention to marry the lady upon whom his choice had fallen. Another statement made in the press was to the effect, that <inline font-weight="bold">Major Attlee,</inline> the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of Great Britain, had stated that his party would not form a government if called upon. That statement was subsequently emphatically denied by <inline font-weight="bold">Major Attlee;</inline> but it had already obtained wide credence; it had been circulated throughout the world, and, as we know, it is impossible to overtake a lie once it has been circulated through the press; no number of denials can catch. up with it. This particular lie is merely on a level with those circulated in the Australian press regarding the meetings of this Parliament on last Wednesday and yesterday, in connexion with which it was reported that there had been scenes in this chamber. Those statements were deliberate untruths. In accordance with their rights, some honorable members on this side of the House interposed certain interjections, but altogether the sittings on both occasions were most orderly. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2919</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>N76</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Menzies</name>
</talker>
<para>- Hear, hear ! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2919</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKER, Francis Matthew</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- That much the Attorney-General admits; yet the press of Australia, including that of this capital city, stated that on both those occasions there were scenes in this Parliament, the inference being that members of the Labour party, as the Opposition, were making scenes in this House on matters of great public importance. That is merely an example of the unfair criticism that is directed at honorable members of this Parliament. It is, indeed, an example of the unfair criticism to which the King himself has been subjected. It is merely one phase of the attitude adopted by certain individuals against any one who endeavours to support the King, who himself was not in a position to make any statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>It has become apparent that the suggestion of a morganatic marriage was made by His Majesty as a compromise. Many members of the community, including members of this Parliament, whether or not they believe divorce is right or wrong, recognize that divorce is the law of the land, and believe that the highest in the land is as much subject, to the law as is the lowest in the land. Just as the lowest subject in the realm is entitled to claim the full privileges which may exist under any divorce law, the highest in the land, namely, the King, is equally entitled to claim the privilege of that law, just as he would be liable to the law for any wrongdoing on his part. It appears, however, that without much discussion being allowed on his being entitled to marry the lady of his choice, His Majesty was practically placed in a wrong position, and he suggested a compromise; but the Government of Great Britain, having got him in that position, immediately denied him its support for a morganatic marriage. Honorable members on this side of the House agree with that. We were not in favour of altering the law to suit the King. But that is a different thing from forcing the King to suggesting a compromise. I believe that a great many of His Majesty's subjects believe that the King is entitled, according to the law of the land, just as much as any of his subjects, to marry a person who happens to have been divorced. This particular marriage could not possibly have taken place within the next five months, so that once the Baldwin Government had come to a decision against a morganatic marriage, the position could have 'been left as it was until the King chose to take a further step in one direction or the other. Indecent haste, however, hai characterized all of the actions of the Government in this matter. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2919</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXQ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PARKHILL, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Sir Archdale Parkhill</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member should not say that. This is not indecent haste. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>2920</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKER, Francis Matthew</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I was referring lo the attitude of the British Parliament and of the press. I admit that the Government, of which the honorable gentleman is a Minister, never shows any indecent haste in deciding anything of any moment whatever. If it is a matter of following the British Government, it just does what the British Government does. It waits, no matter for how long a period, until the British Government has come to a decision, or until its representative in Australia has notified it of the British Government's decision, and then hastens to follow suit. That procedure has been exemplified in this matter; it is similar to that followed by this Government recently when we were nearly rushed into war with Italy. The British Government decides what is to be done, and this Government merely acquiesces. Whether it be a matter of war with another nation, or the deposing of a king, whatever th, Baldwin Government does is right. At any rate, that is the attitude of the present Commonwealth Government. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>I believe that this whole matter reeks with intrigue, and that the King has not been treated fairly. Developments in this instance prove just how little substance there is in the idle words we hear so often spoken about British fair play. That fact is exemplified whenever certain forces want to come to n certain decision. In this instance, this Government tied up the wireless broadcasting services so that no statement could be made in support of His Majesty. Almost all the newspapers have attacked him bitterly, although only a little earlier they had steadfastly professed their loyalty to him. Those interests which were always in the forefront in waving flags and boasting of their loyalty to the Throne, and were the most subservient in making such professions of loyalty, have been the most eager to drive their King from his throne, and to drive him. into exile because he has proved lo be too democratic for them. They have regarded this position which has so suddenly arisen as a heaven-sent opportunity to get rid of him. At any rate, that is my opinion, and I believe it to bc the opinion of millions of His Majesty's subjects throughout the world. </para>