HL Deb 14 May 1925 vol 61 cc254-69

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals.

1.—(1) No person shall exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, any performing animal, or train any such animal for the purpose of being so exhibited, unless he is registered in accordance with this Act.

(3) Any application for registration under this Act shall contain such particulars as to the animals and as to the general nature of the performances in which the animals are to be exhibited or for which they are to be trained as may be prescribed, and the particulars so given shall be entered in the register, and the effect of registration under this Act shall be limited to the matters so entered in the register.

(6) Any person entered on the register shall be entitled, on making application for the purpose, to have the particulars entered in the register with respect to him varied, and where any such particulars are so varied the existing certificate shall be cancelled and a new certificate issued.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, any performing animal, or train any such," and to insert "or train any performing." The noble Lord said: I must apologise sincerely for the number of Amendments to this Bill which stand on the Paper in my name. Most of them are drafting Amendments, and I do not suppose that they need occupy the time and attention of the House for very long. This Bill is the result of the Report of a Select Committee which sat for some length of time, and also of the Standing Committee in another place, which sat still longer. My noble friend Lord Raglan has put down certain Amendments. He pointed out certain weaknesses in the Bill, for which we are grateful, and, although I do not propose to adopt any of his Amendments except one, I think the substance of what he proposes is incorporated in Amendments which it will be my duty to submit to the House, and I think he will agree with me that, although we are not accepting his actual Amendments, we have gone a very long way towards meeting him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("exhibit") to ("animal") in line 9 and insert ("or train any performing"). — (Lord Desborough.)

LORD DANESFORT

As the member of the House in charge of this measure I entirely accept this Amendment and, indeed, practically all the Amendments of the Government, because they appear to me to improve the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "for the purpose of being so exhibited." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out ("for the purpose of being so exhibited").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (3), after "the," where that word first occurs, to insert "class of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has two objects. The first is to limit the amount of detail for which the Secretary of State may call, and the second object is as follows. As the Bill now stands, it requires that the animals which are to be trained shall be certified, and a man may be fined £50 for training an animal in respect of which he is not registered. The Amendment is designed to obviate that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, after ("the") insert ("class of").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DANESFORT

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. In the first place, it seems to be unnecessary, and, in the second place, it might hamper the discretion of the Secretary of State, who has to prescribe the form in which, particulars of performing animals should be given. I am sure my noble friend will agree that the Secretary of State will not act unreasonably in prescribing those particulars. It is the view of the Government and of those who have studied the Bill on behalf of the Government that to accept this Amendment would unduly limit the Secretary of State's discretion.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The Home Office adopt the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, with this one point of difference. We define "exhibits," and my noble friend behind me wants to define the animals. We do not wish in any way to hamper the Home Office, who would consult the profession before drawing up the rules. I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD RAGLAN

I cannot see why the Home Office should not accept it, but I do not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out, at the end of subsection (3), "and the effect of registration under this Act shall be limited to the matters so entered in the register." The noble Lord said: These words appear to be unnecessary, as they are dealt with in a subsequent clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("register") to the end of line 3.—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (6), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert "subject to the provisions of any Order made under this Act by any court.' The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Power of courts to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training of performing animals.

2.—(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction on a complaint made by a constable or an officer of a local authority that the training of, or any performance or intended performance by, an animal has been or is likely to be accompanied by cruelty and should be prohibited or restricted, the court may make an order against the person in respect of whom the complaint is made prohibiting the training or performance or imposing such restrictions or conditions thereon as may be specified by the order.

(2) If any person is aggrieved by the making of such an order or a refusal to make such an order, he may appeal to a court of quarter sessions.

(3) Any court by which an order is made under this section shall cause a copy of the order to be sent to the local authority by which the person against whom the order is made is registered and to the Secretary of State, and shall cause the particulars of the order to be endorsed upon the certificate held by that person, and that person shall produce his certificate within a reasonable time for the purposes of endorsement.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of, or any performance or intended performance by an animal has been or is likely to be," and to insert "or exhibition of any performing animal has been." The noble Lord said: I submit that this Amendment is an improvement to the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("training") to ("accompanied") in line 28, and insert ("or exhibition of any performing animal has been").—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD DANESFORT

I think this is certainly an improvement of the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Raglan will be glad to notice that it incorporates an Amendment which he has placed on the Paper, and in that way meets his views.

LORD RAGLAN

I agree, and I do not intend to move that Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1), after "restricted," to insert "and that such cruelty has taken place within the jurisdiction of the court." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether there is any substance in this Amendment, but trainers of animals are rather in doubt. It appears that there are in some areas in this country such strong prejudices against performing animals that a trainer who is training there has a very small chance of obtaining justice. What they are afraid of is that it might be possible for the trainer who had trained in one of those areas to be charged with having committed cruelty in some other area. The Amendment has the object of obviating that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, after ("restricted") insert ("and that such cruelty has taken place within the jurisdiction of the court").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DANESFORT

I have taken the precaution of consulting the Secretary of State and the officials of the Home Office as to whether this Amendment is necessary or not, and I am advised that it is not necessary. Under the clause as it stands either an application will be made to the court where cruelty has actually taken place, which is what my noble friend desires, or an application will be made to the court where the performance has taken place which it is proposed to show has been accompanied by cruelty elsewhere. Therefore, none of the evils which my noble friend anticipates as likely to occur, where there is a prejudice against performing animals, could, in the opinion of the Home Office, possibly occur.

LORD RAGLAN

In that case I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 2, line 29, leave out ("restricted") and insert ("allowed only subject to conditions") Page 2, line 32, leave out ("performance") and insert ("exhibition") and leave out ("restrictions or").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts," and to insert the following new subsection:— (3) An order made under this Act shall not come into force until seven days after it is made, or, if an appeal has been entered within that period, until the determination of the appeal.

The noble Lord said: I may say that we have agreed these and the following Amendments with the promoters of the Bill, and unless Lord Raglan objects perhaps your Lordships will adopt them. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts") and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Further Amendments moved— Page 2, line 38, after ("sent") insert ("as soon as may be after the order comes into force"). Page 3, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("within a reasonable time") and insert ("on being so required by the court.") Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("A local authority to which a copy of an order is sent under this section shall enter the particulars of the order on the register").(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Power to enter premises.

3.—(1) Any officer of a local authority duly authorised in that behalf by the local authority and any constable may—

  1. (a) enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises in which any performing animals are being trained, kept or exhibited, and any such animals found therein; and
  2. (b) require any person who he has reason to believe is engaged in the training or exhibiting of performing animals to produce his certificate.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The first Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 9, leave out ("kept") and after ("exhibited") insert ("or kept for training or exhibition").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "exhibited," to insert "by any registered trainer or exhibitor of performing animals." The noble Lord said: The Bill as now drafted gives very wide powers indeed to the police to make searches into private houses for performing animals. I think it would be better if their powers were limited to those people who have agreed to submit themselves to the registration. As your Lordships know, a policeman cannot enter a private house in order to search for a murderer without a warrant, and it seems absurd that he should be able to enter a house without a warrant to search for a performing dog.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 9, after ("exhibited") insert ("by any registered trainer or exhibitor of performing animals.").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DANESFORT

I am afraid it would be quite impossible to accept this Amendment. I do not think my noble friend quite realises what the effect of it would be. If adopted the Amendment would have the effect of encouraging illegality, for it would prevent a properly authorised person from entering the premises of an unregistered person who was illegally training or exhibiting animals. On the one hand, when a man is acting legally and training or exhibiting animals, there would be a power of inspection in regard to him, while on the other hand, when a man was acting illegally by training or exhibiting animals without being registered, there would be no power to inspect his premises. It is quite impossible to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "engaged in the training or exhibiting," and to insert "a trainer or exhibitor." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I believe the Government are prepared to accept.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, leave out ("engaged in the training or exhibiting") and insert ("a trainer or exhibitor").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DANESFORT

I think this is an improvement, and we shall be glad to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Offences and legal proceedings.

4.—(1) If any person—

  1. (a) not being registered under this Act exhibits any performing animal at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, or trains any performing animal for the purpose of being so exhibited; or
  2. (b) being registered under this Act exhibits or trains any performing animal with respect to which or in a manner in respect to which he is not registered; or
  3. (c) being a person against whom an order by a court of summary jurisdiction has been made on complaint under this Act, contravenes or fails to comply with the order in any part of Great Britain, whether within or without the area of jurisdiction of that court, or fails to produce his certificate for endorsement within a reasonable time; or
  4. (d) obstructs or wilfully delays any constable or officer of a local authority in the execution of his powers under this Act as to entry, inspection or examination; or
  5. (e) conceals any animal with a view to avoiding such inspection and examination; or
  6. (f) fails when required by a constable or any officer of a local authority duly authorised in that behalf to produce his certificate under this Act; or
he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence against this Act, or against the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactment, the court before which he is convicted may in addition to or in lieu of imposing any other penalty—

  1. (a) if such person is registered under this Act order that his name be removed from the register;
  2. (b) order that the offender shall either permanently or for such time as may be specified in the order be disqualified for being registered under this Act;
and where such an order is made a copy shall be sent to the Secretary of State and to the local authority (if any) by which the offender is registered:

Provided that where such an order is made any person affected by the order may appeal against the order to a court of quarter sessions.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The next Amendments on the Paper are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("or trains") Page 3, line 19, leave out from ("animal") to ("or") in line 23 Page 3, line 26, leave out the second ("in") and insert ("with") Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("court") to ('' or") in line 35 Page 3, line 39, leave out ("inspection or examination") and insert ("or inspection") Page 3, line 41, leave out ("and examination"). Page 4, line 1, leave out from ("(f)") to ("to") inline 3, and insert ("being a person registered under this Act, on being duly required in pursuance of this Act").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Raglan has an Amendment down on this clause, but I think it is covered by a Government Amendment later.

LORD RAGLAN

I do not move.

LORD DESBOROUGH

There are a number of drafting Amendments here.

Amendments moved— Page 4, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("fails without reasonable excuse so to do") Page 4, line 18, leave out ("the offender") and insert ("such person") Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("made") to the end of the clause and insert ("the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section two of this Act shall apply to the order as they apply to an order made under that section").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

interpretation, rules, and expenses.

5.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—

The expression "animal" includes bird, reptile and fish:

The expression "local authority" means—

The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State may make rules for prescribing anything which is to be prescribed under this Act, and as to the execution and performance by local authorities of their powers and duties under this Act, and generally for carrying this Act into effect.

(3) Any expenses of a local authority under this Act, so far as not covered by fees, shall be defrayed in the case of the common council of the City of London, out of the general rate; in the case of the council of a municipal borough, out of the borough fund or borough rate; and in the case of the council of a county, out of the county fund; and the fee for registration shall in no case exceed one guinea.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "animal'" includes bird, reptile and fish," and to insert "'performing animal' includes any animal, bird or reptile which has received or is receiving individual instruction in the performance of tricks intended for public exhibition." The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment of some importance. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, brought in a Moneylenders Bill recently it was opposed on the ground that "moneylender" was not defined. Lord Carson was able to point out that moneylenders were defined in a previous Act. Performing animals are not defined in this Bill, nor in any previous Act, and I think they should be defined. Are, for example, the elephants at the Zoo performing animals? There is another point that I might mention here. In Clause 7 certain animals are left out of the Bill. The implication seems to be that if they were not specifically left out of the Bill they would be included in it. At many a horse show, for example, a class of animal is exhibited which has nothing to do with military, police, agricultural or sporting purposes, such, for example, as a tradesman's turn-out or children's pony cart, and things of that kind. It seems to me, as the Bill now stands, they would be performing animals within the meaning of the Bill. I think the Government or the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should either accept my Amendment or draft a better one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 29 and 30, leave out from ("expression") to the end of line 30, and insert the said words.—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DANESFORT

This question has been most carefully considered in another place and by those who are concerned with the Bill, and it has been thought desirable not to put in any definition at all. As a matter of fact, the Amendment which Lord Desborough is to move presently defines the word "exhibit" as meaning an exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, and defines the expression "train" as referring to training for the purpose of any such exhibition. It must be noted that in the first clause of the Bill the prohibition is against the exhibition or training of any performing animal unless the person is registered in accordance with this Bill. Can it be conceived that any Court having these words in mind, and considering the whole scope of the Bill, would hold that elephants at the Zoo are performing animals? The Courts, no doubt, are human, but they are also fairly intelligent, and in this country we are accustomed to treat them as being intelligent. If a question was brought before the Courts of this country with the definitions we propose to put in the Bill, I cannot conceive that they would say that an elephant at the Zoo was a performing animal within the meaning of this Bill. The same applies to trade horses at shows. I am certain that the noble Lord, if he were sitting on the Bench, would not suggest that a tradesman's horse in an ordinary show was a performing animal, except in the sense that it was performing its duty. But that is not the kind of performance meant or dealt with in the Bill. That is, I think, sufficient to show why this definition is undesirable.

When I sat on the Select Committee which considered this measure, I did think it might be desirable to introduce a suitable definition, but everyone concerned came to the conclusion that it was not possible to introduce a definition which would be wide enough to include all the animals it is desired to include, and which would exclude animals it was desired to exclude. We have put in a clause showing the animals that are excluded, and by no possibility could they he called performing animals. For instance, the Bill is not to apply "to the training of animals for bona fide military, police, agricultural or sporting purposes, or the exhibition of any animals so trained." That will exclude all sporting dogs, animals trained for the Grand National, bloodhounds trained for police purposes, and horses trained for exhibition at Olympia or elsewhere. I submit that the definitions in the Bill are sufficient to exclude all such animals as the noble Lord thinks might possibly be included, and the promoters of the Bill, with the full assent and at the desire of the Home Office, cannot accept the Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I have been trying to follow the results of the Amendments which your Lordships have passed on this measure, and I am a little bewildered. I have a dog at home which I have taught to beg, and in Clause 1, as it now stands, it says that no person shall exhibit or train any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with this Act. As I say, I have trained my dog to beg, and it is a performing animal. I suppose. I am told that I am protected by Clause 7, which says that the Act shall not apply to the training of animals for bona fide military, police, agricultural, or sporting purposes. My dog is not for a bona fide military, police, agricultural or sporting purpose, and I gather that, as the Bill now stands, if I endeavoured to make him proficient, I ant doing an illegal act, for which I may be punished. I should like to ask for some information on this point.

Lord DESBOROUGH

Let me put the most, rev. Primate's mind at rest at once. A dog is an animal under this Bill, and if the most rev. Primate has trained his clog to beg he must not exhibit him for money. If he did so and received a well deserved penny piece in the process, the most rev. Primate would become liable.

LORD BUCKMASTER

There is much substance in what the most rev. Primate has said, and at first I read Clause 1 much in the same way as he did. It did appear that any person who trained any domestic animal in any of these harmless amusements, with which we are not unfamiliar, would under Clause 1 be liable to the penalties under the Bill; they would be training an animal. But the definition which is proposed to be inserted by the Home Office really covers the matter, and the most rev. Primate will be able to continue training his dog, unless he intends to train it for the purposes of an exhibition. But if he intends to train it for the purposes of a bazaar, or any such useful occupation, I am inclined to think he would come under the Bill at once. Subject to that, it seems to me that the definition proposed by the Home Office does afford sufficient protection.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

I should like to know whether "animal" includes insects? I will not say that I am a trainer of fleas, but they are insects and are sometimes trained. I do not think that scientifically they could be called animals. What is to happen to the man who withholds from the fleas their natural food, which I presume would be human flesh? If he abstains from giving them human flesh is he not treating them cruelly; and would he not come under the provisions of this Bill? Is an insect an animal? Does a performing flea come within this Bill? Apparently we are left in grave doubt because the word "animal" is not defined. Does it include mammals? It is a wholly unscientific definition. The only person who appears to know anything about it is the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and in order that we may be quite clear on the matter can he give me an answer to any of these questions?

LORD DESBOROUGH

The expression "animal" is defined, and it includes "bird, reptile and fish."

EARL RUSSELL

That is hardly a definition of "animal." You say the Bill includes animals, and that "animal" includes "bird, reptile, and fish"; but that is not a definition of the word "animal."

LORD PARMOOR

This Amendment, I understand, comes from the Home Office. When it has been passed and inserted in the Bill I think all these problems and conundrums will disappear.

LORD RAGLAN

I do not think it is a very sound principle of legislation to put all these things into a Bill, whether wise or foolish, and rely on the proper authority not to enforce the foolish ones.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I beg to move my next Amendment, in subsection (1), after the word "fish" to insert the words which appear on the Amendment Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 30, at end insert ("The expression 'exhibit' means exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, and the expression 'train' mean, train for the purpose of any such exhibition and the expressions 'exhibitor' and 'trainer' have respectively the corresponding meanings.").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "municipal" and to insert "county."

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out ("municipal") and insert ("county").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "municipal" and to insert "county."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, leave out ("municipal") and insert ("county").—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD DANESFORT

I take it that the real object of this Amendment is to limit the number of authorities who have jurisdiction in the matter, and therefore it is thought desirable, instead of having every municipal authority brought in, to leave it to the county authorities.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

No noble Lord who has read these Amendments can see to what we have committed ourselves. A strange phrase to use is that the expression "animal" includes bird, reptile and fish. It is quite obvious that it includes a great deal more. It does not explain that it only means bird, reptile and fish. I confess to be still a little doubtful about the point I raised a little while ago, though my doubts may have been removed by the clause inserted at the end of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is, however, supported by us all.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider before the Report Stage the point I suggested to him, whether insects are included. An insect is not technically an animal. It is certainly not a reptile or a fish. I hope he will consider that point, especially about performing fleas.

LORD DANESFORT

I thank the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to these matters. Until he spoke I had not realised their great importance. We shall be quite prepared, indeed glad, to consider this question of animal, not forgetting the fleas, before the Report Stage, and if we can get a more precise definition which will meet the general views we shall be glad to do so. I shall consult the Home Office as to the best form of it. With regard to the general question which the most rev. Primate raised as to the effect of the Amendments generally, the Bill will no doubt be reprinted before the Report Stage.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I wish my attention had been drawn to the fleas before. What they think about fleas in the House of Commons I will ascertain. I do not wish to bully a performing flea, but I did think of fish. I have never heard of performing fishes. I asked all my friends. They said that they had heard of them, but had never seen them. I believe in the north of France there have been since the time of Louis XV fish that came to the sound of the dinner bell. They do not exactly perform, but I have at least a reason for including fish which I will read to your Lordships:— Ernest and Eva, the two famous goldfish that for years had their home in the fountain of the Winter Garden of the Savoy Hotel, have died from misadventure. At the inquest it was found that a cigar ash flicked into the water by an unthinking guest had brought their gambols to an end. The most notable of Ernest's feats was the cork trick. He would wait for one of his admirers to place a cork in the water, and then he would leap over the cork. If he did not do this for money he would not come into the category of the most rev. Primate's dogs. If he did it for the purpose of gain he would come under all the protection given to him by the noble Lord.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Will the noble Lord give us a little time before we proceed to the Report Stage, in order that we may think over all these problems? Some of us, for instance, have the misfortune to have to attend a bazaar. If a dog at a bazaar comes round and solicits people to put money into a box on his back, and is trained to do that, then the trainer would be liable under this Bill. Although a dog could be trained to do it at a railway station without coming under this Bill, the trainer would come under this Bill if the dog were allowed to attend a bazaar. If the noble Lord will look into matters of this kind he will no doubt be able to arrive at a solution satisfactory to everyone.

LORD MERRIVALE

If the most rev. Primate were to allow the dog which has been described to attend a bazaar, even at Lambeth, he must either register him under the Bill or expose himself to prosecution, which everybody would regard as a perfect calamity. Apart from the amusing aspect of the Bill, there is the aspect whether, as this is a penal Statute which exposes His Majesty's subjects to prosecution, it is desirable that it should pass into law in a form in which any malicious person could institute a prosecution on trivial grounds against perfectly well-disposed people. Is it not desirable that before it is put on the Statute Book some responsible person should see whether people are to be subject to prosecution? I hope my noble friend who represents the Home Office will have that considered.