HC Deb 09 July 1952 vol 503 cc1453-68

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 19 to 23.

In moving this Amendment, it is my duty to inform the House that when this Bill was being considered in Committee at 12.45 a.m., on 27th June, there occurred what has been known in another context as "a regrettable incident." An Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to which I offered certain objections. When the time came for the Question to be put it was found that the hearts and voices of the Committee were imperfectly attuned.

In support of that statement, I recall and quote three reliable witnesses, commencing with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who used these words: It is unlikely that one could introduce such a scheme whereby people coming here were forced to pass a driving test in their own country. It would be very difficult to insist on their knowing the Highway Code. At the same time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was right to put the Amendment on the Paper in the hope of extracting some sort of assurance from the Minister.… That, I think, can be taken by the House to mean that the hon. Gentleman was describing the Amendment as exploratory in its nature.

My next witness is even more impressive. He is the occupant of the Chair at the time who, after the voices had been collected, said: It was a mistake on my part. And lastly there is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton himself. A little later in our proceedings he said: We have had this joke; we have had this fun.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2612, 2643–4.] That was certainly the case in the small hours of the morning. I will not detain the House now by repeating the arguments which I adduced in the Committee when resisting the proviso, but hon. Gentlemen who have studied the proceedings will have noticed that later when we came to the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," I gave an undertaking, which will be found in c. 2658–9 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the subject of the Highway Code to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who was anxious that it might be made available to foreigners entering this country who were intending to drive a motor vehicle.

Since then I have done a little research. While, of course, adhering to that undertaking, I was gratified to find, as I am sure hon. Members will be, that it is already the practice of the motoring organisations in this country to distribute copies of the Highway Code to visiting drivers from abroad. I hope that with these few words I am justified in asking the House to reverse the decision of the Committee by deleting these words.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary was quite accurate when he said that the reason for these words being included in the Bill was because the hearts and the voices of the Committee were not in tune. I think that their brains had got something to do with it as well. The circumstances as I recollect them were that we were having a pleasant and harmonious debate and, as always, we on this side of the House were seeking assurances from the Government, which were a matter of vital concern if motor drivers from the Continent were to be let loose upon our roads, when along came the Patronage Secretary to move "That the Question be now put" without our having an opportunity to get a satisfactory assurance from the Government.

We now find that that assurance could have been readily given had the Government known what was going on in the responsible Department. But, after all, that is not an unusual occurrence. We have the clearest evidence that the Government do not know in what direction to go, the road that they want to take or, indeed, what is happening.

We have had a frank admission from the Minister—perhaps not as frank as we should like—and we do not want to make heavy weather about it. I, for my part, now that we know the facts, regard this episode from the point of view that we can be satisfied that our efforts were not in vain, for, I think, we have taught the Minister what is going on in his Department.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I do not wish to take up the time of the House more than a minute or so, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, there was rather a "snafu" the other night. As a result, our Amendment was carried, to the surprise of the Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, if it had not been for the sudden intervention of the Patronage Secretary, this situation would not have arisen.

He had not been present during the debate, he came in and moved the Closure, and the Question was then put. Much to everyone's surprise, a verdict was given, in which the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary was flouted. The Parliamentary Secretary now comes and asks us to reverse the decision taken that night.

If there had not been the intervention by the Patronage Secretary, fuller and more careful consideration could have been given to the serious discussion we were having, and the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to give us the assurances he has since found it possible to give. I should like to be assured further, in respect of the action which he now proposes to take, that all foreign tourists coming to this country with the intention of driving cars here will be not only provided with the Highway Code, but provided with it in the better-known languages.

A large number of tourists who come here will not be in a position fully to understand and quickly to familiarise themselves with the Highway Code if it is presented to them only in English. It is not only those tourists who come here, with their own cars, who should be provided with the Highway Code, but also those who hire cars here for the purpose of driving themselves. There must be a stage where every tourist who is driving a car in this country has to produce evidence that he is allowed to drive in his own country before he is permitted to do so here. At that stage, he should be presented with the Highway Code.

There was one other point, which we discussed the other night during the Committee stage. It was with regard to military drivers for the N.A.T.O. forces who drive here. I do feel we need a little more assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about this. He referred that night to a Bill, which is now in another place, and which makes provision for the way in which drivers, who commit offences while driving for foreign forces in this country, will be tried in their own courts.

If they are not subject to British law, as they will not be in that case, there is the possibility that there will be occasions when their own courts will not punish them in the same way as they would have been punished in the English courts. We could get cases where these drivers were permitted to drive on British roads after having committed an offence for which British drivers would have been prevented from driving further. In looking at the Bill which is in another place, I do not think it necessarily fully satisfies us. It seems that if these drivers are on duty they will be subject to their own courts and that it will be possible for them to continue driving after committing an offence for which, if they were tried in the English courts, their licences would be suspended.

I refer to these two points to ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary keeps them in mind when he is endeavouring to fulfil the terms of the Amendment we put down and on which he has given us certain assurances. It is unfortunate that we were not able to stress this point the other night because of the intervention of the Patronage Secretary, but we have been able to do so tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

11.10.p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

I, in common with many of my hon. Friends, hoped that perhaps we should not be unduly detained on this matter, but as we are in the extraordinary position in which hon. Members on this side of the House who happened to have carried in Committee an Amendment which was standing in their names are not to be allowed to speak on the matter we must seek to deal with the matter on Third Reading, perhaps in rather more detail.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is now addressing himself to a decision come to by the House, "That the Question be now put." He must now confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Bing

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we have just been discussing on the Report stage an Amendment which was equally a criticism of a decision come to by the House when in Committee. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that every hon. Member in the Committee then called "Aye" on that occasion. But I shall not pursue that aspect of the matter any further.

The passage of these Measures would be greatly facilitated if we did not have such frequent interventions by the Patronage Secretary. The speed with which we get through business is due to the debate being conducted by those who know what they are talking about, and not being—

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing about this in the Bill. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill, and the hon. and learned Member should stick to that.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. and learned Friend is within the rules of order if he seeks to explain to the House why he has to speak at greater length than he otherwise would do, just as, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, I shall have to explain why I am speaking when I should otherwise not have spoken.

Mr. Speaker

I do not see how that can be in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Bing

I think we can agree in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary that he has not got his Minister with him tonight, because when the Minister spoke he quite clearly misinterpreted the purpose of the Bill, and it is important that we should not allow this Bill to go out from this House with any false impression in the country about what it will do. The Minister, after a passing reference to Franco Spain, said that the object of the Bill was to facilitate the transport here and the opportunities of driving here of various foreigners, on whom not only our economic survival but our military security alike depended. You would very rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I were to discuss, as did the Minister, the military value of these allies in whom the right hon. Gentleman places such trust.

I think it is appropriate, however, to call attention to the fact that Spain is not a party to this agreement. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to look at the United Nations' Convention on Road Traffic, which it is the object of this Bill to implement, he will see that, although a great many nations are party to it, very properly and rightly Spain is excluded. The view is taken that persons who come from Franco Spain ought not to be trusted even with a driving licence in this country. I endorse that point of view; I think it is right that this Bill should not be for the purpose of implementing an agreement which would enable anyone from Franco Spain to come here.

I am only sorry that the Minister, who was under such a delusion about the nature of the Bill, is not here to deal with this aspect. We must all regard it as rather unfortunate that the only reason the Minister saw fit to give for the introduction of the Measure was one which does not apply to it at all.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I understand we are now on Third Reading. There is no mention of this stage on the Order Paper. Can you explain how we have reached this stage without notice having been given to hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker

It is quite in order. The Third Reading of a Bill can be taken as soon as the Report stage is completed.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Further to that point of order. Surely it is in accordance with the traditions of the House that some indication should be given to hon. Members if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Third Reading of a Bill immediately after Report stage, particularly when there are Amendments put down by the Government to amend the Bill as it has been passed by the Committee?

Mr. Speaker

The Third Reading of a Bill of this kind can be taken immediately after the Report stage, and I recall on Thursday last that it was announced that the Third Reading would be taken immediately after Report stage.

Mr. Benn

Although I very well understand that the Leader of the House may have said that the Third Reading would be taken that is only an informal notification, and hon. Members go by the Order Paper. I was not questioning the right of the House to take the Third Reading after the Report stage, but surely hon. Members should be notified?

Mr. Speaker

It is not necessary. The Report stage must be concluded before the Third Reading can be taken, and the motion for the Third Reading was made quite properly from the Treasury Bench. Has the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) concluded his speech?

Mr. Bing

No, Sir. I am sorry I was interrupted, but perhaps it enables me to say that possibly the Minister of Transport was under the same delusion as my hon. Friend with regard to the procedural point, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not present to speak on Third Reading of his Bill may be due to the fact that he was under the impression that Third Reading would not be taken tonight.

That is not surprising, as we know from the way business is arranged that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have no idea what the business is, and very often they vote the wrong way. After making that excuse for the absence of the Minister may I deal with one or two points with which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal?

First, will he outline to us how this Bill is going to affect the position about which we are most worried—that of the person who receives a licence to drive from some outside authority in respect of whom, as far as I can see, this Bill makes no provision. I hope he will tell us how far it affects military permits. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) raised this question at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

How far are we to be in a position to disqualify here someone who has committed an offence and has been convicted by a court for perhaps a serious driving offence? Or are any military authorities in a position to issue a licence to someone who has been disqualified, perhaps by our courts, or the French courts, or by the courts in every country where a man has been stationed?

The Minister of Transport said that the object of the Bill was to welcome guests from Franco Spain. That may or may not be so, but it is not an answer to my serious question. What is the position with regard to visiting forces? All the explanation we have had so far is that the matter is to be dealt with in another Bill. But there are references to the subject in this Bill, and for that reason we are entitled to know what the references in this Bill mean. What are to be the regulations? What are the possibilities? Or are the suggestions flung out in this Bill merely preparing the way for some further Measure at a later stage?

I hope that on a Measure of this sort the House is not going to dismiss lightly a question of this sort, and that we are to have some consideration and discussion of it. It would be unfortunate to give the Bill a Third Reading without some explanation from the Minister, who has had all the time since Second Reading to offer some explanation of the purpose of the Measure.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

I took part in the discussion which led to the issue which has just been disposed of. According to the Government, this Bill includes an undertaking given by them that the views which hon. Members on this side of the House expressed on that occasion would be carefully considered. I appreciate that the words which gave rise to that undertaking have now been removed from the Bill, and you would probably rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I discussed them now.

I pointed out at the time, however, that the undertaking was given by the Parlia- mentary Secretary, and when the Minister was present later I explicitly asked him whether the undertaking remained good and whether the regulations would require foreign motorists coming to this country to show that they were aware of all the rules that are laid down for English drivers; whether, for example, the movements of the hand of an English driver indicating what he intended to do were understood by foreign drivers, and whether they were qualified, when they got this international licence, to meet the dangers of the road in the same way as English drivers are supposed to be.

I was assured by the Minister himself. He said: I should hope to be as good and fair as my hon. Friend"— that is, the Parliamentary Secretary— He undertook that all the points raised would be given serious consideration, and in saying that he was speaking on behalf of himself and on my behalf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2656.] I do not know whether the serious consideration has led to a flat rejection of the proposal that the regulations when prepared by the Minister should draw the attention of motorists to these points to which I referred. I should like to know whether under this Bill the points that I raised in the Committee stage are fully covered. After the deletion of lines 19 to 23 from the Bill, I am not very clea—perhaps I can be told—of the extent to which this undertaking of the Minister is to be carried out.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I would not have spoken on the Third Reading if it were not for the fact that I hoped to have an opportunity, either on Report or in the Committee stage, of saying a word about the provisions of the Highway Code in so far as they affect this subject. It had not occurred to me that the Patronage Secretary would move the Closure within about a quarter of an hour of our discussion of the Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment. I must, therefore, make my views clear at this stage.

I am opposed to the Bill, because the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances were not at all satisfactory. The present position leaves a great deal to be desired. I regret very much that the Government moved the Amendment for the deletion of the important proviso that was inserted in the Committee stage. I appreciate that I cannot deal on Third Reading with anything that is not in the Bill. That is a difficulty that confronts Members when the Third Reading is taken immediately after the Report stage, and there has been no opportunity for the Government to reprint a Bill for consideration of the House on Third Reading. The printed document must be dealt with as it is found.

There is at the moment no satisfactory assurance with regard to the Highway Code. That is a matter of public importance. To my knowledge, foreigners coming to this country to drive cars are ignorant of the Highway Code; they are not familiar with our system of signals and signs. I have recently come across two visitors to this country who did not know the significance of the zebra crossing. We are all familiar with these crossings, but it cannot be wondered at that foreigners do not understand their significance and are, therefore, inclined to ignore them.

Mr. Speaker

This Bill, on Third Reading, permits of a very limited discussion. It provides for the making of Orders in Council to facilitate the circulation of international motor traffic. It does not lay down what is to be in those Orders in Council; there is the ordinary Statutory Instrument procedure laid down for that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can go into detail on what may or may not be in the Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Bing

On a point of order. As I understood it, my hon. Friend's argument was addressed to the fact that now we have deleted from the Bill any reference to the need to understand the Highway Code, this Bill as a whole is unsatisfactory, because it will enable the Minister of Transport to permit foreigners who are quite ignorant of these matters to drive motor cars in this country. He was saying that such was the ignorance of people who came front abroad on these matters that really this Bill should not be allowed to pass in its present form, because it would permit such persons to come here and drive motor cars.

Mr. Speaker

I gathered that was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but, ex hypothesi, if the Highway Code has been deleted from the Bill it is no longer in the Bill and is, therefore, not a relevant matter for Third Reading.

Mr. Fletcher

This Bill is designed to give Her Majesty, by Order in Council, power to make provision, broadly speaking, to enable foreigners to come here and drive motor cars. I am opposed to the Bill, because I think it wrong to give Her Majesty power to make provisions of that kind by Order in Council, until we have satisfactory assurances that no such Order will be made under this Bill which permits any foreigner to drive any car in this country unless there are effective steps taken to see that such a foreigner not merely has a copy of the Highway Code supplied to him by some motoring organisation but is familiar with the contents of it and has signed a declaration to that effect.

My argument is addressed to that point because I believe that further assurances for the protection and the safety of the public are required from the Government before this House should give a Third Reading to the Bill. With great respect, I submit that an argument on that line is perfectly relevant and within the terms of order on Third Reading, and it is precisely on that limited point that I am hoping, before the House finishes with the Bill—and I hope we shall not have any further interventions from the Patronage Secretary, because this is a matter of some public importance—that we shall have satisfactory assurances.

I hope we shall have a clear and explicit undertaking from the Minister that, if the House allows the Bill to pass, giving the Government power to make Orders in Council, care will be taken to ensure that no Order in Council is made under the Bill which does not specifically require that any foreigner, coming to these shores with a motor car and with permission to drive here, is not merely licensed to drive in his own country, but is effectively insured against third party risks with a company which can be called upon to pay any damages that may be payable in this country.

Further, we should like that such a person coming here will have to give an undertaking that he has read the Highway Code and, is familiar with it. I believe that nothing less than that is sufficient to protect the public against risks from people not familiar with the some- what complicated transport and traffic regulations of this country, which, of course, vary from time to time.

There is no reason why a foreigner should be criticised if he does not understand them. It is our duty to make the provisions clear to people who come here. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a clear undertaking from the Minister on that point.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

I hope that it will be in order to refer briefly to what I understand to be the purpose of this Bill as it has reached the House at this stage, and that is that Her Majesty may make provision—and here I will quote the actual words— for modifying in relation to vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain by persons resident outside the United Kingdom, and in relation to persons so resident who are temporarily in Great Britain, any enactment relating to vehicles or the drivers of vehicles. That, in effect, means that the Minister of Transport is in a position to set aside any legislation that this House has passed relating to the regulation of motor traffic on the roads, the type of traffic safety precautions covering the use of that traffic, and also the regulations which this House and successive Governments in their wisdom may think it necessary to impose to maintain reasonable standards of road safety.

What we ought to have on this Bill by this stage, and what we have not yet had, is an idea from the Minister of the use which he intends to make of the powers that we are giving him under this Bill. If I were not so much in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, I might feel considerable alarm because of the power which is given to the Minister to set aside all the legislation that this House has passed.

What we must all be concerned with is the question of road safety. Only the other day this House passed a Motion without a Division relating to road safety and it is a matter of concern to all sides of the House. It is a question which we from time to time debate. Obviously, if we are to allow foreigners to come into this country with motor cars, under a Convention which we are going to sign on the international circulation of motor vehicles, there must surely be some guarantee that these motorists are familiar with our normal customs on the road.

Anyone looking at the Highway Code will see that one ought to know, for example, what is to happen when a whip is held straight up; and what will happen when it circles round—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like the Whips in this House"]. My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth, but what I want to say next is that if I were a foreign visitor, trying to understand our Highway Code, I would not study the behaviour of the Whips in this House.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing in the Bill about the Whips in this House.

Mr. Benn

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am expressing concern and doubt because I think that it is wrong for us to pass an enabling Measure as wide as this Bill unless we know what assurances the Minister is to give.

I would ask what use the Minister is going to make of the wide powers he is taking; for, let it be remembered, he is setting aside regulations made under the Road Traffic Act of 1930. We are here concerned with the arriving and stationing in this country of North Atlantic Treaty Forces. We have to be conmerned with road safety precautions that will have to be taken as regard visiting forces, or tourists.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least have a skeleton available of the type of Orders in Council that he proposes to devise. Otherwise, he is asking for a blank cheque, with no guarantee that these Orders will be in the interests of, and for the convenience of, other users of the roads. The Parliamentary Secretary has treated us with courtesy and kindness throughout the earlier stages of this Bill, and in that spirit I hope that he will give the House tonight some indications of its intentions.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I was somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) expressed concern about the Patronage Secretary again descending upon us because, whatever one may say about bulls in china shops, it is no use being fearful until he arrives.

I ventured on an earlier stage of the Bill to say that the emergence of the Patronage Secretary had secured copies of the Highway Code for foreigners which they might not want; that he might provide free sets of tyres and, if the discussion went on long enough, even free motor cars. Hon. Members opposite have often spoken about foreigners obtaining free sets of teeth, and whether it be free teeth or free motor cars, somebody would have something for which to thank the Patronage Secretary.

The provision about the Highway Code is now removed from the Bill. The motoring organisations are to provide copies of the Highway Code which the Government will not provide. I understand that discussion on this stage of the Bill is extremely limited; although not so limited as our discussion on the Report stage, when there was none at all, and my difficulty is that, ordinarily, I should be in favour of this Bill. But, it does something which I have always understood the Conservative Party does not like—government by delegated powers. We have often heard complaints from these benches about the great powers being given to Ministers and what control the House has got. It boils down to what we think about the Minister. In the ordinary way, a modest Bill of this kind—

Mr. J. Hudson

On a point of order. I put a question to you, Sir, about what was in the Bill concerning the commitments made by the Minister. Can you invite the Minister himself, as he is now in the Chamber, to instruct you, as well as the House, upon the point about which difficulty now arises because of the exclusion of the lines that were referred to in the debate on the Report stage of the Bill?

I put it to you, Sir, that there was a most explicit commitment by the Minister concerning this matter. He has now come into the House. It is a most curious procedure. First we have the Patronage Secretary drifting in and moving the Closure and then drifting out; and then the Minister drifts in—I see that he has now gone out again. What is to be done?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot understand exactly what the hon. Member wants me to do. There will be an opportunity for the Minister in charge of the Bill to speak, if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Wigg

I was referring to the very wide powers the Government have taken to implement what I think, in ordinary circumstances, would be a useful Bill. Even though the words which we put in in Committee have been knocked out, this is still a Bill which, in ordinary circumstances, would command my approval.

What kind of a mess will the Government make of it? We have had that curious statement that they did not know who were the people who would benefit; who would retain driving licences under this Bill, and who would get copies of the Highway Code. We ought to know from the Government exactly what they propose to do when they take these powers.

I am alarmed at this Government undertaking any action in connection with our transport. If the Government does not know who supplies the copies of the Highway Code and who will get them, what will they do on the Transport Bill? I must not pursue that argument or I should be out of order, but it does justify me in thinking that before we vote on this Measure we ought to have the clearest understanding.

I hope that we shall have a firm undertaking from the Government of what they propose to do if the House decides to give them these powers. Although I support the Measure, I have no confidence in the Government, and if the House decides to go to a Division I shall, reluctantly, have to cast my vote against this Measure.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I shall not delay the House, because we had our discussion on this on the Second Reading, and Report and Committee stages. In spite of the intervention of the Patronage Secretary, we did make our position clear.

We said that we welcomed this Bill in as much as it assisted the tourist trade of this country, and removed some of the petty annoyances with which tourists were inconvenienced. At the same time, we have been pressing the Parliamentary Secretary to give us certain assurances, and he has given us some of those assurances. He did try to meet us in certain particulars. The Minister himself was not anywhere near as helpful and introduced some very irrelevant matters.

But we still think it necessary, when the Orders in Council which the Bill provides shall be laid before the House are laid, that we should question the Parliamentary Secretary very closely so as to make sure that the assurances he has given us in good faith are being carried out. We are very much concerned about road safety. We are concerned lest when foreign drivers come here they are unfamiliar with the Highway Code, and do not abide by the rules and regulations which we make in an effort to protect the lives of those who use the roads.

We wish to be assured that ample provision will be made to ensure that the foreign driver will be as safe on the road—and no greater danger to other users of the road—as British drivers. We have no intention of dividing against the Bill, but look forward to the Statutory Orders, and to receiving further assurances when they are discussed in the House.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite

I took careful notes of the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite with a view to replying to them in some detail, but in view of this attempt to count out a Measure aimed at securing international amity I do not propose to make any further reply.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.