Lords Sitting of 29 January 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCFLLOR on the Woolsack.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Government Annuities Acts, 1829 to 1888, and the enactments amending those Acts, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Cushendun.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

ROAD VEHICLES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolves itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Cecil Chelwood.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, on the Motion which my noble friend has just moved I should like first of all to thank him for having been so good as to postpone it to suit my convenience. I think your Lordships are familiar with the history of this Bill, which was introduced by my noble friend. It obtained a Second Reading and its further stages were postponed until such time as we could obtain from the Royal Commission which is at present sitting on these very matters, an intimation as to whether it would be possible for them to bring forward an Interim Report. As your Lordships will remember, I think the suggestion was that if an Interim Report during the next few months was not forthcoming, then it might be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The
802
Minister of Transport communicated with the Chairman of the Royal Commission as to the possibility of an Interim Report, and he received from the Chairman, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, an undertaking that an Interim Report would be forthcoming on the subject of this very Bill in the course of the coming summer.
I feel that no one could in any circumstances quarrel with the noble Viscount for having introduced his Bill. We are all entirely in agreement with the principle on which it was founded, and we are fully aware of the daily toll of death and injury which are the unfortunate concomitants of motor traffic in this country, and, as a matter of fact, throughout the world. It is true that the accidents which occur owing to this cause, even making an allowance for the enormous extension of motor traffic, are such as to cause all of us feelings of alarm and anxiety, and, naturally, any Government. Would be wanting in their duty if they did not support any measure or do everything in their power to mitigate this terrible number of accidents. But I would venture to put before your Lordships the fact that the Government feel it is quite impossible within the time at our disposal to bring in satisfactory legislation, or legislation which can do anything towards mitigating the accidents which are now unfortunately of everyday occurrence. Your Lordships are fully aware that any motor legislation is very highly controversial and your Lordships will remember the debate that we had in this House on the Second Reading. While everyone supported the principle underlying the Bill of the noble Viscount, and while everyone fully sympathised with the reason which he told us led him to bring forward the Bill, still there was hardly one clause which was not attacked from one side of the House or the other, which really showed your Lordships that the Bill was of so highly controversial a character that it could be quite impossible, whatever Committee was set up, to reduce it to an uncontroversial measure, which is the only measure which could possibly hope to pass through the House of Commons.
The Government may be right or they may be wrong. I can assure your Lordships we are only too anxious to do everything in our power to support the

803
principle but, having very carefully considered this measure, we believe that because the legislation is of so highly controversial a character it is quite impossible to hold out any hope that such a Bill could possibly pass through Parliament and be brought into active operation this Session. Therefore I would venture to suggest that we should wait for the Interim Report which the Chairman of the Royal Commission has undertaken shall be forthcoming; but I can assure your Lordships that if my noble friend or those who are associated with him feel that by this measure being referred to a Select Committee, or in any other way, anything could be done to mitigate those evils with which the Bill is purporting to deal, then the Government certainly will not stand in his way. As I have said, we are at one in the principle which he put forward so eloquently on the Second Reading, that no stone should be left unturned to do whatever lies in the power of everyone of us to mitigate the evils which are unfortunately accompanying this vastly increasing motor traffic throughout the country.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice to move, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said: My Lords, I understood from the speech of the noble Marquess [Lord Salisbury] on the Second Reading that the Government took rather a clear view that this Bill could not well go any further and I was a little surprised when I saw that the noble Viscount had put it down for Committee. I thereupon addressed myself to the Bill and endeavoured to draw Amendments to make it a workable and a reasonable Bill, but when I came to look at the clauses I found that they were so conceived as to appear to me almost impossible of useful amendment. I was driven merely to putting down Amendments to leave them out. Having gone through that process it then seemed to me that that would not be of very great assistance, because of the sympathy which has been expressed, and which I think is universal, with the object the noble Viscount had in view.
I thereupon put down a Motion which I am now going to move, that the Bill he referred to a Select Committee, because it did seem to me that an inquiry with evidence into the various difficult
804
points would go a very long way to clear up the situation, and, although I suppose we all agree that legislation is clearly impossible this Session, still it would be a useful precedent for future legislation by giving information upon which such legislation could be based. I ventured to say on Second Reading, and I think it is worth repeating now, that so far as reckless driving and serious accidents are concerned it is not so much legislation that is wanted as action under the existing law taken by the police. I believe that existing powers are sufficient if properly enforced in regard to dangerous driving at corners, dangerous driving at cross roads and things of that kind, instead of high speed on deserted moorlands. If attention were directed to the real dangers believe present legislation would be sufficient to deal with nearly all these matters of which there is complaint.
But the Bill makes other suggestions and I cannot help feeling that a good many of these suggestions are serious mistakes. Several of them, such as the "hump," or is it the crevasse? outside a village, seemed to me to be impracticable and to stand no real chance of acceptance even by the general public who are not motorists, but I do think that the Bill should be examined and I cannot help feeling that it could more easily be examined by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. There are many matters of detail. There is the question of compulsory insurance, one that is very dear to my heart because I believe I was the first to introduce it to your Lordships. That involves questions of very great difficulty, as I have come to realise since I first took up the subject. There I think evidence before a Select Committee would be very useful as to whether it would be possible to impose compulsory insurance on every motorist, and, if so, by what method it should be done. For all these reasons it seems to me that discussion in Committee of the Whole House, if it were a proper and useful discussion, would take up a great deal of your Lordships' time and would in many cases lead to debate without an adequate knowledge of the facts. It is because I think that evidence is required on a great many of these points that I do not think we can go very much further.
I also said on Second Reading that it is really the fault of the Government that the noble Viscount introduced this Bill. The Roads Bill has been before the public for a great many years now and the Government, with their large majority in another place, should have taken the opportunity of dealing with this controversial subject while they had time. The Roads Bill, or some similar Bill, should have been passed two years ago. Then these matters could have been dealt with. The Government have only themselves to thank if they find a certain public irritation now at the growing list of fatalities and an opinion that something at any rate ought to be done to deal with the situation. I cannot help thinking that an Inquiry by a Select Committee is as good a step as can be taken at this stage. The Report of that Committee and the evidence before it will, at any rate, show what the facts are and what useful direction legislation can take.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee").—(Earl Russell.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am quite sure the House must feel considerable difficulty in this matter. There are really three courses before us—to agree to the suggestion of the Government and await the Report of the Royal Commission; to discuss the matter upon the floor of this House; and, as is suggested by the noble Earl who has just sat down, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. On the last occasion when the matter was before your Lordships' House, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated very clearly their opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn altogether. That view he certainly expressed with a good deal of emphasis. Then, after some little time, the debate was replied to by the noble Viscount who originally introduced the Bill, upon which there was a most disorderly discussion led by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who proceeded to make a speech after the debate had been replied to by the second speech of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount then made a third speech and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House
806
made two speeches without even having the excuse of being himself the mover of any Resolution.
Following upon this very disorderly proceeding the noble Marquess yielded to the fraternal pressure exercised upon him from below the gangway and he gave way almost completely. He then said that it would be a very good thing if, instead of adopting the original position that had been expressed by the noble Marquess [Lord Londonderry] the representative of the Government, we adopted an entirely different course and referred the Bill to the Royal Commission or, failing that, to a Select Committee. Now we hear from the noble Marquess who once more represents His Majesty's Government that he agrees with the principles of the Bill. He was remarkably successful in concealing that agreement when the Bill—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I venture to dissent from the noble Earl.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: He was remarkably successful in disguising his sympathy with the Bill when it came up for discussion in your Lordships' House on the last occasion. I am sure that those of your Lordships who heard him and who have had the opportunity, as I have had in the course of the afternoon, of once more reading his speech, will have been very much surprised at the expressions of sympathy to which he has given vent this afternoon. It is very difficult for us to know what we are to do. His Majesty's Government have expressed an opinion this afternoon, but they expressed an opinion the last time the Bill was before your Lordships. In the course of the debate they entirely changed the advice which they offered to your Lordships, and, as they will probably do so again this afternoon, I really do not know what advice I can offer.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill stands in a rather unusual position. The Government are expressing a deep affection for its principles and they desire it to be so dealt with that we shall certainly hear no more of it in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thinks that the right way to deal with it is to refer it to a Select Committee, where evidence may be obtained and experts heard as to matters

807
which in substance are the common experience of our daily life. I venture to ask your Lordships to say that there is nothing whatever in this Bill that is beyond the competence of this House, sitting in full Committee, to consider and determine. A mere glance at the character of the Amendments that are down for consideration this afternoon will be sufficient to satisfy you of that fact. I fail to see why this House, sitting in Committee, should attempt to escape from its responsibility. If this were a Bill dealing with the setting up of some intricate electrical establishment, I can well believe that people might say that its subject was a little too subtle for the ordinary man and that we required the assistance of trained people. But in this particular matter I must say that I should rather resent the interference of an expert.
Let me give an illustration of my meaning. On the last occasion I pointed out that, owing to the blinding character of lights used on motor cars at night, a man had killed a passenger upon the road, being, as the magistrate accepted that he was, so completely dazzled by the light that he could not see and, though he was proceeding at as slow a pace as possible, this terrible consequence ensued. Since that debate two more such accidents have happened and two more people have been killed in exactly the same circumstances. It was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that the question of these lights was one upon which the experts were in controversy. I do not want an expert to tell me that, when I am blinded by a dazzling light, I can in truth see perfectly well, or that, when I can see reasonably well if the lights are veiled, I am in truth blind. I want to trust my own senses in this matter, and I resent entirely the idea that matters of that kind, which affect the daily safety of people walking about the roads and on which the common experience of each one of us is well able to judge, should be referred to a Select Committee and be the subject of a conflict of evidence.
I sincerely hope that this House is going to undertake the business of going through the Amendments upon the Paper and deciding whether or not they should be incorporated in the Bill. If
808
the Government really loves the Bill as truly as it seems to do, the Amendments will not do it any harm. They are all very reasonable. I do not know about the first of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but take, for example, the first Amendment that we have to consider. It is in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, and it is to insert in subsection (2) of Clause 1, after the word "physically," the word "ocularly." We have not to determine whether that is really a word in the English language or not. That might be the proper subject matter for an expert. We have to assume that it is a proper word and to put it in if we like it or, if not, leave it out. The whole of the rest of this first series of Amendments is of the same character. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants to leave out the clause that qualifies people for holding licences. If he is right on that point, let it be left out. Why should we not decide whether people are to be qualified or not?
My first Amendment deals with excessive speed. It has nothing whatever to do with experts. My next Amendment deals with a matter which I respectfully submit that this House in full Committee, and this House alone, ought to deal with. It is this. As the Bill was originally drawn the proposal was that there should be referred to the Ministry of Transport the power of making rules, and that those rules should be the governing rules the breach of which should constitute a criminal offence. I protest utterly against any such arrangement. I do not want now to elaborate the arguments that I hope to use when the Amendment comes before us, but I do say that the matter is one of the very highest Constitutional consequence, and it certainly is not a matter that ought to be sent to a Select Committee for the hearing of goodness only knows what evidence for the purpose of instructing us that it is not the Houses of Parliament but somebody in Whitehall who has to make our laws. As for the rest of my Amendments, I desire to strengthen the punishment for some offences and to provide that men who are under the influence of drugs may be equally responsible as men who are under the influence of drink. I also suggest something which I have no doubt the noble Viscount omitted through an oversight, a little

809
Provision about noise. The Bill has been before you, and that, roughly speaking, is the character of the Amendments.
If it is desired to get this Bill shut out of sight so that nobody will hear any more about its discussion, by all means refer it to a Select Committee. You will not hear any more about it then. If you desire that this matter should be ended once for all, let the Royal Commission report, as they will do, when another Government has come into office, and everything that has been done will be entirely lost. If, on the other hand, you desire to do that which I honestly desire, and which I believe the noble Viscount desires, if you want to say that this House is prepared to consider, and to give its best attention to considering, the means by which foot-passengers and people who use the roads can be safeguarded against the people who ought to know better and who are frequently not only selfish but criminally negligent in the charge of motor cars, then the proper course to take is to retain this Bill before this House and to discuss the Amendments that are down for your consideration this afternoon. I sincerely hope that you will do so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I feel myself in a position of some little difficulty. I am fundamentally and overwhelmingly convinced of the necessity for something being done in this matter. I have tried my best to follow the newspapers since the matter was before the House on the last occasion, and I see no diminution of the On the contrary, the accidents go on continually, like a perpetually running sore in the body politic. I observe that judges have been commenting on the condition of affairs. I think it was Mr. Justice Roche, in charging the Grand Jury, I believe in Berkshire, who said that there were twice as many cases as there had been on a previous occasion; and he pointed out that in his judgment these cases were due to recklessness and carelessness. I saw only in to-day's news-paper a report by a medical officer of health that the infirmaries and hospitals are crowded out with cases of accidents arising from motor vehicles. I am sure your Lordships realise what tremendous hardship that is on the whole population. They are kept out of hospitals and not able to obtain the assistance in
810
Ordinary diseases which otherwise they would be able to obtain, because the beds at these hospitals are often full to over-flowing with motor accident cases. That is a very serious matter indeed, and requires to be urgently dealt with, and I agree with what was said on the Front Treasury Bench that the very urgency of the matter makes it most important that we should not do anything which could do no good and might do harm.
If I could be convinced that there was some method of inquiry into some of these technical matters—because with great respect to Lord Buckmaster, to whom I am very grateful for what he has said in the discussions on this Bill, I think there are some technical matters which might be suitable for discussion by a Select Committee; compulsory insurance is one of them, and there are others—if I could be quite sure that there was some method of inquiry which could be set up immediately and would report in the next two or three months, at the outside at that you could deal with the measure, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, before the Dissolution of Parliament, then I should see very little objection to such an inquiry. My noble friend Lord Russell will forgive me if IL say that I was not terribly encouraged by his speech because I understood him to say there was not a single provision which really ought to be adopted—
EARL RUSSELL: As it stood.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: —and therefore he was in favour of a Select Committee. It gave me a kind of awful feeling that possibly that was because he thought it was the best way of getting rid of the Bill altogether. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Londonderry for his speech, but I cannot think that an Interim Report of this Commission is likely to be of much value.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I observe that since the debate last December, this Commission has had two meetings in January. The first was taken up with the discussion of the Channel tunnel, and the second with the desirability of the nationalisation of the railways. I cannot think that that Com-

811
mission, with that kind of atmosphere about it, is likely to make a very useful practical Report upon matters of detail connected with this particular Bill, and I do not think there is any prospect at all of their reporting this side of the General Election, or at any rate until just this side. So far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to accept the Motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, provided it is understood that this Select Committee is to report in time for your Lordships to deal with the matter in March or April. Unless that can be a perfectly genuine understanding, from all parts of this House, then I agree with Lord Buckmaster that it will be much better to proceed to discuss this matter on the floor of this House.
It really depends which is the best way to get the best Bill we can get through the House. I think there is a case for the discussion in detail, before the Select Committee, of some of these provisions, but I think also there are many of them which could be well discussed on the floor of this House. Therefore, if it is the best way to get on with the Bill, I personally am prepared to accept a Select Committee, but otherwise I would ask your Lordships to keep it on the floor of the House. As to that I am in great difficulty, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with procedure to say how certain we may be that a Select Committee would report within that time. Therefore, I think it is better that I should receive guidance from those who are better able to judge than I am.
Then there is another matter to which I would like to refer. Earl Russell said, with a great deal of truth, that there were many parts of this Bill which could be put into force by administrative action. Those are not his exact words, but it comes to much the same thing. I agree with him. There are several provisions which it would be very satisfactory if they formed part of the Statute Law, but which could be dealt with administratively. There is no doubt that through the instrumentality of the Road Board a good deal could be done to standardise and make more effective road signs, and the provision requiring the magistrates to suspend licences, I should have thought, might be dealt with by circular from the Home Office. Whatever happens to this Bill, whether we take the
812
consideration now, or adjourn it for a week, to see whether we can arrive at a definite understanding about the Select Committee, or whatever other course is taken, I beg my noble friends on the Treasury Bench to inquire very carefully how much further it is possible to proceed by administrative action alone. The matter is so serious and urgent that anything which can be done ought to be done, and I am not really certain that the Home Office or the Ministry of Transport have exhausted their powers in the matter. I should like further to be instructed as to the prospects of the Bill if it is referred to a Select Committee, before expressing any decided opinion of my own.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, so far as the last observation of my noble friend is concerned, I will, of course, undertake that the Home Office shall consider whether any administrative steps are possible. I can give that assurance at once. I am a little diffident in addressing your Lordships, because I appear to have got into such trouble with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on the last occasion, that I feel somewhat nervous, like a man treading on thin ice, in venturing to address your Lordships on what, in my judgment, is the better course to pursue. I think the noble Earl is under a misunderstanding. No doubt the mover of a Motion is the only member of the House who is entitled, except in Committee, to speak twice, but that does not preclude other noble Lords who have not already spoken from speaking after he has spoken a second time. There I think the noble Earl, for once, has erred from the strict path of Parliamentary order. As regards the other conversations which ensued at the end of the discussion on the last occasion, in one sense, no doubt, they were disorderly, but arrangements between those responsible for business on this Bench and noble Lords in charge of Motions have to be adjusted in a conversational manner, and it is always permitted to the Leader of the House to say a word or two in order to clear the ground and to indicate to the House the path which might properly be pursued.
Leaving that small matter on one side, I would like to address myself to the actual position. When we discussed this Bill on the last occasion those in charge

813
of the measure, my noble friend and those who support him, made a great impression on your Lordships. I think we were all satisfied that the facts which they brought forward did indicate a mischief of such a character that a remedy was called for, and as soon as was practically possible. But it also appeared in the course of the debate that there was a very great difference of opinion among noble Lords as to what should be the precise details of the clauses. Some noble Lords criticised the clauses more than others, but I do not think there was a single member of your Lordships' House, except my noble friend himself, who approved of the Bill as it stands, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, although he was a very warm supporter of the principle of the Bill, was a most effective critic of many of its details.
In those circumstances I thought in the interests of the public, in the interests of your Lordships' House and may I say in the interests of the Government itself? it was most important that we should not ask your Lordships to come to a decision upon the Bill without a more detailed method of inquiry than was possible on the floor of this House. I say so on behalf of the Government as well as on behalf of the public, because really we who sit on this Bench do require a certain amount of investigation before we can be quite certain ourselves what course is likely to be most effective. And therefore I made the suggestion that further proceedings on the Bill should not be continued without some form of inquiry. I pointed out to your Lordships that there was a Royal Commission sitting, that that Royal Commission was dealing with the very subject—among others—of the Bill, and that it seemed a more reasonable and straightforward course to leave the Royal Commission itself to report, and to act accordingly, and, if an Interim report were possible, that seemed the easiest plan.
Well, inquiry was made, and it was found that an Interim Report is possible, and the Chairman has promised it. But I must admit—and I admit with the greatest frankness—that it will not be immediate—not till perhaps June or July of this year. In those circumstances I recognise that a difficult situation has arisen, and it was because we foresaw the possibility of that difficulty that I
814
Suggested as an alternative that the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, and I understood when those proceedings ended on that afternoon that it was accepted generally speaking by the House that one or other of the two courses should be followed. We stand exactly in the same position now as we did then. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that we should be acting wisely in continuing to discuss this Bill on the floor of the House. I admit that, if it were possible that legislation could take place this Session, there might be something to be said for it, but of course it is agreed on all hands that that is out of the question. There is no reason why it should not pass through your Lordships' House but it could never get through another place. It is very controversial, besides which I need not remind the House that the mind of the House of Commons is directed to other legislation of capital interest and importance, and it is impossible to find time for anything else except the necessary financial business of the year.
So that, those things being so, some kind of inquiry seems to be indicated. The noble Earl opposite has moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee and my noble friend asks what the prospects are of the Select Committee. I can only speak in that matter as a member of the House. Once the matter is referred to the Select Committee, the Government have no control over it whatever: it is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the House. Supposing your Lordships saw fit to agree to a Select Committee, the noble Earl and my noble friend, the noble Viscount, would be principally responsible for seeing that the members of the Committee were named, and no doubt they would be good enough to confer perhaps with us on the subject: but they would be principally responsible for seeing that the names are put before your Lordships, and there is no reason in the world why the Committee should not sit within the next few days, and carry its business through. That will be entirely in the hands of those who become members of the Committee and of the Chairman, and I have no doubt the noble Earl, the noble Viscount, and ourselves will see, so far as we can, if that be so, that members of the Committee should be put on who might be

815
trusted to push forward the business with whatever despatch was possible. Of course, we cannot enter into any promise either as members of the Government or as members of the House, for it depends upon the course of the inquiry. That is quite evident.
Those facts being so, for my part I shall not resist the Amendment of the noble Earl to refer the matter to a Select Committee, if he proceeds with it. I believe that some sort of inquiry is necessary. I think it unfortunate, I repeat, that there should be two inquiries going on at the same time on the same subject; but, in as much as my noble friend below the gangway prefers a Report which will be made in say six weeks to a Report which will not be ready until July, the Government will not resist the proposal for the Select Committee. One thing we are most anxious about—namely, that there should not be the least impression, either here or elsewhere, that the Government are indifferent to the importance of this subject, or think if a trifling matter that this terrible toll of death and injury should take place without any legislative steps being taken to correct it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Order for the House to be put into Committee discharged, and Bill referred to a Select Committee.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee. The Motion was made by Lord Banbury of Southam on December 6 last, and the debate was then, and again on January 22, adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships on December 6 I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, were very critical of the conduct of the Government in reference to it. Indeed, I think the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, reproved my noble friend Lord Desborough in rather vigorous language for the attitude which we were adopting. I am perfectly certain that the noble Earl did not intend to direct his invective against my noble friend Lord Desborough. Per-
816
sonally, I should think there was no member of your Lordships' House who was so universally popular as my noble friend.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: His conduct of the business is always the subject of my admiration for the way in which he gets around difficult corners without showing any sign of dismay. But the real object of the noble Earl's invective was, I suppose, the Home Office, who had instructed my noble friend. The noble Earl assents; I knew that was so. I desired to say those few words in order to prevent a misunderstanding.
With reference to this Bill, it is perfectly true, as the noble Earl opposite said, that the Government are unable to defend it. We are not responsible for it and we are quite unable to defend it. Indeed, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Desborough successfully showed upon the previous occasion that the Bill was unworkable. What we did was to advise my noble friend Lord Banbury to confer with my right hon. friend and his advisers at the Home Office to see whether anything could be done. I understand that my noble friend Lord Banbury has been to the Home Office twice since then but has entirely failed to convince the Home Office that the Bill is workable. On the contrary, I think, if anything, it is found to be mere unworkable than it was thought to be before. Therefore, we are placed in a rather difficult position. My noble friend Lord Banbury is proceeding with his Motion this afternoon and it is, of course, for us to say what line we shall adopt. There are, I know, certain Amendments upon the Paper and it would not be respectful to suggest to your Lordships that the matter should be removed from the cognisance of the House until those Amendments have been considered: but I think it is only right to tell the House that, as far as I am able to gather from the advice tendered to me, these Amendments will not convince the Home Office that the Bill is workable, even if they are agreed to by the House. There is nothing in them which will alter the opinion which has been formed.
If my noble friend wishes to proceed with the Bill so far as the present stage

817
is concerned, I have nothing to say. No doubt, the Amendments will be agreed to or rejected. I do not think the Government will take any part in their discussion because we do not think that they will make any substantial difference in the workable character of the Bill. But when that process has been completed your Lordships will have to consider the Bill upon Third Reading, and I think it is only right to say that unless between now and the Third Reading my noble friend Lord Banbury, is able to convince the Home Office that his Bill is workable, the Government cannot support the Bill on the Third Reading. That is impossible. He says that he has an understanding with the Home Office that the Bill was not to be opposed. Lot me be frank with the House. No understanding, whatever it may be, is sufficient to make it the duty of the Leader of the House to advise your Lordships to pass a Bill which he knows to be unworkable. Therefore, if my noble friend proceeds, and the Bill cannot be made workable between now and the Third Reading, he must not complain if the Bill is thrown out on that stage.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess one thing. He has said that unless the noble Lord satisfies the Home Office that this Bill is desirable the Government cannot support it. Under whose directions are members of your Lordships' House to satisfy Government Departments of the value of their Bills? Surely, that of all things—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me; I ought to have said, of course, if the noble Lord satisfies your Lordships' House that it is workable. But so far as the Government are concerned it is important that he should satisfy the Home Office.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is another matter altogether. It is not the same thing, and although that might be what the noble Marquess ought to have said it is obviously the thing that he did not say, and it raises a question which I think is of great consequence. It is not the first time in the course of Bills through your Lordships' House that our arguments have been met, not by reasoned and calculated discussion on the
818
other side, but by the statement that what we were saying did not meet with the approval of some Government Department or another. That has not happened once; it has happened to me on many occasions. I have found, and I am afraid it is the growing experience of members of this House, that what has to be faced is not public debate on the floor of this House, but something that you cannot get at which is represented by the opinion of some office in Whitehall. I hope I do not attach too much importance to this matter, but to me it is of the utmost value. The arguments and contentions of responsible Ministers of the Crown are things to which everybody must listen, and I have no doubt, in forming their judgments, they will get information from the Government Departments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I agree, and I do not object to that. But I object strongly that, a Bill here should have its opposition entirely engineered not by the considered opinion of the Government but by some Department which regards its interests as affected by the Bill or which, it may he, is sorry that it has not introduced the Bill itself. I cannot help thinking that the unintentional lapse of the noble Marquess discloses exactly that state of things, which I regard as full of very grave danger.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Marquess has referred to me, and as I took some action on this Bill last time I propose to say a word of explanation. On the last occasion I thought it proper to ask your Lordships not to let this Bill go further because it seemed to me that the noble Lord in charge of it was, if I might say really flouting the House. He was putting it down for Committee without any suggested Amendments to meet the difficulties that had been raised. I understand that the noble Lord not only has placed Amendments on the Paper but has done everything he can in consultation with the Home Office to try to come to some agreement and to make this Bill work.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Hear, hear.
EARL RUSSELL: If your Lordships are agreed, as I rather thought was the case, that the object which the Bill has in view is a desirable one—that is to say that a cruel man should not be allowed to keep a dog, and we are all agreed that that is a desirable object—does it not become the duty of the Government Department to assist the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to place on the Paper such Amendments as will make it workable? I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill seems to me to have done what he could and I shall not further oppose him.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the Home Office have given their best attention to trying to make this Bill workable or not?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene if the noble Marquess had not referred to me. I think it is only right to make it clear that in any criticism which was made by me upon the last occasion there was no personal criticism of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. I know he was, like several noble Lords on the Bench opposite, merely representing the views of the Department, and I hope he will allow me to assure him that my criticisms were directed entirely against the Home Office and not against himself personally. With regard to this Bill, the point of criticism—not an unfair one, I think—was, that while this Bill had been introduced, His Majesty's Government were unable to help it or to give it support, and that they were unable to suggest Amendments which then might seem to be desirable, in order to make the Bill an effective piece of legislation. Yet your Lordships' House was encouraged to go on and to proceed further with the Bill. It seemed to me that, if the Home Office were unable to suggest any Amendments, it is a considerable waste of time on the part of your Lordships' House to go on considering the Bill. I am glad to think in this matter that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and I myself are in agreement. That was really the point of my criticism. I am glad to learn, from what we have heard in this discussion, that the Home Office have now altered their position, and that
820
They have been able to suggest Amendments which might make the Bill a possible Bill. If that is so one is sure that members in all parts of the House will do their best to see the Bill pass into law. I only wish to emphasise in conclusion what I have already said, that my-criticisms were not directed against the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, personally, but merely against the Office he represented.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish the Home Office could see their way to make the Bill workable, but that cannot be done on these lines.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I think it is absolutely necessary that your Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing your opinion upon whether the Amendments are good or bad. With regard to the Home Office I think I have seen representatives of that Office certainly twice, if not three times. I offered to consider any Amendments the Home Office might suggest, unless, of course, they were wrecking Amendments, and the reply given me by the Under-Secretary was: "Oh, you want us to draw your Bill." I said "Oh, no, I don't; and if you are afraid, or do not wish to introduce any Amendments in your own name, give me the Amendments and I will put them down in my name." The Home Office would not do that, but they gave me an undertaking, which I have in writing, that while they could not support the Bill, they would not officially oppose it. Two objections, and two only, were made to me when I was at the Home Office, by the Under-Secretary and the officials. One was that a man might be ordered by the magistrates not to take out a licence, but he might get his wife or his servant to take one out. I said: "Possibly that might be so if his wife would obey him, which did not at all follow, or if he had a servant, which, considering the people affected by this Bill, would be very unlikely." The other objection was that it might cause some trouble to the Post Office. An Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Danesfort will do away with that, and there will be no trouble at all to the Post Office. In those circumstances, without wishing to make a speech now upon the Amendments, I trust the House will allow the Bill to go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of court to prevent person convicted of cruelty to a dog from obtaining a licence.
1. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, shall be and is hereby amended as follows:—
After the proviso in section three of the said Act this further enactment shall be inserted:
"Further, if the owner of any dog shall be guilty of cruelty to that animal within the meaning of this Act, the court upon the owner's conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, direct that such owner shall not thereafter for such time as they may direct, be granted any licence for keeping a dog or dogs, and a direction so given shall be effectual to prevent such person so convicted from holding such licence."
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out the first "direct" and insert "order." The noble Lord said: I have a number of Amendments on the Paper in order to meet the objection put forward by the Home Office on the previous occasion that the Bill was not workable, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships, as all these Amendments are more or less dependent upon each other and hang together, if I tell your Lordships very shortly, in moving my first Amendment, what the effect of the Amendments would be if they are carried. Before I do that perhaps I might be allowed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for the general approval which they have given to the object of the Bill. I believe there is no one in your Lordships' House who would not desire, if it can be done, to prevent a man or woman who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog from holding a licence to keep a dog for such period as the magistrate may order.
The general object of my Amendments is this. I propose that when a man is convicted of cruelty to a dog it shall be open to the magistrate not only to fine in the usual way, or imprison, as the case may be, but to order that for such limited period as the magistrate thinks proper the man shall not be allowed to have a licence for a dog. In the Bill
822
as drafted there is no prohibition on a man so convicted from applying for a licence, and, therefore, one of the first of my Amendments is that the magistrate, when he has convicted a person, may order that person not to apply for a dog licence for a fixed period, and, following upon that, I propose that if that person, in violation of that order of the Court, does apply for a licence and happens to get it, then the licence shall be void and the person shall be liable to be proceeded against in respect of the dog for which he has a licence as if he had no licence at all and fined. I am not going to argue the merits of those Amendments until I come to each particular Amendment, but I thought it convenient to your Lordships to indicate in a general way what the Amendments are.
Before I formally move the first Amendment I should like to say to your Lordships that cases of cruelty to dogs are not only, as I gather from the reports of cases, increasing in numbers, but they are also increasing in brutality, and some amendment of the existing law is necessary, I venture to think, in order to deter persons from committing these atrocious acts of cruelty, or being in a position to do so if they are so inclined. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a long list of these convictions, but there are two which I happened to see in the newspapers to which I think it is worth while referring. As lately as January 8, a woman was brought before the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate for what the Magistrate, after hearing the evidence, called "atrocious cruelty." She had so injured the dog that it had to be destroyed, and the Magistrate thought it so bad a case that he sent her to prison for three months and inflicted a fine of £25, with ten guineas costs in addition. Would any one say that a person so convicted of such an act was a proper person to be allowed to apply for a licence for a dog?
One other case I will refer to, and that is a case which wets heard only yesterday, and is reported in to-day's Times. It is a case which occurred at Lancaster, where a man was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for atrocious cruelty, and the nature of the cruelty was that he attached a string round a dog's neck, fastened a stone to the string, and threw the unfortunate animal into a frozen

823
quarry, where the wretched dog remained for fourteen hours before it was discovered, and then it was taken out in a paralysed and almost dead condition. The penalty inflicted for that was, as I said, one month's imprisonment. Could any one say that a man so convicted should be allowed, for some time at any rate, to take out a dog licence? I have mentioned these cases in order to show the necessity for strengthening the law.
Having said so much I will move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really almost a drafting Amendment. The Bill as it stands reads:—
"Further, if the owner of any dog shall be guilty of cruelty to that animal…the Court, upon the owner's conviction thereof, may…direct that such owner shall not thereafter for such time as they may direct, be granted any licence for keeping a dog or dogs."
I propose instead of the first "direct" to insert the word "order". I think "order" would be more suitable and it would fall in with other Amendments which I propose to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("direct") and insert ("order").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD PARMOOR: I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said that this is a drafting Amendment as it stands, and I think the word "order" is a much better word than "direct" because we know what "order" means coming from a. Court or a magistrate. I want to say one further word. Personally I am very strongly of opinion that a Bill of this kind should be passed, as I think there is brutality in many cases in the treatment of dogs. It has never occurred to me that there is any great difficulty as regards the administration of the Bill. I agree that in matters of this kind the decision or the authority of the Home Office has to be very carefully considered, and I also agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has said, that we are not governed in matters of that kind by the decision of the Home Office. At the same time, unless the Government feel that the direction of the Home Office has been carried too far in the way of stopping such a Bill, a Bill cannot go far without Government assent. Therefore, the person we really want to convert is the noble Marquess who leads the House.
824
I do not know whether he has thoroughly considered the framework of the Bill. It is extremely simple. If a man has been convicted of brutal treatment of a dog the Court can direct that he shall not have a licence in future. If he attempts to take out a licence in those circumstances he really is in the position of an unlicensed person so far as a dog licence is concerned. It appears to me that that is a very simple provision and a very effective one. If dogs have been brutally treated I think the only way to stop it in future is to prevent a person guilty of that offence being able to take out a licence to keep dogs. There is no difficulty about that. The Court makes an order. What is the difficulty of the Home Office? I have never been able to realise it. The order of the Court is that a dog licence cannot be taken out. If a person who, by the order of the Court, is not entitled to take out a dog licence takes one out, he is to be treated as though he had no licence. It is the simplest thing possible. The matter would then go, I presume, again before the proper Court and the person would be punished as one who had not taken out a licence and therefore was without a licence so far as a dog was concerned. It strikes me as an extremely simple clause, and I hope that in some form or another the Bill may be passed and the. Home Office may be satisfied.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment of my noble friend. It is an improvement on the Bill. I may add that in the case which my noble friend refers to as occurring on January 8, the people who reported the case, and who gave evidence, were two girl servants employed by the woman herself, so in that case it would be quite certain the servants would not help her to take out another licence.
LORD ATKIN: Might I add one word on the legal position? Perhaps the noble Lord representing the Home Office would be good enough to deal with the possibility of making this Bill workable Bill, because I am quite sure we all of us desire if possible to carry out the object of the Bill, which is to make it more uncomfortable for people who are cruel to dogs, and to try to prevent the possibility of their being cruel in the future. That is the sole object of the Bill. I can

825
quite appreciate the difficulty which the Department felt, and probably feels, in respect of a Bill which gives power to the magistrates to order that no licence shall be granted to a person in the future. For my part I do not see how that order is going to be carried out, because we all know what a dog licence is. The Post Office officials do not know anything about the holders of dog licences. You go in the office and buy a dog licence as you go in and buy stamps. It seems to me a somewhat remarkable position that a Court should order that the Post Office should not grant a licence to a person who has been convicted.
On the other hand, it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal that a person who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog should for a specified period be deemed to be incapable of holding a dog licence, upon the same principle that a person who has been found to be incapable of managing a motor car properly is deprived of his licence for a particular period. Should not the provision which the noble Lord who brings forward this Bill desires to make be of this nature, that the magistrates may order that a person convicted of cruelty to a dog should not for a specified period be capable of holding a dog licence? That is all that is required. That does not interfere in the least with the administration of dog licences. If the man then took out a dog licence for the future, so much the better for the revenue. He would pay his 7s. 6d. and nobody would be any the worse except the man himself. If it were provided that a person convicted should not be capable of holding a dog licence such a provision would have the effect of applying to the existing licence. Oddly enough, in the terms of the present proposal, although a, man is prevented from applying for a new licence, his current licence apparently would continue for a period of six or nine months or, possibly, eleven months. That seems to me very unworkable. All you really require is that the justices may in such a case order that a person shall be incapable of holding a licence for a certain period and then to make a simple provision that any licence held by the person during that period should be null and void to all intents and purposes—not that he should be incapable of taking one out but that any licence held by him, whether an existing licence or a new licence, shall
826
be null and void for all purposes. You then achieve the desired result and at the present moment I cannot see what administrative objection there is to such a proposal. I agree that it might be evaded, perhaps in a great many cases, but there must be some cases in which it would not be evaded and it seems to me to strengthen the law as to cruelty and, at any rate, to do no harm.
LORD DANESFORT: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his valuable suggestions. I have endeavoured to incorporate both of them in this Bill. By one of the Amendments that I have put upon the Paper I propose to say that the Court may order a man convicted of cruelty not to apply for a licence within such time as may be directed, and I go on to suggest that, if he does so apply and obtains a licence by some subterfuge, the licence shall be null and void. That is exactly what the noble and learned Lord suggests, and I am very much obliged to him for, as it were, anticipating me and confirming me in the validity of that suggestion. The next Amendment that I have to move deals with the question of ordering a man not to apply for a licence. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, if he wishes to incorporate his suggestion, he should do so by moving the insertion of additional words after "dog or dogs" I have already moved my Amendment to substitute the word "order" for the word "direct."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT: As a matter of form, I ought to move a drafting Amendment to line 16 in the same sense as that which has been agreed to. I am sorry that I have not put it upon the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("direct") and insert ("order").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, after the second "direct," to insert "apply for or." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance. The effect, if it were inserted, would be that, when a man has been convicted, the Court in addition to other punishments may order, if they think fit, that he shall not apply for a licence. Your Lordships will see that this is suggested in view of the further Amendment that I shall propose

827
to the effect that, if he does apply for and obtain a licence, the licence shall be void and he shall be liable to a fine. This proposal seems to me to follow from the general scheme of the Bill, and I do not think that I need use any arguments to support it. I can only say that the Bill must obviously be more workable with these Amendments. It is very unlikely indeed that a man who has been convicted of cruelty and has been ordered by a competent Court not to apply for a licence, will do so in direct violation of that order, knowing that, if he obtained a licence, it would be void and he would be liable to a fine. I venture to submit to your Lordships, therefore, that this Amendment, together with those that follow would be a valuable addition to the Bill, that they would make it a really workable Bill, and that this provision would be a deterrent against a man trying to get a licence for which he ought not to apply.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("direct") insert ("apply for or").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: I am sorry that I was not able to convince my noble friend Lord Danesfort of the value of the proposal that I made.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I entirely accepted his proposal as a very valuable one.
LORD ATKIN: Unfortunately I was not able to make it clear. The noble Lord will notice that his prohibition applies only to new licences. He will see that these persons may not apply for or be granted a licence. That does not apply to the existing licence that has been taken out, which a man may hold and have the right to hold for another eleven or twelve months. I think, also, that there is an administrative objection to making an order that a person may not be granted a licence by the Excise authority and the Post Office. It seems much simpler not to make that provision, but merely to say that such person, for such a time as shall be mentioned in the order, shall be incapable of holding a dog licence. That is all that is required.
LORD DANESFORT: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. One knows his great authority in these matters, and if he would kindly move an Amendment in the sense that he has
828
suggested I should be quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment in his favour.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I shall have much pleasure in accepting the noble and learned Lord's suggestion. I did not quite catch the whole of it, but I gather that what he wishes to do is to say that, when a man is convicted by the magistrate of cruelty, the magistrate may say that for such time as he may direct the man shall not be capable of holding a licence. Is that it?
LORD ATKIN: I cannot help thinking that this point will have to be considered and brought up again. I have not formulated a definite Amendment upon this proposal, but it can be brought up on Report. I think we should probably require a provision that the magistrate should have power to direct that the existing licence should be given up. I am really not in a position to "vet" this Bill myself, but I think it could be made quite workable by a few very simple proposals of that kind.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Let me suggest that the noble and learned Lord should bring up an Amendment upon Report. There will have to be a Report stage. So far as I understand the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, I shall be pleased to accept it.
LORD PARMOOR: If I understand the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, it is an extremely simple one. A person is convicted of cruelty to a dog. It is suggested that the right procedure is that the existing licence should no longer be applicable and that no new licence should be applied for within some specified time which the magistrate may lay down. This is very much the same as the procedure regarding motor licences. I think it is very simple and that there will be no administrative difficulty. If the noble and learned Lord will agree to put down an Amendment on Report, that would really be the most convenient course.
LORD DANESFORT: Perhaps the most convenient course, in view of the Amendments that I have later on the Paper, would be for the House to accept my Amendment and for the noble and learned Lord to bring up his Amendment on Report. I need hardly say that we shall be very glad to consider it, but I shall be very glad if the House will

829
accept this Amendment, subject to a further Amendment on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to omit all words after "dogs." The noble Lord said: The words that I propose to omit do not seem to me to be very apt and they will, no doubt, be met by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord at a later stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("dogs") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to insert the following new clause:—
"If the person against whom such order is made applies for or obtains a licence for keeping a dog in breach of such order the licence so obtained shall be null and void, and such person shall on conviction for such breach be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence."
The noble Lord said: In moving this new clause I wish to say the same as I said on the previous Amendment, that it is open to the noble and learned Lord to bring up an Amendment upon Report. The new clause provides that if a person against whom an order is made applies for or obtains a licence in breach of such order, the licence so obtained shall be null and void—in that I think the noble and learned Lord and I are agreed—and such person shall on conviction for such breach be liable to a penalty, and proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence. That would be the net result of a licence being void. He would have a dog and have no licence, and would be liable to proceedings for keeping a dog without a licence.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: I think this new clause certainly wants considerable revision. Again, it does not apply to existing licences but only to a new licence, and in terms it seeks to provide that if a person against whom such order is made applies for a licence in breach of such order proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence. I do not follow the connection between the two at all, but nevertheless I think the clause can be amended on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:—
"A person applying for a dog licence shall be required to sign a declaration that the licence so applied for is neither directly nor indirectly on behalf of a person whose licence has been revoked or suspended under an order of the Court."
The noble Viscount said: The chief objection to this Bill, as I understood from Lord Desborough, was that it would be easy for any person who wanted to keep a dog to take out a licence in somebody else's name, and that it would not be very easy to detect it. He ended his speech, however, by saying that the Government could not offer any hope of being able to give" the Bill in its present form any great facilities in the future," but that if Amendments could be introduced to make it feasible they would gladly see such a measure passed. I have attempted to fill the gap, and I ventured, until I heard the noble Marquess say that all the Amendments were unworkable, to hope that I had succeeded. I do tot know whether the noble Marquess is going to give good grounds for saying that, but otherwise I must press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new clause:—
"A person found guilty of making a false declaration under the preceding clause shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
The noble Viscount said: This is simply the penalty clause, and more or less follows the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.