HL Deb 29 January 1929 vol 72 cc815-30

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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 accept this Amendment, subject to a further Amendment on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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.