HL Deb 23 July 1929 vol 75 cc199-200

House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

man whose horse is necessary to his living. Therefore, apart from the mere fact of the licence, there is a distinction between the case of the dog and the case of the horse. It does not in the least affect the hatefulness of cruelty or our desire to punish and prevent it, but in fact if a similar proposal were made for the protection of horses it might meet with a good deal of practical difficulty, whereas in the case of a dog there must appear to most of your Lordships who have heard this discussion absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in making the proposals really effective. I earnestly hope your Lordships will give your approval to this Bill, in spite of the fact that there are directions in which we might like to carry our dislike of cruelty to animals further, but for the moment cannot.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read 2a?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 22.

Morton, E. Alvingham, L. Charnwood, L.
Powis, E. Atkin, L. Ellenborough, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Greenway, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] Stanmore, L.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Midleton, E. Southwark, L. Bp.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.) Munster, E.
Plymouth, E. Arnold, L.
Linlithgow, M. Russell, E. [Teller.] Clwyd, L.
Salisbury, M. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Brentford, V. Marks, L.
Beauchamp, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Muir Mackenzie, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Passfield, L.
Lucan, E. Templemore, L.
Thomson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.