Lords Sitting of 13 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND PENMAENMAWR JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for Wednesday next.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, this is a

889
Bill to strengthen the law for the protection of the public against disasters due to the bursting of reservoirs for the storage of water. The occasion of the Bill, if I may so put it, was a disaster in Carnarvonshire in 1925, which involved the death of sixteen persons and might easily have involved the death of a great many more. Shortly after there was another disaster on a smaller scale, in Scotland, and the late Government, in view of these facts, decided to review the whole of the circumstances and to enquire into the matter. The result of that review was to reveal certain disquieting circumstances in regard to the general construction, maintenance and inspection of reservoirs, and it became quite obvious that the law did need strengthening in regard to that matter.
Some of the disquieting features to which I have referred may be mentioned. It appeared that private persons and industrial concerns can, or could, construct reservoirs on private property without any special statutory authority or safeguards, and that, while it no doubt is the usual practice to appoint a qualified engineer in the construction of these reservoirs, that was not always the case. Further, it became apparent that there was no proper provision for the regular inspection of these reservoirs once they had been constructed. It is not pretended for a moment that all reservoirs were conducted under these somewhat ill-regulated conditions, but it appeared undoubtedly that some were. Another feature in regard to reservoirs was that the people in the neighbourhood, local authorities and private persons, were not able to obtain information in regard to these reservoirs. This ignorance was apt to cause a certain amount of panic and alarm, more especially as these two disasters had taken place with the results that I have described. And there was another feature. It became apparent also that it was difficult in some cases for proper compensation to be obtained by those who had suffered from these disasters, more especially in the case of reservoirs conducted by authorities with statutory authority behind them; they were not liable to pay compensation unless negligence had been proved. That often is a very difficult thing to do.
890
In these circumstances the late Government decided that a Bill should be prepared, and communications and conferences took place with various members of the engineering profession and representatives of large water supply undertakings. These conferences included the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Water Engineers, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, the British Waterworks Association, the Water Companies Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Consulting Engineers, the Convention of Royal Burghs, and the Association of County Councils in Scotland. In addition, though the English county councils were not specially consulted, it appears from page 308 of the County Councils Association Gazette for December 29 that the Parliamentary and General Purposes Committee of the Association resolved at a meeting on November 13, 1929, with Lord Strachie in the chair, that the Committee did not desire to raise any objection in principle to the provisions of this Bill. There are undoubtedly in this Bill certain points of difference which will require discussion, but all those I have come across up to date are mainly Committee points.
Now I will explain the scheme of the Bill. First of all, it is designed to secure the services of expert civil engineers during the construction of all new reservoirs. That is provided for in Clause 1. In Clause 2 regular inspection is provided for at ten-year intervals, and special provision is made for reservoirs already constructed. Clause 3 provides for the keeping of proper records as to water levels. Clause 4 provides for putting interested parties in a position to get information about reservoirs in existence or to be constructed. Clause 5 authorises such parties, if they allege that precautions have not been taken, to bring the matter before a, Court of Quarter Sessions. Clause 6 deals with the case of alterations to a reservoir. Clause 7 is intended to apply to new reservoirs generally the provisions which already apply to a number of statutory water undertakings as to the obtaining of damages in the Courts where damage or injury is caused by the escape of water. Clause 8 is a clause which may give rise to a certain amount of discussion. It defines what is a qualified engineer. In a

891
previous clause of the Bill it is provided that a qualified engineer expert shall be called in by the undertakers with a view of getting an outside opinion on the subject of the reservoir and its safety. I am given to understand that a certain number of undertakers object to this on the score of expense. The general principle, however, is that this precaution should be taken, and I think that principle would be generally accepted, though details as regards the inspection may present points of difference, which can be discussed in Committee.
Generally speaking, the underlying principle of the proposals in this Bill is to emphasise and in some respects increase the responsibility of the undertakers for the safety of their reservoirs, giving them certain specific duties, and giving local authorities and others concerned an opportunity to verify that these specific duties have been performed. It is not proposed to transfer any of their responsibility to a Government Department. It would not only impose on the Department a very difficult task, but would tend to lessen the sense of responsibility of the undertakers, and to that extent would be inconsistent with the objects of the Bill. The present Government decided that this Bill should be reintroduced and now recommend that it should be passed into law. The storage of water is on the increase. A recent drought has directed attention to the need for ample conservation of the water supply. It is to be hoped that no future disaster will occur; but there can, of course, be no certainty as to how long we may remain immune. It seems desirable to anticipate such an event by strengthening the law on the lines laid down in this Bill. In conclusion, I should like to point out to your Lordships that this Bill differs from the Bill laid by the last Government in 1928 in a few points of detail, those points of detail having been introduced as the result of criticisms that were passed upon the Bill in its original form in 1928. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Thomson.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice that he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said that
892
this Bill differs from that introduced by the late Government in 1928 slightly and in small matters of detail. I think I am not misrepresenting him when I say that. I hope to show your Lordships that it differs in very important matters which will appeal to your Lordships to prevent the Bill, if possible, going any further, or at any rate to have it amended in Committee. A short time ago we heard a good deal from noble Lords opposite about the Privilege of the Commons and how utterly wrong it was for your Lordships to do anything which interfered with that Privilege in any kind of way. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord who leads the House did not say that he was so much impressed with this that he really could not argue the point at all. At any rate, he sat there and made no comment when my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I think it was, asked him what he had to say.
What does this Bill do? It infringes the Privilege of the Commons because it imposes a charge. If noble Lords will look at Section 2 (8) they will see that the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make rules, etc., as to the costs of proceedings before and investigation by a referee—
"…so, however, that the said cost (including the said remuneration) shall be paid by the undertakers."
As far as my small knowledge goes, the Privilege of the Commons or the Privilege which the Commons claimed some 150 or 200 years ago was that any charge should be put on by the Lower House and not by this House. Here is a charge put upon the ratepayer and, if my information is correct, probably a large charge. Yet the noble Lord has said nothing whatever about it and appears to think that it is the proper thing to do. It appears to me that when it suits noble Lords opposite to impose a charge they forget all about the Privilege of the Commons. When, on the other hand, noble Lords on this side do not impose a charge but merely say that a certain Bill shall be deferred for a year, that is a gross breach of the Privilege of the Commons and cannot be carried out in this House.
Let me point out to your Lordships how this Bill differs from that brought in by the late Government in 1928, which I have before me. First of all, that

893
Bill did not allow the Minister to make regulations and, secondly, it provided an appeal—an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission. This Bill allows an appeal—but to whom? Not to a Court of Law, but to the Minister who appoints the judge who has to decide whether the official appointed by the Minister has done right or wrong. That seems to me to be a flagrant departure from the principles of English justice. The Minister is to make regulations. Under those regulations he can appoint an official. That official can go to the waterworks and reservoirs of the great corporations of the country like Manchester, Leeds, and Glasgow, or to the Metropolitan Water Board, and can order those bodies to do all sorts of things entailing great expense upon the ratepayers in the case of the corporations and the Metropolitan Water Board. Then, if the corporation or the Metropolitan Water Board reply: "We do not think this is necessary. Our Engineers are very qualified men. We have never had an accident. None of our reservoirs has ever burst. We are going to appeal"—to whom can they appeal? To a referee appointed by the Minister who also appointed the man whose action is called into question. Yet the noble Lord says that the Bill only differs in a slight degree from that brought in by the late Government. I venture to think it differs in a very considerable and important degree.
Then there is this qualification in Clause 8 (1)—
"There shall be constituted a panel of civil engineers for the purposes of this Act, or if the Secretary of State so determine after consultation with the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers… a committee for the purpose …"
The engineers so appointed are to have the power of going down to any of the large corporations or large water undertakings and ordering them to spend money which it may be quite unnecessary to spend.
The noble Lord said that the reason for the introduction of this Bill was that five years ago in Wales, from which a great many bad things come, a reservoir had burst. That I believe is perfectly correct; but my information is that it was not a reservoir in the sense that the reservoirs of the big corporations or the Metropolitan Water Board are reservoirs. It was merely a dam put
894
across a river between two hills and, in consequence, it was not properly constructed. I do not mean that the dam was not properly constructed, but being a dam across a river between two hills, when there was a heavy rainfall the water increased in such a manner as to burst the dam. I do not know about the Scottish case and I will not say anything about it. It is news to me that there was another case. The noble Lord says that there was and, as I know nothing about it, I will not question it. But why, because some small and badly-constructed reservoir in Wales burst five years ago, should a Bill be brought in which will affect all the large corporations and, consequently, the ratepayers of the country and of a great City like London?
The noble Lord, as I understood, said that there were in the country a certain number of small undertakings which had power to construct reservoirs and that those reservoirs were not always properly constructed. Might I ask the noble Lord why he should not bring in a Bill confined to those particular cases? Why bring in a Bill which deals with people whose reservoirs have never been called into question? In these days when it is very difficult to find any money in your pocket and when expenses are increasing on every side, why should the ratepayers of large towns whose reservoirs have been efficiently and properly constructed be put to the expense which they will be put to if this Bill becomes law? I say the expense they will be put to, and I say it for this reason. When you appoint an official he has to justify his existence, and the worst of officials is that they can never sit still and be quiet, they must always do something to show they are active and that their appointment is justified. Therefore, if these officials are appointed, and their remuneration is to be paid by somebody else, you may be certain they will suggest and enforce regulations which will entail the expenditure of a considerable sum of money that will be perfectly unnecessary.
I may add that it does not at all follow that because the Bill was originally brought in by a Conservative Government it is a good one. I have never hesitated to say that in my opinion the Conservative Government, like everybody else, sometimes makes mistakes, but if

895
noble Lords opposite are going to change their policy, and if in the future they are going to say "What the late Government did we will do," and apply it to everything, then I am not at all sure I would not withdraw my opposition to this Bill. But I must say I cannot countenance a statement that noble Lords are to pick out one or two bad things which the late Government did and bring them in again, while leaving out all the good things which the late Government did. I hope I have made the House understand what this Bill actually does, because, while on the face of it the Bill seems to be a very innocent little thing, yet like many innocent little things, when you come to investigate it a little closer you find something very bad in it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ('now') and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I think I will begin by answering the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, first. He asks why should the law in this respect be strengthened because a disaster occurred owing to the breakdown of a dam between two mountains in Wales. In view of the fact that sixteen people were drowned, and that the disaster might have assumed much greater dimensions, I think there is some cause for investigating the circumstances under which such large and potentially dangerous structures are to be put up. The noble Lord also asked: "Why, because that happened, should perfectly well conducted reservoirs, about which nothing has been said, be inspected by outside people entailing great expense to the ratepayers?" I think it is probably true to say that nothing had been said about that particular dam before the disaster occurred, yet the disaster did occur, and, shortly before it, another one had occurred, equally probably in connection with a construction about which nothing had been heard before. This Bill merely provides that what are elementary precautions should be taken in regard to such constructions in the interest of the public. As to the large expense that is thrown upon the ratepayers, I think the noble Lord is indulging in some slight exaggeration. I doubt if the expense involved in this Bill upon ratepayers is going to raise the rates by a farthing in any city.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We are always told that on every Bill. I remember we were told when the Old Age Pension Bill was brought in that it would not cost more than £6,000,000.
LORD THOMSON: I think this is a matter susceptible of easy calculation. The fee to be paid to the expert is not going to cost a city like Manchester or Glasgow any additional sum on the rates. I should have thought that that was obvious. As regards putting these extra charges upon the ratepayers in the course of construction, after all this Bill applies not only to local authorities—it is not a local Bill in any sense of the term—it is a Bill which applies to all future reservoirs so far as the work of construction is concerned, and it will apply to all past as well as future constructions so far as inspection is concerned. These are perfectly reasonable precautions, and though this Government cannot be accused of slavish imitation of its predecessor, we are not too proud to follow a good example.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord in regard to the differences between this Bill and the last one, I did not endeavour to shirk that question. There are some minor differences. The noble Lord has laid his finger on one—namely, the question of a referee being appointed instead of a reference being made to the Railway and Canal Commission. I understand that that was a matter of general agreement. It was thought that the opinion of an expert engineer would be more valuable than that of the Commission, and I am not at all sure that the Railway and Canal Commission is the sort of body to which a question of that kind can properly be referred. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I have no desire to shirk any question which is germane to a Second Reading debate. I think that all the points raised by the noble Lord are essentially Committee points, and I shall be only too glad to meet him on any Amendments he likes to put down on Committee; but, for the moment, what I am concerned with is the general principle of the Bill, and that is to strengthen the law for the protection of private persons and those who live in the neighbourhood of reservoirs, to ensure that these reservoirs shall be constructed properly and inspected regularly, and to

897
give some rights to the public in regard to compensation should they be the victims of any future disaster. It is on these grounds I present the Bill for Second Reading. In regard to its details, no doubt in Committee many interesting and useful points may be raised.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has relied for its defence upon the responsibility of his predecessor. That is a very excellent principle, which my noble friend Lord Banbury has himself welcomed. Personally I have no accurate information about this Bill, as the Department to which it belongs was not one under my own personal supervision. Therefore I approach this Bill from a more or less independent point of view, with a slight prejudice in favour of what was agreed to by my colleagues in the last Government. I think the noble Lord has stated what is perfectly true, that these great water undertakings do potentially involve a certain amount of danger, and, if that danger is a real one, it is only reasonable that precautions should be taken against it. I cannot say that I think the evidence which the noble Lord has brought forward is very conclusive by itself. He has quoted two cases, I understand—he will correct me if I am wrong—neither actually of very recent occurrence.
LORD THOMSON: Five years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On those two cases he relied. I think it is very likely there is a great deal more evidence, in the Ministry of Health I presume it is.
LORD THOMSON: The Home Office.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I presume there is a greet deal more evidence than that. I do not think that two cases five years ago are very conclusive. But another element in the noble Lord's argument made a considerable impression on me. That was his statement—and I am quite sure he told us accurately—of the feeling of anxiety which exists in a certain number of people living in the neighbourhood of reservoirs as to the possibility of danger. That may be a very real anxiety—I mean really existing—and I think those persons are certainly
898
entitled to consideration. For these reasons I personally should not like to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. On the contrary, I think the Bill should be read a second time. But I think my noble friend Lord Banbury is fully entitled upon the future stages of the Bill to dwell upon those points to which he has called our attention to-day—in particular, as to the special methods of appeal in cases of difference of opinion. I heard what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air said in his second speech, that a referee who is an expert might be more relied upon than the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Well, I would not like to pronounce a competent opinion upon that. I have no very great love for experts in these things. An impartial person is the person one wants in a court of appeal rather than an expert. The noble Lord may be able to convince your Lordships in Committee that his view is right and my view is wrong. Certainly that point does require very careful consideration, and there are no doubt other points. But if the Government upon their responsibility come before us and say there have been accidents and that there is anxiety amongst a certain number of interested members of the public, then I think your Lordships would do well to have regard to those anxieties and to that evidence to the extent of reading the Bill a second time. Therefore I hope your Lordships will do so.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I say one word? My noble friend on my right in his remarks did not refer to Clause 7 of the Bill which introduces a new principle. Under the existing law, if works are carried out under statutory authority, unless there is negligence in their maintenance there is no liability for any damage by reason of the escape of water; but Clause 7 proposes to alter that, which means that although these works have been carried out under capable authority, statutory authority, there shall be liability in the case of damage resulting. That seems an unnecessary innovation and a hardship. There would be no limit, I fancy, to the amount of compensation to be paid and if these works have been carried out under adequate supervision, there should not be this liability.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord on one point. It is not in any sense a new principle. It has been applied in railway cases, and it has been applied under the Electricity Act, 1899, which at the present time applies to a considerable number of cases. There is no new principle of law.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, after what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said I shall not, of course, put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I hope that in Committee—and I thank the noble Lord for saying he would favourably consider any Amendment that might be moved—we shall be able, to introduce such Amendments (and they will be very many and very drastic) as will render this Bill useful and at the same time innocuous. I am not quite certain whether I mentioned this point, that under the Bill the Minister may make regulations. There has been a very strong feeling—especially expressed by noble Lords below the gangway on this side of the House—that Parliament ought to make regulations and not Ministers. I shall certainly move an Amendment to delete that portion of the Bill, and I hope I shall have the support of the noble Lord in charge of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill is to prohibit the training and exhibition as performing animals of two classes of animals—namely, the anthropoid apes on the one hand and lions and the larger carnivores on the other. The general ground on which this Bill is founded is that these animals, as the evidence which I shall produce will show, are wholly unsuitable for training and exhibiting as performing animals, and that they cannot be so trained and exhibited without cruelty and danger to the trainers in
900
attendance. May I say at once that this Bill does not purport to touch, and does not I think touch, such societies as the Zoological Society of London and similar institutions, but if it is desired to have a specific Amendment dealing with that point I should be quite prepared to accept such an Amendment, if the House approves, in Committee.
May I tell your Lordships very shortly the history of the matter? In 1921 a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons, of which I was a member, to consider the whole question of the training and exhibition of performing animals. That Committee sat in 1921 and 1922 and took a very large amount of evidence from a great variety of people. In 1922 they made their Report, to which I shall refer in a moment, and in 1923 and 1924 Bills were introduced into the House of Commons and also into your Lordships' House to give effect so far as might be to the recommendations of that Select Committee. Time was not available for getting those Bills through the House, and in 1925 the promoters realised that in order to get a Bill through the House of Commons in view of the opposition which was offered by exhibitors and others, many of the recommendations of the Committee would have to be dropped. They thought, therefore—and I think rightly—that it was better to get an incomplete Bill through both Houses than to get no Bill at all. Consequently an agreed Bill was introduced into the House of Commons and was passed by that House and by your Lordships. It became the Act of 1925. This Bill seeks to amend that incomplete Act of 1925 to the limited extent I have mentioned.
Let me now refer first of all to the case of the chimpanzee and the anthropoid apes. Perhaps the most important witness who appeared before our Committee was Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, as he then was, Fellow of the Royal Society, now Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, the distinguished secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and I should imagine one of the greatest living authorities on animals of all sorts and descriptions. I should like to quote a short passage of his evidence. He said:—
"For many years past I went to every exhibition where performing animals were shown on the stage, and whenever I could

901
I went behind the scenes and made the acquaintance of the animals and sometimes of the trainers."
Then, a little further on, he said:—
"I think it is monstrously wrong to train chimpanzees for public exhibition."
I will tell your Lordships in a moment what he said about lions and the other carnivora.
He went on to say:—
"I have no doubt whatever upon that, from seeing nearly every chimpanzee that has been shown for public exhibition."
Then he went on:—
"Chimpanzees happen to be what I might call almost hysterical animals. They are liable quite suddenly to rather violent fits of temper, and, as a chimpanzee has got both hands and feet and very powerful teeth, a chimpanzee in a temporary rage is not a convenient animal to deal with…I would include with the chimpanzee an orang or a gorilla or any type of the large man-like apes."
We had considerable evidence before the Committee to show that the training and exhibition of these chimpanzees and larger apes was accompanied by serious cruelty. Of course there was a certain amount of counter evidence on the other side, but the Committee weighed the evidence on both sides and they referred to the matter in their Report, which I have here if any noble Lord cares to see it.
In paragraph 9 of the Report they say:—
"Chimpanzees and the larger apes are unreliable owing to their hysterical temperament, which at times causes them to lose all self-control and become dangerous. Undoubtedly they have in some instances been rendered tractable by the most brutal treatment."
The recommendation of the Committee upon that point was that the training and performance of chimpanzees and anthropoid apes should be prohibited. Notwithstanding that recommendation, the exhibition and training of these apes go on, though I believe the number is much diminished. So much for anthropoid apes.
I turn now to the lions and the larger carnivora. The evidence before our Committee showed that in all tricks on the stage by lions and the like there must be cruelty to the animals and danger to the trainers and attendants. Again I will quote Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell.
902
He said this:—
"Even for simple tricks, lions arranging themselves on pedestals—"
perhaps your Lordships knows what that means; it is a very simple form of trick, but lions do not always appear to like it—
"and so forth, there is gross cruelty behind that. There must be cruelty to the animal and danger to the man.…It should be stopped."
I think you could have no stronger evidence than this, from a man who is absolutely impartial in this matter. He is not concerned one way or the other with these exhibitions, and he has had enormous and almost life-long experience of this kind of training and exhibition. I might say that lie was perhaps, in some ways, far the most important witness whom we had before our Committee.
It is rather unfortunate that it is very difficult, and often impossible, in this country to detect cruelty in the training. The evidence showed that in 1914—I have not the figures for recent days—lions and wild animals were mainly trained abroad, especially in Germany and Austria, and often by cruel methods that would not be tolerated in this country. An important piece of evidence given us showed why the lions and so on were trained in Germany. This came from a Mr. Lockhart, equestrian director of the Blackpool Tower Circus, who had direct personal experience. He said this:—
"Germans are the best trainers…perhaps because they are allowed to do things which would get us a very bad name."
I have a number of figures that were given in evidence before the Committee as to the relative number of foreign and British trainers. The foreign trainers numbered 110 and the British trainers 18. The evidence of Mr. Lockhart as to the reason why these animals are trained in Germany was confirmed by a retired actor-manager, who gave evidence before us, and by others.
I come to the report of the Committee regarding lions. In paragraph 9 they say:—
"The training and exhibition of savage animals, such as lions, tigers and so on, involve a certain amount of risk and danger to the trainer, who must necessarily enforce obedience—"

903
your Lordships will notice the word "enforce"—
"to his authority, but it by no means follows that discipline can never be maintained without cruelty."
In other words, though cruelty as a rule is necessary, sometimes, apparently, discipline can be maintained without it. As to the Committee's recommendation, they did not recommend a total prohibition of the training of these particular animals, but they recommended that the training, exhibition and performances of all the larger carnivora should have the special attention of a committee of supervision which the Select Committee recommended should be set up, with power to the Committee to prohibit or modify any performance which they considered undesirable on the ground of cruelty. Unfortunately that committee of supervision was never set up. It could not be set up without Parliamentary authority, which was not received, and consequently it now rests with Parliament itself to deal with the matter. I ask your Lordships to deal with it by prohibiting this training and exhibition, which, as Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell says, inevitably involves cruelty and danger.
The question of danger to trainers is a little beside the question of cruelty, but I think the danger to the trainers, if it is proved—as it is—shows the undesirable nature of these exhibitions. I have many cases reported by inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1928 and 1929, in which lions were asked to do these tricks and, in several cases, attacked the trainer and injured him more or less severely. I have here, if any of your Lordships care to see it, a long list of cases of injury to trainers in the years 1926 to 1928, some of them abroad and a good many at home. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the places or the dates, but I can give the details to any of your Lordships who desire them.
I think I ought to refer, however, to a most extraordinary scene that occurred during the course of an exhibition of these wild animals at the Tower Circus in Blackpool in October, 1928, when there were a large number of lions, bears, tigers and other animals performing in a closed ring. A free fight ensued between these animals, fortunately with no loss of life,
904
but with a very extraordinary result. I take the description of this scene from extracts that I have from the Blackpool Gazette for October 18, 1928. I have the paper here if any of your Lordships would like to see it. The scene took place in the Tower Circus in Blackpool. The trainer was a Mr. Trubka, who came from Czecho-Slovakia. I believe that my noble friend Lord Auckland, who has great experience in these matters and who is going to support my Bill, knows the gentleman personally. Be that as it may, the "turn" was this: there were ten lions, which posed on pedestals and jumped through hoops; seven bears, which were drawn round the ring in carriages by dogs; two tigers; one puma; and two dogs.
The description of the scene in the newspaper—I will not read the whole of it, but only the important part—states:—
"The lions started the fight, in which almost all the animals joined, to the general consternation…. Lions, tigers and hears became a pack of snarling and roaring antagonists…. One of the most thrilling incidents was a lion and a polar bear rolling about the floor like a large football."
I am rather glad I was not present in that arena. The trainer, Mr. Trubka, who was evidently a gallant fellow, with a whip and a stick in his hand tried to restore order. He was unsuccessful, and eventually the hose pipes were turned on and the animals returned to their cages. Is that the kind of exhibition which your Lordships' House views with approval, or which you would like to see continued in the future, to the consternation of audiences and, I think, the great discredit of the whole affair?
I pass from that to deal with this point. It might be asked by those who had not studied the subject: Will not the prohibition of these performing animals impose some hardship upon the exhibitors of lions and other similar animals, and on those who take part in the performances, if the exhibitions are stopped? The answer is "No." The evidence which the exhibitors themselves gave before our Committee showed that this sort of exhibition had lost its popularity and was no longer an attraction, but often the reverse. It is not popular with the general public, although it appears in some cases to have some attraction for some strangely constituted audiences. It

905
has the effect of terrifying children, and many exhibitors drop these shows out of their programmes.
I may quote the evidence of Mr. Harrop, general manager of the Blackpool Tower Company, where I presume that exciting scene took place. He said that he had been general manager for thirty years, during which for twenty-seven years he had a circus:
"For many years I have not booked any performances by lions, tigers, etc. Children get terrified…I find no falling off in audiences in consequence of this, but increased appreciation of the business."
The same evidence was given by Mr. Lockhart, equestrian director of the Blackpool Tower Company, and by Mr. Tressell, formerly manager of the Hippodrome. The last, named said:—
"I have had experience of pretty well every lion show in the world, but lion shows have rather fallen into desuetude as regards popularity."
Similar evidence was given by Mr. Bostock, the proprietor of the menagerie and various music halls. Therefore, it cannot be said if your Lordships accept the Bill, that so far as lion shows are concerned there is going to be any hardship upon those who, though not in such large numbers, still unfortunately exhibit these animals.
The last point on which I need ask for your kind attention is this. Some of your Lordships may be disposed to ask whether there have been prosecutions for cruelty to these animals since the Act of 1925. The answer is that so far as I am aware there has not. The reason of it is perfectly simple. There is the greatest difficulty in getting evidence of cruelty. Why? The cruelty does not take place on the stage in the presence of the audience and the public, but it takes place in the training places and very often, as the evidence before the Committee showed, behind the scenes. Inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have no right either to go into the training places or behind the scenes during the performances. In some cases, some years ago, I believe they were allowed to go into the training places, but always upon notice being given, and you can imagine the value of an inspection of that character. Further than that, even the officer of the local authority, although
906
given by the Act of 1925 power to go into training places under certain conditions, was expressly prohibited by the Act from going behind the scenes during performances. Therefore, you will see that there was practically no opportunity of getting evidence which would justify prosecution as regards cruelty behind the scenes.
As regards training places, what I have already told your Lordships as to the number of animals trained in Germany and abroad will explain why we cannot get evidence of cruelty in training abroad, and even in the case of training places in this country, although local authorities' officers are allowed to go into training places, the power is rather strictly guarded. They are only to go at reasonable times, and your Lordships can imagine how very difficult it would be, except by a very skilfully planned surprise visit, if it were allowed, to obtain evidence of cruelty in those training places. Therefore, I beg your Lordships to think that I have made a case showing that there must be cruelty in the training and exhibition of these classes of animals; that the exhibition and training still go on; and that there is no hardship upon exhibitors and others, at any rate as regards lions, in stopping performances which have ceased to attract the public to a large extent, or, as some say, to any extent. In conclusion, I would say that this country always has been, and is, in the forefront of other nations in regard to its treatment of animals, and this House has now an opportunity of showing its desire to take part in the great work of preventing cruelty to animals and to enforce those ideals which I am glad to think are more and more taking root deeply in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Danesfort.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I venture to say a few words on this subject, because my colleagues on the Council of the Zoological Society of London have asked me to be in my place in this House when this Bill was introduced. I need hardly say that our Council, the secretary of which is Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, a quotation from whose evidence has been read, have no objection to this Bill in principle, but I was glad to hear my noble friend say that he drew a very sharp distinction between

907
animals in zoological gardens and animals on the stage or in music halls or circuses. There is a difference between the two methods of keeping wild animals. If wild animals are being made to perform at circuses it is an absolute necessity that they should be ready daily, or twice a day, to go through their performances at stated times. They have to be ready for their turns, and to go on the stage according to the programme. Now, animals are apt to be very capricious. They are quite ready to do all sorts of things when in the mood, but at other times, as was explained in Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell's evidence, which was read, it is very difficult indeed to bring them up to the scratch and to get them to carry through their performance. When animals are kept in a zoological garden, and not for regular performances, they are very easily led to do things which are very interesting to us, and which are really amplifications or specialisations of their natural instincts.
Your Lordships have often seen seals trained to catch their food from keepers' hands, or trained to go to a special place where their food will be. In particular, the higher monkeys are extremely imitative, and become quite ready to do all sorts of things—sit at table, put on clothes and take them off, and so forth—and all things of this kind are educational, and show how far the instincts of animals may be developed by domestication. If you are going to keep animals in zoological gardens it is necessary to domesticate them as far as possible, and the higher apes are tameable and affectionate, and they are much happier when they are in a domesticated condition when kept in zoological gardens. In order to get them into that condition a certain amount of training is obviously necessary. So that I think that in order to give effect to what my noble friend said he wished to do, this Bill would require some slight amendment in Committee.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence on the occasion of my first speech in this House. I do not think there is very much that I can add to what has been said, but I have owned and trained practically all kinds of carnivorous animals which are usually shown in circuses, music halls, and other places,
908
and I have listened to trainers boasting of the brutalities which they found it necessary to inflict on the animals which they train. I maintain that most animals can be trained by kindness, and kindness alone. I have proved this beyond a doubt in my own experiments and training. I think some noble Lords have seen a few of ray animals, and they can testify that they show a response to kindness. Most of the trainers in this country are foreigners, and the abuse of their animals is dreadful. I think they might just as well be prohibited from exhibiting their animals in this country, and go back to their own countries and have their exhibitions over there.
The animals are interesting to us. We like to see them in zoological gardens and places of that sort. They are friends and companions, and I think we should give them as much comfort as we possibly can. They are abused in being transported from one place to another, being kept in shipping boxes which are scarcely larger than the animals themselves. They are often under-nourished. Their food is probably not fresh, and it is given to them in boxes where the food becomes foul as soon as it is put in. The reason why the animals which are trained by the professional animal trainers are subjected to abuse is that those trainers cannot afford to keep them the necessary length of time to train them by kindness. It generally takes anything from one to two years to train a lion by kindness, and the trainer has neither the patience to do this nor the money to support the animal during that time. I hope that your Lordships will support this Bill.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL had given Notice of an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to oppose my old friend Lord Danesfort by asking your Lordships to reject this Bill. It is always difficult to talk on this subject when naturally so many members of your Lordships' House and the outside public must at the first blush be quite in favour of this Bill. But I would like to remind your Lordships that there is a long history attached to this question, and that it culminated in a lengthy inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1922 and in the Bill which passed your Lordships' House in 1925. That Bill was described by the Minister

909
who represented the Home Office at the time as an agreed Bill, and therefore I do not think it is quite fair to the House to introduce this Bill again as if no legislation existed on the subject and no evidence had been taken in the past. Very little fresh evidence has come out.
The owners of these shows have a great grievance against Lord Danesfort because he introduced this Bill as long ago as December last, and they have not known where they were. The noble Lord who has just spoken, and whom I congratulate on his maiden speech, has given his personal experience and has told you that it takes at least a year to train any of these big carnivora, and naturally these men have felt that they were in an extreme difficulty in not knowing whether the Bill was going to pass or not. They remind me of the unhappy traders in this country, who are still in doubt as to whether the McKenna Duties are going to be taken off, and I am sorry the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies is absent, because I might have reminded him of the state of uncertainty that prevails in the minds of the planters of Jamaica at this moment.
I maintain that the Bill of 1925, which allows inspection and licenses all these trainers, gives ample security against any of the grosser offences which no doubt took place in earlier years. Again, if there is an evil I think it is going to cure itself. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill said that from the evidence that had reached him there was no doubt that the popularity of the spectacle of lions and tigers being brought before the public was on the wane. If that is the case surely there is no necessity to bring in a Bill of this kind. I have been looking rather closely into the Bill. It will be found that among the animals to which it refers are chimpanzees and the anthropoid apes. I do not quite know why chimpanzees are specifically mentioned as well as anthropoid apes became they are a class of anthropoid ape; and I have always understood that they were the most gentle and the most docile of all apes. Then again lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, pumas, hyenas and cheetahs are included. I should have thought the hyena was extremely difficult to train,
910
but the cheetah, as many of your Lordships know, has been more or less a domestic animal from time immemorial and has been used largely for hunting in India and other parts of the East. If one reads the history of India one will find that some Eastern monarchs have had not one cheetah but several hundreds at their disposal, which shows that they are more or less capable of being domesticated. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who supported this Bill in his maiden speech, said frankly that all these animals could be trained if sufficient time were given.
May I direct your Lordships' attention to some recent statistics. The Variety Artists Federation wrote to the Home Office on the matter only last year and, with that courtesy and fairness which always distinguishes our public officials of the Civil Service, the Home Office replied in these terms:—
"The Secretary of State thinks it right to inform you that, in response to a recent request from Lord Danesfort for information as to the operation of the Act, particularly in regard to details of any prosecutions thereunder, and as to the method and system of inspection of premises, etc., which had been adopted by various authorities, inquiries have been made of the police authorities of those areas where upwards of five trainers and exhibitors are registered. I am to enclose a statement showing the result of these inquiries which has been furnished to Lord Danesfort, and of a statistical analysis which was also sent to him, indicating the places of registration and nationality of trainers and exhibitors registered under the Act."
It has been said that nearly all these trainers and exhibitors are of foreign origin and I will deal with that point in a moment.
I may say that there has been no case in which a conviction has been obtained during the four years up to 1929. In the proceedings instituted in London by the London County Council against registered persons the summons was dismissed in each case. The statement furnished to Lord Danesfort by the Home Office states that inspectors of the London County Council
"are required to visit every place of entertainment at which performing animals are exhibited. It is their practice to secure a seat from which the best view of the performance can be obtained, and animals are inspected in their housing and training quarters. On an average two inspections are made weekly by each officer."

911
It is very nice to be an inspector of the London County Council and to have the best seat, but this also shows that it is not true to say that these animals cannot be inspected while they are under training. Anybody who has visited Olympia knows that you can go behind and see the animals in their cages at the back. Therefore, I do not think that can be justified—
LORD DANESFORT: May I be allowed to correct my noble friend on that point? There is an express provision in the Act of 1925 that the officer of the local authority shall not go behind the scenes during the performance. I will give my noble friend the reference.
LORD JESSEL: It does not matter.
LORD DANESFORT: It does matter very much, because that is one of the reasons why there has been no conviction—want of evidence. Subsection (2) of Section 3 says that no constable or officer of the local authority
"shall be entitled under this section to go on or behind the scenes during a public performance of performing animals."
LORD JESSEL: All I can say is that this report from the Home Office says that the animals are inspected in their housing and training quarters and that on an average two inspections are made weekly by each officer. Another very important point and one which I think will interest your Lordships a great deal more than the last point is the question of nationality. The Home Office paper shows that the total number of exhibitors is 148, of whom 102 are British; and that out of a total of 314 exhibitors and trainers 206 are British. It will be seen, therefore, that two-thirds of the exhibitors and trainers are not aliens but belong to this country. I need hardly remind your Lordships that this is a very big industry. There are no less than five great circuses in this country belonging to Mr. Bertram Mills, Mr. Champion, Mr. Bostock, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Sanger. They carry on a very large business and employ a great many people. If your Lordships think fit to sanction this Bill, unless an Amendment is inserted in it that it shall not come into law without due notice—that is to say, for a period—it will undoubtedly put a lot of people out of employment.
912
I do not believe that this cruelty is practised. It has been stated in your Lordships' House this afternoon by a noble Lord who knows the habits of these animals better than anyone, that you cannot train them without time. There have been no successful prosecutions since the Act of 1925 was passed. I think that is the great test. That Act was an agreed measure and this Bill is very unnecessary in view of what has taken place. I have had great experience of this matter in a way and I know very well how extremely fair the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals are. When I was at the War Office as Deputy Director of Remounts I was in constant communication with them and I know very well what good work they are doing. But I think that rather too much has been made of this matter. There was a Parliamentary bargain in 1925 and I maintain that a great deal of the evidence that has been brought forward is not new. On that evidence your Lordships and another place were induced to pass the Act of 1925. Therefore, I think that this Bill is totally unnecessary. What makes me believe that the more is that the noble Lord who introduced it told your Lordships that in the experience of those who had to deal with shows, exhibitions of big animals were becoming more and more unpopular with the public. For those reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Lord Jessel.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty's Government I with to take no very definite line upon this Bill, but only to put before your Lordships certain considerations affecting the matter. Like the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, I want to begin with the history. As your Lordships have heard, a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered this matter. That Committee reported in 1922. The Bill that was passed and became the present Act, was not passed until 1925. That Act differed from the recommendations of the Select Committee, as I think the noble Lord pointed out, in certain rather important respects. The Select Committee said

913
that they thought that the anthropoid apes ought to be prohibited from exhibition. The Act does not prohibit any animal from being exhibited, but merely provides for the registration of trainers. The Committee wanted to set up the system of a supervisory committee which, I think perhaps not unnaturally, the Government did not adopt. Instead of that they gave power to the police and the local authority to inspect, as the noble Lord who has just sat down said, the animals' training quarters and their lodging quarters.
But there is, as the noble Lord pointed out just now when he interrupted, that very important proviso under Section 3 (which gives the power of entry and inspection) that no constable shall be entitled to go on or behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals. I can quite understand that that might have been argued for, and no doubt was argued for on practical grounds, by the people who exhibit these animals. They might have said, possibly with a great deal of truth, that the presence of strangers at the moment when animals were about to do tricks would upset the animals and put them off their performance. That might likely be true. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that that is precisely the moment at which you would expect to find some instance of cruelty, and in that respect the evidence of Dr. Chalmers Mitchell has already been referred to. I have read the Report of this Committee of 1922, and Dr. Chalmers Mitchell, as has been pointed out, said that he could not imagine that it was possible, without cruelty, to make an animal perform at a set time in a set performance. It was contrary to its whole nature, and, in his view, it must involve cruelty. He did use the very language that has been quoted to your Lordships about the anthropoid ape.
That is the position as far as the recommendations of the Committee and the existing legislation are concerned. Now the noble Lord seeks to-day to go further by prohibiting altogether the appearance of chimpanzees and anthropoid apes, lions, tigers, leopards, and so on. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill, seemed to me to make two inconsistent statements in the course of his speech.
LORD JESSEL: No.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord says "No," but perhaps he had better wait to hear what they are. In the earlier part of his speech he said this matter might well be left alone because it was obvious the industry was doing of itself all that was intended. Yet in the latter part of his speech he said this was a very important industry which was going to be interfered with. If the noble Lord can reconcile those two statements he is cleverer than I am. That is the position before your Lordships to-day. The view of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary is that it is not very long since this matter was last considered—that is to say, that there was legislation only five years ago.
Perhaps before I come to that I ought to say a word about the statistics. This return of statistics has been furnished to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, and apparently is in Lord Jessel's possession too, and it shows that there have been, I think, one or two prosecutions, but no successful prosecution, for cruelty. Whether or not it is likely that there would be any, in all the circumstances I cannot help feeling that there is some justification for the attitude taken by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill; but, although it might not be cruelty that a magistrate could normally deal with, it obviously must involve very great discomfort to the animal to be kept in a dirty cage and kept at a railway station for a long time in a comparatively small cage.
For my own part I should, so far as I am personally concerned, deprecate the exhibition of these animals altogether, and I cannot understand the taste of an audience that desires to see them. I am very glad to believe, as the noble Lord who introduced the Bill said, that it is true that the more educated taste of audiences nowadays derives no pleasure from seeing animals in unnatural captivity, and performing unnatural tricks. But my right hon. friend does feel that it is rather a short time since the legislation on this matter, and that it might be wiser if some further time were to elapse. The Act that was passed has been referred to as an agreed measure. It was an agreed Bill in the sense certainly that it was cut down, as I think

915
your Lordships will agree, to the very minimum, in order that it might have the opportunity of passing in another place, but that it was agreed in the sense of any Parliamentary bargain which was to last for all time seems to me not to be a maintainable proposition.
A circular has been sent out by the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain and Ireland which seems to me to contain some statements that cannot be justified. The Showmen's Guild say they consider that this Bill is a gross breach of faith, and that they cannot understand why this move is being made by Lord Danesfort. I should think they are probably the only people in the country who cannot understand that. But really, to refer to it as a breach of faith seems to me to be an expression that is quite unjustifiable. There is not, and there obviously never would be, any Parliamentary bargain that cruelty to animals, if Parliament were satisfied it existed, should or could be allowed to continue. But it might be wiser perhaps if the noble Lord would adopt the suggestion I make. Assuming he got the Second Reading to-day—a matter about which the Government are entirely neutral—I would suggest that it might be wiser if he were to take no further stage of this Bill now, but would introduce it in the following Session at a much earlier stage. It is, of course, quite obvious, I am afraid, that it would have no chance of passing in another place this Session.
Introduce it at a much earlier stage, and then, perhaps, endeavour to get a Joint Select Committee to sit upon the Bill, and agree to it, so that there might be a reasonable chance of its becoming law, or of some Bill of this character becoming law. I think to take the Second Reading to-day would not really carry it further towards the Statute Book, because your Lordships know very well that it would not have a chance, I am afraid, in another place, where there was apparently great opposition before. So far as I am concerned, personally, my natural tendency would be to prohibit these exhibitions, and at any rate to go as far as the Report of the Select Committee, but the Government are taking no definite line on this matter, and leave it entirely to the judgment of your Lordships when you have heard the considerations that have been put forward. My
916
right hon. friend does, however, suggest that in view of the recent character of the legislation it might be wise to wait a year or two before anything more is done.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, might I say a few words upon the suggestion which has just been made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? He will remember that my noble friend Lord Jessel made a great point of this. He said these people have been kept in suspense, that Lord Danesfort introduced this Bill last December, and had not proceeded with it earlier. I think my noble friend compared these people with the people who are waiting to know what is going to happen to the McKenna Duties, and said it was a very great suspense and very hard upon them. If the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite is carried out that this Bill be read a second time and nothing further done until next year, this period of suspense will be very seriously augmented, and the objection which my noble friend Lord Jessel raised, that these people would not know where they are, would be intensified. Therefore, with every disposition on this occasion to be on the side of the noble Earl, I think, on further consideration, he will see that it would be better if we are going to proceed with the Bill at all, to do so now.
With regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Jessel, let me point out that this Bill does not alter the whole of the Act of 1925, but only deals with certain animals. The Act of 1925 dealt with all animals. This Bill deals only with certain animals. I would ask noble Lords what advantage is it to anybody that they shall see lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, hyenas, and cheetahs exhibited on the stage? What good does it do to anybody? It is evident that at some time or another there must have been a certain amount of cruelty in training these animals and it is also evident that keeping them in small cages, as they must be, and moving them about and compelling them to do their tricks whenever they are wanted, and not at the moment they feel inclined to do them, must entail a certain amount of cruelty. And it is no good to anybody. I hope my noble friend will see—I am a little doubtful upon the point myself—that there is a slight amendment made

917
exempting zoological gardens, because I should not like to see zoological gardens included in the Bill. There is one other point upon which I wish to say a few words. My noble friend Lord Jessel said, I think, that there were five circuses touring the country.
LORD JESSEL: Five big ones.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Five big ones, and that the result would be to cause very serious unemployment. But is that so? Take these large circuses. What is to prevent them doing what circuses did in my youth? They always had horses. I remember the ladies on the backs of the horses jumping through hoops. All that sort of thing could go on and would be a good thing, because it would teach children to be fond of horses and to desire to ride and to take some interest in that pursuit. That could go on. Therefore, all those people who are employed now could still be employed and the only people who would not be employed—and they cannot be very many—are the trainers who train these particular wild animals. As I said before, what on earth good is it to anybody to see a lion or a tiger performing tricks? It is unnatural, there is nothing to be gained by it, and I certainly hope your Lordships will pass this Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I will not detain you more than two or three minutes, but I should like to refer to one or two of the arguments used by my noble friend Lord Jessel. I confess I think most of his arguments were anticipated by me and answered, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again, but there were one or two things which he said which may deserve passing notice. First he said it wars not fair to introduce this Bill. I think the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has completely disposed of that. Then he gave the number of exhibitors as returned by the Home Office. What I gave was the number of trainers of lions and these large carnivora, who were foreigners. He told us simply about exhibitors or trainers, but he did not tell
us whether they were trainers of dogs or seals or any other animal. He did not touch the point as to how many of these are foreigners, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I shall assume that the figures given in evidence, which were night then, are substantially right now.
On another point, I think he was hardly fair to my noble friend Lord Auckland in what he said. Lord Auckland said that you could by long, careful treatment train animals by kindness, but it would take a year or two, and he went on to say that in the case of these professional trainers they did not give that long and careful treatment of animals. They had to do it rapidly, and the result was that they had to use cruelty. That was really the gist of the statement of my noble friend Lord Auckland, and he speaks with great authority as having been a trainer of these animals himself. I think that in that matter perhaps Lord Jessel gave hardly sufficient weight to, or indeed explanation of, Lord Auckland's speech.
I do not want to go into all the other matters—they have been mostly disposed of—but I should like to say a word as regards the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we could read the Bill a second time and not proceed with it. I think that would be a dangerous course. If your Lordships are willing to give a Second Reading to the Bill, as I hope you will, and to go through the remaining stages in this House, I hope—it may be rather too much to hope, but I hope—that somehow or other time may be found to pass it through the House of Commons. My noble friend shakes his head, but I never despair in these matters when one is on the right side and has a good case. At any rate, I should like, if possible, to have the opportunity if the Bill passes your Lordships' House of trying to get it through the House of Commons.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Plymouth, E.

Mersey, V.

Russell, E.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Clarendon, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Denbigh, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Alvingham, L.

Iveagh, E.

Chaplin, V.

Auckland, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Dulverton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Charnwood, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Leigh, L.

Stanmore, L.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Swaythling, L.

D'Arcy de Knayth, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Thomson, L.

Dickinson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Carnock, L.

Hemphill, L.

Grey, E.

Decics, L.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Shandon, L.

Lucan, E.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARSONAGES MEASURE, 1930.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. I have to present to your Lordships three Measures, passed in accordance with the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, which have passed the Assembly and also the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The first, which is described as the Parsonages Measure, 1930, is a Measure of some importance. During the course of its passage through the Assembly it has caused a good deal of discussion, but I am happy to think that, with the assistance of outside bodies and of your own Ecclesiastical Committee, we have now reached what may be called general agreement. The object of the Measure is a very simple one. It is to consolidate and amend the existing law with regard to the sale and purchase of parsonage houses. Its chief object, of course, is to remedy a great abuse which is almost, I think, exclusively characteristic of the social and ecclesiastical life of England—I mean the contrast between large houses, fitting for the houses of country gentlemen of ample means, and the income of the benefices by which these large houses have to be maintained. This is the class of house that is familiar in the minds of those of us who have constantly to deal with them as the "white elephant house."
920
There is a very general desire in these days to make it more possible to get rid of these houses, which are no longer suitable to the changed conditions of the times. Many of them, though not all, were charming residences, but it is pitiful to see how inevitably under present conditions they drift into decay. It does nobody any good to see houses of that kind inadequately maintained and the gardens going to seed; and all because it is perfectly impossible for the incumbent, under any circumstances that are likely to arise, to maintain them as they ought to be maintained. I need not dwell upon the point, except to say that the desirability of the sale of these houses is increasing. Many unions of benefices are proceeding throughout the country, and it becomes increasingly important to see that provisions are available by which the sale of the redundant parsonage house may be effectively carried through.
The present law is governed by the Statute of 1838, which enables the incumbent to sell his parsonage house provided that he obtains the assent of the patron, of the Bishop, and of the Archbishop of the Province. The new provision which will have force if your Lordships allow this Measure to go through will be that the parson must obtain the consent of the Bishop, as before; of the diocesan board of dilapidations; and of Queen Anne's Bounty. Let me explain the purpose of that change. The consent of the Bishop remains necessary, but a very interesting and valuable provision is made for the first time that, during the vacancy of the benefice, the Bishop may himself promote the sale. I know from long experience how important that is. Again and again you find it almost impossible to get a man to accept a benefice burdened with a too large house of this kind, and it would be of the

921
greatest possible advantage that the power to sell during a vacancy should be given.
Next the consent of the board of dilapidations must be obtained. This is a new body, called into existence by the Dilapidations Measure, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that it now forms one of the most efficient parts of our local administration. These boards are working with great zeal and great expert knowledge, and they represent the best knowledge that can be obtained in the diocese as to the nature of houseroom required and the prices that are likely to be obtained and that are fair in the particular district. Then, in place of the consent of the Archbishop of the Province, consent must be obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty. This change has caused some concern in the breasts of Bishops' registrars and others, and not, least to the invaluable servants who have given me, as Archbishop of York, and now as Archbishop of Canterbury, their skilled advice in this matter. No one is willing to part with any of his privileges, and I surrender with some regret the privilege which it has been mine to exercise for twenty-two years, of supervising the conditions of sale of these parsonage houses, but I am convinced—perhaps it is not for me to say so, except that I am advised by expert judgment—that although the work has been done well, I think it would be better done by the body to whom the moneys obtained by the sale are o be transferred and who will have the custody of these funds and distribute them to the parish in accordance with the recommendations of any scheme of sale.
Perhaps the most remarkable difference made in this Measure is that the patron has no longer an absolute veto upon any sale. I think that is a right change. Experience has shown that it is putting a power too great in proportion to the nature of his interest in the hands of the patron, to enable him, when all the other consents have probably been obtained, to say: "I do not want the house sold, and I will not have it sold." Sometimes—I do not say frequently—that power has been used in a harsh and arbitrary manner. Often the patron is non-resident. Sometimes he has a prejudice in favour of maintaining a house in which perhaps in happier days some members of his own family lived,
922
but although I have frequently noticed a patron dislikes changes in the association of a house, he is not equally ready to provide the parson with the means of maintaining the house under modern conditions or the wherewithal to meet the dilapidations and repairs which have to be dealt with. Considering that the patron's interest is largely confined by the Measure recently passed, it would be giving his interest in the matter an over preponderating place to allow him to have an absolute veto. But I want to call attention to the fact that there are certain provisions safeguarding adequately the reasonable rights and interests of the patron.
These have been introduced into the Measure, after its first form, by a conference between the Committee in charge of the Measure in the Church Assembly and the Central Landowners' Committee, and representatives of the Bursars of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. They are obviously closely concerned in the matter, and I believe I can say with confidence that these further safeguards represent an agreement achieved between the promoters of the Measure and representatives of these patrons' rights, and the rights of property. The safeguards are that, as before, notice must be given to the patron of any proposed sale. He has the right to enter objections, and his objections must be heard. More than that, if he has any objection to make, or restrictions to impose, they must be considered by a special committee, and the patron has the right to sit upon that committee. Thirdly, the right is given to him of pre-emption of the buildings, if he desires to exercise it. Another important novelty in this Measure represents the rights of the parishioners, and the parochial church council is associated with the patron in the right to receive notice and make objections or representations, and to send a representative to the special committee to which I have referred.
The other important change which has been made since the Measure was first sent to the Ecclesiastical Committee is with regard to the rules which Queen Anne's Bounty is entitled to frame for the conduct of sales in accordance with this Measure. Originally it was stipulated that rules should be made simply by Queen Anne's Bounty, but it was

923
pointed out that it would be much more consonant with the general practice of legislation and Public General Acts if these rules were required to be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty sittings, giving power to either House of Parliament to present an Address to His Majesty that the rules should be annulled. That change has been made, and a provision for bringing the rules before Parliament is contained in the Measure.
I think I have sufficiently described the character of this Measure and the changes which it introduces into the existing law. I would like to say before I leave it in your hands that it is an instance of how much we owe in this comparatively new form of legislation to the care and thoroughness with which the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament does its work. Here I may be permitted to say how greatly we shall regret that before long the wise and able Chairman of that Committee, Lord Clarendon, will no longer be able to preside over it. I note that the Ecclesiastical Committee not only recommend that this Measure should pass, but are also good enough to say that they are in sympathy with its objects, which they believe to be sound. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I had hoped that Lord Askwith would have been here to pass some comments upon this Measure. As he is not, I am afraid that I must inflict myself upon you for a few moments. The most rev. Primate said that this Measure was to consolidate the existing Acts, but it is not called a consolidation Act. Then, as regards Clauses 2 and 3, they, as he has said, have been inserted as being by way of protection for patrons, and are so referred to in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I venture to say, however, that when the clauses are examined the protection appears to be largely illusory. If your Lordships will look at the people who compose the Committee in Clause 2, subsection (2)—I will not trouble you with their names
924
—you will see what sort of people they are, and how many of them are likely to support the views of the patron, who will himself be in a hopeless minority.
As to the right of pre-emption under Clause 3, this may be exercised by the patron by giving notice in writing to the diocesan dilapidations board within fourteen days after the committee has approved the sale. The result of this notice is that the notice itself is to take effect as if it were a contract for sale to the patron at a price to be fixed, in default of agreement, by an independent valuer, who is to have regard in fixing the value to the price offered by any other person. The unfortunate patron now finds himself bound by contract to purchase the parsonage house at an unknown price, and he also has to pay the cost of valuation. What patron is likely under such circumstances to purchase the parsonage house? The protection is entirely illusory. If this, instead of being a Church Assembly Measure, which this House cannot amend, were an ordinary Bill before Parliament, I am legally advised that it would be cut to pieces in Committee.
One more point arises. Under Clause 12, subsection 1 (i) provides that Queen Anne's Bounty shall make rules, and that such rules shall "define for the purposes of this Measure the expression 'the patron.'" There is already a very good definition of "patron" in the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, and I ask the most rev. Primate to say why that is to be displaced by something of which we know nothing at all. Is it asking the most rev. Primate too much to ask him to withdraw this Measure if there is no great hurry for it, so that the drafting can be reconsidered by somebody more competent than the person who has drafted it? It has, I know, already been withdrawn once, so I would really suggest that it should be withdrawn a second time.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, before the most rev. Primate rises to reply, I would like to say a few words as Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and before coming to what I want to say about this Measure, I would like to take the opportunity of warmly thanking the most rev. Primate for the very kind words he used with regard to myself. I think it is probably well known that

925
the Ecclesiastical Committee, in the case of all Measures that come before it from the Church Assembly, have to examine those Measures very closely and send forward a Report to Parliament explaining first of all the legal and general aspects of the Measure, making comments on the expediency of the Measure, especially with regard to the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects. This Parsonages Measure originally appeared before the Ecclesiastical Committee last year, and very largely owing to criticisms levelled against it by the Ecclesiastical Committee and by other bodies as well, was ultimately withdrawn. But now your Lordships have before you the Measure in a very different form, and hearing in mind that the criticisms which were levelled against it by the Ecclesiastical Committee and by the other bodies to which the most rev. Primate has referred have been very largely met, I would plead with your Lordships to allow this Measure to proceed.
Let me repeat once more that the Ecclesiastical Committee have examined this Measure with considerable care and I will quote the words which come at the end of their Report upon it:—
"The Ecclesiastical Committee are in sympathy with the objects of the Measure, which they believe to be sound. The Measure is one which affects the rights of His Majesty's subjects, but they are of opinion that the special protection provided is sufficient, and that it is expedient that the Measure should proceed."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask whether there were any lawyers on that Committee?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Yes, several lawyers.
LORD PARMOOR: In reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has said, may I say this Measure has passed the Church Assembly and also the Ecclesiastical Committee. We are not in a position to criticise it in detail; all we have to do is to veto the Measure or to allow it to pass. I think after what the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, has said, the House will have no hesitation whatever in allowing this Measure to pass, and will not exercise the right of veto.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, with regard to the observations which have fallen
926
from the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, I would only say that I think the patron must have a very bad case if he is not able to prove it in the company of the Archdeacon, the representative of the parish, and the representatives of the Diocesan Board of Finance who are familiar with all the conditions of houses and prices in the neighbourhood. I do not think he ought to have a veto, but he ought to have a preponderating voice. With regard to the provisions for the right of pre-emption, I understand that they were agreed upon after full conference with the representatives of the Central Landowners' Association and the Bursars of Oxford and Cambridge, and that they did not seem to realise the difficulties to which the noble Viscount has given expression. As to the reason for including a definition of the word "patron" in rules drawn up by Queen Anne's Bounty, cases might very easily arise in which it might be desirable to know who exactly in each context was to be described as patron. I do not think there is anything serious in that objection.
I hope your Lordships will not wish me to withdraw this Measure. It was passed both by the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the mere fact that it has already been sent back to the Legislative Committee of the Assembly by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and that the Legislative Committee has taken note of those objections, shows the extreme care which the Ecclesiastical Committee, a most competent body, containing lawyers and public men of various kinds, have given to the matter. I think, therefore, your Lordships may be assured that, both in point of conception and of drafting, this Measure represents a great deal of mutual confidence and exact care.

ARCHDEACONBY OF SURREY MEASURE, 1930.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, It is now my duty to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Archdeaconry of Surrey Measure, 1930, be presented to

927
His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This is a purely local Measure in its scope, but it requires special legislation, and the fact that by this new procedure such a purely local matter can become law without all the expense of a Private Act of Parliament is worth noting as we pass. This Measure has become necessary through that division of the great diocese of Winchester which excited an interesting debate in your Lordships' House some time ago. The diocese was divided into the dioceses of Winchester, Portsmouth and Guildford. It so happens that one of the canonries in Winchester Cathedral is annexed to the Archdeaconry of Surrey, an archdeaconry no longer functioning within the diocese of which Winchester is the cathedral church. It is, therefore, proposed that the canonry annexed to the Archdeaconry of Surrey should be suspended, and that the property which endows that canonry should be placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on trust to apply the income towards the stipends of new canonries in the new cathedrals of Guildford and Portsmouth. There is nothing further to be said. It is obviously a good thing that the canonry which is no longer really functioning in the way which was intended should be altered, and that these new cathedrals should have this new measure of encouragement when they try to create their own cathedral life. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Archdeaconry of Surrey Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury).

MARRIAGE MEASURE, 1930.
THE LORD ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have now to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Marriage Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This also is an innocent Measure,
928
though I hope that it will not for that reason be found to disclose dangers which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, described at an earlier stage of our proceedings. Although it may be described as an innocent Measure it is not an unimportant one. It affects the feelings of a great number of people at that important stage in their lives when they enter on the great adventure of matrimony. It provides that the present law shall be modified so as to allow a marriage to take place in the church which is the usual place of worship of either of the parties instead of in the church of the parish in which they reside. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that it continually happens that people are in the habit of worshipping at churches other than those in which they may be said to have only a geographical interest acquired by residence. If such people wish to be married, other than by special licence, in the church in which they habitually worship they qualify as residents, under the present law, in ways that are familiar to your Lordships. It is now proposed that where a person shows that a church is his usual place of worship by placing his name on the electoral roll he shall have the right to be married in that church rather than the church of his parochial residence, after the publication of the banns.
This Measure also has been in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Committee and passed through the Church Assembly with general consent. It does not raise any fundamental question of marriage. It was drawn up after consultation with the Registrar-General. It meets a very general wish, I think, and it affects no one in any adverse manner. The banns may be published in any parish church or public chapel which is the usual place of worship of the persons concerned, but it is provided that such publication shall not be in substitution for but in addition to the publication of banns in the parish church. The existing power of a superintendent registrar to issue certificates upon the production of which marriages may be solemnised is also extended by the Measure, which empowers him to issue certificates for the solemnisation of marriages in churches which are the usual places of worship of the persons to be married. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Marriage Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

GRANGE AND CARTMEL DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (SODOR AND MAN) MEASURE, 1930.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Forty-third Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Sodor and Man) Measure, 1930: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I move that the House do now adjourn until Wednesday of next week, except, of coarse, for judicial business. There is no business on the Paper for Tuesday and I think it is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships to attend.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.