Lords Sitting of 14 February 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BUCKINGHAM AND OXFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAUNTON AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RUGBY JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

ADELPHI ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the Adelphi Estates Bill is down for Second Reading, but I would ask that it should not be moved now. I understand discussion may arise upon it and I would therefore like, with your Lordships' permission, that it should be postponed.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON OVERGROUND WIRES, &c. BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RUGBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WORKSOP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if the Leader of the House will tell us whether there will be any business on Thursday, and also if he can say when the London Passenger Transport Bill will be taken.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, so far as I know there is no business down for Thursday and I was therefore proposing to suggest that your Lordships might adjourn on Wednesday till Tuesday of next week. With regard to the London Passenger Transport Bill, I understand that is likely to leave another place tonight, and if it does so it would receive its First Reading in your Lordships' House to-morrow. It is a Bill which I think will take a little time to digest and I was therefore proposing not to ask your Lordships to take the Second Reading until 1st March. That will give a fortnight's interval, which I hope will be sufficient for any who take an interest in the Bill to become acquainted with its contents.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the winding up of insolvent assurance companies and

657
for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, before I ask your close attention to the terms of this measure it would, I think, be well to state in general language what the law is at the present moment with regard to wild birds. The governing Act is an Act passed in 1880, 53 years ago, and it provided that certain named birds set out in the Schedule should be protected between March 1 and August 1 in any year, and that anybody who exposed or offered for sale, or used any net, to take any bird between those dates should upon conviction suffer the penalties stated in the Act. It also enabled an extension to be made of the time during which birds might be protected, on a representation made by the justices assembled in Quarter Sessions.
The Act appears to have had as many leaks as an old tin kettle, for it has been amended no fewer than seven or eight times since it was passed. One amendment permitted the inclusion by the Secretary of State of a bird that was not originally mentioned in the Schedule. Another enabled the Secretary of State, for special reasons, to extend the period during which birds were protected. Then came Acts to prevent people from affixing traps, gins and snares for taking birds. In 1908 there was an Act that provided that any attempt to take a wild bird by means of a hook should be the subject of punishment; while in 1925 the capture of a bird by decoy or bird lime was prevented. At the same time there was a provision that any person who kept or confined a bird in any cage or other receptacle which was not of sufficient dimensions in height, breadth, etc., to enable the bird to stretch its wings, should be guilty of an offence; but it was provided specially that that should have no application while a bird
658
was being shown for the purpose of public exhibition or competition, though the bird was not for that purpose to be shut up for more than 72 hours.
Having heard this summary of the provisions of these Acts of Parliament, it must be plain to your Lordships that during the whole period of the year that is not covered, from August to March, there is almost unlimited opportunity, in areas that have not been protected by orders made by the Secretary of State, to capture wild birds practically to any extent. That this opportunity has been used and is being used to-day to a degree that I think people do not fully realise, can be seen by anyone who goes to a place in London that is known as Club Row. I have not been there myself, but I do not think that any one of your Lordships would dispute that the evidence of a man like the editor of the Field would be very valuable, to tell you what it is that goes on there. I know of no paper more honest, more manly and straightforward than the Field, and I believe that every one of your Lordships will agree with that verdict. You do not go to the Field to find people being needlessly sentimental over suffering of wild creatures. Cruelty they do hate, but they have never interfered with sport.
This is what he saw. He found a barrow with wooden cages containing linnets, goldfinches, and a variety of other birds, and as buying was brisk he described exactly what took place. The woman in charge of the birds took linnet after linnet from a tiny cage. She held it up by its tail and legs, dipped its beak into a little glass of dirty water, poked it bead first into a cardboard box, closed the box and pocketed a shilling. She took and dipped a goldfinch and sold that. The writer goes on:
"Then I caught sight of a song thrush, in a wire cage, crouching against the bars.-Others watched it besides myself. 'New to it; don't know where he are, in that cage,' I heard behind me."
He asked how much it was and was told 6s. He bought it and the thrush with open beak was placed in a cardboard box. He then bought some linnets and went away with them.
As soon as he got out of London he opened the box and the linnets flew away. The thrush could not move. After a little it fluttered along the ground to creep into a corner of dead bracken packed over a

659
myrtle bush. He put water near the bird and left it in the sun and wind. In two hours' time it fluttered out and sat up, so he knew that its leg was not, as he feared, dislocated. Ten minutes later it found its wings. The article continued:
"Wild birds are sold in this way. … Can we not alter the law? … Cannot the British Government, even in these hard days, spare an hour to save these wild singing birds from paper bags?"
Now, my Lords, I want to show you the extent to which this trade is carried on. Bird competitions are established all over England and are conducted in almost every place you can think of, from the Crystal Palace to a public-house, and men are encouraged to take and keep these wild birds in the hope of getting some of the very valuable prizes that are provided at these shows for anybody who has managed to induce some wretched little creature to prolong its life in captivity, because of the birds taken it is estimated that not more than 10 per cent. live.
They die probably of great wretchedness, through being confined, but these shows explain that it is a good thing to take these wild birds and rear them. In one of the opening sentences in their catalogues they ask: "Does it pay?" Yes, I have no doubt it pays very well. Here are some of the lists of birds in the recent exhibition given at the Crystal Palace. I take one class alone:
"Hedge, house and tree sparrows; long-tailed, great, coal, marsh, blue and crested tits; bearded reedling; common, golden-crested and fire-crested wrens; pied and spotted fly-catchers; tree-creeper, wry-neck and nuthatch."
That is one class, and the first prize for a tree-creeper is £50. All down this catalogue you will find prizes that I estimate amounted to several thousands of pounds for people who could produce these birds at this exhibition. The next list contains names familiar to many of your Lordships—the nightingale, the blackcap, the willow, wood and garden warblers, the chiffchaff, the whitethroat and lesser whitethroat, the whinchat, stonechat, redstart and black redstart. I could go on with any number—practically every bird you know; all the wagtails, the wood and the shore-larks, the meadow- and tree-pipits, the dipper. The idea of there being a class for a water ouzel is certainly a startling thing. And
660
for all of them there are these large prices.
Let me tell you, my Lords, what the editor of the Field, who went to see this, thought about it. This is what he says:
"One of the tree-creepers ran unceasingly from one side of his cage to the other, upside down along the roof; the ceiling cloth was worn to tatters. Another unceasingly crept backwards and forwards over the back of its cage. The nuthatch never stopped jumping from one side of its cage to the other. The wren went ceaselessly from a perch into a hole in a box, out of the hole on to the floor, up from the floor to the perch."
Then he makes a comment, which I think is not unfair: "How many people in England realise what it is that is going on?" It is not merely birds such as those that I mentioned. Among other birds that I have seen a note of were the kingfisher and the swallow—the kingfisher, with the flight of an arrow and a flame of blue, shut for ever in a cage, where it will never again be able to show the miracle and wonder of its wings; and the swallow—a bird which under the impulse of some power greater than any that we can measure, is driven every autumn across the ocean and across the desert to seek the sun; fancy that bird shut up in a cage and exhibited as a curiosity at a show !
Surely we do owe something to these creatures. Those of us who take pleasure in enjoying the sight of them must feel that we owe them something, and that something, I suggest, will find expression in an attempt to redeem them from the condition in which they are placed. It is not only that. Take the lark. They not only imprison the lark, shut up within a narrow cage the wings that were built for the sky, but you will find a full account of the best way to treat a lark in order to make it sing. I cannot possibly guarantee the accuracy of statements that are made in periodicals or papers, but I can give you the paper and the date. On April 21, 1928, in the Surrey Comet, a paper that I have always known as a thoroughly reputable paper, there is this statement:
"Recent prosecutions in the police court at Kingston have focussed attention on particularly abhorrent forms of cruelty practiced by bird catchers. Statements were made of a bird having been deliberately blinded by the use of a red-hot needle, the birds being absolutely smothered with that vile glue-like composition known as bird

661
lime. There is another form of blinding which, although perhaps less deliberate, is hardly less cruel. This other process is a slow one, and it may be that many months pass during which the victim slowly loses its sight. To prepare for the competitions, the birds are kept in tiny cages covered with a black cloth, or in a lightless room or cupboard for weeks or months, only catching a glance of light at times for their food."
And that that is true is made perfectly plain by a book that is quoted by the editor of the Field. It is called "How to make a skylark sing." He describes how for many of these competitions you have to shut the bird up in absolute darkness up to a period of four days, and I. imagine that if that does not succeed you can try more. You feed it on meal-worms soaked in old whisky, and then, at the end of four days, you have to bring this bird forward and hope that the excitement of the light will make it sing. And this is the lark, a bird that at the very first flush of the morning rises to seek the sun; this is what you do to the thing that I regard as the only true optimist that has been left in this machine and trouble-ridden world.
I want to have the whole of this ended, and with your Lordships' help, I believe it possible. The Bill applies only to the English birds, and for this reason. Canaries have been bred so long in captivity that it may be expected that they will have forgotten the liberty of the air, just as man, in the long course of his evolutionary development, has forgotten the freedom of the forests. They no longer know what it is to want to fly. They are happy in their cages. They will sing, they can be delightful companions, and there is an excuse for anybody who says: "What I want to do is to keep a bird"; there is no reason why he should not keep a canary, and my Bill does not propose to affect that right. What the Bill does is to provide that any person who takes alive aid keeps in a cage any of the scheduled birds, or exhibits alive in a cage at a competition any bird, or sells or offers for sale or has in his possession any bird mentioned in the Schedule, with the proper provisions enabling birds already existing to be excluded, shall be guilty of an offence against the Act, for which the punishment is merely a matter of £2.
It is not merely the question of the punishment. If we can only get this Bill
662
through I feel quite certain that you will find that public opinion will gather behind the law, just exactly as the gulls gather behind the plough. Your Lordships in 1928 passed a Bill after three years' attack upon the stubborn apathy of the Government, and I do not believe it would have got through then but for the aid given to it by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But that Bill became law, and I feel quite satisfied that any one of your Lordships must have felt some sense of satisfaction on seeing the increasing number of the flocks of those birds whenever your good fortune has taken you to the spots where the winds sweep and the plover cry. I want you to extend your treatment to these other and smaller birds; and, just as you saved the plover from something that was threatening its extinction, so I ask you now to redeem these birds from a cruel and shameful captivity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will have the sympathy of all your Lordships in the subject which he has brought forward this afternoon. But I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that the proposals in this Bill are very drastic and far-reaching, and it is quite certain, I should say, that considerable opposition to them may be expected from persons interested or those who would be adversely affected. I need not go into the provisions of the Bill or the different methods which have been adopted in the last ten or fifteen years for the protection of birds. This Bill is intended to go further. The effect of the Bill is to stamp out within six months the trade in British cage birds. Perhaps this is what is intended, but it would apparently be an offence to keep or sell birds taken abroad and imported. I see that finches and larks are mentioned in the Schedule and the scheduling of quails would also, I understand, appear to make the importation of live foreign quails illegal. The selling or keeping of any scheduled bird as a pet or for exhibition would be illegal, the trade of bird shops which cater for keepers and exhibitors would be taken away, and the very considerable trade in bird seed and other food would be very seriously affected.

663
Apart from that, there is the question of enforcing this measure. The provisions of the Bill would be very difficult to enforce and no machinery is set up in the Bill for that purpose. The enforcement of the provisions as to taking, exhibiting and selling would require wide powers of entry and inspection, and to enforce the prohibition of keeping birds in cages would involve entry and inspection and possibly search of any private house where there was reason to believe that a scheduled bird was kept in captivity. The four main points in this Bill were considered by a Departmental Committee in 1919 and in no case did they consider such drastic measures as are now proposed necessary for the protection of birds from cruelty. That Committee, after full inquiry, came to the conclusion that it would be sufficient to safeguard against cruelty if bird catchers and bird shop-keepers were required to take out a licence.
As regards the exhibition of birds the Report shows that the Committee saw no reason for any interference in the matter on the part of the Government. I can give your Lordships one or two extracts from that Report. They deal in one paragraph with the question of bird catchers. These bird catchers, as your Lordships know, are hired by farmers to catch birds which are damaging their crops. The Committee says:
"In the case of these professional bird catchers we were told, and we can readily believe it, that the trade was not attended by cruelty, and that in their own interests the men gave proper care and attention to their birds."
There are, however, bird catchers who are amateurs, and therefore less expert, and in their case it has been found that a certain amount of cruelty has been inflicted. But the police and the inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspect the braced and decoy birds used by bird catchers on common or waste land, and there have been a considerable number of prosecutions. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, referred to a case reported in the Surrey Comet. That was a prosecution. I think that would show that there is a certain amount of supervision at the present moment.
As regards bird shop keepers, the Committee went on to say:
664
"We recommend that there should be regular and careful inspection of shops and places where birds are kept with a view to the prevention of the keeping of birds under bad conditions. In order that the police may have adequate powers to deal with this question we recommend also that bird dealers should be required to take out a licence in the same way as bird catchers."
As to shows, the Committee received a number of allegations with regard to the exhibition of British birds at shows. The Report says:
"It is in fact the practice to provide classes for British birds at many cage-birds shows, while British birds are, we understand, often shown also in non-British classes. The number of such exhibits is, however, not large, and it is in the interests of exhibitors to take the greatest care of their birds in order that they may be shown in good condition. We see no reason for any interference in the matter on the part of the Government provided the birds shown have been legally taken.
The trade in wild birds is very large. We were told that an average week's catch by one man would be six dozen, while catches of eighteen dozen a week and five to seven dozen a day by professionals were mentioned. The action of the Police and the Sunday Protection Orders have largely put a stop to the operations of the amateur bird catcher, but we think it would be well if all bird catchers were required to take out a licence costing, say, 5s. a year."
Since 1919, of course, many steps have been taken still further to protect birds from cruelty.
As regards the attitude of the Government, whilst sympathising with the desire to protect wild birds from cruelty the Government is doubtful whether public opinion is prepared to go as far as is proposed in the direction of entirely prohibiting birds being kept in captivity. Complete prohibition would affect the livelihood of some people and the innocent recreation of others. On the other hand, there appears to be room for inquiry in which the parties interested would be heard. Such an inquiry may produce less drastic and equally effective proposals which will be more capable of effective enforcement. Although the Government therefore cannot commit themselves to the principles embodied in this Bill and cannot promise facilities for the further stages of the Bill, they think that if your Lordships wish to give a Second Reading to this Bill this afternoon, the best way of having that inquiry carried out would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who would be able

665
to undertake any further inquiry that seemed to be necessary.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I rise chiefly to ask a question about the drafting of this Bill. I understand the noble and learned Lord opposite to say that birds which are now in captivity are safeguarded, so to speak, under the proposal. Is that so?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot find it in the Bill. But if that is the noble and learned Lord's intention, I have no doubt, if it is not implicit in the Bill, he will make it clear during the subsequent stages. I cannot quite see where it appears in the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think I can point out where it arises.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend Lord Lucan said it applied to foreign birds. He mentioned larks and finches, I think, and also quail. That is not the case. This Bill only applies to British birds. The actual words used by Lord Buckmaster are "English birds," and the effect of this proposal would be to transfer the trade in caged birds from British birds to foreign and to Irish birds. I wonder what the result of that will be in attaining the ideals to which Lord Buckmaster directed our attention. The trade in foreign birds will replace the trade in British or English birds. We shall have thrushes, blackbirds and finches and so on brought in from Ireland, or from the Continent. The risk involved would be much greater probably in the long run, and the mortality would be far greater too. I would have preferred that the matter should have been approached in a much more simple and more direct manner.
I do not think the Schedule is adequate. You may not keep a hoopoe in a cage, or a golden oriole, or a great grey shrike, but you may keep a ring dove or a kestrel in captivity. There is no group of wild birds which appear to me to suffer more from captivity than the accipitres. We are going to get into the difficulty mentioned by Lord Lucan very quickly if we say that a certain group of birds may not be taken and kept in England, but may be imported from abroad—the same identical birds, but non-British, which birds, of course, will
666
be constantly substituted for the English birds which are in captivity. In order to determine that point you must have all sorts of difficulties, and often very vexatious inspection. There is one inspection, by the way, in subsection (3) of Clause 1, which, I think, is not necessary; that is, that the Zoo should have to be instructed how to look after its birds by the Home Secretary. I really do not think that ought to be pressed.
My other point is this. I do not think it is necessary that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be entitled to add to the Schedule any birds that he thinks fit. That power has been granted in one or two other Bills, but only in a very limited sense, sometimes merely to extend the periods of protection, and once to add a bird that had been omitted by mistake, but that was done by Parliament. I think there is one other case where it is done, but here the Secretary of State is entitled to include any other bird. I can well imagine a Secretary of State saying: "We will forbid pheasant farms," or, "We will not allow wild fowl pens." Those points ought to be considered; but what is more serious is that this will transfer this trade to foreign birds of identical species, and in doing so will very likely bring about a larger total amount of cruelty than is the case to-day.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I say one word in the hope that those of your Lordships who are supporting this Bill may accept the suggestion which has been made by my noble friend Lord Lucan, with regard to a Select Committee? No one hopes that this Bill will receive a Second Reading more strongly than I do, and no one feels more strongly than I do the weight of the arguments which have been used by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in pressing upon your Lordships that something should be done to prevent this trade, and prevent the cruel usage of these birds; but I, like my noble friend opposite, Lord Crawford, feel that this Bill does require a good deal of consideration before it is accepted as the law. I think there will be great administrative difficulties.
The main question arises in Clause 1—that is to say, the Bill prohibits the taking alive and keeping in a, cage or other receptacle any bird to which the Bill applies after its passing as an Act. That is very important. That means that

667
any powers which there are now will not be affected, but the difficulty which I perceive is this—how are you going to prove that the bird which is kept in captivity is actually a bird which has been taken in this country? You do not propose in the Bill to prohibit the keeping of British wild birds which have been bred and reared in captivity, and I do not think there would be any interference by the Customs with the importation of birds from abroad. You do not intend to prevent the importation of wild birds from abroad which are of the same species as British birds. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has suggested that there is no machinery for control in the Bill, and probably that would have to be added to make it effective.
You might administer it in two ways. You might presume that all birds of British species have been taken alive, and you might put upon the owner the necessity of proving that his birds had been imported from abroad, or that they had been reared in captivity. I think this raises very great difficulties indeed, because it might be impossible to prove that the bird had been imported, or that it had been reared in captivity. You might put the onus of proving it upon the police, and say to the police: "You cannot prosecute unless you can prove that the bird has been taken in this country." This dilemma would do a lot to make the measure very difficult to enforce, and it would lose the value which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster seeks to give it for the protection of birds and the prevention of cruelty. The great difficulty that I see in the Bill is in making it effective, and that is one of the reasons why I think it would be desirable that it should be submitted, as my noble friend Lord Lucan suggested, to a Select Committee. I believe the Select Committee could make it a workable Bill which could be enforced, and would be able to bring about the end which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster advocates and which I am certain every member of your Lordships' House desires to see carried out.
There is another paint, the question of the Schedule. I think the Schedule requires very considerable revision. It is rather difficult, or probably will be difficult, to interpret, but I do not see that there will be any great difficulty in specifying definitely the particular birds to which it refers. My noble and learned
668
friend Lord Buckmaster referred to canaries. I imagine they would not come within the scope of the Bill as the title only deals with British birds, but still as a matter of fact a canary is a finch and the Schedule contains "Finches (all species)." That is another point which might be considered by a Select Committee. Then the Zoological Society is not the only responsible body which keeps a collection of birds. I believe the London County Council have birds in Battersea Park. There are other bodies besides the Zoological Society who are able to keep, and do keep, birds under the same conditions as they are kept by the Zoological Society. I think that the provision that the Secretary of State should lay down conditions is necessary because only the Secretary of State could make by-laws which would have to govern any society which sought permission to start an aviary or a collection of birds.
If this Bill were to go before a Select Committee evidence might be taken from local authorities who have to administer the Acts, and who would be able to say how successful they have been, and witnesses from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals could be examined as well as all those who are anxious to keep birds under proper conditions and prevent cruelty. It has been said very often in your Lordships' House that reference of a Bill to a Select Committee is tantamount to sentencing it to death, but I do not think that is quite correct. I have served on two Select Committees—one dealing with a Bill for Criminal Law amendment and the other a Bill relating to the guardianship of infants—and within a very short time, and I think consequent upon the fact that they were referred to a Select Committee, those Bills became Acts of Parliament. I do not see why examination by a Select Committee should take long. I should think it could be done by Easter or by Whitsuntide at the latest, and if the result was a Bill so drafted that the Government could give it support I do not see why it should not go through Parliament this Session. Therefore I rather hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider favourably the idea put forward by my noble friend the Earl of Lucan.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, having listened to the speech of the noble Earl,

669
the representative of the Government, I gather that acceptance of the suggestion that it should be referred to a Select Committee would so far as he is concerned remove objections to the Second Reading of the Bill. I speak as one who has been actively engaged in putting forward this Bill, and so far as I am concerned, though I am not authorised to speak on behalf of anyone else, I would say that our object has been to get a Bill which will not only carry out the principle involved but which will be thoroughly watertight and therefore effective. The noble Earl who represents the Government raised objections on the ground of the difficulty of administration. That difficulty would not be increased but, indeed, diminished by this Bill. At present there are all sorts of different Schedules. There is the original Schedule and there are Schedules for different counties, and they give protection for certain periods, sometimes for a year and sometimes only for a season. So far as I can see, this Bill would enormously simplify administration.
The point is that we want an effective Bill. Those of us who have studied the question have come to the conclusion that there is at the present moment in two ways an enormous amount of cruelty involved in caging wild birds. In the first place, as my noble friend has pointed out, the mere fact of keeping these wild birds in cages necessarily involves a great deal of suffering and cruelty and mortality. That is one way in which there is cruelty, but there is also suffering and injury and mortality caused by the netting, the taking and selling of these birds under the conditions indicated by my noble friend. That does not apply to classes of foreign birds, like canaries and budgerigars, which are bred in captivity or at any rate taken out of the nest as young. They, never having really felt freedom, do not suffer in the same way as wild birds. So far as wild birds are concerned they cannot be taken from the nest and tamed while they are young because under the original Schedule and under the Schedules of various county councils no birds such as larks, bullfinches and so on can be taken between March 1 and August 1 or sometimes August 15. Therefore there is no possibility of their being tamed by being taken into captivity at an early age.
670
The cruelty, therefore, is far greater when we are dealing with birds which are neither bred in captivity nor taken as young but are captured when adult birds. All this makes those who have studied the matter feel that some drastic steps should be taken to prevent the increasing cruelty which exists. I for one would welcome the proposal of the noble Earl who represents the Government to send the Bill to a Select Committee. I understand, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, endeavoured to show, that there are various difficulties as regards the question of foreign birds and the administration of the Schedules. Therefore, if the House assented to the Second Reading and thereby accepted the general principle that some drastic steps ought to be taken to prevent cruelty, I myself would be prepared to agree to the Bill going before a Select Committee where the whole matter could be thrashed out and, I hope, a unanimous conclusion reached.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to deal with one point in the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Crawford. He seems to think that a large number of birds of an English type might be brought over from the Continent and Ireland. I understand that at the present moment it is impossible to import from Ireland many of the birds named in the Schedule into this country. Therefore the danger he apprehends would not occur. It seems to me that it would be quite simple to introduce an Amendment to arrange for the prohibition of the birds named in the Schedule being brought into this country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, as often happens in discussions on Bills in your Lordships' House some of the apprehended difficulties vanish on examination and it may be that others emerge. I think the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was unduly apprehensive in thinking that this Bill could affect anything except a bird taken after the passing of the Act, for those are the words of the first subsection.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the noble and learned Lord says so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I only say so because the first subsection speaks of any person who
"takes alive and keeps in a cage or other receptacle any bird to which this Act

671
applies, or keeps in a cage or other receptacle any bird to which this Act applies taken after the passage of this Act."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That does not satisfy me.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I dare say not, but it seems to satisfy me.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course I have not said what I have without consultation. If what the noble and learned Lord says is so they seem very redundant words in the subsection.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The mere fact that we might make it shorter does not prove that it is wrong. It really is no use discussing details of this kind nor considering again the character of the Schedule which was taken upon an examination of the classes of birds exhibited at these shows. I think there might be some arrangement made in regard to zoological societies. Nobody will accuse me of an undue admiration of the skill of Government Departments, but even I never suggested that a head of a Government Department could control or destroy or prohibit a pheasant farm. If I had it would have been said that it was an undignified attack on a Government Department. As for the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, I must say I feel there is a good deal of point in what was urged about the Select Committee. A great number of administrative difficulties must already exist with regard to the present law and I think that if you got a Select Committee prepared to join this Bill to existing Acts of Parliament it might be possible to make a comprehensive working measure. Whether the Department represented by the noble Earl would pay the least attention to it is another matter, but at least we might try, and therefore I am prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Earl and let them work this out if they can.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill referred to a Select Committee accordingly.

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is, I regret to say, a very technical Bill, but I am glad to think that it is entirely uncontroversial. As the passing of the Bill will affect the commercial communities of several important European countries I think it necessary to give your Lordships rather full details. The Bill owes its origin to a substantial grievance suffered by litigants in this country, mainly business men, when they recover judgment against a defendant whose assets are in a foreign country, and that grievance is this: they find it very difficult to enforce their judgment in the country where the assets are. This arises not from any lack of comity in the foreign country, but from differences between their law and ours as to the precise conditions under which the judgment of the Courts of one country may be enforced in the Courts of another.
In some countries a foreign judgment is enforced quite readily if it comes from the Court of a country which itself grants similar facilities; in other words, if there is reciprocity. But when we are asked here whether we in England grant similar facilities, though our answer could be "Substantially, yes," yet we are obliged to answer "Technically, no." In the first place our law requires a fresh action to be commenced on the foreign judgment, while what the other country expects is that their judgment should simply be registered here and then enforced like one of our judgments. Secondly, the rules of our law which deprive the defendant of the right to go into the merits of the case all over again are not to be found 'in any Statute. They are rules of the Common Law and it has proved to be difficult to satisfy foreign Courts that these rules really exist and are rigidly enforced over here. In practice hundreds of foreign judgments are enforced in England every year by a summary procedure without a fresh trial of the merits of the case, but very few of our judgments are enforced by foreign Courts and then often after trying the case all over again, the Court not being satisfied on the point of reciprocity.
I must now indicate very briefly the history of this matter. In April, 1918, a Committee, which was presided over by Lord Sumner, recommended that provision should be made by Statute for the

673
reciprocal enforcement of judgments pronounced by Courts in different parts of the British Empire. The result was that effect was given to the proposals of the Committee by the enactment of Part II of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, which gave this reciprocity between England and our Colonies. There has now been an experience of the working of these reciprocal arrangements over a period of more than ten years—it is believed with universal satisfaction. But between 1920 and 1929 a continuous stream of communications was received at the Foreign Office from solicitors and merchants in the United Kingdom complaining of the unfairness of the present position under which their foreign creditors were able to enforce against them in the English Courts judgments given against them in foreign Courts while they were unable to enforce English judgments obtained against their foreign debtors in foreign countries.
In March, 1929, a letter was written from the Foreign Office to Lord Hailsham, then Lord Chancellor, in which Sir Austen Chamberlain, after contrasting the great difference between the treatment of foreign judgments in the United Kingdom and of British judgments in foreign countries, expressed the view that the existing position was unsatisfactory and invited his Lordship's attention to the communications received at the Foreign Office. As the result of that Lord Hailsham appointed a small Committee to go into the matter and the Committee made a Report dated June, 1929, in which they recommended a system of reciprocity, and endorsed a suggestion made in the letter from the Foreign Office to the Lord Chancellor, that before any Bill was drafted or presented to Parliament to enable conventions to be concluded informal negotiations should take place with one or two foreign countries, in order to ascertain whether it would be possible to proceed along the lines suggested, and consequently, whether legislation of the kind suggested would enable the desired results to be obtained.
I am happy to inform your Lordships that these informal negotiations took place with France, Belgium and Germany, and that those countries would welcome reciprocal arrangements such as those to which I have been referring. After the matter had been thus investi-
674
gated it became clear that the remedy in this case lies in making a series of conventions with foreign countries, but the question what provisions to include in them and what procedure we should adopt here to give effect to them was an exceedingly complex one. I accordingly, in November, 1931, appointed a Committee to consider these questions, under the Chairmanship of Lord Justice Greer. The Greer Committee reported on December 12 last and the Report has been laid before Parliament. I should like to take this public opportunity of thanking the Lord Justice and the Committee for the time and thought which they have given to the matter.
The Committee was a highly expert one, as befits such a technical matter, and it has been able to make its recommendations in an exceedingly practical form. It has drafted not only a Bill but also a series of conventions which, in the opinion of the Committee, might suitably be made with France, Belgium and Germany. It has also drafted a series of Orders-in-Council which, if the conventions are made, would make them enforceable in this country; and lastly, they have drafted a set of Rules of Court which would complete the machinery for enabling the judgments to be enforced. With this material before us we may be confident that the scheme of the Committee is an eminently workable one. The Bill before your Lordships is word for word the Bill which the Committee recommended. It involves very little alteration in the substance of our law—that is to say, the conditions under which we propose to enforce foreign judgments under the Bill are substantially the same as under the Common Law. The change in procedure consists merely in adopting the system of registration, which has already been in force for more than ten years as regards judgments given in the Dominions. Litigants, merchants in this country, have much to gain and nothing to lose by the Bill. Under the new system litigants in the convention countries will be as fairly treated in the future as they have always been in the past, when their judgments come to be enforced in this country.
For a, few moments only lei me direct your Lordships' attention to the various clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 gives power to extend Part I of the Act to foreign countries

675
giving reciprocal treatment. Clause 2 deals with the application for, and effect of, registration of foreign judgments. Clause 3 provides the Rules of Court necessary for the purpose of carrying out this. Clause 4 is a saving clause, and deals with cases in which registered judgments must or may be set aside. Clause 5 gives a power to the registering Court, on application, to set aside registration. Clause 6 provides that foreign judgments which can be registered are not to be enforceable otherwise. Clause 7 gives power to apply Part I to British Dominions, Protectorates and mandated territories. Clause 9 gives power to make foreign judgments unenforceable in the United Kingdom if there is no reciprocity. Clause 12 provides for the application of the Act to Scotland and Clause 13 for its application to Northern Ireland. This Bill, my Lords, will be of very great assistance to the commercial community. I think we have got it in absolutely good order, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The he Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (SPEEDOMETER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this Bill, the Second Reading of which I desire to move this afternoon, deals with a matter of some importance. It bears upon two simple propositions, with both of which I think your Lordships will possibly agree. The first is that we have too many road accidents to-day, and the second that if we have a law existent in. this country it ought to be enforced. I do not think that I need dilate upon the state of our roads at the present time. Everyone agrees that the question of the safety of our roads to-day is not a satisfactory one. I know an answer may be made that the vehicles with which this Bill deals, the heavy vehicles, omnibuses and chars-a-bancs, may not be responsible for all the accidents or even a great number of the accidents on the roads. That is an argument which I do not think is really sound. It may be backed up by
676
statistics, but they do not mean much to me. A number of figures merely shows what those figures are intended to show. They do not necessarily show what is the real state of affairs.
If I am riding with a friend on horseback down a road, and suddenly meet with a herd of wild elephants coming along, in consequence of which my friend and I collide and we are thrown from our horses and injured, it does not seem to me that the fact that no particular elephant trod upon me is going to exonerate the herd of elephants from being the cause of the accident. It is not always the actual colliding vehicle that is responsible for the accident, and one knows perfectly well to-day that if one is driving along a road and you meet one of those heavy vehicles driven at an excessive speed that vehicle is bound to hold the crown of the road. It cannot get on to its proper side because of its speed and weight and the camber of the road. It takes the crown of the road and leaves other motorists very little room. That is not a very satisfactory condition of affairs and in this Bill I am asking that these vehicles should do nothing other than what they are required to do by law. I am asking that it should be seen that they do keep the law which is at present on the Statute Book.
One is in this difficulty in making a recommendation such as I am making. It is quite clear that no Act of Parliament and no Bill can be presented which in any way is asking to give a monopoly to any one particular instrument. Of course, on the other hand, it would be equally idle to ask you to consider fitting some sort of instrument without having taken the trouble to find out whether such an instrument exists. Therefore I have taken the trouble to find out that an instrument of the kind suggested does exist. It is not, I think, the province of anybody who is proposing a Bill of this kind to suggest which instrument is best. It is merely one's duty to find out that such an instrument does exist. Well, I have found one that does and it has satisfied me of one or two things. First of all, it will in fact register the speed at which any vehicle is going at any time with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of this kind of legislation. I am told, and from what I have been shown I should be inclined to accept the statement, that the instrument I have in mind would

677
give an accuracy of within about 1 per cent. I do not think it right to mention the name of this instrument because that would be giving an advertisement to a particular instrument, and I do not desire to do that. But it is said to give an accuracy of within 1 per cent.; I am prepared to double or treble that and to say that it will only give accuracy within 3 per cent. Even that is close enough to give the knowledge that we want in order to consider what proceedings, if any, should be taken if the law is being broken.
This is not a question of something new. Instruments of this kind are used at the present time on the railways both of Canada and of France. I agree that the problem of the speed of an engine on a railway track is not quite the same as that of the speed of a car on a road. But, nevertheless, these instruments have been used, and it has been thought proper in those two countries to use them. In this country one railway at least uses what is known as a dynamometer car, that is to say, a car with instruments, and among others this type of instrument, whenever they are considering a new type of engine and a new schedule for their express trains; and a, careful register of the speed at every moment of that run is made before they make their new schedule of time-tables. I only mention that to show that this is not new. Lately I found something else. In France there is no speed limit at all on the road, but I found that a great number of the omnibus companies and char-à-banc companies in France have themselves fitted instruments of this kind for their own purposes because they find that it is worth their while in order to check the runs of their cars and their drivers.
I can go further. I discussed this matter with a friend of mine who is a director of three of the biggest omnibus and char-à-banc companies in this country. He is also chairman of a committee of directors of practically every big company which sits once a fortnight to discuss the accidents on the road that have happened during that fortnight. His opinion is this. He wants these instruments on every one of his omnibuses. "But," he says, and I think with very great propriety, "I cannot do that on my lines and leave all my competitors to do what they like, and
678
break the law as they like in order to become our rivals. There must be some regulation which would affect everybody. But I personally would welcome it, and a great many of the other directors agree with me." Therefore I do not think you are going to get any real opposition to a Bill of this kind from the people who are actually running these omnibuses. You have to remember that they have their own interests to think of. They reason like this: it does not pay to go on asking the public to use things that the public are beginning to realise are a danger. There is a second and a very obvious reason, and that is that as a matter of business these coaches have to be insured. If their speed is cut down to the legal speed the insurance companies will give them considerably better terms than they are giving them at the present time. Therefore I do not think you are going to get any real opposition.
What is it that I am asking for in this Bill? I am asking that a speedometer should be fitted to certain vehicles in order that there may be a permanent record of the speed at which these vehicles have been travelling. The Bill is a short one, and because it is short it took a long time to draft. It is always easy to draft a Bill if you do not mind its being long, but it takes time to draft a short Bill. I went back to an old-fashioned idea, which personally I prefer; that is to say, I put my definition clause first, instead of last, which is the present practice, in order that we may know what we are talking about before we talk about it. The first thing is the vehicle that we are dealing with. We are dealing only with vehicles that are subject to a maximum speed. Those come under the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I think that that is not only reasonable but logical. When a vehicle has a maximum speed, if it exceeds that speed, that is an offence per se, and therefore we are entitled to know at what speed it has been going.
With other vehicles, such as private motor cars, it is not an offence per se to go at any speed, because there is no speed limit. But it may be that the private car will come into legal process because it has been driven to the danger of the public, or because it has even caused manslaughter. That may be perfectly true, but in such a case the actual speed is

679
only one element in a body of evidence, and I think that it is unreasonable to include those vehicles, for this reason among others: I think if you did, you would make too much of the importance of speed when you are considering the body of evidence as to whether or not there has been an offence of driving to the danger of the public. In any case, all I am asking for at the present time is that this should apply to those vehicles which have a definite maximum speed, and which therefore have committed an offence if they have gone beyond that speed.
Next I have put the duty upon the owner of the vehicle. When this question was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, last autumn, he pointed out that one of the things that ought to be considered is the fact that the owner, and not the unfortunate driver, should be made the responsible person. For that reason I have in this Bill put the responsibility of having the speedometer fitted and cared for upon the owner. That is found in Clause 2. I thought it was right, if this Act were going to be of any value at all, that the owners should keep these charts for a certain time. After consideration I suggested a month, arid that is what I have provided for in Clause 3. If that is thought too much or too little, it is very easy to alter it at another stage of the Bill. It seemed to me that a month was reasonable. Furthermore, if there are any legal proceedings started the chart must be kept until those legal proceedings are finished. Next, a police officer may stop any vehicle and look at the chart when the vehicle is being used on the road. Next, we come to the "chief officer of police." A "chief officer of police" is defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as a responsible person, and as a rule it is the Chief Constable; it means someone who is a big, responsible person, not any police officer. He is entitled, if he desires, to ask that any charts that are being kept should be produced to him or to his officer. Then, of course, there is a penalty for refusal to comply.
The next clause is on the question of offences with regard to the speedometer. I have satisfied myself that the particular model which I have looked at is one in which the chart cannot be tampered with, short of actually fabricating an
680
entirely false chart, which of course is forgery. I have satisfied myself that apart from that it cannot be faked, and for that reason I am suggesting to your Lordships that this does give a reasonable prospect of seeing that the law is properly kept. One difficulty in the Bill was pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Howe. I dare say there are many but this one I acknowledge freely. It could be rectified easily on another stage of the Bill. I have not allowed for what would happen if the speedometer broke down. Under the Bill as drawn the driver could not drive on. Something has got to be put in to rectify that, and I shall suggest later, if your Lordships give me an opportunity, that if this does happen there should be an obligation to report the fact to the first policeman the driver may meet. That is merely a suggestion; I have not had time to consider it.
Another thing is obvious: you cannot expect people to fit these things in a day, nor can you expect manufacturers who are manufacturing for experimental work, that is for cars that are being used for experiment—you cannot expect them, manufacturing for a small market, suddenly to be able to put the requisite number of speedometers on the market. Therefore I have put in the Bill that "this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint." That will allow the Minister to consider, with the manufacturers and omnibus companies, when it would be reasonable to ask them that they should come into conformity and adopt this particular method of showing what they are doing on the road. These are shortly the reasons why I desire your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support the Second Reading of the measure proposed by the noble Earl as warmly as I can. He pointed out that the object of the Bill was to see that the law was enforced in order to increase safety and to decrease road accidents. If that was the only effect this Bill would have I should feel inclined to say there might be other suggestions which would be more effective than the speedometer to which my noble friend referred. One I had sent to me

681
the other day was one which ran elf the gear box. When you got the maximum speed allowed a red light showed on the dash board and your petrol supply was cut down.
Another aspect of the case is that this Bill concerns the drivers of big, heavy commercial vehicles which go up north and come back every night. A short time ago I was talking to a friend of mine who sells these commercial vehicles and he was telling me of the appalling conditions which exist among the drivers. He also said that there were certain "doss" houses on the road. Shortly before Christmas I was near Doncaster where there is one of these "doss" houses. I scent in and discussed the position with two drivers there, and I was appalled by what they told me. They told me that they averaged only four hours sleep per night. They have to run up to schedule, and if they are not up to schedule they get the "sack." There are so many unemployed drivers that they have to do it. They are actually blackmailed into practical slavery.
They told me they got a very short time when they got back to London from Liverpool; they had only four hours' sleep and had hardly time to turn round and say "Goodbye" to their wives before they had to go again to the north. This Bill would leave it open to any police officer to inspect the chart and, as is the case to-day, in many of the schedules which these drivers have to keep they have to get up to the utmost limit of speed. To get to their destination on time they have to exceed the present speed Under this Bill any police officer could see if they had exceeded the limit, and this would call attention to the disgusting state of affairs that exists with regard to these drivers.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, one aspect of this Bill has not been dwelt on by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, or the noble Lord who has just spoken, and that is the cost. I do not know whether the House realises the very large number of vehicles which will be affected by this Bill. According to Clause 1 all big goods vehicles and all omnibuses would be affected, as well as all private cars drawing a. trailer, that is to say caravans and motor-cycles which deliver goods. In all these categories there are no fewer than 440,000 vehicles.
682
I am advised that you cannot buy a speedometer which would really work under £22 10s.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I may tell the noble Lord that I have taken the trouble to find out what the quoted price is and the quoted price is not more than £5.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have also taken the trouble to find out. The quoted price the noble Lord speaks of is for one that shows whether the vehicle is going or is stopped.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord must not attribute to me something I did not say. I have investigated the model which tells you exactly the speed at which a vehicle is going at every moment that it is going, and if the noble Lord would like a little further information I will give it to him. It is that this model has been designed by the person who designed and put on the market the original taximeter.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am not in the least moved from my opinion by the noble Earl's remark. I may be wrong and he may be wrong, but I am advised that a reliable speedometer cannot at present be purchased under £22 10s. Of course if you created a great demand for them you would probably get them cheaper; perhaps at £20 each. If you make a rough calculation of 440,000 vehicles at £20 each it means that it would cost about £9,000,000 to put this measure into operation. If you are going to achieve a great public reform, save lives, and generally diminish the wear and tear of the roads, which is one of the most important things, I admit that possibly you might face so vast an expenditure. I submit, however, that the way to proceed is not to have these speedometers, but to have more intensive action by the police in trapping these heavy vehicles. That is being done extensively in most counties, and in all the petty sessional districts in my own county, at every petty sessions, we have half-a-dozen or a dozen of these big vehicles up for going too fast. That is a very cheap way to make them keep within the law, and far better than undertaking the enormous expenditure which would be necessitated under this Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the speech made

683
by my noble friend in introducing this Bill, and it does seem to me that much further investigation is required. The noble Earl, in introducing the Bill, said one of the things we must be careful not to do is to give a monopoly to anyone. The noble Earl has mentioned one instrument which he says will do what he wants to do, record the speed of a vehicle on a chart at every stage during its journey. But he has only come across one such instrument, and if this Bill were to pass into law surely the effect of it would be to put a practical monopoly into the hands of the maker of a proprietary article. I submit that would not be a desirable thing to do. The noble Earl did not tell us whether this speedometer has been tried out, and if so, for how long? An instrument may work perfectly for a short time, say six months, but we are considering a Bill for all time, and are to ask motor owners to incur an expense, I believe the noble Earl suggested, of something like £4 10s.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I said under £5.
EARL HOWE: The noble Earl is going to ask every owner of a vehicle affected by this Bill to incur an expenditure of £4 10s. for an instrument which may, or may not, let him down. The noble Earl indicated that there is no provision for accidental breakdown in it, but he indicated that he would accept an Amendment at a later stage. I hope he will, because I am very much afraid there is no maker of any proprietary article of whom I have heard in this country who would be prepared in present circumstances to guarantee such an instrument for a longer period than six months or a year. There is one instrument, but experience has not been gained in regard to it.
The noble Earl said that this Bill was to apply to every vehicle which is subject to a speed limit under the Road Traffic Act. The noble Lord who has just spoken (Lord Mount Temple) has given your Lordships the number of vehicles which would be affected, but there are others. For instance, there are invalid carriages, there are locomotives and motor tractors with a speed of five miles an hour. Every agricultural tractor would be affected by this Bill. Every owner of an agricultural tractor would be expected to have one of these expensive accessories, although
684
his vehicle seldom appears on the road. It seems to me that is not really what we want. I understand that what the noble Earl really wants is that this should apply to motor coaches. I am sure that is what he has really in mind. The law with regard to motor coaches is absurd. Is it really necessary that in order to bring this about you should pass a Bill which is going to place upon the owners of these vehicles an expenditure running into millions of pounds—not so many millions, I think perhaps, as the noble Lord just indicated, but at any rate well on the way to £2,000,000, even at £4 10s. per instrument. The noble Earl would put this expenditure upon the transport industry of the country in order to see that the law is observed by this kind of traffic.
That does not seem to me to be the right way of going about it. If you are to place this expenditure, for instance, on all the omnibuses in London, what effect is it likely to have on fares? At a later date, as we have heard from the noble and learned Leader of the House, we are going to have an opportunity of considering the London Passenger Transport Bill. I rather think the question of fares on the omnibuses will be one of the things we shall discuss, and I hope we shall do nothing which will have the effect of putting up the fares on the omnibuses. Take the case of second-hand vehicles. You are going to ask them to incur an expenditure which will form a very respectable proportion of the total value of the vehicle. The value of these instruments is put at £4 10s. each, and the value of many of the vehicles is only about £20. The vehicles affected by the Bill include light delivery vans, goods motor cycles, lorries of under 2½ tons, and so on. I think that we ought to be very cautious before we saddle the transport industry of this country with so great an expenditure.
The noble Earl says that he is content with 3 per cent. of accuracy in the speedometer. I believe there have been many cases in the Courts in which the reading of speedometers has been quoted, but I believe in most cases the Courts have required other evidence than that produced by a speedometer. They have not considered that the record of a speedometer was sufficiently accurate evidence to place before the Court. It

685
must be corroborated in some other way. Therefore, I think even when you have saddled the motor transport industry with this expense, it is not certain that the speedometer will be considered to be conclusive evidence. You will still have to rely, I think, upon other methods in order to secure observance of the law. I strongly support what the noble Lord said just now about its being a matter for the police. I think it is entirely a matter for the police, and I should like to hear from the spokesman of the Government, or from some other quarter, whether this measure is really desired by the police and whether the police feel it would strengthen their hands in enforcing the law.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, in the Motor Traffic Act, 1930, there are, so far as I can see, two, and only two, provisions that have been inserted for the public interest. They are the two provisions that limit the speed of certain classes of cars. Every other part of the Bill is, in my judgment, designed to help and promote motor traffic. Now it is common knowledge that these two speed limits are disobeyed. They are not only disobeyed, but cases have come before the magistrates showing that drivers of some of these vehicles are employed on terms which compel disobedience, and the excuse they make is that they were detained, that they were blocked here and had to get through there, and that obedience to these rules was impossible. I think it is of the utmost consequence that there should be some recording instrument which shows whether or not they are obeying. Personally, I feel very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for the trouble he has taken in this matter, and for introducing this Bill.
It really is no use—I say it with all respect—for the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, to assert that this instrument would cost £22. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has carefully investigated the matter himself, and lie is quite satisfied that it would not cost more than It really does not make an impressive set of figures to take an imaginary and, according to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, a wholly inaccurate figure, and then multiply it in the way which has been done in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that even speedometers were not always accepted in the Courts.
686
I am not quite clear as to the cases he referred to, but I should imagine that they are the class of case where the undisputed evidence of bystanders is that a car was going at 50 miles an hour, and the driver declares that his speedometer showed it was going at only 15 miles an hour. That is by no means an uncommon case. If in this case the Judges said: "We are not prepared to credit the speedometer" it was only a polite way of saying: "We are not prepared to credit the witness."
EARL HOWE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but may I say that the case I have in mind was one where police officers mounted on motor cycles have followed a motorist and declared that the speed was so and so, giving the figure on the speedometer? That has not been accepted as final and conclusive evidence.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is only another instance of the extreme leniency of the Courts. It not infrequently happens that a Court does not like to convict where the excess was not very great. On the whole, however, these speedometers are to be relied upon. I think everybody knows that. The only question that remains is whether we can get a speedometer that will also record the pace at which vehicles have travelled. I do not propose to prolong this discussion, but I do most earnestly hope that this Bill, which I regard as a most valuable contribution to the problem, will be passed. I will only say in conclusion that if there is one thing that disturbs me more than another, it is that whenever you have the inevitable question raised on the one side of the menace to human life on the roads and the comfort of people living along the road, and on the other the finance of the motor industry, you are always told that you must not put any expense upon the motor industry, even though lack of that expense may cause peril to the lives of the people of the country.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in the unfortunate absence of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth on account of illness, I have been asked to state the views of His Majesty's Government regarding this Bill. The object of my noble friend who introduced this Bill and the object of all of us is to lessen the number

687
of accidents in our streets and on our roads, and if I point out some objections to the Bill, as I am bound to do, it must not be taken that the Ministry of Transport or His Majesty's Government are any less anxious about this very serious toll of life and limb on the roads than the noble Earl or anyone else in this House.
His Majesty's Government do see certain objections to this measure. In connection with the first, which is that of expense, I would refer your Lordships to the debate in this House on December 1 last year, when my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster moved a Resolution which was accepted by the House that all motor vehicles subject to speed limits should be equipped with a trustworthy speedometer. In that debate, my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury stated that a very satisfactory recording speedometer could be produced at a cost of about £5. It is not clear whether this estimate covered the cost of fitting, etc. He has repeated that sum to-day. I am not going into the controversy between him and my noble friend below the gangway who said the cost would be £22 10s., but granted that it is only £5 there are, according to the figures given me, nearly half a million vehicles subject to a speed limit, so that even on my noble friend's estimate the fitting of recording speedometers would involve an expenditure of £2,500,000. In spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, has just said, the Government consider that this is a serious matter and would involve a heavy burden on industry in times such as the present.
The second objection which the Government see to this measure is that instruments of this nature are delicate and are liable to get out of order. In the rough usage to which a lorry is subject, cases of the instrument going out of order would be likely to be frequent, and under the provisions of the Bill the vehicle would be out of action until the instrument had been adjusted. In justice to my noble friend I think it should be said that he did refer to that and did recognise it as a possible flaw in the Bill. The third objection of the Government is that instruments of this kind are not always accurate and can be tampered with comparatively easily. The accuracy, for example, depends on such details as the degree of inflation of the tyres, and I am
688
informed that it is reckoned that an ordinary speedometer in a private car is subject to a margin of error of between 5 and 10 per cent. The fourth objection is that a recording speedometer of the kind suggested by my noble friend has not yet been tried in what one may call workaday conditions. In this connection your Lordships may remember that in the debate last December my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, replying for the Government, stated that by a regulation that came into force on January 1 this year all long distance motor-coaches have now to be fitted with speedometers. That is a requirement that the Government realise may well have to be extended. The Minister proposes to carry out some practical experiments with the more promising of the existing devices that have been brought to his notice and to look into the question of cost and the practicability of fitting such device to existing vehicles.
I think I should again emphasise, even though I may be repeating myself, that even if perfectly reliable instruments were available, the difficulties of enforcement of the provisions of a Bill of this nature are formidable, the expense considerable, and the burden thrown upon the industry might not be offset by counter-balancing advantages. I think I need say no more as regards the merits of the Bill. In conclusion I would say that the Government do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, which I presume will be carried. As regards its subsequent stages, your Lord ships are masters of the situation as regards this House, but the Government cannot at the present time offer any facilities for its passage in another place.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, there is one thing which I should like to be allowed to say, and that is in regard to the question of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, took the attitude of multiplying the cost of this speedometer by the number of vehicles and seeing what was the result. Let me put an ordinary instance. How much does a man spend on a char-a-banc in order to make, money out of it? Probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of thousand pounds or more. He is asked to spend another £5 to see that the law is obeyed. It is nonsense to talk about the industry being

689
hampered by that. One other thing I would like to say is that, though I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke for the Government for allowing the Second Reading to go through, and though it may be a great consolation to anybody who is deploring the loss of his nearest and dearest by a road accident to feel that His Majesty's Government are still exploring every avenue and possibly even considering making a gesture, it would be better still if something was done in practice.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF SEA-BIRDS.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE had given Notice that he would call attention to the Wild Birds Protection Act, and move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the said Act should be so amended as to deal with the case of sea-birds whose plumage becomes saturated with oil-fuel waste. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was led to put down this Motion in the first instance from what I have seen myself in the last year and a half when I have been living on the south coast. My knowledge of oil pollution is exclusively confined to its effect on sea-birds. I have often walked along the sea-front and, seeing a crowd, have gone to find out what was the cause, and have seen one or more, sometimes a considerable number of sea-birds dead or in a dying condition. It was this repeated sight and the very grave indignation which exists in seaside places that led me to put clown this Motion. Your Lordships may not be aware that if you see one of these birds lying on the beach in a dying condition and you go and wring its neck, which is the only humane thing to do, you will be Table to prosecution under the Wild Birds Protection Act. I was first told this by a sailor, who said he had asked an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about this matter and the inspector—I hope I am not giving him away, but I mention no name—said: "Well, if you come across a bird like that, as long as you are not seen, put it under your coat and take it away behind a wall or somewhere and wring its neck."
Since I put down the Motion my knowledge of this subject has been increased. I have a cutting from the Daily Express of February 7, which states:
"Hundreds of sea-birds—some of them dead, others dying of starvation—have been found washed up on the southern coast-line east of St. Alban's Head, Dorset. They are victims of what has been described as most flagrant case of cruelty in the world.' They have been choked and crippled by oil waste from steamers.
"'Oil is crawling round the world like a horrible cancer, eating into bird life,' said Mr. de Vere Stacpoole, the novelist, to a Daily Express representative yesterday. The thing is a national disgrace because it is absolutely preventable by the use of the new oil separators. The pollution of the sea by discharge of fuel oil from ships is a growing menace. Any sea-bird coming into contact with the oil becomes tangled in it. It can neither float, swim, nor dive, and dies after days, sometimes weeks, of starvation and torture. It is scandalous, and something should be done immediately.'
"Some time ago ninety seabirds, their wings clogged with oil, were washed up at Brighton, and seventy-eight at Folkestone. Sir Cooper Rawson, M.P., stated the facts in Parliament and the House unanimously gave him leave to introduce a Bill to prevent waste oil being emptied into the sea from the tanks of oil-driven vessels. Sir Cooper's Bill made it compulsory for oil-driven ships to be equipped with separators. Nothing further was heard about the Bill. The equipment of apparatus for separating oil from water for a large liner costs only £250. For a small trawler £10 or £15."
The other day I was sent a document headed "Pollution" by Lieut. Commander E. Kirkpatrick-Crockett, R.N., Fishery Officer. It is an address published "by authority of the South Wales Sea Fisheries District Committee." So I presume this gentleman must be rather learned and knows what he is talking about. According to him:
"Large areas of the shores from low to high water marks are now denuded of marine fauna, and this is attributable to pollution brought by the advancement made in industry, and an increase in the peoples who have subordinated the gifts of Mother Earth to their use and comfort. It is significant that when our basic industries are idle or working short time, pollution is considerably lessened, with an improvement in our rivers and around the sea coasts; but when work is again in full blast, pollution is again intensified. Many persons are conversant with the irritating and nauseating effect of oily water when bathing in the sea; it clings to the body, it is offensive and particularly objectionable. We somewhat peevishly complain but the trouble goes on year after year. …
"How this oil pollution advertised itself, coming as it did at the height of the

691
visitors' season, when many local people were taking holiday also ! The need for drastic remedy was never more emphasised than when the Penarth foreshore was plastered with fuel oil. The irony of this particular fouling of the beach was that, after definite evidence was forthcoming as to who was the offender, and the presentation of the facts before the authorities, no action under existing legislation could be taken."
Alluding to children, the author of this address says:
"Playing about, the kiddies get themselves smothered with an oily substance, that treacle-like deposit we find so often left by the wind and the tide. …"
Here is another extract, quoted from a statement by the Council of the Fresh Water Biological Association of the British Empire:
"An increase in the amount of organic matter in the water which is a common consequence of pollution will result in an increase of bacterial activity with a consequent decrease in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. The amount of the dissolved oxygen may easily be lowered below the limit at which certain animals can exist, and this will cause the destruction of all such forms."
Again:
"But heavy oils denuded of their volatile content become impregnated with floating particles, they soon take on the characteristics of tarry substances, and finally sink to the sea bottom or river bed. So our contention is, and so has been observed in actual investigation, the sea and river bed becomes fouled and in the course of time life becomes steadily but surely obliterated or gives way to types which are parasitical. Indeed, this alone may be a direct cause of (from pollution) the tendency of parasites being harboured by marine and fresh water fishes, which set up obscure forms of disease in their hosts which baffle the scientists in many cases."
I make no excuse for giving these quotations because this man knows far more of the subject than I do. In another passage he says:
"That is the menace we have to fight against to-day, the hidden form of destruction in the form of pollution which is responsible for loss of life in an unseen direction, mainly at the moment confined to our inshore waters, but which, if unchecked, will steadily spread with evil results. … It has been observed that when shoals of herring and mackerel are about, there are whitebait, britt, or sprats to be seen. The herring feeds upon minute life consisting of miscroscopic plants and animals, but mackerel also consume the tiny fish. If oil covers the surface of the water the shoals have been seen to avoid it, and over a very wide area I have noticed this fact.
692
"I have seen herring fleets lying at their nets over many miles from the Thames to the Orkneys and on the West Coast of Ireland; to leeward has stretched long lines of oily film from bilges. On the return to the grounds after landing their shots 'I have found that the catches have been considerably less particularly when large numbers of merchant shipping have passed to and fro and, as they alter course to clear the long lines of nets, in the ordinary routine of the voyage, have pumped bilges and the oily films, widely scattered, no doubt contributed largely to the mysteries attached to the question: 'Where are the fish?' ….
"The Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, fails lamentably. It has many flaws, yet there has been no definite movement towards revision of the Act, since the Bill presented before the House of Commons became practically null and void under the present National Government, when so many Bills were abandoned, and Sir Cooper Raw-son's received only a First Reading."
In asking what attitude is taken with regard to oil-carrying vessels, this same writer says:
"Well ! These are not the primary offenders. The greatest menace at the present time arises from vessels which pump overboard indiscriminately their bilges and oil-fired vessels who dispose of their residues by means of the sea. The case is met by my own report made to the South Wales Sea Fisheries District Committee some time ago, and which was subsequently placed before the National Association of Fishery Boards for the information of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, which Government Department have annually placed before them relative matters requiring attention and seeking constructive action and co-operation.
Under the heading "Apply Remedies," there is this:
"The position of sea-birds is a terrible indictment. We may enforce laws for the preservation of our feathered friends but permit wholesale suffering and death to, these birds from oil pollution, which smothers the feathers as the birds alight upon the water or along our sea shores."
Surely, that is a terrible state of affairs, and I can testify that the indignation of animal lovers and other kind-hearted people is growing in intensity. I beg your Lordships, if you possibly can, to bring in some means by which this state of affairs can be prevented. If these birds cannot be saved then it should be made possible for those who see a bird in this state to put it out of its misery without risk of prosecution.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the Wild Birds Protection Act should be so amended as to deal

693
with the case of sea-birds whose plumage becomes saturated with oil-fuel waste.—(Lord Kilmaine.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this matter has been so constantly before the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, of which I am Chairman, that I think it right to say a word or two about it. We have a, report upon it by experts, which the Trustees will shortly consider, and I hope it will be possible to carry this matter further. Incidentally, I think it is rather noteworthy that your Lordships should have given so much attention on one afternoon to the protection of wild birds. So far as this most painful matter to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is concerned it is, I think, thirteen years since the Royal Society for the Protection of Wild Birds called public attention to the devastation wrought among sea-birds by the discharge of oil waste into the sea. That society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other societies have made repeated representations to the shipping authorities and to the Government, and the noble Lord drew attention to the amiable but very short-lived effort made in the House of Commons, but the destruction nevertheless continues unabated—indeed, it almost seems to increase.
The matter was further considered by the International Conference on the Protection of Migratory Fowl, under the Chairmanship of Lord Ullswater. I wish the noble Viscount had been here to tell us what conclusions were reached. As I have said, no efforts, so far, have produced any result whatsoever, and this devastation of the life of sea-birds goes on all round our shores. I suppose one reason why it does not attract more attention is that the discharge of oil does not seem seriously, I understand, to affect the life of the fish on which so much the food of our people depends, and so far as our sea-coast places are concerned the damage appears mostly to be done during rough weather, and in the winter and spring. It does not call so much attention at other times. I have in my hands a map drawn up by the British section of the International Committee for the Protection of Wild Birds, giving a picture of the regions round our south and east coasts where
694
this devastation is most marked, and it is most lamentable. A friend of mine only a few days ago said he had been on Beachy Head and that it was heartrending to see numbers of birds all along the beach suffering from this evil. It is pleasant to know that there was one person who, as a mere act of mercy, went about killing large numbers of these unfortunate birds.
What happens is that the oil saturates the bodies of these birds, so that they cannot fly, and therefore cannot feed. When they come ashore, sometimes they are still able to swim, but when they reach the shore the oil gets over their legs and they become perfectly helpless. All along our coasts there are numbers of these birds waiting for death. It is easy to paint the picture and it cannot he painted too strongly, but it is most difficult to discern the remedy. I suppose ultimately the only hope is that by international action the discharge of this oil wastage may be prevented beyond our own territorial limit of three miles. It is difficult to say whether that can be done, but at all events it will take a long time and, meanwhile, I suppose the best thing that can be done is to bring the pressure of public opinion upon shipping companies and others, with a view to advances towards making the use of this waste product a profitable undertaking, or towards disposing of it by mechanical means. There is, however, the evil, and it is a good thing from time to time to take the opportunity of calling public attention to this most lamentable destruction of sea-birds all along our coasts. Those who delight in watching the flights of these beautiful birds must realise that probably their delight in flying is even greater than the delight of those who watch them. These birds are entitled to the freedom of the sea and it is intolerable that the waters which, with the air and the cliffs, nature meant should he their homes should be the means of their destruction. I trust that the Government may be able to indicate some line of hope.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord who moved the Motion for calling attention to a serious defect in the law as it now stands—namely, that if you find one of these unfortunate birds

695
in the last stage of misery the law says you must not put an end to its suffering. That defect would be easy to remedy, but the main question, as pointed out by the noble Lord and by the most rev. Primate, is the far larger one of the appalling suffering to sea-birds caused by the discharge of oil into the sea. We have passed an Act of Parliament which makes it an offence to discharge this oil waste within the three miles limit, but that is not enough, because after storms or high winds the oil which is discharged into the sea outside the three miles limit is blown in on to the shore and causes these sufferings. The most rev. Primate has asked how that is to be remedied. I know of only one way, and that is by international action. I would appeal to the Government to represent in the proper quarters that we should do our utmost by diplomatic action to get the shipping Powers of the world to consent to a convention which would make it compulsory upon all ships which ply to our ports to have a separator, which would prevent this oil from coming on to the water and in that way prevent the oil from coming into our ports. If that could be done I believe it would obviate very nearly all the appalling suffering which is caused.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I do not wish for a moment to minimise the terrible effect of oil pollution on bird life, which has been so forcibly put before your Lordships, but there is one other aspect of the matter which I should like to bring forward. We have always in this country cared about our sea and our coasts. One of the most famous tributes in our literature to our sea is that it performs its work of preventing the pollution of our shores. Is all that to come to an end ! Apart from what oil pollution does to the birds, it is a horrible thought from our own point of view that our shores should be made filthy. If the thing can be prevented that is surely a thing on which the public, especially in this country where we are really proud of our sea, feel strongly, and they rely upon the Government to take some action, if action is possible, to prevent it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sure nobody can complain of this subject having been brought forward this afternoon, or of the way in which it has been brought forward. But it is rather diffi-
696
cult for me to answer the noble Lord, because his Motion is rather paradoxical. He wants the Wild Birds Protection Act amended so as to deal with the case of sea-birds whose plumage becomes saturated with oil, but I understand that, if it is not so amended, all he wants to do is to wring their necks; and, as regards the other thing that he is complaining of, that has got nothing to do with the Wild Birds Protection Act.
LORD KILMAINE: I thought I said in my speech I was not aware whether any remedial action could be taken, and that, short of that, the only thing was that the sea-birds should be put out of their misery by death.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: That would be one way. But, as I was saying, the subject does not really come under the Wild Birds Protection Act, but under the other Act that has been mentioned, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922. The two points that I understand the noble Lord makes are, first, that a power is needed to put the birds out of their misery, and, second, that the oil which comes into these waters should as far as possible be curtailed. A certain amount of confusion has arisen over this question. The Board of Trade is really the Department which would have to deal with matters relating to the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, and I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord very much information on that subject. But, as regards the protection of wild birds, as he knows, the principle on which these Acts proceed is the protection of birds and their eggs either during the breeding season or throughout the year. The Motion proposes that these Acts should be amended so as to deal with the birds whose plumage becomes saturated with oil-fuel waste. It would be almost impossible, as the noble Lord will admit, to fix any responsibility for the amount of oil which has been cast ashore, and which gets on to these birds. Therefore it is difficult to know what remedy can be suggested. That is especially so as the Wild Birds Protection Act and Orders made under it do not at present extend beyond the jurisdiction of county councils, that is, they only go as far as low-water mark. After that the only possible way to protect them would seem to be to take some means of curtailing the amount of oil discharged into the sea from ships passing our coasts.

697
I would ask the noble Lord to put his Question down again if he wants a very detailed answer about the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, because I have not got very full information on the subject. But I can tell him and the most rev. Primate that the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, makes it a penal offence to discharge oil or oily water within the territorial waters of Great Britain and Ireland. The detection of offenders is, from the nature of the case, very difficult. Specific evidence of the source of the oil is essential before any definite action can be taken. But the Board are aware of twenty-seven cases of prosecutions under the Act, and convictions have been obtained in twenty cases.
The whole question of oil pollution was considered at an International Conference held at Washington in June, 1926. That Conference considered two main proposals: (1) the compulsory fitting of separators on oil-carrying and oil-burning vessels; and (2) the establishment of zones in which no oil or oily water should be discharged. It was found impossible to secure international agreement to the compulsory fitting of separators, and the Conference decided to recommend the establishment of a system of zones. After the Conference British shipowners and those of some foreign nations voluntarily agreed to instruct the masters of their ships not to discharge oil or oily water within fifty miles of the coast. In addition, a number of British shipowners and those of certain foreign countries have voluntarily fitted separators on their vessels. But I understand that the recommendation of 1926 to institute zones has not been formally adopted by the Governments concerned; so that up till now within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom the regulations are governed by the Act of 1922. I am told that the available evidence goes to show that pollution is decreasing.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am disappointed with the answer of the noble Earl. It is quite true that the noble Lord who introduced this matter did speak specially of the Wild Birds Protection Act. Quite clearly that is not the main proposition which I think he had in his mind. He was, I imagine, asking the Government what they suggested in order to deal with the matter from the point of view of birds. Other aspects of it have
698
been raised in the general interests of the public at large. What I would suggest is that the noble Lord should put down a Motion which would raise the whole question. I think it is invaluable. It is important, as the most rev. Primate has said, that this matter should receive greater public attention than it does now, and the best way to do that would be to put down a Motion which could be answered by the Government so that they could tell us what they propose to do, which is of a great deal more importance than what has occurred in the past.
I understand the noble Earl to say that there was an international Conference six years ago and nothing had come of that in regard either to general prohibition or to the question of zones. A good deal of oil has passed under the bridges since then, and I should have thought the matter had become so extremely important now that the Government might endeavour in some way to bring about agreement with regard to the subject. It is really very urgent not only for the various places in which it is especially bad, but one of the great anxieties of the matter is that unfortunately the oil, once there, practically remains there and does not evaporate. Therefore it is an increasing evil all round the coast. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, will raise this matter as a general one, so that we may have an answer from the Government as to the action they propose to take. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, is unable to give us that information at the present moment and therefore I hope that this matter, on which public opinion is very much exercised, will be raised again.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am surprised at Lord Lucan saying that he thought that this scandal was on the decrease. I do not think that is the case. It is cumulative. The oil deposited six months ago may be there to-day and is getting more foul. Perhaps one reason the noble Lord thinks it is less is that the sea is being plied every week by hundreds of thousands of tonnage less than a few years ago, but as soon as a better freight market re-emerges you may be sure that the danger of increased pollution will revive. I should have thought myself that it is more serious to-day than it was five years ago.

699
Certainly at points on the seashore now birds are being killed, which was not the case, I think, quite recently, and we hear to-day far more complaints from seaside resorts than was the case before. My impression is that the scandal, so far from decreasing, has become more serious. I hope the Government will not be discouraged by the fact that the Washington Conference did not achieve any marked success. You cannot expect a thing like that to be settled all at once, and I hope that the Government will take the initiative towards a fresh international Conference on the subject. I am sure it is more likely to have results than it was then.
LORD KILMAINE: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KILMAINE: May I ask what are we to do if we find birds in the condition of which we have been speaking?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord information on that point.
LORD KILMAINE: It is not a question of one bird being found on the rocks. You find large numbers on the seashore.
THE LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL OF ONELOW): My Lords, I have no more right to speak than any other of your Lordships, but I would point out that the Motion has been withdrawn: we seem to be continuing the discussion.
LORD KILMAINE: I apologise to the House, and will bring the subject forward again.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Mablethorpe and Sutton Urban District Council.
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Amersham, Beaconsfield and District Water [H.L],

South Metropolitan Gas [H.L.],

South Suburban Gas [H.L.],

Samaritan Free Hospital for Women [H.L.]

Cancer Hospital (Free) [H.L.],

Dearne District Traction [H.L],

East Hull Gas [H.L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON OVERGROUND WIRES, &c. BILL. [H.L.]
RUGBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WORKSOP CORPORATION, BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Askwith be proposed to the House as a member of the Joint Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Amulree: Read, and agreed to.