Sitting of 25 March 1924

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

INDUSTRIAL COURTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the reference of trade disputes to courts of inquiry established under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, to be printed, and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, can the Lord President of the Council give the House any information with regard to business for the next few days ?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, there is one matter of which I should like to give the House notice. The Consolidated Fund Bill will receive its Third Reading in the other House on Thursday next, and it must be passed into law by Friday next. That will necessitate this House sitting on Friday and passing the Bill through all its stages. It will not necessitate your Lordships being present, because I understand there will be a quorum as there is a judicial sitting of the House on that day.

DOGS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I desire to say that it is in no way an attempt to do away with vivisection. All it does is to exempt dogs from vivisection and experiments.

981
I propose to show that dogs are not necessary for the purpose of science, that they are used because they are cheap, and because they trust man and will not hurt him. This Bill has passed a Second Reading on three occasions in the other House ; twice without a Division and once by a majority. On the last occasion it not only received a Second Reading but passed through Committee. It is that Hill which I am moving this afternoon. It was amended on Report by the Government, and only rejected on Third Reading, somewhat unexpectedly, because a new Department took charge of the measure and, on a Friday afternoon, took the unusual course of putting on the Government Whips.
I said that I propose to show that dogs are not necessary for vivisection. I hold in my hand an extract from the Lancet, which is a medical paper, dated May 31, 1919. This extract, which refers to the use of dogs, says that certain good results have occurred from certain experiments, and it goes on to say—
" This is not to say that such knowledge could have been acquired in no other way."
That is not a statement by anybody who is favourable to the Bill, but a medical statement. I have here also a letter from Sir William Collins, a well-known doctor, who was a member of the Royal Commission. He wrote to me as follows when my Bill was before the House of Commons:—
" Allow me to congratulate you on the success which has, thus far, attended you in the progress of the "Dogs Bill. You will, of course, have noticed paragraph 97, page 57, in the Report of the Royal Commission, which, if I remember rightly, I drafted. This was unanimously agreed to—"
and so on. A well-known doctor therefore is found to be in favour of my Bill. Then I have a statement from the late Professor Woodroffe Hill, F.R.C.V.S., who said that he saw no reason why dogs should be used. Further, I find that m April, 1922, Sir Lambert Hornsby, a past President of the Royal College of Surgeons, said this:—
" Experiments on dogs might now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel. "
I find also that certain other doctors have taken the same view.
My next point is that dogs are used because they are cheap. Dr. Chapple,
982
an opponent of the Bill, has stated that it-is not: a question between 5s. and 7s. 6d but between 5s. and £5, that in his opinion the only other animal that could be used was a monkey, and that a monkey could not be bought for less than £5. What it comes to is that the gentlemen who make these experiments are prepared, in order to save the difference between the price they give for a dog and £5, to save that difference by sacrificing the dog. Sir Watson Cheyne said much the same thing. He said that the men who were engaged in this sort of work were in the great majority of eases poor men who did not spend their money on pleasure but on instruments, and to ask a poor man to buy such an expensive animal as an ape was out of the question. Let me next quote an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection of 1912 I find in paragraph 118 that a very prevalent view was expressed by Sir William Osler when dealing with the use of dog3 for the purpose of acquiring manual dexterity. He said:—
" I think we have all felt that it would be very much better if we could get animals other than the dog to operate on,"
and he quoted with approval the opinion of Dr. Cushing to the effect that:—
" There is naturally a feeling of regret in the minds of many—of none greater than our own—that animals, particularly dogs, should thus be subjected to operations, even though the object be a most desirable one and accomplished without the infliction of pain, and, did expense permit, he would gladly have used animals with which there is an association of less acute sentiment on the part of all."
I find in the Report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 118, that Dr. Gotch stated that no dog had been used for vivisection experiments in Oxford during the previous five years. Professor Starling, however, stated that in 1902, at University College, 155 dogs were used. Dr. Pembrey stated that at the medical school at Guy's Hospital he did not experiment on dogs at all. These facts are from the Report of the Royal Commission, and tend to show that my view is correct that it is not necessary to employ dogs for this purpose.
An attempt has been made by certain medical people to show that no pain is inflicted on dogs. Let me read a passage to show the only protection that is afforded for dogs. I quote from the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, of which Section 3, sub-

983
section (2), authorises experiments to be performed without anæsthetics on such certificate being given as is mentioned in the Act that insensibility cannot be procured without necessarily frustrating the object of such experiment, and experiments may be performed without the person who performs such experiments being under an obligation to cause the animal on which any such experiment is performed to be killed before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic on such certificate being given as is mentioned in the Act that the so killing of the animal would necessarily frustrate the object of the experiment, and provided that the animal is killed as soon as such object has been obtained. Then it goes on to say that—
"If an animal, after and by reason of the said experiments under the said certificates A or B, is found to be suffering pain which is either severe or is likely to endure, and if the main result of the experiment has been attained, the animal must forthwith be painlessly killed."
So that, if the main result of the experiment has not been attained, though an animal is suffering severe pain, it may be kept alive. Allusion to this is made by the Report of the Royal Commission, which shows that the statement that no pain is inflicted is erroneous.
I have not been able, at such short notice, to obtain the latest figures, but I have the Home Office returns for 1912, which show that 371 dogs and cats were experimented upon without anæsthetics in the period referred to, and I have the returns for 1917 which give the rather higher figure of 887 dogs and cats experimented upon without anæsthetics—and that, I think, includes inoculation—those which recovered after a serious operation amounting to 147. I think I have shown that it is not necessary to use dogs. I have also shown, I think, that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why dogs are used is that they are cheap; and I could, if necessary, give certain illustrations of the experiments which are performed on these dogs. I do not know that it is necessary to do so, and there is a good deal of other business down for to-day.
I have put the chief points of my case before you and, in conclusion, I would say this. Man has made the dog what it is. For centuries he has used the dog as his companion, and made it much
984
more sensitive and liable to feeling than any other animal. Man has also made the dog trust him, and I think it is, I might say, almost a shocking commentary to believe that because a dog trusts in you, and it will save you a little trouble to deal with an animal that trusts you, and because it is cheap, you take that dog for the purposes of an operation which can be performed on other animals. May I read to your Lordships a short statement by a man much more eloquent than I am, giving a description of what a dog really is to man?—
"The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honour when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure sets its cloud upon our head. The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his dog. A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground where the wintry winds blow and the snow drive" fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journeys through the heavens."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, that this Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this House contains leaders in almost every branch of life—leaders of religion, of politics, of literature, of business, and of law; indeed, of practically every walk of life—but, unfortunately, we are very poor in this House as regards representatives of science or of medicine. Therefore, I regret very much that it falls to my lot, as neither the one nor the other, to move what is equivalent to the rejection of this Bill. My life brings me into very close

985
touch with medical men, and with scientific men, and without claiming any undue importance for what I may say, I do confidently assert that in what I am going to say to you to-day, I represent almost the universal medical opinion in this country, except that of a mere handful of men, and that I am voicing the opinion of almost the whole scientific world, save perhaps that of one man.
I fully appreciate the sentiment which I think moves my noble friend to move the Second Heading of this Bill. I do not call it a "silly sentiment," because that would be rude, and would perhaps end a friendship which I haw valued for many years. Besides that, no sentiment is silly. I suppose some of the noblest actions in life have been, inspired by sentiment, but I call it a very harmful, unwise and mistaken sentiment, if it drives us to the conclusion to which it has driven my noble friend. He wishes to exclude dogs from experiments because they appeal to him and to many of your Lordships. They appeal to me, too. I notice that when people come to stay with me they are very much more interested in my dogs than they are in me, and constantly my dogs have received invitations to a shoot and to bring their master with them. Wherever I am known my dogs are better known, and therefore I should have entire sympathy with any one who wished to save dogs from almost anything. But I must know at what expense.
It would be unwise to exclude animals just because we happen to sympathise very specially with this animal or with that. Do not horses appeal to a number of your Lordships? I remember seeing the noble Lord who moved the Second Beading of this Bill driving a magnificent team of horses as a member of the Coaching Club—horses which had been subjected to a very painful experiment by veterinary surgeons, to make them more amenable to his skill. There are other animals which might appeal to other members. I remember driving through the New Forest on a soaking wet day. I was with Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. We had to give up shooting because it was so wet. As we drove along we saw in front of us one who appeared to be a wretched old tramp, wet to the skin, bowed down with wet, and Lord Montagu said, "We must give this poor devil a lift." He proved, however, to be Lord Grey of
986
Fallodon, then Sir Edward Grey, who had walked four miles to see whether on that day a certain bird was on a certain pond. I could not help wondering whether there was any other Foreign Minister, in any other country in the world, who would have walked four miles on such a wet day to see whether a certain bird was on a certain pond. He and my noble friend Lord Buxton might claim to have birds exempted, and, if this House follows the example of the other House, I can imagine our having members here to whom the cat would make an irresistible appeal. So I think it would be a mistake to try to exempt any one animal simply because that animal appeals to our sentiments.
Let there be no mistake about this Bill. If it passes, no dog can ever be used for any experiment of any sort—either what we ordinarily call an operation, or even a feeding experiment. There can be no doubt about that. The words "calculated to give pain or disease," which are in Lord Banbury's Bill, are the words used in the 1876 Act, and the law to-day is that no one may perform any operation on any animal without a licence. Have you noticed that in this Bill there is no provision whatever for any licence ? If this Bill passes, no operation of any sort, no feeding experiment, can ever be done on a dog again.
Your Lordships have, no doubt, heard of the very valuable experiments that were made to test the nutritive powers of margarine as compared with butter. The food of the animals was the same, except that one had margarine and the other butter, and it was conclusively proved that they needed butter to thrive. That operation could not have been made except by licence under the present law. It could not be made at all if the present Bill were passed.
I am sure that your Lordships have never had occasion, as I have often had, to study this Act of 1876. May I tell you how dogs are protected to-day? I have already said that no experiment of any sort can be made without a licence. If that experiment involves cutting, the animal has to be completely anæsthetised before it recovers. If the nature of the research is such that it is necessary to allow the animal to recover from the anæsthetic and to be kept alive, which is a privilege that many of your Lord-

987
ships have had—I have twice had an operation myself and been allowed to survive—for such an experiment on an animal a special certificate must be obtained, in addition to the licence, and if that animal is a dog a still further certificate has to be taken out. Therefore, you see that dogs are already specially protected.
More than that, when you apply for a licence for an operation on a dog you have to state the reasons why the object of any experiment will necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a (log, and also why no other animal is available for any such experiment. But it does not even stop there. If the experiment is to be done without an anæsthetic another certificate has to be obtained before the animal can be operated upon, and a still further Certificate has to be obtained if the animal is a dog. You have also to give the assurance to which I have just referred. These experiments without an anesthetic which sound so dreadful to us are merely inoculations or feeding experiments, or the withdrawal of a drop of blood. In the returns of operations done without anæsthetics even sewage experiments on fish are included, so that when we see these horrible statistics of "thousands of operations done without anæsthetics" they are not really what you would ever dream of calling vivisection.
I have told the House about the two certificates, one allowing the animal to recover, and the other dispensing with anæsthetics. The Home Office have just issued their Report, and they say—
" In no case have certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics been allowed for any experiment involving a serious operation."
I should have thought that that was pretty conclusive. And I only mention it because the noble Lord who moved the Second Heading stated that it was possible for the Home Office to allow an experiment involving pain without an anæsthetic. All I can say is that that has never been allowed, and it would be straining the Act very much if it ever were allowed.
But the protection of dogs does not even stop there. Neither of the two certificates of which I have spoken is ever issued without the Home Office attaching to the certificate a condition which ensures that if, after the recovery from
988
the anæsthetic, the animal suffers from severe pain, or any pain likely to endure, it must be killed painlessly. If your Lordships doubt it, I will read it out at full length, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, shakes his head, perhaps he will read the certificate which I will hand to him.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There is a proviso, and the proviso is as follows—
NOBLE LORDS: Order ! order!
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I think that we dog lovers—and I am proud to number myself among them—may feel assured that dogs are sufficiently protected. This is not a Dogs Protection Bill; it is a Dogs Exclusion Bill.
And now let me show you whether there is any reason for excluding dogs. I do not know whether arguments ever move anybody, but I shall be very much surprised if I cannot show that there is not only no reason for excluding dogs, but there is every possible reason for including them, both for the sake of man and for the sake of dogs themselves. Apart from sentiment, it is very unwise to exclude any animals from the law of the country as regards operations, because researchers always select the animal which is most likely to be helpful for the experiment. If they are testing anthrax, they naturally have to experiment on sheep. If they are searching into lockjaw (tetanus) or glanders, they naturally select horses. If they are searching into hydrophobia or distemper, they naturally select dogs.
But with regard to dogs, this animal is more closely allied to man in what I may call its internal arrangements than is any other animal. For a vast number of experiments rats, mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits are used. But, as soon as it becomes necessary to analyse the processes in separate organs, such as the heart and the kidneys, recourse has to be made to the larger animals. I am speaking carefully, not at random. I have taken a great deal of trouble to ensure that what I say should be strictly accurate. The whole physiological process in dogs approaches that of man more than it does that of any other animal. The dog is not only carnivorous, but he lives and thrives on the same food as man, and his digestive processes are the same. And therefore it is essential

989
that dogs should be used for experiments. Until quite recently, some of the commonest disorders of the human heart were not understood at all. They were a mystery to us. By means of experiments on dogs, completely anæsthetised and killed before recovery, a certain professor has been able to discover the reason of these disorders, and the discovery of the reason of the disorders is the first step towards the prevention of them, and treatment of them. There is not a single scientific man in this country who would deny the truth of what I have said about that work upon hearts. That work could only have been done on dogs, and the experimenter had to say so before he obtained his certificate to carry out those operations.
A great deal of work in regard to the kidneys and respiration also has been done upon dogs; but I will not generalise. Let me give to your Lordships two outstanding instances which have taken place lately and all, mark you, since the Report of the Royal Commission. May I say, in passing, that the noble Lord forgot to tell you that the Royal Commission on Vivisection did not exempt dogs and made no recommendation to exempt dogs? The noble Lord who signed the Minority Report, Lord Lambourne, who, I understand, is going to speak, also never claimed or suggested that dogs should be exempted. I have the Report of the Royal Commission here if anyone should challenge that statement. On the contrary, the Royal Commission suggested that if dogs were included they should come under the same certificates as mules and asses. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the Royal Commission which sat and inquired into the question and took all the evidence upon it, suggested that doge should be excluded. On the contrary.
Now let me give your Lordships two outstanding instances which alone would justify our throwing such a Bill as this into the rubbish heap, because both of the inquiries that I am going to mention now would have been absolutely impossible had this Bill been the law of the land. You all know the Government Medical Research Council, of which Lord Moulton was. I think, the first Chairman. He was followed by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and then by Lord Goschen. My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor is now its
990
President. That Council has issued a very, very striking Report on rickets. Rickets is a disease of children leading to the deformation of limbs, to bandy legs and other grave secondary results, leaving a child to grow up deformed and unable to walk properly. The Report states that a large number of feeding experiments were made, that puppies were fed in two different ways, some puppies with an abundance of food and other puppies with an abundance of food, but in one case the food was without certain constituents. It was found that the puppies that were fed on food which was without those constituents developed rickets, while the others had no rickets, and if the particular constituents were supplied to the puppies that had rickets, the rickets disappeared. Those experiments could not have been carried out under the present Bill. What has been the result of them? The result is that rickets is understood and conquered and that no mother in England or anywhere else, need ever allow her child to suffer from rickets. That result was brought about, at the expense of feeding a few puppies in one way or another! This Bill would have stopped that.
Where is the humanity of such a Bill? Have we no sense of proportion at all? Is the discomfort, or even the pain, of a few dogs to be put against the saving of thousands and thousands of children from dragging out their miserable lives in deformity? Because of the discomfort to a few puppies, are we to think nothing of parents who will be saved the misery of seeing their children growing up deformed? I think the noble Lord is too much of a sportsman, and too kind a man, to proceed with this Bill in the face of such facts as these. I do not think he could have known of them, or studied them. The Council conclude their Report with something against this very Bill. They say—
" They cannot do otherwise than raise their protests against what we must deem the inhumanity of placing any hindrances in the way of those working for the diminution of this total volume of human and animal pain."
Am I really to answer the statement of the noble Lord that dogs arc used because they are cheap? The noble Lord has too much good sense to think that this can be the reason, or that a

991
man who is going to engage in research into a subject is going into the question of a few shillings one way or the other. That is a suggestion which is utterly unworthy; especially when we know that the men who are carrying out these researches are possessed of some of the finest intellects in the world and are receiving salaries which are not quite so large as that received by a first class clerk. If they are poor the dogs are not paid for by the men themselves. They are provided by the college—but I will not pursue that argument. It is beneath one.
I have mentioned the case of rickets and now let me take a still more striking instance—insulin, which, however, is not yet a cure. I am really sorry to trouble your Lordships for so long. I have never done so before, but this is too important a matter to be answered in a moment. Insulin was discovered by Dr. Banting in Canada solely and only by means of operations and experiments on dogs, and he has just received the Nobel Prize as a recognition of his great work for humanity. By experiments on dogs Dr. Banting was able to isolate the substance which, given off by the pancreas (or sweetbread as we know it), absorbs the sugar in the body. That had never been done before. Having got it, what was he to do with it? He had then to give a dog diabetes and by injecting this substance to find out whether this substance, thus introduced artificially into the dog, would work in the same way as if it were given off normally by the pancreas. It did, and the disease is now controlled.
The Anti-Vivisection party claim that the disease is not cured. It is not cured. Food does not prevent hunger returning. Insulin, which this substance is called, does not prevent diabetes returning. But as food is to hunger, so is insulin to diabetes. If your Lordships were to see, as I have often seen, the marvellous effect of a dose of insulin on a patient, you would be dumbstruck. It does not seem that I have become dumbstruck, it makes me talk. But you see a patient come into hospital with large eyes, sunken face, and stooping figure. He is given insulin. It is not a conjuring trick ; it is a miracle. In quite a short time that man is bright and happy, and smiling again,
992
and his disease is forgotten. There are many patients brought into hospital upon whom you cannot operate because they have diabetes. If a person has diabetes a wound docs not heal up. Give the patient insulin, and you can operate. This discovery has been made absolutely and entirely and only by operations on dogs, which would have been impossible under the present Bill. It would be distorted humanity which would keep food from a hungry man, and I venture to think it is distorted humanity that would keep insulin from a diabetic patient.
So far I have only spoken of the advantage of experiment on dogs for the advantage of man. Now let me speak for a moment upon the advantage to dogs themselves. How many of us who love our dogs have not seen dog after dog die of distemper—a miserable death, often a very painful one? I could almost, wear mourning for the rest of my life for two dogs that I loved so much which died of distemper. At long last, owing to the energy and enterprise of the Editor of The Field, Sir Theodore Cook, we have got organised a proper research into distemper, and it may be that before very long distemper will be an unknown illness among dogs. We may save all these dogs' lives. But this precious Bill would stop that. If you are going to have research into distemper you must first ascertain and isolate what carries the disease. Is it got from the sputum? Is it got from the fæces? Is it caught from the breath of the dog? You must first isolate a microbe, and, having got the microbe, you must give a dog distemper from it to see if you have the right microbe, and then you must try to discover the anti-toxin which will kill that microbe. Then you will conquer the disease.
I wonder whether, if dogs could speak, they would claim this exemption. The noble Lord has read out some beautiful lines which, owing to my weakness, I could not hear, but I am sure they were beautiful by the tear in his voice as he read them. But the more noble he makes; out dogs to be, the more I wonder whether, if dogs could speak, they would claim exemption from suffering for the benefit of their fellow-dogs. Men have not claimed it. There are many instances of men submitting to vivisection

993
for the benefit of their fellow-men. You all know what the Americans did in the work about yellow fever. It is not very long ago that, during the war, when it was thought prussic acid vapour would kill people, young Dr. Barcroft went into a chamber full of prussic acid vapour to see whether it would kill him or not. Thank goodness it did not.
I am afraid I have been very long, but it is necessary once and for all to put the whole case before you. I hope that the majority for the rejection of the Bill will be such that it will not be brought up, year after year.
Lest you should think that I have been merely giving my own opinion, and lest you should feel, as I am sure many must feel, that I am not in a position to ask that my opinion should be given any undue weight, and lest any one of you may have been moved by the statement of the noble Lord who is responsible for this Bill that dogs were not necessary for the purpose of experiment, let, me read to you the most wonderful letter, or protest, that has ever been sent to any Government Department. When this Bill was before the House of Commons in 1919, the Royal College of Physicians sent a protest to the Home Secretary as follows:—
"The Royal College of Physicians, in full meeting, hereby records its opinion that the passing into law of the Dogs Protection Bill will greatly retard the progress of our knowledge with regard to the prevention and treatment of disease."
Of course, your Lordships can take the noble Lord's opinion against that of the Royal College of Physicians.
Let us, next, have the view of the Royal College of Surgeons :—
" The Council of the Royal College of Surgeons are of opinion that the Dogs Protection Bill, if passed into law, will seriously impede the progress of medical science in the country; and they view with great concern this proposal to prohibit a form of research through which knowledge of great value as regards the causes and treatment of disease has been acquired in the past."
Lord Banbury said it has not; the College of Surgeons says it has. And again:—
" The Royal Society of Medicine, representing as it docs every branch of the medical profession throughout the Empire, with full knowledge of the grave issues involved, feels bound to place on record its
994
earnest hope that the Dogs Protection Bill will not pass into law, as. if enacted, it would place this country at a great disadvantage as compared with all other civilised countries, and would practically compel our ablest workers to seek opportunities for preventive and curative research abroad."
The matter does not even stop there. At a special clinical meeting of the British Medical Association a resolution was passed to the effect that they had
" heard with dismay of the possibility of the passage through the House of Commons of the Bill to prohibit experiments on dogs."
Therefore it is not only my opinion. It is the opinion of all these leading societies representing the medical profession in our country. In the face of such testimony, can we possibly have any doubt what we ought to do with this Bill, or where real humanity lies?
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" now ") and at the end of the Motion insert (" this day six months ").—(Viscount Knutsford.)
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Banbury for this reason. I was a member of a Commission which sat for many years, and examined many witnesses, and my name ha" been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford. As my noble friend Lord Banbury has told you, this Bill has been several times before Parliament, and it was only by an accident that it did not become law. The exemption of dogs was lost by a majority of one only. It has been stated that before the Royal Commission on Vivisection no mention was made of dogs, but I would point out that in our Report we said—
" The representations made to us for the complete exemption of any class of animal from all experiments under the Act have been strongest in the case of dogs."
And the Bill was only lost by one vote. The noble Viscount, when quoting with regard to animals found to be suffering pain by reason of experiments, left out this part of the quotation: "If the main result of the experiment has been attained."
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Will the noble Lord read the next part which says that the animal has to be killed ?
LORD LAMBOURNE: Yes. "The animal must be forthwith painlessly killed."
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Read on please.
LORD LAMBOURNE: "If the animal after and by reason of such experiment is found to be suffering severe pain, which is likely to endure, such animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed whether the main result of the experiment has been attained or not." The noble Viscount expressed a hope that if we were defeated by a large majority to-day we should never trouble this House again. All I can say, speaking for myself, is that so long as I have power to utter two words so long shall I endeavour to bring the case of dogs before your Lordships, and I believe that my noble friend, Lord Banbury of Southam, will also be among those who will still urge the claim for the exemption of the dog, qua dog, as an animal which has been brought up with man, associated with man, and raised to the high degree of intelligence which is possessed by it to-day.
The noble Viscount's quotations left me entirely cold. He says that the medical profession is against this Bill. I do not wonder at it. May I ask whether the assistance of that profession was ever obtained in support of the various Bills which have been passed for the protection of dogs? I am not aware of any petitions in favour of their exemption, and I have no doubt they think that experiments on dogs, without anæsthetics in former days, are absolutely necessary. We were told that the profession would suffer if vivisection was hedged around by all these various Acts. It has been found, however, that our great medical profession, which I very much admire, has not suffered in any way; and it has not lost ground in comparison with other nations because experiments are hedged round with so many licences.
The noble Viscount also quoted what he called two striking examples—rickets and diabetes. When you talk about rickets it is quite true that modern discoveries, and also the evidence given before the Commission, show that certain foods are found to be beneficial, but the noble Viscount forgot to say that daylight and sunlight play an equally important part in the cure
996
of rickets. He also mentioned that a human being offered himself willingly for sacrifice. Yes, but that was a human being who could say "Yes" or "No." You take a dog which is unable to say "Yes" or "No," and unable to escape from the operation which is to be performed. It has also been said that it is difficult to exempt a class of animal from these experiments. That contention was felt by the Commission, but may I point out that the use of dogs for traction purposes is entirely prohibited ; and they are so exempted as a class of animal? They are specially exempted from a practice which is quite common abroad.
I add my humble petition to members of this House that they will exercise their judgment and exclude dogs from operations. And let me say one word on the question of distemper as a reason for rejecting this Bill. It would be perfectly easy by an Amendment in Committee, which I am sure my noble friend would accept, to make an exception in the case of that particular disease. But I do ask the House not to reject the measure. I will not trouble your Lordships with horrible descriptions with which one might raise feelings. That would not be quite fair, and it might give a false impression that we were accusing the medical profession of cruelty. We do not do anything of the sort. Those engaged in that profession are humane, but they are mistaken in thinking that the dog is to be used commonly for all these operations, which, I believe, might be made on other animals.
LORD RAYLEIGH: My Lords, I crave your indulgence in addressing you for the first time on a subject which I have had very much at heart all my working life. The noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill dwelt on many of the points on which I had intended to address you, but there are one or two others which still remain and which I will put before you as briefly as I can. In the first place, on the question as to what really is the view of the medical profession. I have lived all my life in scientific circles and I speak from personal knowledge, from daily communion with people who are actually doing the work of discovery in physical

997
science, and with physiologists, and I say without the slightest hesitation that they do in their hearts believe in the necessity for using dogs for experimental purposes. It is not very satisfying to be told that you must accept this or that view because it is the view of the experts. In this country we are traditionally averse from accepting without examination the views of experts, but there are cases where we do so without any hesitation, and, after all, if you consider the matter, you will see that this must be one of them.
Nature does not give up her secrets easily. It is a delicate and difficult art to force her to disclose them, and no one who has not tried it can have any appreciation of how difficult it is. What would be thought if the noble Lord who introduced this Bill proposed, in the case of experiments in electricity, to lay down what materials are or are not necessary in order that they may be successful? The noble Lord would not profess to give any opinion on such a subject unless his prejudices were concerned. That is the reason why he professes to know better than those who are actually concerned to decide what is or is not necessary.
It is only for that reason that such a view is entertained for a moment. But, as I have said, it is unpleasant to be told that you are to take an opinion because it is the opinion of the people who ought to know. Let me endeavour then to supplement that which the noble Viscount. Lord Knutsford, has said as to the reasons why dogs are more necessary for experimental purposes than other animals. In any operation of a manipulative character—and I use the word "operation" in a generalised sense; I am not speaking only of surgical operations, but of mechanical operations—there is a particular size of the object operated upon which offers the greatest advantages. I think your Lordships will appreciate that point very clearly if you consider the ease of watches and clocks. It. is obviously very much easier to repair a dock which is of substantial size and comparable with the hands of the operator than to deal even with an ordinary watch, and still more with one of those very small fancy watches which you sometimes see used by ladies. Obviously, the difficulties of manipulation must become very much greater when the thing with which
998
you are dealing is inconveniently small compared with the size of your hands and with the distances which you can conveniently appreciate, with the unaided eye. That is one of the chief reasons why operations on dogs are far easier to carry out than corresponding operations on other animals, such as rabbits or eats, where the organs which it is necessary to manipulate are smaller, where it is more difficult to make junctions and to perform the various operations which it is necessary to carry out. These are far more difficult in the case of the small and delicate organs of rabbits and eats than in the case of the large and comparatively substantial organs of dogs. That, together with the facility with which dogs are obtained, is the real reason why dogs are, in practice, so very much more necessary than other animals for purposes of experiment.
It is, of course, easy to sneer at the question of cost, but I put it to your Lordships, is not the question of cost a question that controls almost every human activity? Why do we not give everybody an old age pension from the age of forty? It is for this same reason which has been referred to so contemptuously—that it costs too much. You must have regard to the question of cost. It limits all human operations. Monkeys, which may be used alternatively to dogs, are, as the noble Lord remarked, extremely costly. They are extremely delicate also: they die very quickly of consumption when kept in this country, and the practical difficulties involved in substituting them for dogs are very grave. For some classes of work, particularly in diseases which affect monkeys alone, it is necessary to resort to monkeys, but the expense and difficulty of procuring them and the obstacles which they place in the way of experiments are notoriously very great. I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I have put before you the main points which I had in mind, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that you will not put this great obstacle in the way of those who are earnestly seeking to penetrate the secrets of pain and disease.
LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE: My Lords, I have not ventured previously to address your Lordships' House, and I do so far from confidently, for thirty-seven

999
years of membership of another place have not made it any less necessary that I should beg for your kindly indulgence and toleration. I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. As a dog-lover, looking back over a long life, I remember that I owe most of my fun to the dog, and I am the very last person to neglect the interests of dogs. I may say with no reservations that those interests stand first, or at least very high, m my thoughts. But experience has taught me that you cannot consider this question from an ex parte point of view, as I have learned from my experience for many years on the managing body of a great London hospital, on the Cancer and Medical Research Committee of the same, and, to an even greater degree, a" one of the three lay members of the Medical Research Council.
Your Lordships may know that that Council is the body appointed by the Government, through the Privy Council, to superintend and encourage the work of medical research throughout the country. It consists of ten of the very highest authorities in the world of medical science, coming from all parts of the kingdom, from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as from London and other centres. To them were added three lay members, our former Chairman, the late Viscount Goschen—I wish he were here to speak to us to-day—a Member of the House of Commons, and myself as treasurer. We are entrusted with an annual sum of £130,000 to encourage research, not only at our great hospitals but also by the small man, the young doctor, the man of brains and enterprise, who is sought out and encouraged and relieved of anxiety in a pecuniary sense. Our monthly meetings are naturally of absorbing interest, for the story of medical research is often like a fairy tale, so great, so unexpected and so entertaining are its developments.
I am not going to detain your Lordships by enlarging upon what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, regarding the Medical Research Council, but I am authorised to endorse all he has said, and so well said, on behalf of that Council. I was amazed when I heard the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill contend that dogs were not wanted, but after what has been said I need not catalogue all the ills
1000
which have been wonderfully alleviated by the dog. As Lord Knutsford 6aid, almost all that we know about the processes of digestion, about the work of the heart, about the circulation of the blood, has been due to the help of the dog. Nor will I repeat what the noble Viscount so admirably said about the work of the Medical Research Council in connection with insulin and rickets. He has not said a word too much, and I think noble Lords generally are aware what an immense boon these discoveries have conferred upon the population.
Those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have attempted to minimise its effects. But make no mistake: if this Bill is passed, it will remove dogs altogether from experimental work in medicine, not only as regards operations under anæsthetics but also the experimental infliction, for instance, of distemper, with a view to protecting dogs themselves from that disease. This is a point upon which I should like to add a word before I sit down. The Medical Research Council has a farm at Mill Hill, near London, and there, with the admirable help of The Field Distemper Fund, we have been carefully constructing kennels where, under ideal conditions, puppies will be housed. Our expert staff provides for the welfare of newborn puppies in disinfected kennels with infinitely greater care than would be given to them elsewhere. What is the procedure? For experimental purposes the puppy is painlessly inoculated with the disease of distemper, which he would almost certainly have contracted outside under more disadvantageous circumstances. Then he is probably cured, after contributing very substantially to the health and happiness of future members of his race.
Why did our Council in the first instance take such an interest in distemper research? It is because the malignant agency in the case of distemper is closely akin to that responsible for influenza in man. In both diseases the mischief is due to a filter-passing organism of extremely minute proportions. Our research staff, who, I believe, are amongst the cleverest in the world, have not got this organism yet, but are hard upon its track, and my point is that the more we get to know about distemper in dogs the more shall we be able to cope with the horrible scourge of influenza. It

1001
is regarded as certain by scientists that organisms of a filter-passing kind are responsible for a whole group of infectious diseases, including small-pox, chicken pox, whooping cough, infantile paralysis, rabies, etc. It is also regarded as highly probable that rheumatic and scarlet fever belong to this category, and it is certain that foot-and-mouth disease, as well as swine fever, belongs to this group. Your Lordships will see that the study of the organism of dog distemper may at any moment, owing to improvements in laboratory methods, or some piece of knowledge gained in experiment, throw a Hood of light upon the whole group of diseases which I have enumerated. It is even supposed that cancer and other diseases of man may be connected with the same cause.
The mover of this Bill would at once make illegal all our work upon distemper, which is at present the subject of rigid control from the Home Office. The Bill seeks to demolish this wise control, and to substitute total and final prohibition. It is really laughable to call this a Dogs Protection Bill, since it will stop any form of work in the direction of diminishing the serious pain at present suffered by dogs when they get distemper. I ask your Lordships, finally, to notice, that it is only lack of progress in the study of these filter-passing organisms which prevents our ability to cope with foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. As your Lordship" know, a Committee has recently been appointed by the Government for research into the question of foot-and-mouth disease. It aims at stemming a plague which has cost the public purse over £3,000,000 in eight months. This Committee contains workers in dog distemper inquiry and it illustrates the value which one side of research work may have in solving another side of it, and the no less intimate connection in many respects between human and animal ills. I feel I have spoken too long on this subject, in which I am very deeply interested, and I will conclude by saying to your Lordships: Do not, by passing this Bill, stop all this work which is of such vital importance to suffering humanity. Lord Knutsford, when he spoke, wondered what dogs would say if they could speak. If they could speak, and as we dog-lovers know some of them do very nearly speak, I believe that they would state their readiness to aid us in
1002
return for all the care and affection which is very rightly lavished upon them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I do not rise to continue the discussion on the evidence, but I wish to say something in the hope that it may assist those who may desire information with regard to the operation of the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, and the work of the two Royal Commissions. I speak as one who, until a few days ago, was Chairman of the Committee of the Home Office to which the question of serious experiments on animals had been referred. The Committee to which I allude was set up some time ago, and the practice has been that the Chairman should be somebody of judicial experience. I succeeded the late Lord Moulton in that position, and I resign it now only because I found it impossible to give the necessary time. During the period that I was Chairman I was not absent from a single sitting. The duty of the Chairman is to preside over the Committee, which consists of very eminent surgeons, physicians and physiologists.
They meet at the Home Office, and their function is this. There is a small corps appointed by the Home Secretary, who possess high qualifications, and who visit-places registered for the performance of experiments on animals. They report on every application for a licence to perform such experiments sent into the Home Office. Nobody can get a licence who is not recommended by very high authority—the President of the Royal Society, or somebody holding an analogous position. Nobody gets a licence unless he is recommended by people w ho know his work and can testify to his capacity and the urgency of the experiments. The inspectors visit the premises. The bulk of the experiments involve no pain and no wounding, but there are some which do, and the first of the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act to which I have referred is that no experiment may be performed without an anæsthetic, or the animal kept alive afterwards, except under exceptional circumstances, and special permission has to be obtained from the Home Secretary.
When the inspectors have any doubt about the experiment they refer it to the Committee, who investigate the matter carefully, and permission is never given

1003
for any experiment that is in the least degree serious, much less painful or likely to result in wounding, unless the most serious case is made out for the experiment. More than that, if the experiment is by an unknown person, we always make certain that the person applying is really some one of high skill and science, and if necessary his work has to be supervised by some one on whom we can rely to see that the provisions of the licence are strictly carried out. In that way painful experiments on animals have been really reduced to a minimum. Only in rare cases are they painful, and in such cases permission is only given with reluctance. It is only given because human suffering could not otherwise be alleviated.
As to the cases which have been referred to, the dog is a peculiar animal in that his mode of livelihood is not diverse from that of the human being, and the kind of food which he consumes is similar to ours. That has been a circumstance of the greatest importance in investigating the action of diet upon such questions as have been referred to today—rickets, tetanus and other things of the kind. Without the dog we could not have had the experiments with any hope of getting to the root of the scientific problem which was to be solved if the disease was to be treated and its cause ascertained. For that reason the Home Office is very stringent in the supervision of these experiments. It considers these experiments to be necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is the Minister responsible for research, and he will state to your Lordships the reason for the attitude of the Government, and the attitude of the Government is that it cannot approve of the provisions of a Bill which would put an end to some of the most essential research that has taken place.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, as has been stated, I am the Minister responsible for the work of the Medical Research Council. There are one or two statements that I should like to make in order that your Lordships may know what is the unanimous opinion of that Council. Its Report for 1919—it was a Committee at the time—has been referred to. In it the following words occur:—
" It is the considered and unanimous judgment of the Committee that the proposals of the Dogs Protection Bill, now under discussion, would place an insuperable and
1004
permanent barrier across some of the chief paths of this work."
The present Council has met and has unanimously reaffirmed this statement.
It will be sufficient if I state what the Council says upon the one or two points which have been brought to the notice of your Lordships. Of course, we all sympathise with the noble Lords, Lord Banbury and Lord Lambourne, in their love of dogs, but it is a question really of what should be the proper method of scientific research in matters of this kind. The Council says this about rickets:—
" Till quite recently this disease was rife in all our great cities, and is, perhaps, the gravest form of deformity, stunted growth, and disease in children. Thanks to feeding experiments on dogs, quite painless in kind, we have recently gained the knowledge that rickets is not due to some mysterious infection or indisposition; it is due to faulty diet. It is now an easily preventible disease …. This brilliant work has been recognised and confirmed in other countries. In the past few years rickets, once to be seen in one child in every three in our big cities, has become a rare disease. Already hundreds of thousands of children owe their health, and even their lives, to these feeding experiments on puppies. Work of this kind is an unending benefaction, but the proposed Bill would stop it altogether."
Can there be any answer to such a statement made by a scientific council to which work of this kind has been allocated by Parliament?
Then there is the invention of insulin. I dare say your Lordships know that "insulin" comes from insula, or island, because it was discovered that owing to disorganisation in certain islands sugar absorption was not carried off and diabetes was consequently widely spread. The Council say—
" Since the Memorandum of 1911 medical science has been enriched by the successful production of insulin, by which already thousands of sufferers from diabetes have been restored to normal health and full working power."
They go on to say that the experiments as regards insulin could only be carried on successfully in the case of dogs.
There is one other matter which is referred to, and that is distemper in dogs. The noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, suggested that there might be an exception made in that case. But surely if you have an exception in that case why should you abandon the possibility of finding relief from these great human evils, such as diabetes and rickets? On the subject of distemper the Council

1005
report that they are actively co-operating in the inquiry into that disease, and that hopeful progress has already been made. This work, they add, can only proceed by careful experiments in which puppies may be given distemper for the proper scientific study of the disease, under controlled conditions. These puppies, in normal circumstances, would in any case almost certainly fall victims to distemper. I need not emphasise those simple statements. Surely they are conclusive that, under the safeguards which have been stated by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, these experiments should be allowed to continue. They have resulted in saving hundreds of thousands of people from misery, both as regards diabetes and rickets. I have nothing more to say, because I think the matter is too clear to need argument.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLBSTON: My Lords, this is a matter upon which every noble Lord will give his vote according to his personal sense of what is right and proper, and it certainly is not a case in which any sort of political advice or guidance is required. The only reason for which I intervene for a moment between the House and the Division is this. On two occasions during the last fortnight I have presumed to advise your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill the principle of which met with large acceptance in your Lordships' House and the details of which it was extremely desirable that you should have the opportunity of considering in. Committee. If I am unable to give that advice to-night it is, I think, only right and proper in self-defence that I should give my reasons. The second reason for which I intervene is this. Being rather closely connected with the University of Oxford, I have had representations made to me by the eminent men of science who are associated with that place, urging me not to let the voice of Oxford on its scientific side be silent in the present discussion. Those are my two reasons for saying a word on this subject. I do not imagine for a moment that the advice given by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, to my two noble friends behind me, if their Bill is rejected to-night never to put it forward again, is in the smallest degree likely to be accepted.
LORD LAMBOURNE: Hear! hear!
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: I know that Lord Banbury is one of the most determined of the human race. I know also Lord Lambourne, who combines geniality with almost equal resolution. And I am certain that, whatever we say here, this hardy annual will reappear before your Lordships as long as those two noble Lords shed the light of their countenance upon us. But that docs not deter us from expressing our view, and expressing it, as I hope we shall do, in no measured terms.
We have had to-night what, I venture to think, has been a rather remarkable debate. In the first place, Lord Knutsford, speaking with an authority unique in this country, with an experience that no man can rival, and with not only great scientific knowledge but a sense of humanity which nobody will impugn, in a speech of by no means excessive length put before us what we may call the scientific and research side of this question. And when the noble Viscount pleaded, in favour of his making rather a long speech, that he intervened so rarely, I only hope that his abstention from debate will be continued if it results in the end in a speech so good as that we have heard this evening. Then we have had two maiden speeches, one from the noble Lord, Lord Rayleigh, himself a man of science of great distinction, and the son of one of the most eminent men who ever adorned the benches of this House; and the other from Lord Mildmay, who spoke with great force and ability in the same sense. I say that that has constituted rather a remarkable record of debate.
And what is the impression left upon my mind, and, I presume, upon the minds of most of us? I had the misfortune, owing to engagements elsewhere, not to hear the speech of my noble friend, Lord Banbury. I am very sorry for my own loss, but still I know the case pretty well, because I have heard it debated on previous occasions in the House of Commons and elsewhere. What did the noble Viscount establish? Surely what is a truism known to and admitted by ail-firstly, that over a long period of time the results, to the gain of humanity, obtained by these experiments upon dogs have been of incalculable benefit. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate them. Further, that in recent years from the continuance of these experiments in the cases which

1007
he mentioned—the case of diabetes and the ease of rickets in particular—notable discoveries to the benefit of humanity have ensued. And what personally affected me very much—being also a dog lover in a small way-was his reference to distemper; the fact that the researches that are being made will have the double effect, as he hopes, of diminishing the risks and chances of distemper in the case of dogs, and the horrible tortures that we have all of us seen in the case of our dogs who have died of distemper, and will also have a reflex influence upon the good of the human race as a whole. That, it seems to me, has been established. The second thing that has been established, and confirmed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, is that these experiments are only conducted under the most rigid scrutiny, exercised by the most competent men, with the most earnest desire to avoid anything in the nature of unnecessary pain. Licences or certificates are issued only to competent persons and with the utmost care and examination beforehand.
If this debate has established (as it has, and, indeed, it. is well known) those two conclusions, can your Lordships have any doubt as to the Vote which you should give? I do not think that we ought to be influenced in the smallest degree by what has happened in another place. I have never known them to pay much attention to what we do here. Let us act upon our own judgment and upon our own opinions, and I certainly for one shall vote unhesitatingly against giving a Second Reading to the Bill of my noble friends.
On Question, Motion negatived, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LEGITIMACY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Bill read 3a: privilege Amendments made.
Clause 1 :
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
(4) The Registrar-General may, on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert the following new subsection:—
" (4) Any one of the matters and things following may be admitted as evidence tending to prove that an illegitimate person is the child of parents who have inter-married after his or her birth:—

(1) An affiliation order.

(2) An avowal made by the father on the occasion of the registration of the birth or of the baptism and recorded in the certificate.

(3) An avowal made by the father in writing at the time of the marriage and delivered by him to the minister or officer performing the marriage ceremony, which minister or officer shall forthwith transmit the same to the Registrar-General for safe custody.

(4) An avowal made by the father in writing and transmitted to the Registrar-General within one year of the marriage.

(5) Any satisfactory evidence produced to the Registrar-General within one year of the marriage to authorise the re-registration of the birth as that of a legitimated person, which registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulation!? prescribe.

Unless one of the matters and things above-mentioned is first proved, no proof that the illegitimate person is such child as aforesaid shall be admitted"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise for introducing an Amendment at this stage, but the discussion of this Bill has developed at different stages constant doubts in the minds of many noble Lords as to whether its provisions have not been made too drastic in the public interest. The Amendment which I ventured to place upon the Paper has high legal support. No fewer than four of the highest legal authorities in this House have examined and approved the Amendment and it has been actually drawn by one of them. I desire to point out that the absence of some provision

1009
of this kind would complicate what has always been an extremely doubtful condition of things. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill has taken the view throughout this discussion that the interests of any individual affected by the Bill are more important than the interests of those who, though not suffering from disabilty, will also be affected by the Bill.
In the course of the discussion on the Report stage three legal members of your Lordships' House—Lord Phillimore, Lord Shandon and another—introduced fresh arguments and fresh cases which I venture to say had not occurred to any of the lay members of the House. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill also made a statement which probably not one member sitting on the Benches behind me was aware of—that when the Bill becomes law the existing difference between real and personal estate will have vanished and there will be no transmission to the eldest child. That is a very far reaching provision, and it is quite clear that under this Bill these questions will immediately arise. Take the case of a man who, after many years, has made up his mind (having, perhaps, been married in the interval) to marry the woman by whom he had an illegitimate child There is no attempt to obtain publicity which would enable inquiries to be made as to the offspring's legitimacy. He may go in a clandestine manner to a registry office and no member of his family may suspect what has occurred. There is nothing in the Bill to force him or any other authority to establish what children are affected by this action of his. As a matter of fact, in many cases it would be the object of those chiefly concerned to keep the whole thing as quiet as possible.
There are two classes who may be greatly affected. Take the case of a man in the humbler walks of life. In the course of the last few weeks we have seen, I will not say practical unanimity, but a very strong feeling, in another place that widows should be provided with pensions. I happen to live near Aldershot, and I can assure your Lordships that the levity with which marriages were contracted during the war by men going to the front (sometimes the day before they went away) in order to obtain for the
1010
women the advantages of a pension, was very great, and I think it is extremely likely that if a system of pensions is adopted in the future there may be a double incentive—the fact that if a man goes through a form of marriage with a woman whom he formerly wronged, it will not merely legitimise the children but: will give her some substance on which to live. My noble and learned friend may say that that is a great advantage, but besides the illegitimate child for which the man was responsible, there may be other children who have been born in the years during which the parties concerned never met.
Observe what the effect of that would be on the legitimate offspring of a marriage. I do not labour the point of the personal feeling which would be aroused when things were learned that were never before known. Remember that these things have been sprung upon the legitimate children. Remember, too, that the fact that there is another family who are to share their inheritance has been unknown to them, and that they have no power whatever of making investigations many-years afterwards as to which members of this other family may legitimately claim to share with them the inheritance. When the noble and learned Lord deals with this question, he invariably tells your Lordships that every man will make proper provision in his will to meet these contingencies. With all due respect to my noble and learned friend, I do not think that is so.
A great many people who ought to know the law either do not know, or forget, that marriage vitiates and nullifies a will already made. I believe there are many men who have not the slightest idea that on their marriage they are intestate until they make a fresh will. Even those who know make the most terrible mistakes. A legal member of this House who died not so very long ago, and who had himself presided over the Probate Court for many years, so far forgot all the rules he himself had been administering as to put two material pages into his will twelve years afterwards, and never had them witnessed. I think that in the case of marriages many of which are celebrated as quietly as possible, and in which there would be no question of settlements to bring in lawyers, it may be admitted that there is very great danger of intestacy.

1011
Therefore I submit to your Lordships that the provisions which I have ventured to put down are absolutely necessary.
If the noble and learned Lord succeeds in persuading Parliament absolutely to reverse what has hitherto been the practice—that bastards do not rank as legitimate children—if he persuades Parliament to take that step, then I say that, in justice to those who are legitimate, he ought to protect them to the extent of not throwing upon them the onus of carrying on legal proceedings many years afterwards in order to discover which members of another family have a right to enter into co-possession with them. I will not say anything on the question of titles, because the noble and learned Lord disclaims in the Bill that it affects succession to titles, but I would earnestly point out to your Lordships that I believe that before many years have passed some noble and learned Lord will come here and tell us that of all injustices you cannot have a greater than that of a child which is legitimated by the law being nevertheless unable to rank with his brothers for succession to title. Therefore I venture to urge that the House should be certain that those who are to have the advantage of the Bill should in reality be persons whom it is intended by the Bill to legitimate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I would not occupy time in connection with this Amendment were it not that I wish, so far as I can, to place upon record what not only is my opinion, but also, I am quite satisfied, the opinion of a very large section of people who are not lawyers, or in any sense objectors to the fair provisions of this Bill. I realise, as did the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that it does seem a little late in our proceedings that this matter, which is a very serious one, should come up to be discussed. I confess that I had omitted to notice it until a late stage of Report, and I said that that being so it would not fairly rest with me, having made that blunder, further to interfere. But the matter now comes before your Lordships in the form of an Amendment, and I certainly wish, late though it be, to urge your Lordships to consider and vote in favour of this Amendment. After
1012
all, our procedure is elastic, and very properly so. If it does permit an Amendment of this kind, even at a late stage, to be moved, I think that is all to the good. It is never too late to look back so long as there is a possibility of preventing the doing of a thing which may be inopportune or inadvisable.
The principle which is contained in this Bill has unquestionably the approval of your Lordships' House. I think it also has the approval of the great majority of His Majesty's subjects. As I said in the debate, it has my whole-hearted approval, but we must not forget that we are now altering something that has been the law for centuries. That is not a reason why, if it is wrong, we should not alter it, but it is a reason why, even on the Third Reading, we should see that perhaps we do not go a little too far, and do not do something which may be very wrong indeed. In the course of the debate it was urged that there were many points in this Bill which, if they became law without restrictions, might do serious wrong. The answer to that was given by the noble and learned Lord. "Oh no," he said, in effect, "because it is a question of evidence. The Courts are always open; the Courts may be looked to to weigh the evidence for and against. Our law of evidence is of that elastic nature that we pride ourselves upon it, and it is good." But elasticity may perhaps not be an unmixed blessing, and it seems to me that that may be found to be so in cases of this kind which may arise.
Evidence in connection with this matter of legitimacy or illegitimacy may frequently be quite clear. If a man and woman during their life-time treat the offspring which are irregularly brought into the world as being their children, and there is clear evidence of that, it is quite right that those children should be legitimated. But there may be instances in which the contrary is the case. And these are not the only cases that may arise. There are some of us who can see a great many eases in which injury may be done unless care is taken in framing the law which regulates these matters. So I think it is necessary that there should be some safeguards introduced, and I regard this as an attempt, it may be an imperfect attempt, but an intelligent attempt, to do so and to effect a compromise between the too strict provisions of

1013
foreign codes and our perhaps too elastic procedure. I am entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I think it is good sense to place some reasonable restrictions on the manner in which parentage is to be established.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Amendment did not disguise his genuine dislike of the whole Bill, and he devoted not a little part of his speech to general strictures upon the measure itself. Indeed, his strictures barely stopped there. So far as.I can understand he complained bitterly of the fact that I should have announced to an astonished House the fact that an Act of Parliament was passed through both Houses of Parliament two years ago. It really is not my fault, the noble Earl will, I trust, believe me, that a Bill has been passed which assimilates the descent of real and personal property. It is the fault of this House as much as anybody else's, and of the noble Earl among others, and he may again express the sense of astonishment he feels when I tell him what the law is going to be at the expiration of twelve months. But I am not going to pursue these matters as they are wholly irrelevant to the Amendment which is now before your Lordships for your consideration.
What is the Amendment? It is this. It is an attempt to establish a series of fixed and inflexible rules by which, and by which alone, the legitimation of a person who is made legitimate by this Bill can be established. As the Bill stands the position is this. A man is, in fact, legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents with the exception of the case which was removed from the operation of the Bill at the instance of the most rev. Primate. He is. in fact, legitimated by the marriage, but there still remains the question of proving that he was the child of the two parents who subsequently went through the marriage ceremony. The Bill provides that it is possible to have a re-registration of the birth, but it does not say, and it would be most unwise to attempt to say, that the re-registration of birth should be conclusive evidence that the child had become legitimate, because, in truth, no certificate of birth is ever proof of the birth itself. It is nothing but evidence, and good evidence of the birth. It has to be proved by some persons who
1014
can speak to the fact that the certificate is in fact the certificate of the birth of any particular person. The Amendment seems to have assumed that a certificate of birth is more efficacious, It is nothing at all.
And before whom is this evidence to be produced; Obviously, if there is an intestacy, it will have to be produced before the Court in which the intestate's estate, is being administered. In cases where there is a disputed claim under a will it will have to be produced before the Court which is administering the estate. What the Amendment seeks to do is to impose on the Judges who have to try the claim of the person legitimated by this Bill certain rules by which they must be bound, which they must accept, and beyond which they cannot go. What reason have you for fettering the hands of the Judges in this way? Why does this House think that it is more capable of assigning what are proper rules of evidence than the Judges who have to administer the law, who are there for the purpose of knowing what evidence should be received and what rejected; and to say that they can only accept certain definite and extremely unsatisfactory pieces of evidence, that they must act upon them even if they regard the matter—
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The noble and learned Lord will pardon me. If he will read the last sentence he will find the words, "unless one, of the matters and things above-mentioned is first proved."
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, "no proof … shall be admitted." As I read it unless it is proved, and it is essential that this should be proved, you cannot prove legitimation. ' I say again that it is tying the hands of the Judges. Why should you? Let me assume a case perfectly well known and easy to establish, of a child legitimated by the subsequent marriage, and that these formalities had not been complied with—formalities in an Act, of Parliament about which the noble Earl himself says it is extremely unlikely many people will know. If that is the case why should you deprive of the benefits of the Bill a man who is capable of being clearly established, to the satisfaction of the Judge who has to try the case, as the child of parents who subsequently married? I submit respectfully that it is a most unwise, a most undesirable, thing to lay down rules by which Judges

1015
must be bound in exercising their judicial functions. I have often thought, and I have often, I think, expressed to your Lordships, how much I personally regret that our wonderful, elastic, adaptable rules of common law are from time to time killed and made rigid by Acts of Parliament. It has always seemed to me that an Act of Parliament is nothing but a scar cut through the living tissue of the law. Nothing, I submit to your Lordships, can be worse than to introduce with regard to this matter rules of this kind, which do not exist at the present moment with regard to any similar case, and which impose upon the Judges conditions which, I submit with respect to your Lordships, the Judges are much better capable of making for themselves.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, this Bill, I venture to say, is a good Bill—I said so on the Second Beading—but, nevertheless, I submit to your Lordships that the Amendment of the noble Earl is a good Amendment. Let me put a practical case to your Lordships. A man has connection with a woman, who has a child. It may be his, or it may not be. She has other children, which may be his or may not be. Late in life he marries her, and, as the noble Lord has said, he forgets to make a fresh will. He dies, and those who succeed him on an intestacy succeed. His sisters, his brothers, his nephews and nieces, who have been expecting to benefit, suddenly hear of two or three or more children of a woman who, no doubt, at one time had some connection with this man, but who may have had connection with several others. It is almost impossible at that time of day to know whether these children are the children of the dead man or not.
Take a stronger case. When this Bill was before your Lordships' House last year it never, I think, reached Committee, but I have been refreshing my memory and I find that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, put down an Amendment, which would have been moved, and which was not unlike the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, moved in Committee, and which your Lordships in your wisdom saw fit to reject. That being so, a man may have connection with a woman, he may then marry and have legitimate children, his wife may die and he may marry the woman towards the end
1016
of his days. The legitimate children may then, for the first time, be told that there exist a child or children by this woman who are going to claim in competition or in equality with them. The object of this Amendment is not to prevent legitimation but to ensure that it is a genuine legitimation. I do not think the noble and learned Lord, who was rather fierce about this matter, has really put his mind to studying this Amendment. I speak with all respect. There are not a number of conditions, all of which must be fulfilled; there are a number of facultative conditions, any one of which may be fulfilled, any one of which would entitle the claimant to go on and prove his case. They do not bind the Judge to accept his claim, and any one of them will enable him to proceed with that claim.
Has the noble and learned Lord never heard of a case of breach of promise of marriage? Does he remember that when an Act of Parliament cut through the common law and enabled people who were interested to give evidence, an exemption was for a long time made with regard to cases of breach of promise of marriage, because it was felt that people were not to be trusted, and that a woman might give a story that the jury would accept as against the man? Ultimately, it was provided that her evidence is admissible, but it is not admissible unless it is supported by something else. Why, on the same principle, should not evidence in these cases be admissible, but only if supported by something else? I do not want to take your Lordships to French law, but it illustrates what I was going to say. In numbers of cases of contract under French law you must have first of all un commencement de preuve par écrit—something to start with. On the same sort of principle, and to avoid trumped-up claims, there should in these cases be some proof of some one of these things being done. After all, the object of many of these marriages will be to legitimate children and to make the thing regular. Do you suppose that the woman will not think that she ought to have something done to have her child taken care of? There are a number of conditions, any one of which will meet the case. This Amendment has now been down for a week. Surely the right course for the noble and learned Lord to take was to see if he could not improve the Amendment

1017
and add to its conditions, or substitute more easy conditions. As it stands, I submit to your Lordships that, for the sake of avoiding trumped-up claims, something like this ought to be passed.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I have found this a difficult Amendment to deal with, and my difficulty has not been diminished by the fact that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Rill, of whom it is rash ever to say that he does not understand anything, does not really seem to have understood the purpose and effect of this Amendment. If I understand it lightly, the purpose is this. My noble friend Lord Midleton says, and says truly, that the parents of an illegitimate child may be silent as to their parentage at the date of their marriage. They may say nothing at the time, and years afterwards somebody may say: "These two people have married: I was their illegitimate child, and I claim the benefit of the Act." That point might arise ten, twenty, thirty years after the marriage, for all that this Bill may say, and you will not only have great difficulty as to proof, but you may, as my noble friend says, disappoint the expectations, and, indeed, what appear to be the certainties, of other children of the same parents. The noble Earl wants an understanding; he wants to have some certainty in the matter.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble and learned Viscount tell me how, in the case that he proposes, this man is going to prove that he is the illegitimate child ?
VISCOUNT CAVE: He will be able to bring evidence, as people bring evidence to-day of matters which are said to have happened twenty or thirty years ago. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. That is the kind of process which he will have to go through. As I understand the Amendment, it does not say at ail that the Judges who have to try these cases are to accept this evidence, and this evidence only, nor, indeed, that they are in any way to be bound by this evidence if it is accepted.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT CAVE: No.
LOUD BUCKMASTER: You cannot get on without it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: That is exactly what I was going to say. What the Amendment says is that, unless these things have been done of the kind mentioned in the Amendment, then the Bill-shall not apply. What are the things which my noble friend lays down, not as proof, but as conditions precedent. He says, in substance, that one of three things must happen. Either there must have been an affiliation order, which is good prima facie evidence of parentage, or there must have been an avowal by the father at the date of the child's birth, or the date of the marriage, or proof of the parentage within one year after the marriage. One of those three things must have happened. Unless one of those three things has happened there shall be no proof of the parentage of the illegitimate child at all. I agree in principle with my noble friend. I think there ought to be some certainty in this matter at some reasonable time. In form I think the Amendment might be improved, but it is impossible for us to attempt to improve it to-day, and I do not want to pass by this Amendment because I am not entirely satisfied with its form. There will be opportunity in another place of reconsidering the form of the Bill, and I think my best course to-day would be to support the Amendment, hoping to see it put in a better form in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My purpose in rising is to offer to your Lordships such assistance as I can in coining to a conclusion on this Amendment. I own that I should not have thought it very difficult were it not for the important question raised by Lord Cave and Lord Phillimore. The Registrar-General is a mere administrative official, and he cannot make a thing res judicata. But the directions under this Amendment are not directions to the Registrar-General but to the Judges. I should be sorry to think that the discretion of the Judges in determining what evidence they are to act upon in deciding the question of legitimation should be fettered in the way which is proposed. The danger of the enumeration contained in this Amendment is that if these words are accepted they will go far to distract the attention of the Judges. In my opinion it would be far better to leave to competent Judges the application of rules of evidence in these cases, with which they

1019
are familiar, and which the Courts have been applying for centuries. I am very much opposed to distracting the attention of the Judges by putting in things which arc not only in some cases irrelevant but not exhaustive. If my noble friend Lord Buckmaster opposes this new subsection I shall support him.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I hope you will not reject this Amendment, although I agree that its form is capable of improvement. I do not read the Amendment in the sense in which the Lord Chancellor has just expressed himself. If I thought it were a series of directions to the Judges as to how, in ascertaining the question of parentage, they are to be guided, I should say that we had better not put it in. I think, however, that the whole object of this clause is to say that something must be done within a reasonable time to make it clear that this child is the acknowledged child of the father. It would be a most grievous state of affairs if, after fifty years, a family should suddenly come forward to interfere with the rights of legitimate children.
The view which I take of the Amendment is this: It does not say that the Judges are to attend to the following-points in making up their minds. What it says is that certain things must be done at a comparatively early period, before the Judges can entertain the question of the truth of the claim. The whole object is to secure something being done at an early date. Take the last sentence, which in my opinion gives the keynote of the whole thing. I am not sure that it would not have been better to have put it at the beginning. It says "unless one of the matters and things above mentioned is first proved, no proof that the illegitimate person is such child as aforesaid shall be admitted." That is to say, the claim is to be entertained only if early reasonable notice was given of the fact that this child was born of these parents.
What are the various ways in which that notice is to be given? In the first place, an affiliation order. That is the best possible evidence. Secondly, an avowal made by the father on the occasion of the registration of the birth or of the baptism and recorded in the certificate. That is notice at a very appropriate time and at an
1020
early date that the father admits paternity. Then there follow:—
(3) An avowal made by the father in writing at the time of the marriage and delivered by him to the minister or officer performing the marriage ceremony, which minister or officer shall forthwith transmit the same to the Registrar-General for safe custody.
(4) An avowal made by the father in writing and transmitted to the Registrar-General within one year of the marriage.
(5) Any satisfactory evidence produced to the Registrar-General within one year of the marriage to authorise the re-registration of the birth as that of a legitimated person, which registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
Surely nothing can be more reasonable than to secure that before anyone is to be allowed to come before the Courts to establish that he is legitimated under this Bill notice should have been given in one of these five methods. That is the whole object of the Amendment. If I thought it did what Lord Buckmaster and the Lord Chancellor think I should be opposed to it, because I do not like giving directions to the Judges. But it does nothing of the kind. It merely imposes a condition to secure that timely notice shall be given that a particular person claims such paternity.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, it seems to me that if your Lordships put in this subsection a great many people now alive would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. For instance, under paragraph (4), an avowal is to be made within a year of the marriage. The marriage may have taken place some years ago, and this paragraph would seem to limit the operation of Clause 1, subsection (1), where-under people would be legitimated from the commencement of the Act. It seems to me that the noble Earl, by the insertion of this Amendment, is striking out a great many living people whom he has no intention of affecting by his Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am always very much impressed by anything which Lord Cave may say, but I should like to be clear as to what is meant here in order to give an intelligent vote upon the matter. Although your Lordships may say that you do not exclude from the consideration of the Judges such evidence

1021
as they may see fit to take, you do say that they are not to hear that evidence unless one of five things is done. Three of these things affect the Registrar-General. It may perfectly well be that people to whom these things have happened have been living abroad, possibly in America, where they are not in touch with the Registrar-General and not in a position to register the birth, or to communicate with him. Paragraph (2) relates to the registration of the birth or to baptism. It may be that the birth was not registered by the father, but was registered long before he married the mother, and therefore he had no opportunity of making an avowal on the occasion of the registration of the birth. It may happen that the child was not baptised at all, and therefore he has no opportunity at its baptism of making this avowal. As to the affiliation order, I take it that it is in a very small percentage of cases that there will be an affiliation order.
Are you not, if you accept this Amendment—which I am sure the noble and learned Lord himself cannot like—denying to the Judges the right to accept perfectly good evidence because it is not available in exactly the form here set out? And is not that rather the Latin way of legislation than ours, where we give the Courts a free hand to ascertain the truth of any matter, under the rules of evidence, in the, way they think best: It seems to me that, quite apart from the case which Lord Gorell mentioned, in other eases of those whom this Bill will affect when it becomes law, it may perfectly well happen that none of these things may have been done. And if the object of this Bill be, as we have
understood all along, to protect the interests of the child, are you not here punishing the child on account of some neglect of a formality by the father? Unless these questions can be satisfactorily answered, I think it is very difficult I to support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: May I, by the leave of the House, answer the questions which the noble Karl has put? The Amendment does not say that the Judges may not look into the question unless the evidence takes this form. It says they may not look into it unless one of these conditions precedent has been fulfilled. That is where I think the noble Earl goes wrong, as other people have gone wrong. Lord Gorell's point is a perfectly good one, and if the Amendment finally passes in this form. I think you would shut out from the Bill certain people who already are married and whose children would otherwise come within the provisions of the Bill. It is one of the points I had in my mind when I said the form of the Amendment would require very careful consideration. I think you would have to give a period after the passing of the Act within which declarations would have to be made.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After the discussion which has taken place, I hope your Lordships will understand that I feel it my duty to press the Amendment.
On Question, Whether subsection (4) shall be left out of the Bill ?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Cave, V.

Erskine, L.

Chilston, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Argyll, D.

Cross, V.

Harris, L.

Devonshire, D.

Falmouth, V.

Jessel, L.

Wellington, D.

Finlay, V.

Kylsant, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

MacDonnell, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sidmouth, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Phillimore, L.

Albemarle, E.

Avebury, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Caithness, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.,]

Clarendon, E.

Raglan, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Chalmers, L.

Shandon, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Plymouth, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Treowen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Knutsford, V.

Lyell, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Buxton, E.

Askwith, L.

Newton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Pentland, L.

Kimberley, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Russell, E.

Faringdon, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Southwark, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gorell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Heneage, L.

Thomson, L.

Churchill, V.

Illingworth, L.

on question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I beg to move that the proposed new subsection be here inserted.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Extended powers of making bye-laws.
1.—(1) The powers of a local authority under section two of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall include powers to make byelaws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

(a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or

(b) the amenities of villages in rural districts ; or

(c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely or chiefly on account of its beauty or historic interest.

(2) In section two of the principal Act the words "or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape "are hereby repealed.
(3) This section shall not apply to the exhibition of advertisements on or upon any railway station, yard, platform or railway approach belonging to a railway company.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause:—"or upon any dock, quay, pier, landing stage, wharf, lock or toll station belonging to any harbour, dock or canal undertaking, and being situate within the limits of any county borough
1024
or municipal borough or of an urban district having a population of twenty thousand or upwards."
The noble Lord said: After I had placed this Amendment on the Paper I learned that my noble friend Lord Southwark, who represents, I think, the London Chamber of Commerce in this matter, objected to the last three lines of the Amendment, from the word "undertaking" to the end. In order to meet his views I am prepared to leave out all words after "undertaking," and I understand that my noble friend Lord Newton will accept the Amendment so modified. I beg, therefore, to move it down to the word "undertaking."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, at end insert (" or upon any dock, quay, pier, landing stage, wharf, lock, or toll station belonging to any harbour, dock, or canal undertaking").—(Lord Danesfort.)

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, your Lordships will doubtless recall the speech of the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, last Session. From time to time, as your Lordships are aware, certain marriages have proved to be invalid for some purely technical reason. Until 1905 this situation was dealt with by introducing special legalisation. In 1905, however, an Act was passed which gave power to the Home Secretary to deal with the question by issuing Provisional Orders. These Provisional Orders were subject to confirmation by Parliament. Last year when a Bill confirming one of these Provisional Orders was introduced, the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, drew the attention of the

1025
House to the fact that part of the Order was ultra vires, because of the introduction into it of certain clauses which had no foundation in the Act of 1905. These clauses made the marriage registers of these invalid marriages able, to be used as evidence in court, as if the marriages had been validly solemnised, and indemnified the clergymen who took part in these invalid marriages. But the Act of l905 only permits the Home Secretary to validate the marriages. It does not give these powers which arc in the other clauses. This Bill, therefore, proposes to put the matter right and to regularise what has hitherto been done in an irregular manner. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl De La Warr)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE AND AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Thomson.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—I hope he has received my letter—of my intention to move the postponement for a week of the Committee stage of this Bill. I had no idea that it was proposed to take the Committee stage so soon. When the Bill was read a second time, the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, expressly urged the noble Lord not; to hurry on the Committee, stage. The Bill was read a second time on Thursday last. This is the first time that your Lordships have met since then, and yet the Committee stage of this Bill is set down for this evening. When a noble Lord makes such a proposal as that made by the noble Earl, it is very unusual that no explanation should be offered of any need for immediate hurry.
With regard to the Bill itself, I should like to say that I welcome it most cor-
1026
dially. I look upon it as a very high compliment to the Territorial Associations that this very important work should be put into their hands. At the same time a good deal of consideration is necessary as to the possible effects of the Bill. One, thing that the noble Lord said on the last occasion rather puzzled me. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, he said—
" I desire to express the gratitude of the Air Ministry to the Lords-Lieutenants and to all those people who have been connected with the County Association" for the work which they have done hitherto. Every association concerned has been approached, and they have all been most helpful and kind in their assistance."
That, I own, has rather puzzled me. I have been Lord-Lieutenant of a county for thirty-three years. I have been connected with the territorial movement from the first. When the Act was first passed I, as Lord-Lieutenant, automatically became president of the Association, and on my own initiative I became Chairman of the Association. We have now a council which is more fully representative of the Force than it has ever been. I have been Chairman of that council for sixteen years now; yet I as Lord-Lieutenant and as Chairman of the council, the vice-chairman of the council and the secretary of the council have never been approached in any kind of way. Therefore, I admit that I was very much puzzled when the noble Lord said that every one concerned had been approached.
I must say that we are concerned. We consider we are very closely concerned in this matter. The reason I have ventured to move the postponement of the Committee stage is that there are, one or two points which, in the interests of the Territorial Associations, should be cleared up. The Bill, I understand, proposes to set up County Joint Associations. What I want to have clearly explained is, what is the meaning of the word "joint"? If it is a joint administration of the existing associations of sea and land forces, then, I think, it is a matter in regard to which we should be in complete agreement, but if, as is possible, "joint" means the grouping of counties, or the grouping of centres of industry, for the purpose of setting up a separate committee to deal with these things, then I think we shall be asking for trouble.
Take the two great centres near which I live—Wolverhampton and Birmingham. If they were to be made joint associa-

1027
tions for this purpose, that would entirely destroy the whole principle upon which the Territorial Force was originally formed. It would break down the Territorial system altogether, because Wolverhampton is in the North Midland division, and Birmingham is in another division, it would be impossible to work them together. I am perfectly confident that if, as I understand, the idea is that these are to be joint county associations—not new ones, but merely an expansion of those that originally existed—formed for the purpose of introducing into our present system representatives of the Air Force, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall give him all the support we can, it being clearly understood that when we are making proposals for the air we communicate direct with the Secretary of State for Air, while if we are making proposals for the land forces we communicate, as we do now, with the Secretary of State for War.
The learned Lord Chancellor answered some of my questions. I sec he claims to be the grandfather of the present Bill as being the direct descendant of the Territorial Forces Act of 1907. We, as his children, still desire to look upon him as the parent of the movement, and we consider that we are one of the most satisfactory of his off-spring. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we recognise to the full the great benefit that the noble and learned Viscount has conferred upon the country by what he has done for the Territorial Force, and I can assure him that any views of his will carry great weight with us. As I understand it, the object is merely to enlarge the powers of the existing Associations for the purpose of dealing with matters that affect the Air Force. If that is so, while I beg to move that consideration of the Committee stage be postponed for a week, I think I can assure the noble Lord that he will find every support from those who are interested in the Territorial Force.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned till Wednesday, April 2.—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, after what the noble Earl has said I have no intention of opposing the postponement of the Committee stage of this Bill. I only want to make my excuse. I said
1028
the other day that all associations had been approached. What I meant was that all the associations which have been approached have given us their support. As regards the question of urgency, the reason I wanted to get on with the matter quickly was that the Air Ministry looked upon this Bill as an experiment. There is no one more alive than the Air Ministry to the assistance given by County Associations in the past. What we wanted was really to get our powers, and then go cap in hand to the County Associations for the first squadrons we proposed to form, which may, indeed, be the only ones. That is still the intention. There was no wish to rush the matter through. I am afraid there will be considerable delays in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Committee stage postponed accordingly till Wednesday, April 2.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, this is a pure consolidation Bill, which will go automatically to the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CHILD ADOPTION
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state the reason for

1029
their decision to appoint another Committee to inquire into the question of child adoption; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may appear at first sight as if the Motion which I have on the Paper had been to some extent anticipated by the debate which took place on the Bill of the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol, on March 18. But I think a very brief examination will suffice to show that that discussion has really added point to my Motion, especially in view of the remarks upon that Bill of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who, I understand, is to answer my Question. The noble and learned Viscount, in his remarks upon the Duke of Athol's Bill, made a point of the fact that there were two very different classes of people who would be affected by any measure dealing with child adoption, and made, special reference to what, in his own words, he described as a very serious class of case—namely, that particular class of case to which I had drawn attention on February 20.
I do not wish to say anything about the other class—namely, the class of children who are adopted by good parents, and for whom full legal powers were sought—I mean the class of people who would be affected by the Bill of the noble Duke. But I think we ought to have a clearer expression of the intentions of the Government with regard to the other class of case. I think, after the very horrible instances which I gave on February 20, and after the remarks which were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, on the Bill of the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol, it is not necessary to expatiate further upon what is nothing less than a system of child murder, or at any rate a traffic of a very horrible kind in infant life. I do not understand quite what the attitude of the Government is towards this. The noble and learned Viscount, speaking on the noble Duke's Bill, said that the Government were in full sympathy with the object which the noble Duke sought to effect.
When I raised a question with reference to the penalties now available under the law for cruelty to children, with special reference to adopted children, I was replied to on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl, Lord
1030
De La Warr, and I can only describe his answer as throwing cold water upon my suggestion that the present law was not adequate, and that further steps should be taken. He used these words—
" The House will recognise that cruelty to children is a crime which is abhorrent to the minds of all decent people, and is rightly made punishable by the law of England as a grave offence for which severe penalties are provided."
I had given a very grave instance in which a comparatively trivial penalty had been provided, and had said that the utmost penalty that could be inflicted did not seem to me at all adequate to meet the very distressing circumstances of that case. Many other cases could be given. I did give other instances, and there has been a number of recent cases in the papers where the penalties given for comparatively trivial offences are almost as serious as those which are given for very heinous offences against adopted children. For example, there was a case the other day in which some one, for stealing snowdrops out of a garden, got very nearly as much as some one who set a child upon the bar of a fire.
The Government reply on that occasion, given by Earl De La Warr, was that His Majesty's Government were not aware that the present penalties for offences of this character were insufficient but that they would be prepared to consider any evidence on the point which might be laid before them. That seems to me hardly to be the proper attitude for any Government to take—namely, to wait until evidence from outside is brought before them. They should be themselves cognisant of the state of things. When one examines, generally, the attitude of the present Government towards this class of offence one finds that many of His Majesty's present advisers have been interesting themselves in a Bill which, I understand, is not to become law but which, nevertheless, shows the attitude of many members of the present Government towards this question. One of the provisions of that Bill is an increase of the penalties, and another is to enable much more supervision to be undertaken of those children who are adopted, whether for good purposes or for bad.
The only answer I got last February, and it was repeated on March 18, was that it was the intention of the Government to set up a strong Committee of

1031
Inquiry. When this was first announced, on February 20, it was greeted with applause from noble Lords opposite, and that seemed to me to reflect to some extent on their late Chancellor of the Exchequer, because Mr. Neville Chamberlain was a member of the Committee which inquired fully into this question. The Lord Chancellor, in replying to the noble Duke, referred more pointedly to Sir A. Hopkinson's Committee, but he referred to it only to say that some of the suggestions were clearly inadvisable—for example, the reference to the county courts. I do not understand, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will tell me, what has now caused him to decide upon a fresh Committee. The matter has been fully inquired into already, and it does not seem to me to be an adequate reason for appointing a second Committee to say that you have disagreed in certain particulars with the findings of the first. One would rather suppose it is for the Government to take into consideration the findings and Report of that Committee, make up their mind how far they could accept the recommendations and how far they would have to reject them.
The only reason we have been given, so far for setting up a new Committee is that this is a highly technical matter. That may be so, but it has been inquired into before and one can hardly see what more there is to be inquired into. It is now more than a month since the announcement was made that there is to be a fresh Committee, and if the Government really are in earnest on this matter there seems no reason why there should be any further delay. I do not think the Government have been quite consistent in this matter. There are a number of its members who feel strongly on the lines I have indicated, but when I raise the question from the point of view of the cruelty of child adoption I get nothing but cold water thrown over me, and when the noble Duke raises the matter a month later in a Bill dealing with the good side of child adoption he is told that everything must wait until the appointment of this fresh Committee. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will now be able to tell us what is in the mind of the Government, why they are going to set up this fresh Committee, what is the reason for another inquiry, and give an assurance that it really is the intention of the Government to proceed without
1032
circumlocution upon a matter which was described by all the members of the former Committee, three years ago, as extremely urgent, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, no doubt it was due to my imperfectly expressing myself on the last occasion but the noble Lord has wholly failed to appreciate the meaning of the point I made in reply to the noble Duke's Motion on the Second Reading of his Bill. It has not to do with any of the matters to which the noble Lord refers. It is this. There have been three Bills and a Report, every one of which has failed to appreciate the vital point. They have referred this question to the county courts oblivious of the fact that the county courts have no machinery at all to enable them to deal with the matter. I said quite clearly that the object of the Committee was to devise the machinery. The Committee will have the other matters before it to which the noble Lord has referred, and it may be that it will be satisfied with the Report of Sir Alfred Hopkinson's Committee, or it may be satisfied with the Bill which was introduced. But the primary purpose of the Committee will be to obtain the machinery.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation? I shall be perfectly content if I can have an assurance from him that some action will be taken immediately. It is now nearly five weeks since the announcement was made that the Government intended to set up a Committee; and so far it is all still in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The negotiations for the formation of the Committee were begun even before the noble. Duke introduced his Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROPOSED FIXED EASTER.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government what steps arc being taken by the League of Nations to deal with the question of securing a fixed date for Easter. This is a question on which I have already

1033
addressed your Lordships, and on one occasion I went so far as to introduce a Bill. I much regret that the most rev. Primate is not in his place now, but he has expressed to me his regret that ho could not be present at this late hour and say a few words on the subject. When he last spoke the most rev. Primate wished for some expression of a public demand for a fixed date for Easter. At this time last year.I went to Rome to attend the International Congress of Chambers of Commerce, which unanimously passed a resolution in favour of a fixed date for Easter. Fortified by that resolution, I saw the two Cardinals who are chiefly interested in the matter, and after a good deal of negotiation with the Holy See it was settled that the matter should be referred to the League of Nations.
I should like to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can give me any information as to what progress has been made on this important matter by the League of Nations. I understand that a Committee has been appointed on which the Œcumenical Patriarch is represented, as well as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe this Committee has been formed and I shall be glad to know what progress they have made. One very important point is whether the question of a fixed Sunday for Easter will be made dependent or not upon the negotiations which are now going on with reference to calendar reform. It is perfectly obvious that if it is to depend on the reform of the calendar it will take a considerable time to bring about this much needed reform, but if not, then there are no insuperable difficulties to its being done.
I am happy to think that the representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a public pronouncement on this subject, in which ho adopted my suggestion of the second Sunday in April as the most convenient date for Easter Sunday, for the three reasons which I have often given to the House—namely, (1), that it is the nearest Sunday to the now generally recognised date of the event which it commemorates, the Crucifixion of Our Lord; (2), because the mean date of one hundred Easters is April 8.3, which is another very good reason; and (3), which is also to some people a very excellent reason, that it
1034
divides the Christian year very equally, and would be convenient for the great holidays of the people.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, we all know the great interest that the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has taken in this question. I will not follow him this evening into the various suggestions—and, I dare say, very valuable suggestions—which he has made from time to time, because his Question simply asks what steps are being taken by the League of Nations regarding this matter of fixing Easter, and it is on that point that I have obtained information as accurately as I can, though I am afraid it may not be entirely satisfactory to the noble Lord.
The question of the fixed Easter, together with the larger question of the reform of the calendar, has been considered in an exploratory manner by the Technical and Advisory Committee for Communications and Transit of the League. This does not mean that the question of a fixed Easter is to wait generally upon the larger question of the reform of the calendar, but both questions have been referred to the same body. This body has the assistance of persons designated by the Holy See, the Œcumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Papal representative took part in a personal capacity only, and the same is true of the representatives of the other Churches. As a result of this preliminary inquiry the Communications and Transit Committee have appointed a special committee to continue the discussion in order to carry the matter further. I think the noble Lord would desire that this should be done. They have asked members of the League, that is to say, the various countries of which the League is composed, for their views', without prejudice, on the subject, with special reference to the documents which the committee of inquiry is to take as the starting point of its consideration of the question—namely, the scheme prepared by the International Astronomical Union in May, 1022, and the recommendations of the International Chamber of Commerce of June, 1921. I think that is in accord with the views of the noble Lord.
His Majesty's Government have not yet replied to the request for their views. The Home Office have expressed the view that facilities for legislation should not

1035
be afforded unless and until the promoters of any Bills can produce evidence of (1), the concurrence of all the Christian Churches; (2), the concurrence of, at any rate, the principal civilised countries; and (3), the existence of a public opinion, especially in industrial quarters, favourable to reform. The Board of Trade, whose views were also invited, have not yet expressed them, though they have been reminded of the matter more than once. For that reason I cannot tell the noble Lord what their views are. Ho will see, however, that the matter is going on before the League of Nations and that steps are being
1036
taken, and I believe we are at one both as regards the basis upon which these matters should be considered and as to the necessity of getting the assent or consent to which I have referred before it is finally determined. I might add my own view upon the matter. I am sure I sympathise with the noble Lord and wish him every success.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his interesting answer.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
King's Lynn Docks and Railway [H.L.].
The same was Ordered to lie on the Table.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Earl of Munster be proposed to the House as a. Member of the Select Committee on the said Hill in the place of the Lord Oriel (V. Massereene) ; read, and agreed to.
ABERDARE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported without amendment.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he had nominated the Lord Redesdale to serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee in the place of the Lord Emmott.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Message from the Commons, that they have appointed a Committee, to consist of nine Members, to join with a Committee of this House to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto ;
1038
and to request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of their House: The said Message to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (FEMALE ORPHAN ASYLUM, ETC.) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons ; read 1a ; to be printed ; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 40.)
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (FERRIES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday next.
RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off sine die