[To the Editor of TIIE SPECTATOR.] Sin,—I write to point
out that in my original letter, published June 15th, I advocated a manner of treating both original Animal Welfare Bills, and also amendments to Animal Welfare Bills. Those proposals would secure that mistakes were not made as (1) a more extended judgement would be initially devoted to the composition of a Bill, and any defects would be more likely to be detected, from the Bill being more adequately scrutinized ; (2) any amendments would be subjected to like consideration and would end in being the child of those conversant with the subject. By the second proposition we should escape the fate of the Rodeo Bill, when the re-drafting resulted in an emasculation, the alterations not being a " consideration of details " (I quote Mr. H. A. Procter) but an entire conversion of the Bill by treating essentials as details.
As an example of the ills which my suggestions would prevent I would mention the Dogs (Amendments) Act of 1928. How that Act came into being, by what one must con- sider an inadvisable action taken with the Bill originally presented to Parliament, is to be read in Proceedings in Committee in the House of Commons, in June, 1928 ; in which it is to be read that the member dealing with the Bill said
I will not weary the Committee by explaining it, because it is an agreed Bill " (agreed to by whom ?). It is difficult also to approve the statements with regard to the Bill in the House of Lords. The Act introduces the " Finder " : who on taking a stray dog to a police station can, under the provisions of the Act, claim to take the dog away. It is evident that there can be no security as to the fate of the dog. In March, 1930, I brought the subject to the notice of Sir Robert Gower who took part in getting the Bill passed, and provided him with the arguments against the arrangement. On March 13th, 1930, he wrote, he would go very carefully into the matter. On December 2nd, 1930, the Chief Constable of a county wrote me concerning the Act " If the dog appears to be a valuable one, and the finder' a person to whom such a dog could not safely be entrusted, the police take charge of it." —I am, Sir, &c., 5 Trinity Gardens, Folkestone. J. S. DOUGLAS.
[We cannot continue this correspondence.—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
