^* : The first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Coventry ought to be moved as a new clause.

said that for the convenience of the Committee he wished to state that he had considered the suggestion contained in the Amendment of his hon. friend, and having regard to the fact that a great deal of what they were doing must necessarily be of a some what speculative character, he wished to announce that he should be prepared in the proper place to accept an Amendment to that effect.

said the object of the Amendment which he had to move was to make it clear that if the owner was on the car when the driver contravened any of the regulations of this Act, that the owner should be liable as well as the driver. In the other House a somewhat similar Amendment was moved, and it was stated by the Lord Chancellor that it was unnecessary, because under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1895 any person who aided and abetted would be equally liable with the driver. It seemed to him, however, that that objection was unreasonable, because if the owner was already liable it could do no harm to make him liable under this Act. He thought it was advisable to put all the penalties and clauses into one Act, so that there would be no confusion as to whether any person came under this Act or not. Justices of the peace might overlook the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and in order to make the law perfectly clear he thought this Amendment should be inserted. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act they would have to prove that the owner himself aided and abetted, and that would be a very difficult matter. He trusted that his right hon. friend would be able to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'drives,' to insert the words 'or being an owner permits when present.'"—( Sir Frederick Banbury. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said they all agreed that the person chiefly responsible for the offence should be himself liable to the penalties, but this was not the result which would follow from the adoption of this Amendment. The hon. Baronet had correctly stated what took place in the House of Lords, but there would be very great danger if the words he had proposed were inserted that the effect would be to limit the law which now existed. The hon. Baronet had only stated the effect in the case where the owner was in the car, but there was another case which, in his humble opinion, was even more deserving of punishment than the one to which he referred. Take the case of an owner who wished his car to meet a train at the station, and told his driver to catch the train at any cost. Under the law he would be guilty of aiding and abetting, but, if the words now suggested were put in, there would be a very considerable risk of the liability not extending to the owner when he was not in the car. If the owner aided and abetted an offence, they wished to make him guilty of an offence, and he had been advised by the law officers that this Amendment would rather weaken than strengthen the law upon this point.

said that surely the contention of the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the withdrawal of the words "when present." If those words were omitted the Amendment would at once cover the case mentioned by the President of the Local Government Board.

said he should like to have the words "when present" inserted, in order that the presence of the owner should he necessary to make him criminally liable.

agreed that the omission of the words "when present" would be an improvement. If the owner permitted a breach of the Act he should be made responsible. He did not think there would be any opposition offered to this proposal.

said he was quite willing to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "when present."

did not think the words "when present" should be omitted. Were they going to make the owner liable for permitting dangerous driving when he did not happen to be in the car himself, and knew nothing at all about it? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment.

said the President of the Local Government Board had given a conclusive answer to the Amendment. Permission was a form of abetting, and under the law any person who aided and abetted was equally liable to the principal offender, and the law as it stood was quite as strong as it would be by the insertion of these words. He could not conceive a case in which it could be shown that the owner, whether present or absent, would not be liable just the same as the driver.

^* said they all agreed that if an owner permitted intentionally a breach of the law he ought to be made liable. If the words "when present" were to remain, he would ask whether the case could not be met by adding to the Amendment the words "or if absent, intentionally or knowingly permits." It seemed to him that those words would cover any case of the owner either ordering the driver to go at an excessive speed in his absence or of permitting the offence when he was present.

thought they would only get into greater difficulties if they added the words which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Westminster. The law as to aiding and abetting quite met the case.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—

"In line 2 to leave out the words 'when present.'"

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 37; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 239).

hoped it would be convenient to take the discussion now on his Amendment proposing a speed limit of fifteen miles an hour.

said it would be inconvenient from the point of view of the hon. Member and those who desired a speed limit to take this Amendment at the present stage. He thought they were all agreed on the Second Reading that if a speed limit was introduced into the Bill it should not form part of that portion which carried with it the penalty of imprisonment. He had himself put down an Amendment that raised the question in a precise form and dealt also with the question of penalties. It would be more convenient if the Committee postponed the discussion of the question of a speed limit until he moved that Amendment.

said he was willing to agree to that if the suggestion would meet the convenience of the Committee.

moved to leave out "recklessly or negligently, or" in line 6. He had placed this Amendment on the Paper with a view of obtaining from the President of the Local Government Board a definition of the words he proposed to leave out. It seemed to him that it would be exceedingly difficult for these words to be defined, more especially in view of the fact that in nine cases out of ten it would be the local policeman who would have to interpret what was reckless or negligent. A stronger reason why the words should be left out was that they were unneces- sary. If they were left out anyone driving to the danger of the public would still be liable to all the penalties provided in the Bill. Surely a person driving dangerously was driving recklessly and negligently. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'recklessly or negligently, or.'"—( Mr. Dalziel. )

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press the Amendment. It had been extremely difficult to frame this clause so as to carry out what they all desired. Speaking for the Government, he said that what they desired was that they should not do anything which would be unjust to people who owned motor-cars, but at the same time they had felt that the present condition of things made it absolutely necessary to legislate for the protection of the public. It was not only life and limb, but the general convenience of the public that should be safeguarded, and the proposals in the Bill were framed in order that it should be part of the duty of those using motor-oars to obviate as far as possible any discomfort to other people who had a right to use the road. There could be no doubt that the leaving out of the words in the Amendment would very much weaken the clause, and would not carry with it that protection the public had a right to have. The user of a motor-car ought to realise as he went along that he must use the road in a way consistent with the general convenience of others who used it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.

said he did not think that many Members of the Committee had much objection to the clause as it stood. There was an important point to which he wished to call attention—namely, that the whole of this clause was very stringent. They hoped that later on the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to give a more easy and effective kind of appeal than was provided for under the Bill as it stood. Otherwise he thought the clause would operate very unjustly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to leave out "or at a speed" in line 6. It would be generally agreed, now that the right hon. Gentleman considered a speed limit desirable, that they should omit these words. He was very much afraid that if they were left to be interpreted by the magistrates, any speed in excess of the speed limit would be regarded as reckless and careless driving. He wished to make it clear to the magistrate that there were two separate offences in the Bill, one being reckless driving and the other exceeding the speed limit. With regard to the first offence motorists were agreed that very heavy penalties should be imposed, but the second offence, which might be a mere technical infraction of the law regarding the speed limit, was one which hardly called for the same punishment.

said his hon. friend was under a misapprehension. His argument was not applicable to this portion of the Bill.

said he did not quite agree with that. There was not the slightest doubt that there was a disposition on the part of magistrates and the public to regard mere speed as dangerous, and he thought it was necessary to make it quite clear that driving in excess of the speed limit did not necessarily con- stitute reckless driving. He was afraid that the magistrates would say that the speed limit fixed by the Bill was the safe speed laid down by Parliament, and that a mile or two in excess of it was not a safe speed, because Parliament had limited the speed to a certain number of miles per hour. He thought motorists should have some protection against the prejudices which certain benches of magistrates had already exhibited, and he had not the slightest doubt that a motorist for driving at thirty miles an hour—assuming the speed limit to be fixed at twenty-five—would not only be convicted of exceeding the speed limit, but also of reckless and careless driving, if these words were left in.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words, 'or at a speed.'"—( Mr. Allhusen. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. He was under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of inserting these words in the clause. What the Government proposed would not materially alter the existing law, but collect the law from existing statutes and Local Government Board regulations into Sub-section 1 of the clause in order to make it as clear as they could make it, that apart altogether from the speed limit, whether it was twelve or 120 miles an hour, there was a totally different offence—namely, reckless and negligent driving. If they took these words out of the clause they would weaken the law as it now stood.

said that the effect of the Amendment would be to wreck the Bill. The danger of a speed limit was that a man would never be convicted of furious driving so long as he kept within the maximum limit.

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment which did not repeal any right that the public had under the common law, but would rather strengthen the common law.

^* said that the whole of this clause was very stringent, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to give some more easy and effective power of appeal than there was in the Bill as it stood.

said that after the expression of opinion that had been given by the Committee he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

said that it was very difficult for a magistrate to say what amount of traffic "might be expected to be on the highway" at any particular time. He therefore moved the omission of the words in the sub-section of Clause 1, "And to the amount of traffic which actually at the time, or which might be expected to be on the highway."

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'highway' to the word 'that,' in line 10." ( Mr. Brigg. )

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

said it was rather curious that this Amendment had teen put down on the Paper by opposing sides on this Bill; and that both those who desired to protect the rights of motorists and those who claimed to protect the public, objected to these words. The insertion of these words, however, was due to the decision in a case of "Mayhew v. Sutton" which was to the effect that the driver of a motorcar must not only have regard to the amount of traffic he saw on the road, but to what might reasonably be expected to come on to the road from cross roads, leading into it, or out of lodge gates.

said that he heartily supported the Amendment. It was the most absurd thing in the world to give a magistrate power to say what traffic might be expected on the highway.

said he hoped that his right hon. friend would accept this Amendment, because it was very undesirable that vague terms should be used in this Act.

said that the magistrates might forget one important circumstance, and that was the condition of the highway. Although the previous words might be sufficient, it would be safer to leave these words in also. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the words in the clause. Nobody could be prejudiced by these words.

said that suppose a farmer opened his gate to let his cattle cross the road; such a possibility as that ought to be kept in view by those making use of motor-cars.

said he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would keep an open mind on this Amendment. There was not a road in the whole country which had not another road turning into it. What they appeared to be doing was setting traps in order that motorists might be caught. They might as well call this Bill at once a Motor-car Abolition Bill. It was iniquitous when a road was clear that a man might be summoned because, under circumstances not defined, there might be traffic in the road which was then clear. He never heard of such words being put into any Bill, and he thought it was absolutely preposterous. He hoped the House would not be prejudiced to such an extent that it would be impossible for people to have motors at all. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

said as he had put down an Amendment lower down in order to raise this discussion, might he point out to those who were pressing so hard for the retention of these words that the real thing that caused all the difficulty was the extremely heavy penalty for the first offence. A man was liable to be sent to prison. For that reason it was extremely awkward to have a lot of loose, ambiguous words put into the clause. The President of the Local Government Board was right in his endeavour to make this perfectly clear to the public, that they were to be protected, but he submitted that the real way out of the difficulty was to take it out of the power of the magistrate to send to prison for the first offence, and make imprisonment the penalty for the second offence, so as to give people time to find out what the opinion of the magistrate was as to reckless driving. These were a lot of new words, and nobody knew what these particular words might be held to mean, or what style of speed and driving might be held to be covered by the words. The real way out of the difficulty would be to take these words out of the clause, and give up the attempt to enforce such a heavy penalty in the first instance, having regard to the fact that some of the magistrates were hostile to motoring.

said no one would wish to restrict unnecessarily a very important branch of industry, and to repeat the mistakes committed in other Bills; but on the other hand the personal safety of the public had to have equal consideration. It seemed to him that on the whole these words ought to he retained. It was said that previous words covered these heads. That might be so. The additional words were simply suggestive to the bench of a consideration which under no circumstances ought to be lost sight of. There was one particular reason for the inclusion of these words, and that was that the whole of the public were entitled to the use of the roads at law, and there might be places that were particularly dangerous. If that was so, they ought to be relieved of the terrible anxiety they were under about motor-cars at points of danger, and therefore additional caution should be imposed on the drivers of motor-cars.

said the argument of the hon. member for Islington, although supposed to be in favour of the Amendment, was fatal to it, for the reason that he was trying to make these vague words explicit. The Committee had already passed words which were as vague as they could be "that they should have regard to all the circumstances." These words covered all the cases in esse and in posse, and if the extension stopped there they would have loose, vague, and ambiguous language, which would have this two-fold effect. It might mislead the magistrates, and would mislead the public.

said he objected to the latter half.

said the magistrate had to determine whether a motor was being driven recklessly or negligently or at a pace that seemed to him to be reckless. There was a general principle of law that loose and ambiguous language should be avoided, because the tribunal called upon to interpret an Act could have no idea of the intentions of Parliament when passing it, and because the public did not know what they had to do under the Act. If it was stated explicitly that the motorist was to have regard to the actual traffic in the road and the possibility of traffic arising the matter was made clear. For these reasons he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the Amendment.

pointed out that Clause 8 proposed the erection of signposts by the County Councils at dangerous places, and suggested the erection of warning signals also at avenues and by-roads. He thought the words were vague and that it was not an unreasonable thing to ask County Councils, at dangerous corners to put up notices that the motorist should slow down.

opposed the Amendment. He said many of the country roads were very narrow, and a speed which was quite safe on the average road might be very unsafe in such roads. It might be reckless to go at even fifteen miles an, hour in some of these narrow lanes. He had received notice of a case, which occurred in his constituency, where one of his constituents was driving down a road which was only seventeen feet wide from hedge to hedge, and only thirteen feet wide when three feet was allowed for each ditch. A motor-car which was seven feet wide was coming the other way; there was no room for the horse and trap to pass and there was the inevitable spill. He thought these words strengthened the Bill, and made the matter quite clear, and gave the confidence that the users of the road should receive that consideration from the motorists which they had a right to expect.

said although he did not like motorcars at all he was glad a Bill had been brought in to deal with them. He thought those words were a little ambiguous. What this Bill was trying to prevent in this matter was giving a loophole to persecution. He thought the clause was quite strong enough and that if prosecutions were taken under this clause, with these words, in motorists would be turned into martyrs.

said the object he had in putting down the Amendment which stood in his name was to make the clause more simple and to give greater control over motor-cars on public highways and to give the magistrates greater latitude and discretion in this matter. But as the feeling of the Committee was in favour of the principle that the safety must be had regard to it would not be necessary to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said he had been asked by the hon. Member for Louth to move the Amendment which he had previously suggested He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to accept it. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'must,' to insert the words 'having regard to the provisions of Section 8.'"—( Mr. Dalziel. )

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

pointed out that this language had been used in this Bill in order to make clear what the law was, because it had been said that the interpretation by the Courts of the words in the regulations did not appear to be conveyed by those words. This language had been put into this Bill in order that that, which was now the law by the definitions of the High Court, should not only remain the law but that it should be clearly shown in the statute that the interpretation placed upon it by the Lord Chief Justice was justified by the language in the Bill. It was in the interest, therefore, of those who used the roads. The suggested Amendment would destroy this section altogether. Clause 8 proposed a different thing altogether. Clause 8 proposed that in specially dangerous places the local authorities should mark them as being specially dangerous. This section was to deal with the general conditions of the road under other circumstance. He could not accept the Amendment.

suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment he might accept the word "reasonably." He thought the words suggested by the hon. Member for Louth would be better, but if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment he would suggest that he should accept the word "reasonably."

said the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were no answer to the Amendment, and therefore he would be compelled to take the feeling of the Committee on the matter. What was the objection to County Councils being compelled to put up posts at dangerous places.

said the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth to put up a post at every dangerous point would result in every farm gate having a post put up against it. That would inflict an intolerable burden on the County Council.

said that the non-erection, of a post by the County Council might result in this—a motorist could go at any space he liked, and it would be contended by him in case of an accident that as there was no danger-signal the pace was not dangerous. This Amendment would remove all that.

^* said this was a matter upon which the motorist felt very strongly. He suggested that if the President of the Local Government Board would insert the word "reasonably" before "expected" it might be accepted.

said there was a good deal to be said against the right hon. Gentleman's contention. First of all they had to deal with the fact that the man was a stranger. He came to a strange place, saw the road clear and thought it was all right. He had never been in the place before, but the bench considered this a dangerous spot. He came into a district which, in the opinion of the magistrate, was an infected area. Surely it was not uureasonable to suggest to tourists that certain places were dangerous, and that a motorist should not go more than so many miles an hour. A man ought certainly be warned before he could be sent to gaol. Was human liberty in England such a small thing that for the sake of a half-crown gatepost they were going to send a man to gaol for a month. If so he was glad he was not an Englishman.

said the hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten that the liberty and very often the lives of the people who used the roads was at stake. The hon. Gentleman had put the identical case in which he wished to protect the people and to insure that the utmost precautions should be taken by motorists, who did not know where these places might be. If these words were necessary, then to assent to the Amendment suggested would limit the clause in such a manner as to make it perfectly worthless. If on the other hand every spot had to be marked it would be placing work upon County Councils which no County Council could, would, or ought to be asked to do. The hon. Member for the New Forest Division of Hampshire had asked him to accept the word "reason-ably." If it was understood that if he accepted the word "reasonably" all discussion upon this particular point would be determined he would accept the word as a compromise. If it was not so understood, and the discussion was to go on indefinitely, of course he could not accept it.

having regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'might,' to insert the word 'reasonably.'"—( Mr. Scott-Montague. )

Amendment agreed to.

pointed out that, after all, motor-cars had as much right to the use of the roads as any people who used horses. Many people thought motor-cars were purely a luxury for the rich, and that the people who drove them deserved no consideration whatever, but the drivers of these cars were working men, mechanics, who, although they were receiving good wages no doubt had as much right to protection as anybody else. The idea that people who drove and rode on the roads were never guilty of any carelessness or recklessness was not altogether borne out by the facts. Everybody knew what a large number of accidents occurred to horse-drawn vehicles, and every body was satisfied with the penalties imposed in those cases. He had put down the Amendment which stood in his name because he could not see why special rules and regulations should be attached to motoring, which carried special penalties. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words, 'this Act,' and insert the words, 'the Highway Act, 1835.'"—( Mr. Seely. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

said he hoped this Amendment would not be pressed, because it was not difficult to realise that if it were carried they would entirely destroy that part of the Bill which emphasised the gravity of the offence which necessitated the imposition of these penalties. Everybody knew that while the great bulk of motorcar drivers had done their best to be reasonable, there were some who disobeyed the law openly, paid their fines time after time and did not care. Those persons must be taught to obey the law. He could not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

said he rose to move the Amendment standing in his name. He moved it in redemption of the promise he had given to the House on the second reading of the Bill. He then undertook to bring up in Committee an Amendment which should impose a distinct limit of speed, and which should also indicate that where that limit was exceeded the penalty should not be the penalty of Section 1, namely, imprisonment, but a fine. Speaking generally, he believed that was the compromise arrived at, and he now endeavoured to redeem his promise by the Amendment he now moved. A great many gentlemen approached this question as if they thought a speed of twenty-five miles would mean the average speed during a journey. He believed, however, it would not be unfair to assume that taken over an ordinary journey, whatever the maximum, the average speed would be little more than half—that was to say, if the maximum was to be taken at twenty five, the average speed under existing conditions, and still more under the new conditions, would not exceed half the maximum. He asked the Committee to approach this question from a common-sense point of view. He did not think it was desirable to set the limit so low as to make it almost impossible for the driver to keep within it. Having regard to the fact that they were giving the public protection in the matter of car registration and the licensing of drivers, was it unreasonable to put the maximum limit of speed at a mileage which would enable the car to travel an average journey. He did not think it was. He also did not think it was desirable to set the limit so low as to make it almost impossible for the driver to keep within it. Another point for consideration had reference to those persons who broke the law with regard to the speed limit, but who should not be liable to imprisonment. Those who objected to this portion of the Amendment apparently did not realise what the effect of the Bill would be. There was first of all a statutory declaration that a certain speed limit should not be exceeded; but, if a driver drove not merely at a greater rate than this, but at any rate up to the maximum so as to endanger the lives and the limbs of the general public, he was liable to the full penalties provided in the Bill, and came under the operation of Section 1. Only in cases where the limit was exceeded without there being any risk to the public would the lesser penalty be imposed. He asked the Committee to accept this Amendment as a compromise on a most difficult question. On the Report stage he would ask permission to incorporate this sub-section in Clause 7, because he wished to see the two classes of offences kept quite distinct.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 11, at end to insert the words, '(2) A person shall not under any circumstances drive a motor-car at a speed exceeding twenty-five miles an hour, and if any person acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of the first offence to a fine not exceeding £10, and in respect of the second offence to a fine not exceeding £20, and in respect of any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50.'"—( Mr. Walter Long. )

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

thought it necessary to insert in the first line after "car," the words "on a public highway."

I agree to it. I will move it in that form.

objected to the insertion of the words, "on a public highway." The Royal Parks were not public highways, and protection was certainly needed in the Phoœnix Park, Dublin, against reckless drivers.

said his suggestion was that the sub-section should read, "A person shall not under any circumstances drive a motor-car 'on a public highway' at a speed exceeding twenty-five miles an hour." He argued that some qualification of this kind was needed in the interest of industrial progress, otherwise people would not be at liberty to test the speeds of motor-cars even on a private trial ground. Without these qualifying words also the manufacturers of this country would be unable to compete with foreign competitors, and the sub-section would be subversive of all trade interests.

Amendment amended by inserting in line 1, after the word "car" the words "on a public highway."—( Sir Albert Rollit )

said that in moving to reduce the speed limit to fifteen miles he would not detain the Committee at any length, for the question had been fully argued on the Second Reading. They desired to get the Bill through if possible, and he for one was not an opponent of motors as such. He was, indeed, in favour of using them in bounds of reason, and not to the alarm and danger of the public using the highways. Even fifteen miles was a great speed to travel on a public highway and twenty five miles in his judgment was far too high. Such a high limit would involve the dangers they now ran from the reckless driving of these machines from the nether regions. He did not know if many hon. Members had seen how these high-speed motors on the highway caused alarm, consternation and dismay in the minds of inoffensive people who be it remembered had as much right to use the roads as the motorist. He had been personally inconvenienced; he had been in danger, and he felt very strongly that in the public interest the speed should be limited. Fifteen miles was sufficiently high, and any one going at a greater rate could not enjoy the beauties of the scenery. All they experienced was a maddening sensation of rushing through the air careless of the comfort and pleasure of other people. Unfortunately, motor-car owners and drivers were most unreasonable, and by their very unreason had made this legislation essential. He appealed to the House to protect the rights of the citizens, and not allow them to be taken away in the interests of one section. The Bill would not unduly interfere with trade. It was not the manufacturers who wanted the high-speed regulation; it was only the selfish pleasure seeker who wanted to be allowed to rush all over the country, and to dash through the narrow streets of our villages oblivious of the safety of the hundreds of thousands of children whose sole playground was the roadway. He hoped that the House by a substantial majority would reduce the speed limit to fifteen miles.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—

"In line 2, to leave out the words 'twenty-five' and insert the word 'fifteen.'"—( Mr. Broadhurut. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."

said he had an Amendment on the Paper to fix twenty miles per hour as the speed limit, and he thought that was a more reasonable suggestion than the proposal now before the Committee. The Bill was very necessary, but he recognised that if it was to be carried some compromise would have to be made. He hoped twenty would be inserted instead of fifteen, and that the representatives of the motor interest would accept that as a compromise. ("No.")

said that many of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Leicester arose from ignorance of the motorcar itself. In the recent public trials at Glasgow it had been proved that a motorcar going at twenty-five miles an hour could be brought to a standstill within a distance of fifteen feet, whereas a horse and cart travelling at only eight miles an hour could not be pulled up in less than three times that distance. No motorist averaged twenty miles an hour over a whole tour; the idea was absurd. There were cases in which five miles an hour would be too great a speed, and the man who went at five miles an hour when there was danger ought to be punished, rather than the man who travelled at thirty miles an hour when there was no danger. All these alarms were raised simply because Members had not taken the trouble to study the question. If thirty miles an hour was fixed as the limit it would probably be found that the average speed of a journey would not exceed fifteen miles an hour. The penalties were out of all reason, and twenty-five miles far too low a limit. Throughout the whole year there had not been a single fatal accident in the Metropolis, and yet it was proposed so to penalise this pursuit as to take away from it all pleasure and enjoyment.

said the larger question was altogether outside this discussion as it had been decided that a speed limit should be imposed; the only point was whether or not twenty-five miles an hour was a fair limit. No one desired to deal unfairly with motorists, but the question had to be asked whether in view of the manner in which the roads were used by children, pedestrians, and persons riding or driving, it was right to allow a four-ton vehicle to be driven along those roads at twenty-five miles an hour. In his opinion it was most certainly not. It was a question not of the average, but of the maximim speed; the average had nothing to do with the matter. The issue was a simple one, and having tried to arrive at a fair conclusion, he agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham that a limit of twenty miles an hour would protect the road traffic, and not in any way press unduly on the motorists. The ruling consideration was, that nobody, whether motorist or otherwise, ought to use the roads either to the danger or the inconvenience of the general public.

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had fixed the limit of twenty-five miles, having regard to the average over the hour. If, however, he was disturbed by a vehicle rushing by at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour, it would be no consolation to him to be told that the rate for the previous three-quarters of an hour had been only six miles an hour. He was a supporter of the fifteen mile limit, but if there was a general disposition on the part of the House to accept the twenty mile limit, he would fall in with it.

^* thought the Committee had no idea of the feeling which existed in the country with regard to this question of speed. It was a singular fact that 92 per cent. of the convictions in the counties for furious driving had been for speeds between twenty and twenty-five miles an hour, so that the whole of the present dispute was as between fifteen and twenty. It was not merely a question of danger. With a skilful driver the danger might not be great; it was also a question of convenience, and there was a general feeling, on the part of people, that in consequence of the speed at which motorcars were driven, they dared not use the roads, or allow their children to use them. Another question was that of the dust. That constituted a most obnoxious annoyance to all parties. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the fifteen miles limit. The feeling was so strong in certain districts that if Parliament did not deal with the matter the people themselves would take steps to obstruct the traffic. He had heard it stated in some of the country villages that if they liked they could stop all this themselves, for they declared that they only needed to put down a few boulders and then the motor-cars could not go along that road. Of course, he did not at all agree with that mode of settling the question, but it showed the state of public feeling upon this question, and it would be much better to have a reasonable rate fixed.

said he was extremely shocked to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest even remotely that such an outrage as the placing of boulders upon the public highway should be perpetrated. He congratulated the hon. Member upon his courage in making that statement, and he would remind him that if he had said that in Ireland he would have been put in gaol. It was quite evident that if this Bill passed at all it would have to be passed by compromise. The President of the Local Government Board recognised the other day that com-promise was necessary, and he inserted a speed limit of twenty-five miles. Now the Member for Leicester had proposed that the limit should be fifteen miles, and while he agreed with this proposal he suggested that a compromise should be arrived at by splitting the difference and making the limit twenty miles. This limit referred to rural districts and not to towns, where the speed would not be more than ten miles an hour. Under some circumstances ten or fifteen miles an hour would be a dangerous speed, but some outside limit must be arrived at, and while he thought fifteen miles upon ordinary occasions would be quite sufficient, in the interests of this Bill passing, he suggested that they should split the difference. If they did not do this there would be a protracted discussion. The hon. Member who spoke about boulders had stated what was perfectly true in regard to the public feeling, which was most intense upon this matter. He was satisfied that, from what he had seen in London, if something was not done to check the extravagant speed of motorists they would have public rioting in the streets. The feeling was so high that the public would probably take the law into their own hands. Whilst riding along a narrow country lane from Richmond on his bicycle he was overtaken by a motor-car and because he objected to run into the ditch in order to allow the motor to pass the driver abused him. He was sure the Committee would be pleased to bear that he speedily convinced that driver that if he was an expert motorist he was an expert in the art of abuse, and moreover he had public feeling upon his side. There was no doubt the feeling of the public was against motor-cars.

said the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division had urged upon the Committee the desirability of limiting the speed to fifteen, or even twelve, miles an hour in the interest of people resident in the country. He himself was not sure that it was in the interest of those who resided in the country districts to put undue restrictions on the use of motor-cars. One of the features of hopefulness for the people in the country districts was the extraordinary facility given for locomotion by the use of motor-cars. He had some experience as a motorist, having been for a considerable time in the habit of using a motor-car, and he could say that a more useful vehicle for getting from one place to another they could not find. He objected as much as his fellow-men to the abuse of motor-cars by those who went at a high speed and inconsiderately took the centre of the road, necessitating others to turn aside. That was a reprehensible practice. He did not believe the ordinary user of a motor-car found it necessary to array himself in strange habiliments, or even to put on spectacles, and as one who had himself suffered from the abuse of the road by drivers at too great a speed, he urged a compromise. He thought those who wished to keep the limit low probably did not realise the extraordinary rapidity with which a motor-car could be brought to rest. More ground would be covered, by a horse going eight miles an hour, before he could be brought to absolute rest than in the stoppage of a motor-car going at twenty-five miles an hour. But, knowing the strong feeling in the country, he would be in favour of the reduction of the speed to twenty miles an hour. As between fifteen and twenty-five he would vote for fifteen, but he hoped the hon. Member for Leicester would withdraw his Amendment in favour of a proposal by the hon. Member for Peckham to fix twenty miles as the limit.

said he was not anxious to see a speed limit imposed at all, but as the passing of the Bill was the most important object before the Committee at present, he joined in the appeal of the hon. Baronet for a compromise. It was an undoubted fact that a motor going at twenty-five miles an hour was more under the control of the driver than a horse vehicle going at ten or eleven miles an hour.

said that, as one who had experience of the Bath Road, he must say that his feelings were in accordance with those of the hon. Baronet when he said that he would rather see a speed limit of fifteen than twenty-five miles, but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the Bill gave great advantages which they might lose if they did not arrive at a compromise. He was inclined to agree to the twenty miles speed limit. Motorists did not seem to understand that, owing to their fast driving and the dust they raised, life in cottages on the country highways was almost intolerable.

^* said what they had to face was the fact that there were number of people who were determined to get out the high road the same sort of pleasure of they obtained from a fast run with the hounds. The fact had also to be faced that large profits were made by manufacturers who built high speed motor-cars. [Mr. SCOTT MONTAGU: No, they are not paying dividends.] He did not know whether the companies paid dividends or not, but the hon. Member would not challenge the statement that a much higher price was paid for a high-power car than a low-power car. During the eighteen years he had been in the House he had paid as close attention as any man to questions relating to the safety of railway working. Did any man seriously contend that Parliament, in passing the Light Locomotives Act, 1896, ever contemplated letting loose express engines on the high roads? In the railway legislation of the Board of Trade, on the railways the trains were confined to rails, and were checked by the system of block-signalling and other arrangements for securing the maximum of safety to the public. In the Light Railways Act also the greatest care was taken with regard to level crossings to avoid the dangers they were now considering in connection with motor-cars passing along the public roads. Were they, for the pleasure of a few gentlemen who wished to drive cars at an excessive speed—and he called twenty-five miles an excessive speed—to omit every precaution whatsoever in regard to a class of vehicles which were not confined to rails nor worked by any system of signals? Unless they restricted the speed they could not secure that degree of safety which the people of the country desired. He thought there was very great reason for asking that the limit should be reduced to fifteen miles. He knew that motors could be turned or stopped with great quickness and in very narrow areas. That ought to be recognised by all who came to deal with the question practically, but he wholly denied that with a speed of over fifteen or sixteen miles an hour motor traffic could be safely managed in the rural districts. It was true that at a moderate speed vehicles like the electric coupés in London could be steered with great skill and safety, but it did not follow that the same could be done at a high speed in rural districts. He urged that the speed limit for motors should only be slightly in excess of the speed of horse traffic. He therefore did not agree with the proposed compromise of twenty miles. If the wealthy men who indulged in motoring desired a higher speed let them build roads for themselves or take large tracts of country.

said it was in consequence of the action of a few evildoers that motorists were placed in their present position. The hon. Member for East Northampton-shire had referred to the electric cars in use in London. The fact of the matter was that the motor vehicles which had been running during the past year in the suburbs of London had been responsible for one fatal accident, traction engines killed two, and cycles killed six persons. What did they find in regard to the slow-going, horse-drawn vehicles? In 1901, in the Metropolitan area, vans, carts, and waggons were responsible for 127 deaths, cabs for fourteen, and omni-buses for twenty-three.

asked what was the proportion between the number of motor-cars and the number of horsed vehicles in the Metropolitan area for that year?

said that information was not given; but he thought the fact he had quoted showed that motoring was not attended with danger to the public. It was a question more of control than of speed. Hon. Members did not seem to be aware of the powerful and effective way the brakes of motors worked. He sincerely hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not give way.

said that the whole of the discussion had been from the point of view of the rich man. It was supposed that the poor man could get out of the way of danger when a motor-car, which had cost £500 or £600, was coming swinging along at an express-train speed. He might mention that twenty miles an hour was the speed of the ordinary Irish train, and no matter what rate of speed was fixed, there would alway be the temptation and the inclination to exceed the rate of speed, and therefore to break the law, rather than to keep it. This practice of flying like demons all over the country ought to be put a stop to. Being dissatisfied both with the twenty mile and the fifteen mile limit, he would propose an Amendment to the Amendment limiting the rate of speed to ten miles.

said that he could not accept an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment.

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the limit of speed which he had already fixed. In a few more years they might be able to know a little more of the mechanism of motor-cars, and the speed at which they might be able safely to go, and then a Bill might be drawn fixing a maximum of speed which would be fairer in its application.

said he could not agree that no distinction could be drawn between the rate at which motor-cars could be driven and horse traffic. The effect of the limitation was that, however safely a motor-car might be travelling, and however clear the road, there should not be a user of the highway by any vehicle at a higher speed than twenty-five miles an hour. The first section provided against speed which was dangerous. But mere speed by itself was not dangerous, and if there was no danger he did not see why the speed limit should not be high. Hon. Members ought to keep their heads cool in face of the very strong feeling which existed outside on this subject, and there was no ground for inserting a harrassing restriction when there was no danger. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Amendment.

said he preferred the present limit of fourteen miles an hour, which was quite high enough speed for any motor-car. He did not think that the President of the Local Government Board had acted quite in the spirit of the compromise agreed upon on Tuesday last. It was never contemplated, except by mad motorists, that any speed approaching twenty-five miles would be fixed upon as the limit. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was a very wild one, because cars would run on the roads whenever they had an opportunity of doing so at the maximum speed. He had received letters from all parts of the country shewing the strong feeling which existed on this subject. One correspondent wrote:—

"If these inhuman motorists carry their provisions, I should hope that an anti-motorist league of electors may be formed, pledged to vote against any candidate who keeps a motor-car, or hold shares in Motor Companies."

He had received letters from agriculturists to the effect that a speed of twenty miles an hour would not be acceptable. Any hon. Member who voted for twenty or twenty-five miles an hour would discover the effect of his vote at the next general election. He himself would certainly vote against any such speed.

said that his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Leeds had uttered words of great weight which would carry conviction to any one who would take the trouble to understand them. The difference between twenty and twenty-five miles was not a question of speed at all, but a question of expediency, so far as the Committee was concerned. He had an Amendment on the Paper that the speed limit should be twenty miles; and his hon. friends on the Government side of the House who were really trying to deal with this question from the point of view of those who were honestly interested in motoring and wished to use motors and not abuse them, would, he thought, be well advised if they accepted a compromise of twenty. The duty of the House of Commons in this matter was to stand between the public and unreasonable prejudice. He was not a motorist, although he hoped to have a motor; nor was he mad; and he would answer for it, he was not inhuman. He did not, therefore, fulfil the conditions which one hon. Member had ascribed to those who favoured motors. In dealing with this question he hoped the House of Commons would not allow itself to be warped by prejudice which was really born of inexperience. It was a question of compromise, and they could not have a reasonable compromise if all the concessions were given on one side. At the present moment motorists had conceded everything. They had agreed to accept evidence of identification which of itself would revolutionise motoring throughout the country; and therefore they said they should be allowed a reasonable amount of maximum speed. The question of maximum speed was entirely independent of Clause 1 of the Bill, because in the opinion of the Court a man might be driving recklessly at two miles an hour, if he ran say into a perambulator on the pavement. The danger of fixing too low a maximum was that the maximum of itself became a danger, because people would take the risk of driving at a greater speed than if a limit were not fixed. He had sufficient confidence in those who did not abuse the use of motors to believe that they would educate the public mind in their favour and destroy the present prejudice against them; and, since the President of the Local Government Board had accepted a three years' limitation of the Bill, he trusted that at the end of that time all prejudice against motors would be removed; that much greater facilities would be given to motorists who wished to use their cars for the purposes of locomotion in the place of horses; and that it would be made clear that motorists had no desire to injure the public. It would be a great shame if the many were punished for the sins of the few. He hoped the Committee would accept the twenty mile limit, and that his friends would accept it, simply because he did not believe they would get a twenty-five mile limit.

said that, in intervening at that stage, he had no intention of quarrelling with his hon. friend, the Member for the Tamworth Division, although he confessed he could not follow the remarks of his hon. friend. His hon. friend stated that no hon. Gentleman had any idea as to what the limitation of speed should be.

said he himself suggested twelve miles an hour.

said his hon. friend appeared to forget the meaning of the word "compromise." His hon. friend's interpretation of a compromise was evidently not to meet differences half-way.

said a compromise did not necessarily mean double the existing speed.

said he would not bandy words with his hon. friend. He was satisfied that the majority of the Committee would recognise that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was a strict fulfilment of the promise he made to the House on the Second Reading debate on the Bill. What were they fighting about now? Not as to whether there should be a limitation of speed or not. They had decided that. The whole of this controversy had been practically limited to the difference between twenty and twenty five miles. [An HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.] No. He appealed to those who had taken part in the debate whether the general sense of the Committee had not been following out this principle of compromise, and whether speaker after speaker, while expressing his own view, had not stated his willingness to see a compromise effected? He did not say all Members, but that the majority of speakers had agreed that a compromise was the best way to settle this question. All he had risen for now was to ask whether it was worth while to go on for the rest of the afternoon discussing whether twenty or twenty-five would be the better figure? He should offer, on the part of the Government, a determined resistance to the Amendment of fifteen miles. He should like to see twenty-five carried, but believing it to be desirable to end a discussion of this kind, when everything had been said that could be said, and that the general sense of the Committee tended towards a compromise, he could not help thinking the most business like procedure would be to agree upon a middle figure and accept twenty. For his own part he was unable to see that there was any material difference between twenty and twenty-five. He regretted the interposition of a speed limit at all; but the House of Commons had not supported him in that view, and he had accepted its decision. Surely what the Government had done other hon. Members might do, and accept what was, he believed, not only the general sense of the Committee, but of the country, and agree to a compromise, which they might accept without discredit to themselves, and which could not have very far-reaching effects either on the industry itself or on the enjoyment and comfort of those who were going to use motors. He could not see that the difference between twenty and twenty-five was a matter of supreme importance; but one matter that was of supreme importance was that this Bill must be placed on the Statute-book, and that they must deal with this question justly and fairly, and in the interests of the community, who, if legislation was not passed, would, he was convinced, think they had justification for adopting a course which would be, in the best interests of good government, deplorable in the extreme.

^* said he came down to the House with the intention of opposing a limit of twenty-five miles, and of supporting the proposal of fifteen miles, because he was well aware of the very strong feeling in this matter in the country districts—justifiable feeling, in his opinion—and because he thought the limit of twenty-five miles was too high. But they had heard some very wise words from his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. After all, they had to think that day not only of the question of speed, but of the question of time. Was this Bill to become law or not? He thought it would be a grave misfortune if it did not become law in the course of the present session. Therefore, although his inclination had been towards a limit of fifteen miles an hour, he would be prepared to accept the proposal of his right hon. friend.

said he was in favour of the fifteen-mile limit, but he was certain that could not be carried. Therefore he thought it very desirable that this compromise of twenty miles an hour should be adopted. They must wait until one Member of Parliament had been killed and another had been hanged for killing him to get a good Bill.

^* said he agreed that for the sake of the public it would be a thousand pities if the Bill were not passed, but he would remind the Committee that up to the present moment the concessions had been entirely on the side of the motorist Members of the House. He had endeavoured to impress on his friends the duty and wisdom of being reasonable; and he thought his right hon. friend would agree that he had done his best in that direction. (Mr. LONG: Hear, hear.) Personally, he opposed any speed limit at all, but as a compromise twenty-five miles an hour might be acceptable. He had received a telegram from the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, an expert motorist, and an able lawyer, stating that he approved of the twenty-five miles limit, and that should the Bill not pass motorists should adopt voluntary measures for identification, and thereby dissociate themselves from "scorchers," who ought to be caught. They had got to a crisis, and it was very difficult to see a way out of it; and he would suggest to his right hon. friend that, as they were now at the fag end of the session, and as there was so much animosity on both sides of the House, he should appoint a Royal Commission, following the example of the French Government, who were exactly in the same position. That would, in his opinion, meet the case. He would go one step further, and one only, in the direction of compromise. At this stage in the session, if a determined body opposed a Bill, that did not improve its chances. He was not in favour of wanton obstruction, and he made the following proposition in order to avoid it. Let his right hon. friend put in the Bill twenty-five miles an hour as the maximum speed, just as fourteen miles an hour was inserted in the 1896 Act as the maximum speed allowed by Parliament, and let him reduce that subsequently by regulation of the Local Government Board to twenty-two-and-a-half or twenty-two miles an hour. Unless that suggestion was accepted the Bill would have very little chance of passing.

said he would like to be permitted to withdraw his Amendment, as there seemed to be a general desire that the compromise of twenty miles an hour should be accepted.

said he wished to direct attention to several complaints which he had received from farmers and horse-breeders in South Kildare, regarding the conduct of a certain class of motorist. There was no complaint whatever against the hon. Gentleman from the New Forest Division or his friends; but it certainly was not the experience of the farmers of South Kildare, that when a young horse was on the road motorists invariably slowed up. A friend of his who bred race-horses within a quarter of a mile of the Cross of Ballyhaunis, which was the start and finish of the motor race for the Gordon-Bennett Cup, lost two young horses, through injuries, because a motorist dashed by at twenty-five miles an hour while they were being removed across the road from one field to another. The owner made representations to the Secretary of the Automobile Club, but received no satisfaction whatever. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for the New Forest Division would represent in the proper quarter that motorists should not travel at anything approaching twenty miles an hour while young race-horses were on the road.

said that while he appreciated the endeavour of the President of the Board of Trade to secure a compromise, yet it was his strong opinion that if this so-called compromise were adopted its only effect would be to practically ruin, not only the industry of motoring, but the pleasure of motoring also. A motorist would be liable to be arrested at any moment, and to be sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Further, a motorist driving from London to Brighton might have half-a-dozen summonses issued against him on one day by people who simply hated motor-cars. Motorists would not take that great responsibility.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared to come to an immediate decision.

Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 42, Noes, 183. (Division List No. 240.)

Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 241).

Question, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted; put, and agreed to."

said after the Amendment which had just been passed some consideration ought to be had for those who used small motor-cars and motor bicycles. He represented many owners of small cars and bicycles, many of whom were working men who, under a system of instalments, were able to purchase small motor-cars and cycles at a cost of from £30 to £40. It was for that class for which he now spoke, and he submitted that for the first offence a £5 fine was enough. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—

"In line 4, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'five.'"—( Mr. Murray. )

Question proposed "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."

hoped this Amendment would not be pressed. Whether it was true or not, and he had no reason to suppose it was not, that these small machines were largely in the possession of working-men, he did not think this was the place where any relaxation of the penalties should take place. At a later stage in the Bill he would be willing to accept an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southport giving an appeal in cases where fines of £5 and upwards were imposed, and he would be also prepared to consider the suggestion made in so many quarters, that the punishment by imprisonment on the first offence should be remitted.

^* thought that an Amendment appearing in his name on page 35 would, if accepted, greatly simplify this matter. It was that fines or penalties on motor-cyclists should only be one-half of those imposed on motor-car drivers.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment. He personally thought that small motors and motor-bicycles were the most objectionable. They made much less noise, and practically gave no warning. If the Amendment was insisted on, he should support the right hon. Gentleman in resisting it. He hoped that if the Amendment was withdrawn the right hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the desirability of fixing some scale by which those of moderate means, who might unfortunately become involved in these matters, might not unduly suffer. The fines ought not to be as severe in these cases as in the case of the millionaire who was continually defying the law.

pointed out that the penalties were not absolutely fixed by the Bill. The amount of the fine was left entirely to the discretion of the magistrates.

thought that, as the motorcyclist was usually a poor man, and used the machine for business purposes, there should be a distinction drawn between him and the motorist in the matter of the penalty.

said a number of hon. Members held views in an entirely opposite direction to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, and if he showed no willingness to compromise it was to be feared that long discussions would result.

said the magistrates had unfettered power to discriminate between the motorist and the motorcyclist. He did not think the maximum penalties were excessive. The amount of the fine might be left to the discretion of the magistrates who, he was sure, would do full justice.

was astounded to hear that. If it was to be left solely to the discretion of the magistrates he would be very sorry for the people who unfortunately came before them. It was perfectly scandalous that these outrageously high penalties should be fixed. A wife-beater was treated no worse than a motorist who might exceed the speed limit by half a mile. It was said that the matter might be left to the discretion of the magistrates. He had never known magistrates to have any discretion, and he therefore would never consent to leaving this matter to their discretion. The Bill piled penalty upon penalty, and magistrates would impose every fine possible, and throw odium on everyone. They were not going to sit calmly down and allow that to be done, and they would fight the measure, line by line, in older to secure that these things were kept within proper limits. They wanted some consideration for the poor man. They did not intend to have these terrible and outrageous penalties inflicted on people who did not deserve them, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he would reduce the amount of the fines it would conduce to the more rapid progress of the Bill.

protested against the principle of high penalties. The penalties imposed by the Bill were certain to operate unequally. The rich man would pay the fine, the poor man would have to go to prison. This unequal operation of the law would not deter people from committing offences. He had brought under his notice only the other week a case where penalty after penalty, amounting in the aggregate to over £100, had been inflicted on the same man, and paid without demur. If the man had been poor he would have had to go to prison, or he would have refrained from breaking the law continuously. The proper course to take was to fix moderate fines that would affect all classes equally, and in the case of habitual offenders to provide imprisonment. In his view the whole principle of the clause was wrong.

said he was unable to contribute to the cataract of tears being shed over automobilists on the subject of fines. After all, this was not a question of fixing an arbitrary fine, it was "a fine not exceeding," and it might safely be left to the local Courts to take all the circumstances fairly into account and deal out justice accordingly. The automobile car business must be brought under the strict and rigid administration of the law. Those who agreed with him were not narrow-minded or animated by a dog-in-the-manger spirit. Personally, he could not afford a six-hundred-guinea motor, but he did not grudge any other man the luxury. But he would like to point out that the greater part of the most serious accidents had occurred on country roads, where it was thought that rash driving was attended with least danger. It was, however, in the villages where the danger was greatest, for in the towns the people were more alert.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 242.)

said that the penalty for a second offence should be subject to the proviso that the second offence was not committed on the same day, his object being to guard against cumulative fines if the defendant was prosecuted in adjoining districts for the same excessive running. He pointed out that going down hill made a lot of difference in the speed, and magistrates would fail to take that matter into account. It had been shown that these atrocious penalties were practically illegal, and he hoped the Government would abandon this policy of eternally piling up fines.

^* pointed out that in going down a road a motorist might unconsciously be travelling just over the limit, and three or four private persons, having taken his number, might summon him. In this way a man, without knowing he had committed an offence, might be fined £10, £20, or £50, all in the same day, and along the same road. That would be a monstrous injustice, and he thought some such words as those proposed ought to be inserted.

thought it was unreasonable that a man should be liable to be fined these penalties, for, perhaps, an initial error, and suggested that the cumulative penalty should not be imposed for practically the same offence.

said the difficulty might be met by the insertion of the provision that the second fine on the same day should not be incurred unless there had been an intimation to the person driving that an offence had been committed in the first instance. A man might be going twenty-one miles an hour without knowing he was exceeding the limit, and four or five persons might summons him for practically the same offence. If, however, he had received an intimation, and still continued at the same pace, the initial penalty should be, repeated.

thought there was something in the argument that there should not be more than one penalty for what was practically the same offence, and undertook to consider the point before the Report stage.

moved an Amendment providing that for any offence subsequent to the second the penalty should be "a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month" instead of a fine not exceeding £50. He urged that the great object of the Committee should be to find a punishment that would fit the crime, and the magistrates should be empowered to impose imprisonment for repeated offences against the law. Fines were no deterrent to wealthy motorcar owners, but a short term in prison would produce a salutary effect even on a millionaire. He acknowledged that the President of the Local Government Board had gone a long way in his endeavour to bring about a compromise, and he was also aware that the right hon. Gentleman had declared he would not allow imprisonment to be inflicted for an infringement of the speed limit, but he felt bound in common justice to move the Amendment, as a fine which a wealthy man would not feel in the least degree might be a very severe punishment to a poorer man. It was true that imprisonment did not deter Irish Members of Parliament from declaring their political opinions, but he believed it would do some of these flying millionaires all the good in the world. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—

"In line 6 to leave out the words 'a fine not exceeding £50,' and insert the words 'a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month.'"— ( Mr. William Redmond. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."

said that the Amendment was a departure from the basis of settlement which had induced his right hon. friend to bring forward this clause, and which was that imprisonment should not be coupled with the laying down of a speed limit. The infringement of the speed limit was, after all, a less serious offence than driving to the public danger. The two offences were in different categories, and driving to the danger of life and limb was punished more severely. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.

said he had desired to move to reduce the penalty for the second offence from £20 to £10.

^* said the hon. Member should have risen as soon as the hon. Member for East Clare stated where his Amendment would come in.

said he did not hear the effect of the Amendment stated until nearly the end of the speech.

^* pointed out that the ordinary course was for a Member to write out his proposed Amendment on paper and bring it to the Chair. If he did not take the trouble to do that, he ought to watch the proceedings carefully to see that he was not shut out by other Amendments being moved.

said that while he thought the suggestion of imprisonment was not half so bad as the other penalties in the clause, he must oppose the Amendment. The sole desire of the hon. Member for East Clare was to punish millionaires. He was not a millionaire, therefore the enactment would not affect him. He had not the slightest objection to the penalty being inserted, but things ought to be done in proper order; it was absolutely unfair that it should be sandwiched in at this point, and he should vote against it.

in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether some hing could not be done in the direction he had indicated.

Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words "provided that proof of the exact measurement and rate of speed should be produced." He said that all he asked was that satisfactory proof of the rate of speed at which the car was travelling should be produced in Court. At present, in many cases the charges were based on a mere guess of a policeman, and it was only reasonable, if these substantial penalties were to be imposed, that satisfactory proof of the offence should be forthcoming.

Amendment proposed to the proposed mendment as amended—

"At the end, to add the words 'provided that proof of the exact measurement and rate of speed be produced.'"—( Mr. Dalziel. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added.

said he did not think those who were interested in motoring were doing any good to their case by invariably assuming that every Court would be prejudiced against motorists and were going to act unfairly towards them. He could not think there was any necessity in this case to impose on magistrates an obligation in regard to evidence which was not imposed on them in any other case.

asked if the convictions of motorists in England counted for promotion in the case of the policeman. If it did, it would be a very easy thing for him to sally out from the police station, stop-watch in hand, and shortly afterwards to find two stripes blossoming out on his shoulder. It would be a great temptation to a policeman to be thus able to become a sergeant "on easy terms." He was surprised to hear that the aristocracy in England had so much suspicion of the police, as when the peasantry in Ireland harboured such a feeling they were at once condemned as possessing a double dose of original sin, and it was really most painful to find this suspicion of law and order arising in England.

said the Amendment was scarcely practicable. He would be very sorry if any general impression obtained that the magistrates did not do their best to administer justice impartially. Speaking with some experience, he ventured to say that, on the whole, magistrates did their duty conscientiously and arrived at correct conclusions. He agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that these matters were best left to the general laws of evidence.

said that this Amendment ought to be met in a proper way, and they ought to have some of that spirit of compromise for which the right hon. Gentleman had always hitherto been celebrated. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would give way in this matter, and he appealed to him to do this in order that the Bill might go through.

said that, taking it as a whole, he thought they got justice from the magistrates, but there existed an enormous amount of prejudice in this matter. Although he had not yet been convicted, unjust attempts had been made to stop his car whilst driving to the House of Commons. Coming down Corn hill upon one occasion about five miles an hour, a policeman stopped him and demanded his name and address. He gave his name, and his address as "the House of Commons," but the officer refused to take that address. He was summoned, but the case was dismissed, and although the magistrate agreed with him the Commissioner of Police disagreed, and he awarded this particular policeman two days' holiday. There was an enormous amount of prejudice against motorists. They had heard a good deal about stop-watches. Not long ago a policeman produced a stop-watch, and upon examination it was found that the works were completely out of order, and the case was dismissed. In one case a stick was thrown at a motor-car, and when the owner applied for a summons the magistrate held that as the motorcar must have been going at a furious rate the man who threw the stick was not responsible for the damage. He thought it was unjust not to issue a summons against the roan who threw the stick. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insert something in regard to these penalties which would satisfy justice. None of them wanted to travel faster than twenty miles an hour, but he thought words should be inserted demanding some proof as to the rate of speed.

said he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would maintain the position he had taken up. If this Amendment were accepted no conviction would ever be obtained, except by setting a trap.

Not necessarily.