If I might make an announcement it would possibly save hon. Members proceeding with this matter. I have discussed Clause 31 with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. I realise, of course, that the Clause is a very contentious Clause. At the same time, I think that all parties in the House are anxious that the Bill itself should not be imperilled by a contest over this Clause. That being so, I propose, with the assent of the House, to withdraw the Clause altogether. The Bill is of such importance that, as I said when I was speaking upon it a couple of days ago, this course is desirable. But it is not a political Bill. It is not meant to be a political Bill. On the other hand, if there was any idea that there was any unfair political implication in this Clause, or that it could be used for that purpose, I want to make it perfectly clear that that is not so.

Oh!

I was not, of course, speaking of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I, therefore, propose to ask the House for leave to withdraw the Clause, and I appeal to the House to pass the rest of the Bill without much further discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the Clause. The Question has been put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'information' in line 11, stand part of the Bill." That will have to be negatived, then it will be necessary to move to leave out tie remainder of the Clause.

Yes, Sir.

The question is "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Is it usual on the Report stage, if a Clause is to be left out, that the Motion should be made for the Clause to be left out before Amendments are considered?

As a matter of fact it is not strictly necessary after the first words have gone.

That was not the question that you had put from the Chair.

The question I put was, "That the remaining words of the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I think I rose in time to make my point.

The hon. and gallant Gentlemen will be able to make the point he is anxious to make on the Third Reading of the Bill.

On a point of Order. Did I not hear you put the Question that the remaining words be left out? I did not hear the voices collected.

It was not necessary that I should do so. Perhaps I was in error in putting it at all.

I beg to move, in page 33, line 4, to leave out the word "drunk", and to insert instead thereof the words

"in a state of intoxication whereby his capacity to act is impaired."

It will be within the recollection of the House that this Amendment was put down by one of the hon. Members on the other side of the House. To-day the question of the dangers to our roads owing to carelessly driven motorcars has become a national one. Matters are far more dangerous than on the railways, which have all along been safeguarded by having notices put up that trespassers will be prosecuted. With the rapid movement of motorists we have a situation that is becoming deeply fixed in the public mind, and one which calls for a stronger application of the law. In some case we can find that even where there has been a previous conviction a comparatively small fine has been imposed, because in the case of an aristocrat the person could easily lay down £ 1,000. With this particular phase of the matter we ought to have no difficulty at all if the word "drunk" were removed and the words I have proposed were substituted. Feeling strongly as I do that these words really are necessary I urge upon the Government to make the change.

The trouble is that we have such cases as that which has just taken place at Royston, Yorkshire, in which a driver, according to the Coroner, had too much to drink, but was completely absolved and cleared, although a life had been taken away, that of a, miner 62 years of age. I submit that where there is evidence, as was particularly emphasised by the Coroner, that a driver has had too much drink, it is not necessary to go through those elaborate tests which are sometimes applied to ascertain whether a man is drunk; it is sufficient to say that if his capacity for controlling the machine has been in any way impaired, there should be no excuse and a severe penalty ought to be imposed. There is no doubt that the cry in respect of drunken motorists is a warrantable one, but I do not see that those cases are any more serious than the whole range and catalogue of disasters that is falling on the nation because of the provision of this particular concoction from which the Government is deriving what they call revenue. But it is worth while emphasising that in cases of this kind we get a general agreement among the public that some action must be taken. In other classes of cases the view we put forward is treated as a mere sentimentality, but I do not reckon that the knocking down of a man in the street by a motorist who is under the influence of drink is any more serious than the case of a man knocking out some of the members of his family and having to go to the scaffold. I reckon, to say the least of it, that the one case is equally as important as the other; but we cannot get these motoring cases dealt with in the only way in which they ought to be dealt with.

In this Bill we are making a law for settling questions arising through drink which have to be dealt with in the Courts. Cases of furious driving, apart from the question of drink, are being dealt with and one can get evidence to prove by the rate at which a man is driving, and the manner in which the machine has been proceeding, that there is ground for conviction; but all over the country, as some of us know by actual experience, a travesty of justice is going on. Any poor individual brought to the bar of a police court can be convicted by two police constables of being drunk and incapable, but I would not advise anyone, supposing he had twenty witnesses, to try to prove that a police-constable was drunk. I advise him not to try it, because he would find out by experience, as some other people have done, that he would fail. These are circumstances which have got to be faced. Customers of the liquor business have no right to talk about the liberty of the subject if that liberty is to become a licence to smash the lives of his fellow men, and we must get over any legal or technical difficulties there may be in proving a case against them, and the whole range of experience in the courts has proven that this word has been a. safeguard for dangerous persons. What we have to do is to see that where a man driving a machine has in any way had his capacity for controlling that machine impaired, so that he endangers the interests of other people, that wherever that can be established and, by the simple use of the English language, it can be shown that he has been affected in that way, the Courts ought to be able to register a conviction against him. Those of us who have looked into the effects of drink know that they go to the brain, and if from that point of vantage they exercise any impairment, as there is impairment, then we are liable to have such dangerous consequences as those of which we have been speaking. The Government are anxious to defend the interests of the people, and here is an opportunity where, by a simple re-arrangement of the English language, we can avoid many of the serious troubles which have afflicted people in the past; and undoubtedly a much more formidable case will confront the man who runs risks from drink before he starts to drive his motor car. In moving this Amendment I hope we shall be allowed a free, full and frank vote in the lobbies of the House.

I rise to second this Amendment, though possibly not for quite the same reasons as those which actuate the Mover. I do think the words he suggests are an improvement. No doubt the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in framing this Amendment, had in his mind the Order in Council of 26th June, 1923, amending the Air Navigation Order, 1922, where similar words are used. As the hon. Member said, the word "drunk" is a horrid word. It has a horrid past, legally speaking. Probably no two persons agree as to when a man is or is not drunk; certainly no two doctors seem to agree about it. We have had all sorts of ridiculous tests applied to ascertain whether a man is drunk or not, tests to see whether he can walk along an imaginary line that is not there, or stand upon one leg with his eyes shut, which is not a very easy thing for some people to do when they are sober. We have all these tests to find out whether a man is drunk, and then the other day a stipendary magistrate decided in a case that came before him that a man was neither drunk nor sober. No doubt he was perfectly right, but what I want to point out is that he would have been able to say whether a man's capacity to act had been impaired by the drink he had taken. It may be said that "in a state of intoxication" and "drunk'' mean exactly the same thing, but there is some distinction, and there is some authority for that distinction. Hon. Members will recall that Mr. Boswell, the chronicler of Johnson, was a man who habitually took too much drink. He promised his friend Temple upon one occasion that he would reform, and in future would take only one bottle of hock for dinner. Unfortunately, however, he exceeded that allowance, and in writing to his friend Temple, in a state of great contrition, 'he uses this expression,

"I did not get drunk. I was, however, intoxicated."

Even in those days there was some distinction. I know that we shall be met with the objection that this Amendment enlarges the powers of the police. I think that is in its favour, because everyone admits that the phrase "the quick and the dead" would soon cease to have any meaning because they would all have passed into the category of the dead, except some of the very quickest. Therefore I do not regard that as any objection at all. I am aware that the Government have promised a Bill to amend the law relating to road vehicles, and to carry out those recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Ministry of Transport. I would like to point out, however, that if this Amendment is carried and this proposal we are discussing is found to work badly, the matter could be remedied in that Bill. I admit that this proposal is rather an excrescence on this Bill, and that we might have waited until the promised Bill is produced, but here we have a chance of trying this proposal now, and then if it is not successful the Home Secretary can introduce a Clause dealing with the matter in his Bill.

It is quite true as the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has pointed out that this Clause is, to some extent, an excrescence on the Bill, and that the Bill to be brought in by the Ministry of Transport ought to deal with this case. It has been urged that there should be a more severe penalty for a man who is drunk in charge of a vehicle than for a man who is charged with being drunk in the ordinary case. My own view is that a man who is drunk in charge of a motor car should be subject to a higher penalty. Now my hon. Friend (Mr. Scrymgeour) comes forward with a definition as to the meaning of the word "drunk." An authority which has been quoted by the hon. Member for South West Hull declared that in one case the man was not drunk and yet he was not sober. Would that man be "in a state of intoxication"? I have tried to find out what a state of intoxication means, and according to the Oxford Dictionary "intoxication means—

"1. The action of poisoning; administration of poison; killing by poison; the state of being poisoned.

"2. The action of rendering stupid, insensible or disordered in intellect with a drug or alcoholic liquor.

"3. The poisoning of the moral or mental faculties."

That is dealing with the law which enables a man to have the right to sell intoxicants.

That really has nothing to do with the Amendment, because we are discussing not the licensing laws, but whether the word "drunk" ought to be changed, and the phrase "in a state of intoxication" substituted for it. If you are going to change the definition in that way, a man will claim to be charged with the new charge—that he is in a state of intoxication. I do not think there is any reason why you should change the meaning of the word, and I suggest that we are only wasting time on this Amendment. I have introduced a clause dealing with motorists driving when they are drunk. I think it is an abominable offence, and that my object is to make the penalty more severe for this particular offence.

I think the word "drunk" is capable of several meanings, and I claim to speak rather as an expert on the point in this way. As a naval officer who spent many years in the Navy, I have been called upon on many occasions to judge whether a man is drunk or not. We had a rule in the Navy which I commend to the Home Secretary. We did not call in the doctor to decide in such a case at all. "When a man is brought up for drunkenness in the Navy medical evidence is not admitted, and the executive officer is the judge, and the test generally applied is whether the man is capable of performing his duty. If it is the case of a man returning from leave, and not being required for duty until the next morning no notice is taken because he is not likely to cause any trouble, and the wise officer turns a blind eye on him. One of the secrets of discipline is to be able to turn on the blind eye occasionally.

The main test in the case of a bluejacket is whether he is capable of working aloft or on the sails. If he is not, he is drunk. If he is a stoker, the test is whether he is capable of taking care of a fast running engine. If he is a marine, the test is whether he is capable of being put sentry over a broached rum cask, which is an even more severe test. There you have three distinct offences relating to the lower deck hands. Take the case of the motorist. The test ought to be, is he capable of performing his duty, because he has to perform the most intricate and difficult duty. I think an altogether different test is required in the case of the man referred to by the Home Secretary as drunk and disorderly. We know that policemen do not take men into custody when drunk if they are going home quietly, because that would be quite intolerable. Men are not taken into custody when they are walking along quietly and are not a danger to anyone else. But when they interfere with the comfort of others, then quite rightly they are apprehended and taken in charge by the police.

But the case of the motorist is not on all fours with that. I put it that the Home Secretary is taking this action on altogether false grounds, because the word "drunk" is capable of many interpretations on account of its uncertainty, and as the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has already pointed out, doctors often disagree as to whether a man is drunk or not. For these reasons, if the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) presses his Amendment to a division I shall support him, because the case of the motorist is different from that of anyone else. He is in charge of a dangerous vehicle; we want a good definition, and I think the definition of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee is much better, and I shall therefore support it.

I think that there is some misunderstanding about this Amendment. As I read it, it is much narrower and not broader than the proposal. The word "drunk" and the phrase "in a state of intoxication" are substantially the same, but the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has given to the driver an extra defence, enabling him to say, even although he be in a state of intoxication, that his capacity to act is not impaired. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Dundee wishes to have very drastic legislation against this type of person, surely the Home Secretary's phrase is broader, and not narrower, than that of the hon. Member. I am not an expert on drunkenness, but I, like many others, have had experience of interpreting words, and, whatever the intention of the hon. Member may be, it does seem to mo that under the Bill, once a man is shown to be drunk in charge of a vehicle, he commits an offence, whereas under the Amendment it is not enough to show that he is in a state of intoxication, but you must go on and show that his capacity to act is impaired. Therefore, a man whose capacity to act is not impaired is liable under the Bill, but is not liable under the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Dundee, inadvertently no doubt, has produced an Amendment which is in favour of the drunken motorist.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), but I suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment. Having had some experience of prosecutions, I know full well that these words "whereby his capacity to act is impaired," will be a constant defence, and in many cases the prosecution will forget to prove these vital words and the man will get off I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), and I appeal to the hon. Member for Dundee to withdraw his Amendment.

It was put up by a lawyer on the other side.

I think the Home Secretary should pursue his investigations a little further. He gave us the Oxford definition of "intoxication," but he did not give us the definition of "drunk." The Oxford definition is

"that has drunk intoxicating liquor to an extent that affects steady self-control: intoxicated, inebriated, overcome by alcoholic liquor."

If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to go a little further, and see that those who have to administer justice understand that, by the Oxford definition, "drunk" is that they have drunk intoxicating liquor "to an extent that affects steady control," it will very largely accomplish what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) desires.

I agree with the object of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), but I think that that object has been very well stated by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). A man will put this up as a defence, and it will be very difficult to prove that his capacity is impaired, and to secure a conviction at all. It is true that the word "drunk" is very unsatisfactory. We all know the difficulties that result from it at the present time, but I feel that the Amendment, instead of securing the object of the hon. Member, will really defeat it, and, in the circumstances, I hope that he will consent to withdraw it.

I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out from the word "vehicle" in line 6 to the word "shall" in line 8.

The object of this Amendment is to remove from this Clause that part which relates to the offence of reckless driving. I understand that we are promised comprehensive legislation next year to deal with motoring offences as a whole, and I suggest that this Clause should be left to deal with the matter to which it substantially relates, namely, that of being drunk in charge of a motor car. I understand that this Amendment is going to be accepted, and, therefore, I need say no more.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In doing so I should like to point out that it is suggested in this Bill that the Act of 1903 should be perpetuated. The last Section of the Act of 1903 states that that Act will last until 1906, but it has already lasted until 1925. The point I see in it is that, while reckless driving is not something that anyone in this House can support in any way at all, the wording of the Act of 1903 is so loose that anyone who exceeds the limit of 20 miles an hour at the present time could be prosecuted for driving recklessly. Sub-section (1) of Section I of the 1903 Act states that

"If any person drives a motor car upon a public highway recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time"—

this is the important point—

"or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the highway, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

The point is that it is not that the traffic is actually on the road at the time, but that it may reasonably be expected to be on the road. Consequently, anyone who exceeds the speed limit on a certain road when there is no traffic on it at all, might quite easily be prosecuted for reckless driving and be sent to prison for four months under this new clause, when no reckless driving existed at all.

I think that this is an Amendment which I can reasonably accept—

Oh!

As I said to the House a few minutes ago, everyone agrees that the offence of driving when drunk is an abominable one, but at present the penalties for reckless driving which as my hon. and gallant Friend (Capt. Brass) has said, is really what is involved here, are fines and also imprisonment for the second and third offence. I think that, while we are engaged in the whole reconstruction of motor-car law, and, as I said just now, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport hopes to bring in a Bill to deal with the whole question of motor legislation next year, it would be unfair if I were to single out this one particular offence. I admit that the argument I am using might be used in regard to drunkenness, but that is so exceptional that I think I was entitled to single it out, as it is such a very bad thing; but to single out this particular offence by a motorist, and say we will give imprisonment for four months for the first offence, is not right, pending the reconsideration of the whole question of motor legislation and the bringing in of a considered Bill by the Minister of Transport. In these circumstances I think that, although the hon. lady (Miss Wilkinson) may have objections, she will realise that her interjection was, perhaps, not very partinent to the argument I am addressing to the House, which is a serious argument, namely, that, as a Bill is going to be brought in, I hope early, during the course of next Session, that I should suddenly come down at the fag end of this Session and increase the penalty so enormously, making it four months' imprisonment for the first offence, is too much. In the circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

I think the House is entitled to be a little surprised that this Amendment, put down by private members, is suddenly accepted in the way it has been, because the Home Secretary no doubt, in what time he can spare from his various prosecutions, has given his best attention to the Bill. Presumably the Government thought it was right to impose, not indeed a certainty of imprisonment, but an additional probability of imprisonment on people who are guilty of this wicked offence, and I think it is shameless for hon. Members opposite to seek to prevent a very slight addition to the penalties for reckless driving. The speed, the number of motor ears, and the danger of motor traffic have enormously increased since the Act of 1903 was passed. I cannot think hon. Members in any part of the House can resist an Amendment which does not say a man who drives recknessly shall necessarily be sent to prison, but merely gives the magistrate an option to send a reckless driver to prison on the first case. I hope hon. Members will divest themselves of mere obedience to the word of command, and vote on the merits, because, speaking quite sincerely, I think the Amendment has no merits and a slight measure of increased rigour, introduced by the Government themselves, has every reason to secure the support of everyone who wants to protect pedestrians and particularly little children in country districts. Everyone who has been in a motor car knows it is not a question of the Act of 1903 or of the amount of traffic that may or may not be on the road. The danger is not one of motor cars in collision.

That is a very serious thing, but to me a much more appealing thing is a little baby that runs out of a cottage gate. That is not traffic on the road. All that is asked by the Government themselves is that the magistrate in such a case shall have the option of imprisonment for a first offence. The right lion. Gentleman said there is no need for such an option. On the merits there is no case for the Amendment, and I trust it will be rejected.

I am always pleased-when the Liberal Party step out of the breach, and express their real opinion, but it is only when they are losing a chance of sending someone to jail. How far is it really genuine on this occasion? The hon. and gallant Gentlemen knows as well as I do that if a man is driving recklessly, and knocks over or kills a child, he is guilty of manslaughter and can be sent to for the first offence. This Clause was brought in for the purpose of dealing with the very exceptional case of a person who is drunk in charge of a motor-car. It was not intended to deal with the whole of motorcar legislation. I ask the House to accept what the Home Secretary has said. No one knows more than I do how bitterly we complain of insufficient discussion of a Bill, but the Government have treated us fairly on this Bill, and it is a bad reward if we are going to take up the time of the House with points like this. The Government have met us on Clause 31 and various other matters. This point can be dealt with already in serious cases under the ordinary law, and as far as details are concerned, they can be dealt with by the proper Bill when it comes before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) invariably rushes in on these occasions to defend personal liberty. I feel sure that he will defend the personal liberty of those whom the hon. Member wishes to put into gaol. I hope the House will not take up time over this very small point.

I cannot understand why the Home Secretary proposes to leave the population of this country at the mercy of reckless motorists until some Bill, about which we know nothing yet, but which may arrive in the next session, if the Government is there to bring it in, and we are to wait while the toll of accidents every week grows larger and larger. There are very many more oars on the road to-day than there ever have been before, and there seems to be a complete decay in any kind of motoring manners. You have any young fool in charge of a car dashing round corners, not troubling to sound his horn, dashing in on traffic, and on less experienced drivers. I can speak quite feelingly on the matter. It may not necessarily mean that someone is killed, but a man can go on like that, putting people in peril of their lives and finally landing in a smash-up. It may be his first convicted offence, but he has been offending for a very considerable period before that. People who are in charge of cars ought to be made to realise their responsibility to the unfortunate people who have to use their feet, and that is certainly not the case at present. In my constituency a very great feeling of resentment was caused by a driver like this dashing into a cyclist, leaving him by the road dead and not troubling to stop. These are things that are going on. It is no use people on the other side saying, "Oh!" You only have to pick up your newspaper to see the growth of this type of thing. There are people in charge of cars whom only the real threat of prison will ever make decently responsible. I know there are people for whom no threat is needed, but those are not the people for whom laws are made. A Clause like this is needed for those road hogs who are making our country roads an absolute bugbear for every one. The seconder of the Amendment spoke of roads where there was very little traffic. That again is just the danger. You have long stretches of country road bordered by cottages or farmhouses, and people feel they can speed along at any old miles an hour, and people crossing the road or coming out suddenly, if the horn is not sounded, and it is a very modern silent car, may find themselves in a very serious position. I hope we shall have a Motor Transport Bill. Goodness knows it is very badly needed. In the meantime, what is to be done? Would anything be lost by the Home Secretary having this Clause in his Bill while the other Bill is being prepared? This would give magistrates more power than they have, and it would be a warning to those in charge of cars driving to the danger of the public. I hope the Home Secretary will not withdraw the Clause, but continue it until such time as we have the other Act.

I wonder if there is any single Member of the House who could get up and honestly say that he has never exceeded the 20 miles speed limit? It seems to me that the whole attitude of certain hon. Member towards the question of motoring is on a wrong basis. You cannot look on the motorist to-day as a single class, and picture him as a rich man in a fur coat, smoking a cigar, as was done 20 years ago. Everybody is a, motorist now. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes. Those who do not go either in private or hired motor cars go in omnibuses or chars-a-banc, and I do not think that many hon. Members opposite would please their constituents if they suggested to them that any bus in which they travelled should not go more than 10 miles an hour in the towns, or that chars-a-banc on which they travel in the country should not go at more than 12 miles an hour.

It is no good being hypocritical about this. We must face the position. In this question of motoring we are all at the present time law breakers, and we shall be law breakers until the law is codified and brought up to date. Every taxi driver, as the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) would emphasise, if he were here—he is with us on this point —and every driver of a commercial vehicle who exceeds a speed of 20 miles an hour is liable under this Section, if two policemen are prepared to swear that he drove dangerously, and if he gets before a bench of magistrates who are not friendly disposed towards motorists he can be sent to prison for four months. Already he can be heavily fined and his licence taken away indefinitely. That seems to me to be a severe penalty for any man who has to get his living by driving a motor car, whether it is a taxi-cab, a motor car or a motor vehicle. I stand up for those who have to earn their living. The private motorists can look after themselves. They can pay fines, they can engage counsel to defend them, and they can afford to appeal. I am thinking of the democracy of motor- ing, which is growing very much and will continue to grow.

This Clause is most unjust. Every motorist wants to do away with reckless driving. Surely hon. Members will have enough common sense to agree that 90 or 95 per cent. of motorists are not reckless drivers. It is a small percentage who cause the danger, and the great majority of motorists want to do away with that section. But you will never do away with them unless you enlist the support and sympathy of the motoring public as a whole—a public which is expanding every year, and will continue to expand. We must have their support and sympathy, and the support of the associations, commercial or private, which represent them. We must frame legislation in sympathy with the motoring public, business or private, and when we do that we shall be able to get their sympathy, and put down the small minority of reckless drivers.

At the present time every motor driver feels that he has the police against him. We are a law abiding people, and most of us look on the police to help us and protect us, but as soon as we are driving a motor car the policeman is down on us because we drive over 20 miles an hour on the open road, where there is no danger, or over 10 miles an hour in a 10-mile speed limit area, where it is safe to drive 15 miles. While we are doing that the policeman is our enemy.

Until you get the motoring public feeling that the law is framed to prevent reckless driving and not to deal with minor offences, you will never get the motoring public to help you to put down reckless driving. It is for these reasons that I strongly urge the Committee not to be led away by prejudice. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith has been a little unworthy of the skill with which he usually puts forward any case which he has to present. The question of the risk to children has been disposed of by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) [HON. MEMBERS: "NO"]. The ordinary law will deal with any accident where a child, woman or man is injured. This will not strengthen the law in any way in cases of accident. There are penalties for reckless driving. This merely gives magistrates extra power to put people into prison for the first offence on the evidence, perhaps, of one or two policemen. I hope that the arguments of Hon. Members opposite which might, on the face of them, appear to appeal to our sympathies will not lead the House away from the common-sense point of view. The great motor industry, with the expansion of driving, and everybody using mechanicaly-propelled vehicles, will and must progress, and we must not deal with it in a narrow and petty spirit but in the large way which I hope the Government will adopt in the near future. I am very glad that the Home Secretary has seen his way to accept this sensible Amendment.

I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken represents in the least, the ordinary democratic motors. He says that the motorists' worst foe is the policeman. I sometimes drive a two-seater, and I regard the policeman as my best friend, because he guards me from the reckless motorist who, in my experience, is generally the wealthy motorist with a very high-powered car. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am only giving my own experience as a driver of a low-powered car. In my experience of about seven months or so, the worst offenders are the owners of the very high-powered cars, very expensive cars, who claim the right to the crest of the road, and anyone else can go into the ditch. I have had that experience. We want to be saved from the reckless motorist. The hon. Member has put up the case as if under this Clause any tiny breach of the motoring law would render one liable to be sent to prison. In my experience, as long as a person is driving carefully they are protected by the police. It is only the reckless driver who is caught up.

The whole mass of motorists would welcome this Clause. It is the reckless driver who interferes with the pleasure of people on the road, whether they are driving or walking. The increased number of accidents is due mainly to the minority of motorists, who have no care for anybody else. If the Clause is as silly as has been put forward, why was it originally put in? It is said that this is something quite special—that the case of the drunken motorists is an excrescence on the Bill, and that this is a little further excrescence that has come along. Presumably, it was originally put in because the matter was urgent. We are all agreed in regard to the drunken motorist; let us be agreed with regard to the reckless motorist. In the interests of the ordinary driver, we must strengthen the law. It is the wealthy driver of a car who does not care; he can pay all the fines that can be imposed upon him. The only person whom this is going to touch is the wealthy road hog, who does not care anything for fines or for other people. I hope that the House will retain this provision.

It is very proper for my hon. Friends on this side to take all steps to protect the lives of little children, and to make road transport safe. I am concerned not about the road hog or those who drive motor cars, but about some 70,000 or 80,000 pople who get their living on the road, workmen who are subject to conditions which may bring them within the law, and get them four months' imprisonment for something over which they have no control. A great many road transport companies allow their drivers a certain limit of time in which to take their goods, say, from Newcastle to Liverpool. No matter what happens on the road they are paid only for a certain amount of time. If the vehicle goes wrong they can repair it in their own time, and if they carry out their instructions there will be frequent infractions of the law if they are to keep their jobs.

The same thing happens in the case of chars-a-bane and motor coach drivers. There are certain time limits within which the journey say, from London to Brighton, has to be done. The company make no allowance for any delays that have to take place. They know that the drivers will break the law if they adhere to the schedule. From that point of view alone an ample case could be made out before there is any legislation upon this subject. I am a firm believer in the principle that prevention is a great deal better than cure. The fact that you send a person to gaol for four months does not restore life, but a great many safeguards could be included in such a Bill as the Minister of Transport has promised to-day. Not only could there be co-operation between the Law Officers of the Crown and the Transport Officers of the Crown, but also those organisations such as the organised road transport workers could suggest proper safeguards such as we find in some parts of the country which may prevent a child getting on the roads. I think in all the circumstances that the Home Secretary should be committed to withdraw this Clause so that the matter may be further considered.

The point made by the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) is a very good argument in favour of hon. gentlemen opposite. It was brought up by an important deputation which waited on the Home Secretary last year. We were accompanied by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass), who is well known as an advocate of the speedy motorist.

I emphasised the fact that I was very much against any reckless driving. My hon. and gallant Friend will bear me out in that.

I said the "speedy" motorist. However, I gather that the hon. and gallant Member is not a champion of the speedy motorist, though, judging by his questions, he seemed to be attacking the police, and I found it necessary to complain to the Home Secretary against these attacks. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not observe that I was in the House, as in that event he might not have given way on this Amendment. The hon. Member for Newcastle has raised a point which must be cleared up. You have the employer who makes his men run to schedule. I have taken the trouble to go into this matter. I have consulted a great many men who work for their living on the road. These men are actually fined, and if they are late and if anything occurs the real culprit escapes and these men go to prison. It is the unfortunate driver and not the real breaker of the law who suffers. That is a very unfair state of the law, and I hope that, when the Bill is brought in next year, that will be remedied though what sort of reception it will get after the speeches made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and others, I cannot say. I hope that this matter will be carefully legislated for so as to deal with the growing evil of the char-a-banc companies in many parts of the country and of the commercial vehicle owners. But I am astonished when the hon. Member for West Newcastle says that steps should be taken to keep the children off the road. They have no proper gardens and the road is the only place where they can play.

I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to misrepresent me. But there are certain safeguards that can be adopted to prevent children getting suddenly on to the road such as having a fence so that they may be protected when they run clown steep places, side roads leading to main motor roads, and so on.

That is a different proposition. But we do not want to have to tie children by a rope to the front garden fence. The children have a right to be on the road and the pedestrian has a right to be on the road. It is the King's highway, but now apparently it belongs to the motorist. I think that the mind of the representatives of the motorist has been expressed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. When I went with the hon. Member to see the Home Secretary on this matter of improving the law, I had a great many letters from all over the country. But the hon. Member apparently is going to object just as strongly to this clause being in the new Bill. The reason for accepting this Amendment is said to be next year's Bill. It is said that we are to have a Bill which will include this Clause and therefore, it is not necessary to deal with it now.

In the new Bill there will be a definition of reckless driving, and I shall be only too pleased to have a proper Bill.

The definition with which we are dealing, which is given in section (1), sub-section (1) of the Motor Car Act, 1903, says that if a person drives a motor car on the public highway, recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and so on, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. If the Government can improve on that, which is in a Conservative Act, apparently they will have opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for West Yarmouth said, "We are motorists and the police are against us, they are our enemies." He is one of the members of the party of law and order. I wonder whether the great heads of the Communist party in Moscow have really mended their ways and secretly enlisted the sympathies of hon. Members opposite? It would, perhaps, be much more effective. Then he complains that a conviction can be obtained on the small evidence of one or two police constables. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."] No, he said "one or two." Since when does the party opposite impugn the veracity of police constables? Apparently when the police constables arrest members of their own class.

The point is that the police have never driven cars, and do not know at what rate a car is going.

That does not tally with the suggested democratisation of motoring. The hon. Member does not accept the veracity of the police, but their evidence can be accepted when it is against working men. The Home Secretary will bear me out when I say that in the present state of the law the policeman's task is often very difficult. The police throughout the country are carrying out their duties towards motorists in a very careful and sympathetic way, and I do not think it is right to talk of them as the "enemies" of the motorist. I have read to the House the definition of reckless driving. I challenge the Home Secretary to improve on this definition next year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take administrative action at once after what the hon. Member for West Newcastle-on- Tyne (Mr. Palin) has said, and what was said by a deputation last summer about employers who forced their employés, in driving commercial vehicles, to break the law. I hope that that matter will be taken up very seriously by the Home Secretary. I can see that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe is going to fight any tightening of the law against reckless motorists. This is a little piece on account, and hon. Members opposite are going to resist it. This Clause gives the option of ordering imprisonment of a man who is so skilful that, while being a very nuisance and scandal on the roads, is fortunate enough not to damage life or limb. You can get that man under this Clause. It is a great pity that the Home Secretary has allowed himself to be browbeaten by his supporters.

We have just been entertained by the usual kind of tirade from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). His speech has been amusing, though he tried to preach the class war from the Liberal Benches. The speech was amusing as an attack on the aristocracy by an hon. Member who himself, in the course of nature, will go to another place. Unfortunately he seems to have entirely missed speaking about any acts which are relevant to this issue. The whole point is that, although there is a certain amount of dispute in Courts as to whether an individual is drunk or not, yet on the whole, looking at it from the point of view of the magistrate hearing the evidence, it is fairly easy, comparatively, to come to a decision with regard to that point and not to convict people unjustly. With regard to reckless driving, the matter is very much more difficult. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have been in, or witnesses of, a motor accident. They may be certain that each side in that accident immediately starts to say that the other side was driving recklessly. In every case that gets into the County Court, the same thing is said. The difficulty in accepting the evidence is enormous, and the danger of wrongful conviction is very great.

Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it would be right for hon. Members on this side to be wrongfully convicted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is exactly the kind of feeling I would have expected from them. It would give them pleasure to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe wrongfully convicted. Out of their mouths shall their charity be judged. The whole point is that the danger of wrongful conviction is so great, that it is not right to put into the hands of two magistrates sitting together the right to send a man to prison without the option of a fine, to force him to appeal and get the conviction quashed at Quarter Sessions at the cost of very great mental agony and strain. That, surely, is a case where the punishment does not fit the crime. If you get the law ahead of public opinion, as in America, the law will be brought into contempt. We must wait until we get the motoring law brought up to date, get offences properly defined, and then there will be no one in the motoring world who will object to serious penalties when the Jaw is broken.

I suggest very seriously that the Home Office would not have asked for this Clause to be inserted unless there were some real and specific reason why it should be in the Bill. When a drunken man is in charge of a car on the highway, the public is in very great danger that he may drive that car. I have a very strong feeling of dislike of the motorist who is in possession of the car on the highway. I suggest to hon. Members that if there is a motor oar, and a drunken man in possession of it, there is every likelihood that he will drive it, and if he drives it there is every likelihood of an accident. Prevention is better than cure. That man should be fined for being in charge of a. car which he is not fit to drive.

That argument is relevant to one of the other Amendments.

I understand that the proposal of the Home Secretary is to withdraw the whole Clause.

No. May I explain that I have accepted the penalty for drunkenness.

There has been great stress laid on reckless driving, consisting of speeding. I would like the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe on this subject. The point is that reckless driving consists mainly of speeding. I suggest that any person found going round a corner where a white line is marked at an undue speed should be convicted of reckless driving. The white line is placed there to ensure that a reasonable speed is observed going round the corner. The driver knows that he cannot go round and keep within the white line, unless he is travelling at a reasonable speed, and any driver exceeding a reasonable speed ought to be prosecuted. I hail with a great deal of pleasure, as a user of the road, the introduction of the white line at various parts of the highway. I hope it will be more extensively used and that any who disregard its use will be convicted of reckless driving. I hope the Home Secretary will allow us to vote upon the Clause and I for one shall certainly support it.

I am not myself a motorist. I am simply one of the public. It has been said that to the motorist people are divided into two classes— "the quick and the dead." At present I am one of the quick. I only rise to say that the hon. baronet the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) does not express my opinion in what he has said regarding police. The police are the enemies only of the lawbreakers, and the policeman is only doing his duty if he arrests or brings to justice anybody who is breaking the law, whether motorist or anybody else, and I strongly deprecate that any Member of this House should talk about the police as my hon. Friend has talked about them. This is the place where the laws are made and we ought to have respect for the law and for all the people who administer it from the judge to the policeman. I support the omission of this part of the Clause because, as one who has had as much experience of these cases in the courts, I think, as anybody else, I can assure hon. Members opposite who take such a strong view that the question of what is reckless driving is extraordinarily difficult to decide. I venture to say that if 50 of the hon. Members sitting opposite were to hear a case of alleged reckless driving, 25 would come to the conclusion that it was reckless driving and the other 25, on the same evidence, would come to the conclusion that it was not reckless driving. I think it is a very strong step to empower two magistrates—very often gentlemen who give their services to the country, but who are quite without training in the matter of weighing evidence— to convict a man who is driving a motor lorry and send him to prison for four months for a first offence on what is very often simply a matter of opinion.

I support the removal of this portion of the Clause as one who has had some road experience. I have driven on the road myself for 25 years before becoming an official of the organisation of the men who are now driving on the road, and I desire a consolidation of the laws and regulations relating to the use of the road. I think some of my hon. Friends here do not quite understand the position. The road law is split up among so many different Acts of Parliament that one can scarcely get at it. The Ministry of Transport is the proper body to bring forward road regulations and they should introduce a comprehensive Measure instead of having them in the present complicated state spread over different parts of different Acts. If these regulations were unified it would be beneficial not only to the drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles, but to foot passengers as well. We are all desirous of preventing accidents on the road and of preventing any people from monopolising the road. Reference has been made to the white line as though it is going to prevent drivers from occupying more than a certain share of the road at corners. I would point out that we are now getting on the roads very large mechanically propelled vehicles, quite different from the fast two-seaters to which reference has been made. We are now getting six-wheeled vehicles which require careful working round corners and we must have wider roads if the driver is to have an opportunity of keeping within the line. I hope that matter will be provided for in the Bill which is to be brought forward by the Ministry of Transport.

I wish to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to a matter concerning the action of the authorities who control the use of postal vans. In Glasgow, recently, there have been four serious accidents, and I have had to communicate with the Postmaster-General in regard to them. In the ordinary course the drivers of these vans would have been taken up and the owners of the vans would have got into trouble, but in the case of the Post Office no action can be taken since the Crown cannot be sued. This is not the fault of the men driving the vans. If there is a late arrival of a train at one of the terminal stations in Glasgow the driver has to make a dash with the mails—

I understand that if the driver cannot be sued, the matter is not relevant to this Clause.

I am speaking of the owners, and I am pointing out the position which arises if any Government Department is to be allowed to do what it likes in this respect. I wish the Home Secretary to take this matter up and to direct the attention of the proper authorities to it, and if there are not regulations to deal with the matter, I hope that in consideration for the public some steps will be taken.

I think this is a very brazen Amendment, and I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) should be supporting it. He is the champion of the motorists who own high-powered cars, and he has sought to extend their license at the expense of the liberty of the ordinary pedestrian.

I have not done anything of the kind.

I leave that to the House. I have a lively recollection of the hon. and gallant Member having taken upon himself the work of propaganda in order to increase the powers of motorists and decrease the ordinary liberties of the people. An hon. Member opposite has said that we on this side want to get motorists convicted unfairly. We do not want to do anything of the kind. We do want to see that when they are convicted they shall be properly punished. The proposal which the Home Secretary declines seeks to impose what I think is a reasonable penalty. After all, what is a fine to the well-to-do motorists? They can pay any amount in the way of money without feeling it at all seriously; but when it comes to a matter of imprisonment, they are very much more reluctant to face that kind of punishment. I am sorry my hon. Friend on my right supports this proposal, because from my knowledge of the working people—and I come into contact with them much more closely than do hon. Members opposite—I can say that they really resent the way in which more and more the motorists of this country are arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to the roads. The ordinary people, and children especially, have to scuttle like rabbits time after time when high-powered cars come along, with a quite reckless disregard of the interests of these ordinary people, and this proposal that they should suffer four months' imprisonment is not, in my opinion, adequate. I would like the see the four months' imprisonment made four months' hard labour, and people who commit the offence of reckless driving, and thereby endanger the lives of their fellow citizens, ought to be made to enjoy the privilege of picking oakum.

We are often told in this House that there is not a class war on. Listening to this discussion this morning, I could not help feeling what a clear illustration it was of the fact that there is a class war on, because, in the main, this discussion has been looked at by hon. Members opposite from the point of view of the wealthy motor owners.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Colonel Day?"] There are one or two exceptions on this side, but in the main the Members on this side are looking at it from the point of view of the great mass of the people, who do not own motorcars, and are never likely to, until we get a more equitable system of society.

What has this to do with four months' imprisonment?

I cannot understand why it is that the Home Secretary has made this concession. It seems to me that he has been guilty of a gross betrayal of the rights of the ordinary pedestrian public, and I think there must have been very powerful influences brought to bear to influence him in this way. I cannot help thinking, for instance, that his friend the noble lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has had something to do with this particular decision, because there are members of the public about, including the Noble Lord, who like to go along the roads at a very high rate of speed, and who do not wish to have adequate penalties imposed upon them if their going along at a high rate of speed endangers the safety of the general public. I protest very strongly on behalf of the ordinary people, the people who have a right to walk across the roads, and the people whose children have a right, as they have nowhere else to play, to play upon the roads, against the Home Secretary agreeing to this proposal and not making the punishment for reckless driving properly fit the crime.

I wish to protest very emphatically against the right hon. Gentleman's method of treating the business which we have had to handle in the Committee. He has judicially presented his view that it was absolutely essential to take both of those factors with which we have been dealing, the two types of Amendments, dealing with separate circumstances, and he has judicially arrived at the conclusion that in both cases it was imperative to tighten up the penalties. Ho has severely condemned the man who is termed drunk, and said it is a very bad crime, whether it is in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening. It is a process that is arrived at simply by intoxication. But with this particular Amendment you have a man in full sobriety, who knows, or ought to know, what he is doing, and he is pursuing a course recognised by the law as utterly objectionable and calling for additional penalties.

On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is making a personal attack upon myself in regard to something I said in Committee, I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage on the Bill, and the discussion on this Amendment, and I was not present that day.

Of course, I was not referring to a particular quotation from yourself. What I was referring to was the fact that your Department—

Order!

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) must really address me.

I accept the correction, but I am endeavouring to clear up what apparently is a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. As a Member of the Committee I had to do with a Bill presented by the Home Office, and on some occasions we had the Homo Secretary, and at other times we had the Under-Secretary present, and one or other was dealing with that Bill. Certainly the Department was supporting the Clause, naturally enough, with which we are dealing now. Pressure was put on to drop the previous Amendment, with which we have dealt already in the House, and here again we find that additional pressure has been brought to bear to cut out that particular phase of it where there is no excuse for talking about intoxication at all, but where there is complete sobriety; and you find hon. Members on the other side deliberately standing up to the position that there ought not to be imposed these additional penalties. I submit that that points more clearly than ever to what the country is feeling, namely that the powerful influences that are behind those who utilise the majority of those cars over the coun- try that are speeding at such a terrific rate are of such a nature that we are going to have the greatest difficulty in protecting human life in the country. The fact that the Home Secretary is now, whether he did in Committee or not, announcing his acceptance of this Amendment proves what I am saying, that all the time there is the influence, and we hope it will be defeated in the Lobby today.

In the interests of the public at large, let me say that, as a matter of knowledge and experience, on the King's highway to-day it is always a question of the public having to jump out of the way of the motor car, or else being killed or injured. What I want to put to the Home Secretary is this: Is it not a fact that, under the 1835 Highway Act, the public have a prior claim to the highway to that of the vehicles, and in case of danger, is it not the case, strictly in law, that the vehicles ought to pull up for the safety of persons travelling on the highway? If that be so, will the Home Secretary issue instructions to the authorities to have that carried out in the country, which will prevent accidents?

I think the hon. Member put the law a little too far.

I will put the question again. The Home Secretary is trying to get away from the point. Is it not a fact that in law the public have the prior claim -never mind equal?

I have just said I think they have not. The Law Officers of the Crown are not here, but I believe my answer is correct. Now may I ask hon. Members to come to a decision? We have got on so far without having to ask for the Closure. We have had a very fair discussion of this matter, and I appeal to the House to come to a decision.

I do not want to delay the proceedings. The point I wish to put is, whether there is any means of obtaining the attendance of the Law Officers of the Crown?

That is not a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right of speaking.

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I have a number of other Amendments to this particular Clause, but I am not going to move them. I simply content myself with moving to leave out the Clause. I will do so in as few words as possible in order that we may get an explanation from the Home Secretary.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask, in view of the ruling of your predecessor, whether my hon. Friends beside me and myself can safeguard our position in relation to one or two Amendments that follow that we propose to move?

There will be no difficulty about that.

On a further point of Order. I gather that on the Clause you are unwilling to exclude certain Amendments that are on the Paper.

They will be safeguarded.

We have decided, in return for the Home Secretary taking out Clause 31, to give the Government every assistance in passing through this Clause without undue obstruction. It is on this ground that I have decided not to move subsequent Amendments. Clause 40 makes it a penal offence for anybody to take a photograph or sketch in any Court or within the precincts of the Court. I wish to enter my protest against the manufacture of fresh offences and fresh excuses to send people to prison. We are going on year by year making fresh crimes. To my mind that is the last thing that Parliament should do. Is it a crime to take a picture of a defendant or other person who may be in Court? It may be very undesirable from the point of view of the person whose picture is taken, but if persons go to law, and come before the public, it seems to me that the public as a whole has just as much right to have a photograph as to have their lives dealt with, or an account of their career put into the public Press. We who are in politics are accustomed to have all sorts of private details about our lives published. We are accustomed to see as photographs the most villainous libels, and we have to put up with it. Why, then, should not these people who are defendants in Court, and in notorious cases, have to put up with what ordinary politicians have to put up with? If you are going to make this a crime, you are going to have all sorts of petty persecution of people. You are going to have an enormous number of additional causes of offence against the law of England, and this seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I protest against this habit of trying to censor the Press, and of interference with the right of everybody to do what they think fit and proper in these cases which come before the Courts. This habit of grandmotherly legislation in the interests of what is said to be morality seems to me to be a very unfortunate development of modern times.

I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). This is sheer grandmotherly legislation. I fail to understand what distinction can be drawn between the publication of the photographs of these people in the Courts, and the publication of the account of the trials. It is to be an offence to take or attempt to take, in any Court or the precincts of the Court, any photograph or sketch and so on, but what does "precincts of the Court" mean? It is quite possible that a newspaper editor may obtain photographs of judges and other officials for publication. Will this be within the "precincts" of the Court? Clearly this is a new offence which is objectionable. It does not meet the worst part of the case, which is where a man has been a party to some offence which is sufficient to make him notorious, and then for a newspaper to ask him to write an account of it, pay him a handsome sum for doing so, and publish his photograph along with the letterpress. You may have an offence of that sort going scot free, while in another case there is punishment. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.

I should like to point out in this case there is no power to send anybody to prison in a general way. It is intended to apply to people who are making a living out of some or other public trial. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter very carefully, and not be led away by what hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have said about the rights of the subject and so forth. As to the case of Members of Parliament I do not suggest that they are lacking in the sense of modesty in a matter of this kind, but we willingly come before the public, and are accustomed to come before the public, and so possibly get our photographs occasionally in the papers. Some of us like it. Really, however, where the matter is serious is where you have to persuade people to come into Court for the purpose of defending their rights, and I can assure hon. Members that a large number of people, both men and women, are terrified to come into the Court because their photographs or a sketch of them are likely to be put in the various papers. They go to Court and you subsequently see photographs of them with their hands in front of faces showing their objection to it. I can tell the House, in my own experience, that this really is a thing which is interfering with the courts of justice at the present time. If a man or a woman desires to be photographed there are plenty of studios to go to or there is the studio of the newspaper which wants the photograph I am speaking now with reference to the cause of Justice. So far as the Committee upstairs was concerned there was not the sightest objection raised to this Clause, and it would appear to me that sometimes the necessity for this Clause is not quite realised. After all, is it not really pandering to a not very high-class taste to have in the newspapers photographs of eminent counsel going into court in whatever costume they may happen to be in? Some of us do not mind it. It is a form of gratuitous advertisement to which some of us have no objection, but is it really very necessary that the public should have a photograph of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) going to the Law Courts?

This does not stop it.

It goes a little way towards it.

It is only a photograph taken in court.

I am afraid it will be stopped in future. It will be an infringement of the personal liberty of my hon. and learned Friend. As he is going into the court with his red bag to conduct his case, the photographer will not be allowed to snapshot him.

It does not apply to counsel. You will be exempt.

Perhaps that privilege still remains. But what I ask the House to do is to consider the feelings of people who really are deterred from coming forward to give evidence, who are caused genuine pain by having their photographs published far and wide, and in the interests of justice I hope this Clause will be allowed to go through. I am not speaking of the details of it, but, taken as a whole, it is a much-needed Clause and it was passed unanimously in Committee.

I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to this Clause. It may not be very disconcerting to those of us who are in the public gaze to know, when we are speaking on a public platform, that someone is sketching us, or that we may hear the click of cameras; but I do not think it fair that those who are not used to being in the public view, and who are in court at a time of great strain, should be disconcerted by the knowledge that people are sketching them. It is for them an occasion when they need all their mentality, and when they have to go to court they ought to be preserved from any sort of molestation or annoyance, even when they are entering the court. I remember how I felt when I first came into the public gaze, in a very small way —though I was not on trial at the time. People who are going to court are disturbed by the thought that there will be a heap of photographers dodging in front of them. It must be very disconcerting to them, and it will be some time before they can recover their mental equanimity.

Further, I do not think it is in keeping with the dignity of the court that it should be used as a studio. If we are to allow this sort of thing to go on in law courts, why should we not allow it in the galleries of the House of Commons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some of us might be quite ready for it, but I think the thing would be coming very close home to us: we should not feel that it added to the dignity of the House if some of the speakers and orators were posing with the idea of having their photographs taken or of their being sketched. Even when this House is not sitting people have to obtain permission to take photographs here, and it is the same in all our public buildings, and why should there be exemption in a court of law, where there ought to be dignity and calm? I hope the Home Secretary will stick to his clause. I would like to see it go a little further, but I am not going to deal with that at the moment.

I think it is time somebody stood up to protest against the creation of new offences. Apparently the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) would make it also an offence, punishable by a fine of £50, for anyone to sketch in the gallery here. It is, I believe, forbidden by regulations; but I should never vote for making it a new and punishable offence for anyone to make a sketch from the Press gallery or take a photograph from the other gallery. It is a mistake to suppose that it is our duty cheerfully to create new offences, unless some public good is served by so doing. In this particular case we achieve nothing at all by this Clause— except in the case of witnesses—and I admit there is something in the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). There have been unpleasant cases in which witnesses may have been deterred from coming forward by the fear that their photographs would appear in the newspapers, and that no doubt is an argument for this Clause; but there must be some limit. We had the "Mr. A" case, where an attempt was made to conceal the identity of one of the parties in the case. It must be recognised that there are certain penalties of publicity involved in the ordinary public administration of justice. As a rule, the name of the witness is given and there is a certain amount of publicity, and we must weigh up the disadvantages that this may bring in exceptional cases against the grave disadvantage of creating a new Press law, with new offences not yet heard of. As my hon. and learned Friend said, this does not deal with the most objectionable form of, I will not say offence, but Press behaviour. There is a Bill promoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil), called the Judicial Proceedings Reports Bill. The Home Secretary does not find time for that, he does not find time to interfere with those disgusting articles from men who, in some cases, have even been condemned. What he does is to draw up a most amazing list of offences and say that newspapers shall be subject to a fine of £50 if they commit them.

What are some of these offences? Photographs must not be taken in Court. I understand, though of course eminent legal authorities will correct me. that Judges now forbid and prevent photographs being taken in Court, if it becomes a nuisance. Further, anyone who attempts to take them will be penalised. In this House hon. Members may sketch during the course of a Debate. There is one notorious and very gifted offender. If the hon. Member for Edmonton extended this restriction to the House of Commons, as he indicated his desire to do, he would bring his colleague within the net. Then, again, it is to be an offence to publish such a photograph. But who is to know where the photograph is obtained? A Judge's photograph, for instance, might have been obtained from a private photographer. The difficulty as to origin would be much more pronounced in the case of a sketch. If I may say so, with great respect to the newspaper Press, I sometimes doubt whether everything that is "sketched in Court" has been sketched in Court. A man in the office may make a drawing from a photograph which he had procured from an ordinary photographer—make a sketch of the Court, draw a picture of the Judge and indicate roughly other figures; but it is very doubtful whether, under paragraph (b) the newspaper would not be subject to a fine of £50 if it published the sketch.

He can sketch as much as he likes, provided he does not do it with a view to publishing the sketch.

My contention is that a, newspaper artist, in the seclusion of his own study, might make a drawing of the Court from knowledge he had obtained during a casual visit, and a drawing of the Judge obtained from photographs obtained from ordinary public sources, and that if published it would apparently be an offence. How are you to tell whether the sketch or the photograph was made in Court or not? A great many of these drawings are made up after visits from material outside the Court, and they are not made on the spot at all. Is it to be laid down that no one inside or outside a Court is to be allowed to produce the image of a magistrate, or coroner, OT the Judge, or a picture of the Court? With great respect to magistrates and coroners, I cannot see that that is a thing which ought to be made an offence, and, although it might be an offence against artistic taste, it is not a great moral offence to reproduce the features of the Judge or witnesses. If it related to the publication of the degrading and demoralising sort of stuff pub- lished in some of our newspapers I should support it, but that is not the case. I think there are quite enough offences already, and I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider the question of proceeding with this Clause at this particular moment.

I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken would have made that speech, unless it was on a Friday afternoon—

Why do you say that?

Because I believe it.

It is a very strange creed.

I want to place it upon a somewhat higher ground. This is a perfectly serious Clause which was introduced into the Bill last year by the Labour Government. It was not in the Bill of 1923, but it was introduced by the Labour Government last year, and when I came into office and saw it I thought it was such a good Clause that I included it in this Bill. There really are good reasons for the introduction of this Clause because I fear that the taking of photographs of people in Court has become an added terror to the administration of justice. It has been my duty to consult some of the Judges and those responsible for the administration of justice on this question, and I can assure the House that, particularly in criminal trials, it is a monstrous abuse of the rights of the Press to sketch and put in such things as the pictures of the widow or the mother of the man who is being tried for his life. Naturally under those circumstances the mother or the wife of the prisoner wants to go into the Court to see her husband tried, and if she docs this she has to run the risk of being pilloried in the newspapers as the wife or mother of the prisoner, and this is not fair. Why should the prisoner be subject to such a thing, because he may turn out to be quite innocent, and yet he will find that he has been pilloried as someone charged with a horrible crime, although he may be acquitted?

Why not extend this provision to the private photographer?

It is not a pleasant thing to be a witness either in a coroner's court or a criminal court, but it is necessary that these people should go there in the interests of justice in order to give evidence. But in addition to this they are now subject to the risk of having their photographs published in the newspapers. With regard to what has been said about this practice in connection with divorce eases, I do not think that the society woman going through the divorce court really objects to it, but the poor person feels very strongly about it. This Clause has been put in after much consideration, and the Government believe it is in the interests of the whole community, and I believe the Press are prepared to accept it. I know there is another Amendment suggesting the omission of the words "or in the precincts of the building." I agree that you cannot prevent every photographer taking photographs of witnesses going to or leaving the court, but when they are crossing the pavement leading to the court there ought to be the sanctity of the court to protect them. I ask all sides of the House to declare in favour of this Clause, which I am sure is not only in the best interests of the administration of justice, but is also likely to promote the well-being of the people as a whole.

I do not think this Clause will achieve the object which the Home Secretary has in view. As it now stands, even the Home Secretary admits that it is possible for a person to be photographed far removed from the precincts of the Court, and if that is done the publicity we wish to guard against will still take place. I agree that there is nothing more revolting than to pick up a newspaper and find in it a lot of morbid photographs of all sorts of poor and popular persons, but my point is that I do not think the publicity we wish to guard against is removed by the operation of this Clause, and it should be made more drastic. No paper should be allowed to publish a photograph of anyone involved in a Court action, and unless you make such a provision, you will not get the protection which is sought by this Clause.

I will give another illustration. Suppose I went into a Law Court and took up a piece of paper and put down a few Pitman signs, and then I go outside and connect these signs and I get my finished sketch. If a person in the Court made a few notes of that kind on a piece of paper, would he be liable under this Clause? There are quite a number of ways in which an artist can ride through any part of this Clause. Of course if I had my way with regard to some of these photographs I should not hesitate in throwing the newspaper-containing them in the Thames, but, I think it would be more effective if the Homo Secretary was more drastic with the whole of the Press, and prohibited them from publishing photographs or sketches of any person involved in a case in the Courts. Under this Clause there will be some difficulty in proving whether the sketch or photograph was produced inside or outside the Court, and the words proposed will not effect the object of the Clause.

Might I ask the Home Secretary to elucidate the Clause for us? So far as I can gather, there is nothing in it to prevent people getting a photograph of the widow of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Does Sub-section (1, b) cover that? It says

"publish any photograph, portrait, or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this Section or any reproduction thereof."

Does that mean that a person will not be allowed to go to the house of a witness in a case and photograph her or sketch her, or if she be a society woman, going to a Court photographer and getting her photograph? We all know that there is a big business done in these photographs. They are taken and brought out and bought, and, if the subject of one of them, does some notorious or criminal action the photograph can be used. I see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea (Captain Viscount Curzon) smiling, but I do not mean him at all. Is there anything to prevent that, because, if not, what is the use of this Clause? You could drive a coach and horses through this Clause. I think the law at present is that the judge may prohibit sketching or photographing, and that is a much better state of affairs. It is better than saying that there shall be no photographing or sketching and no portraits of any kind under a penalty of £50. There may be cases where the publishing of photographs is a helpful deterrent. Certain people who misbehave themselves deserve to have their photographs published. Again, in some cases it may be the means of tracing a criminal. The possibility of publishing portraits of people who have committed crimes against society may be a very useful deterrent. If the Government would tackle the problem of the publication of salacious details of cases there would be something in it, but this is really straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel as long as the details of horrible cases are permitted to be published. There is no harm in a photograph or portrait, but there is harm in reading matter which a. small child or young person can get hold of, and, if the Government would tackle that problem, they would be doing something useful. I must say that I think this is a quite unnecessary Clause, and I would ask for an explanation, at any rate, on those two points.

At first, I was inclined to vote with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) against this Clause, but I shall now vote for it, simply because it is a very weak, halting, and faltering step in the right direction. This is another sample of the cowardice of Governments—I will not discriminate between Governments—in dealing with the Press, when the Press take up an attitude on a particular question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Aston Division (Sir E. Cecil) introduced a Bill dealing in an effective manner with a growing evil of our time, namely, the pernicious and outrageous manner in which rich men get richer by retailing filth day by day and every Sunday. It is perfectly monstrous the sort of stuff that is retailed out in what is called the popular Press. You talk about Bolshevism and any other ism, but it is nothing compared with the moral degradation that is caused by this literature, and no Government dare tackle it. You are tackling here just the fringe of the question, but in my judgment the rich well-to-do purveyors of filth do not mind this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has consulted them, and they do not mind it in the least.

The real difficulty and the real danger to the community—the publication of filth—is to go on. All the stories that are raked up about a man or a woman against whom a charge may be levied is to go on untouched. Directly a person is charged, especially with some revolting kind of murder, every sort of sordid, bestial detail is raked up like filthy muck rakers going over a heap of muck, and published in the Press, and no one in this House has the courage—I will not say no one, but no Government—to deal with it. We talk very often about religion and the teaching of religion and education and all the rest of it, but it would be better that our children could not read than that they should read this muck served up for them day after day and every Sunday. I should like to feel that the right hon. Gentleman would develop the same energy and the same courage and the same devotion to what he considers high principle in regard to this matter that he has in regard to Communist and Bolshevist agitation in this country. There are certain things in life which we all ought to hold pretty sacred, and one is the mind of the little child; and both pictures and letter press that are published in this country are so foul that if I had my way I would take the people who make huge fortunes out of the retailing of such muck and put them into penal servitude for the rest of their lives. Such things ought not to be received either in this House, in a court of law, or anywhere else where decent men and women congregate.

I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. All the arguments I have heard to-day have been, not against this particular Clause, but against its weakness--that it ought to go further. But the law has to make a start. Let us see how this works, and, if it be necessary that it should go further, there can be further legislation to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere. Therefore, I would suggest that this Amendment should not be pressed. Let us try and keep the Court of Justice a bit cleaner than many other places are. I do not think it right that a witness, or even a criminal, should be subjected to being photographed in court at all, and I would again ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment and let the Clause pass.

I would ask the courtesy of the House to allow me to make a reply to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is quite true that this does not prevent the publication of the photographs of witnesses taken before they arrive in Court. We have no power to do that. That is also the reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who accuses me of not dealing with that side of the newspapers. This, however, is a Bill dealing with the administration of criminal justice, and these matters would be entirely outside its scope. All I can do is, in dealing with the administration of criminal justice, to prevent the obtaining of photographs in a court or in the precincts of a court. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member was that the Judge already had power to prevent it. I believe that Judges do claim the power to prevent it by means of threatening proceedings for contempt of court. The hon. and gallant Member knows what that means. First of all, the Judge is to have his attention distracted from the case to watch whether any person is taking photographs, and, quite obviously, it is not possible for him to deal with anything that takes place outside the court itself. These pictures, of course, are often taken when the person is entering or leaving the court.

Magistrates have no power at all to prevent it.

That is so. After the explanation I have given, I trust that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will respond to the appeal of his followers, and withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 33, line 14, to leave out the words "or attempt to."

I think the Home Secretary might meet us in this case, and I hope, also, that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) will support me on this mater. I think it is too wide altogether to make it an offence to attempt to do a certain thing, and I think the Home Secretary might accept this and meet the objections which have been put forward quite seriously against this part of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It would be impossible to accept such an Amendment as this, because, if a man snapshotted two or three times in court, it would not be enough merely to prove that he did that; you would have to prove that a photograph was actually taken. It might be that the camera might fail to act, and in that case no photograph would be taken. The mere fact of anyone attempting to take a photograph by snapping a camera in court is obviously the offence, because it is impossible to prove that anything happened as a result of the snapshot.

May I ask whether we are going to have a reply from the Home Secretary?

I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seconded the Amendment.

Formally.

All I have to say as Home Secretary is that I accept every word of my right hon. Friend's reply.

The courteous but elusive—

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the seconding of an Amendment, even though it be formal, does not exhaust the right of the Seconder to speak further?

Yes, the seconding of an Amendment does exhaust the right to speak. I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to ask a question.

On that point of Order. I understood that in the old days the raising of the hat to indicate a formal Motion did not exhaust the right to speak. Inasmuch as the practice of wearing hats in the House has now passed away, is it not the case that a mere assent to the seconding of a Motion does not exhaust the right to speak? I put the point to you, Sir, as it is of great importance to private Members.

I was under the impression that the seconding of an Amendment exhausted the right to speak afterwards.

I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out line 32.

This would leave out the words

"registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner."

I think it is going too far to include these, and is really putting the dignity of the judiciary rather too high. I hope that in this case I shall have the support of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), who is a very distinguished recorder himself. I am sure he does not wish to be protected against artists who may wish to make pictures of him while he is carrying out his duties, and, as I see he has an Amendment later which I hope to support, I hope he will support me on this.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the Home Secretary is rather framing his Parliamentary conduct upon what I may call the Italian model. But we have not yet reached the stage when only the Government may put down Orders or dictate business. What is this Amendment? As far as I can see, if a newspaper says, "Here is a case against such-and-such a notorious criminal, and we will publish a photograph of the learned Judge who is trying the case." it renders itself liable to prosecution. How are they going to prove that the photograph was not taken in Court? The case is that the taking of photographs in Court influences the course of justice and upsets witnesses. If a photograph is published, and it is alleged that it is a photograph in breach of paragraph (a) of this Clause, how is the newspaper going to defend itself? When you come down to registrars, magistrates, justices and coroners, whom it is the particular purpose of this Amendment to exclude, it really seems to be going much too far in a direction in which it was never necessary to embark at all. I should think it would be a little mark of consideration, perhaps not to me, but to the House, if the Home Secretary would explain why it is necessary in the case of every one of these officials to forbid it in this rigorous way under a penalty of £50, and create this new offence in respect of these people. If the Home Secretary does not think it necessary to give an answer, everyone will judge that he has no case. I submit that there is something in the Amendment, and that it deserves consideration.

The reason I did not rise was that I felt so sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a strong case to put and was to leave me to answer that I was waiting to hear what was the case. I intended no discourtesy at all. Quite the contrary. All I have to say in answer is that all these officers are concerned in the administration of criminal justice, and if a Recorder is to have protection I see no reason why a Registrar or a Coroner should not be equally protected. With regard to the other point, as to how a newspaper is to prove that it did not take a photograph in Court, the point is quite the contrary. In England the prosecution Has to prove that an offence was committed, and the prosecution in this case will have to prove that the photograph was taken in Court. If a Judge likes to have his photograph taken at a camera studio that has nothing to do with the Bill. All we have to do with is the administration of justice.

I beg to move, in page 33, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words "or in the precincts of the building."

I think this goes much too far. I do not know where the precincts are supposed to begin and end. The precincts of a cathedral, for example, are a very wide area. It is much too vague for the new offence that this Clause creates.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Of course, the Home Secretary has the assent of the majority of the House, and we are not even enough to divide on these things, but he would show more consideration if he dealt briefly with the Amendment on its merits. What exactly is meant by "the precincts of the Court"? Sup- pose a case is being tried at the Law Courts in the Strand. After all, there are a large number of Press men, who are also working men, trying to earn their living, and they should not be subject to penalties. Supposing one of these men went on the pavement opposite the Court. Is that the precincts? What is meant by the precincts? Does it mean that he is not to cross the threshold with a camera or that he must wait outside, and how far outside is he to wait? What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean? If he desires to prevent this offence, as he thinks it, how far does his protection carry the witness or the Judge or the Registrar? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us whether there is some technical meaning attached to the word. If a man stands in the street and observes a Judge or a witness approaching the Court, lifts up his camera and takes a photograph, will he be an offender under the Act? Before we create a new offence if there is anyone in the House who cares for liberty at all, we ought to press for some definition of these words.

In regard to the Law Courts, it would mean the corridors and the steps leading to the courtyard.

Would it mean the street outside?

I am not in a position to express an opinion whether it does. It would be a matter for the Court to decide. That will be better raised on another Amendment. The precincts undoubtedly mean that which is in the boundary of the Court premises. I am quite convinced that the House, having decided that photographs shall not be taken in Court, will extend it, not merely to the Court, but to the corridors and yards.

We all know-there are some people who are clever with their pen, and can make a sketch more or less from memory. I have seen many conspicuous examples of that. What would be the position of a man, who, outside the Court, possessed one of these photographic memories and retired to his office in Fleet Street to prepare a sketch? Would he be subject to prosecution?

That is clearly not taking or making a sketch in Court.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, for which I thank him very much, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 33, line 37, after the word "building," to insert the words "(not being part of a highway)."

You are here creating a new offence, and it ought to be somewhat strictly defined. Therefore, I think, unless the intention is to stop people taking photographs on the highway, there can be no objection to putting in these words. It is quite clear that there is some slight doubt what the precincts of the Court means, and it is only right and reasonable that we should say the highway is not to be taken as part of the precincts of the Court.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the House ought not to pass this. We decided that photographs will not be allowed to be taken in Court, and the Clause that was sanctioned by my predecessors in two Governments goes on to say, "or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch made of a person while entering or leaving the Court room or any such building." If you put in my hon. Friend's words it will simply mean that while we stop the evil at one place, in the precincts, a whole battery of cameras will be standing on the highway just outside when the unfortunate person is leaving the Court to get into an omnibus, tram or cab, and he will be snapped all along the line. If we are going to do the thing at all, I hope the House will do it thoroughly.

Why not start from the home, and do it thoroughly?

It would be outside the scope of the Bill. I hope the House will give me these last few words. The Clause is an experiment, but I think it will do a great deal to remedy the present state of affairs, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

I am not quite clear when the process of entering or leaving the precincts of the Court begins. A man may be coming along the street, and there will be a battery of cameras to greet him: but when he enters the precincts of the Court he will be safe. I would like to know when the process of "entering the precincts" actually begins.

It is very difficult for me to define that. That must be a matter for the decision of the Court. Of course, I am not a Judge, but I should say that if an effort is made by a photographer to take a photograph, and he gets so close to the entrance of the Law Courts the yard of the Law Courts, as to show that he really intends to photograph a person who is known to be a witness in a case, then the Court must decide that he is so near the precincts of the Court as to come within the scope of this Clause. If he was away, say at the end of the Strand, when he took the photograph, then the witness could not be entering or leaving the precincts of the Court.

I have had a somewhat lengthy personal experience in these matters. If this provision is to apply to the precincts of the Court, the one place where it ought to be effective, and where it is required, is in the street on the way into the Law Courts. It is there that the army of photographers assemble and when the party to be photographed appears at the door of a taxi they are at once assailed, snapshotted from above, below, from the front and behind in every direction. I have known cases times out of number in which people have had to be taken the back way into the Court and taken out by the back way so that they might avoid the publicity that is so certain in the short passage from the taxi to the Court. That is the one place that should be protected. If you do not protect it, you will render the whole provision useless.

We must keep in mind always the crime that is being aimed at. It is not any more serious than that of publishing a picture. It is not a case of doing anything which is very demoralising. We are aiming at people who photograph people concerned in cases at the Courts, because we think it affects the nerves of people in Court. That is the whole offence. I was satisfied with the word "precincts," but we now find that there is another definition and that the word "precincts" does not really cover what is meant, because it may include a part of the highway. When the hon. and learned Member moves to define "precincts" as not including part of the highway the Home Secretary says, in effect, that we cannot have that definition because we intend this to apply to the highway.