Commons Sitting of 12 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and,

173
after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Durham and Framwelgate, Hanley, and Southport," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill. ''To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Alexander Scott's Hospital," presented by the Lord-Advocate, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next.
  Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order,
  174
  under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Water," presented by the Lord-Advocate, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next.
  Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Arbroath Corporation Water," presented by the Lord-Advocate, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Tuesday next.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kilmore and Kilbride, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour; from Alva; Ayrshire; Benholm; Dundee; Dunfermline (two); and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
Petition from King's Norton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
THAMES ESTUARY (LIGHT VESSELS).
Petition from Ramsgate, for connection with the shore by wireless telegraphy; to lie upon the Table.
WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Petitions in favour; from Ashton-under-Lyne; Ayr; Belfast; Chelsea; Fulham; Levenshulme; Liverpool; Manchester and Salford; and Rothesay; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th April; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
TRADE WITH SIBERIA.
Copy presented, of Report on the condition and prospects of British Trade in Siberia, by H. Cooke, Special Commissioner of the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Ministry of Commerce.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say when he will be able to lay before the House the proposals of the Government in regard to improving the status of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, and the creation of a Ministry of Commerce, as promised in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid I am not yet in a position to assign a date for the introduction of this measure.

British Trade in China.
MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a number of British merchants have telegraphed from China to the Secretary of State representing that the Government of China ignores the Mackay Treaty, rendering the same ineffective in most essentials, and that the Government of China actively opposes the stipulations of that treaty as to currency, mining taxation, and navigation, His Majesty's Government intend to take action in reference to this representation.
(Answered by Earl Percy.) On the receipt of the representation referred to,
176
a telegram was addressed to His Majesty's Minister at Peking, requesting him to obtain from the signatories a detailed statement of the matters which form the subject of their complaint, and which will receive the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.

Grants to Scotland for Education and for Relief of Rates.
MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he can give, for the year ended March 31st last the amount of the probate (or estate) duty grant received, the amount received of the proceeds of licences specified in the schedule to The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, the amount paid under cattle pleuro-pneumonia account, the amount paid to counties, burghs, etc. (relief of rates, etc.), and the balance which remained for relief of school fees, also the amount of the Scotch fee grant for the same year, and further for the same year the amount received under the heads of Excise duties on beer and spirits, and on Customs, under the Act of 1890, with the amount of the balance paid over to counties, burghs, etc., for relief of rates or technical education; and whether he can state the amount which stood at the credit of the fee grant account on March 31st last, after payment is made of the fee grant of 12s. per child.
(Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The amount paid under cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for the year ending March 31st, 1905, was £1,440. The amount of fee grant vote for 1904–5 was £344,151, all of which was spent. The amount at the credit of the fee grant account on March 31st, 1905, was £109,473 8s. 1d. I regret I am unable to answer the other parts of the hon. Member's Question, as the requisite material is not yet available.

Period of Repayment of Loans under Naval and Military Works Acts in Respect of Halifax, Bermuda, Jamaica, and St. Lucia.
MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury over what periods the repayments of the loans under the Naval and Military Works Acts made in respect of Halifax, Bermuda, Jamaica, and St. Lucia extend.
(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Under the Naval Works Acts previous to

177
1903 the period was not exceeding thirty years from July 6th, 1895, and under the Military Works Acts previous to 1903 it was not exceeding thirty years from April 8th, 1897. Under the Naval and Military Works Acts of 1903 the period is not exceeding thirty years from the date of borrowing.

Board of Inland Revenue and the Collection of Agricultural Statistics.
SIR CHARLES WELBY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain under what authority the Board of Inland Revenue, in certain cases, imposed the work of collecting agricultural statistics totally unconnected with questions of taxation, other than those known as the Corn Returns, upon their officers.
(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The arrangements for collection of agricultural statistics by officers of Inland

Great Britain

Ireland

Direct.

Indirect.

Direct.

Indirect.

1902–3

53·9

46·1

26·6

73·4

1903–4

50·6

49·4

27·8

72·2

1904–5 (estimated)

50·4

49·6

27·4

72·6

In an Answer to a Question of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny on the 13th † ultimo, I gave particulars to show that these proportions must not be taken to imply that Irishmen contribute more per head to indirect taxation than, or even as much as, inhabitants of Great Britain.

Deaths from Plague in India.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the number of deaths from plague in the Punjab for each of the months of January, February, and March of this year; and the total
† See (4) Debates, cxlv., 84.
Revenue were made nearly forty years ago, under the authority of the Treasury. Numerous other similar arrangements have been made from time to time whereby one Department of the public service is authorised to undertake on behalf of another Department duties for the transaction of which it may have special facilities.

Direct and Indirect Taxation in Great Britain and Ireland.
MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion of direct to indirect taxation in the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland respectively during each of the last three years.
(Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The proportions of direct and indirect taxation in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, including local taxation revenue and excluding coal duty, were as follows:—
number of deaths in India during each of the same months.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)

Punjab

India

January

29,009

126,526

February

31,779

126,041

‡Four weeks ending 1st April

60,046

199,221

‡ Compiled from the Weekly Tabular Returns, as the Report for the calendar month of March has not yet been received from India.

Polling Booths in County Tyrone.
MR. DOOGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the passing of the Local Government Act, the polling booth for Coalisland and New Mills was fixed at Brackville, in the village of Coalisland; that this year the polling station has been fixed at New Mills, an exclusively Orange quarter, on account of reports of disturbances during the last two elections in Coalisland, which reports were not made by any public body; and whether, in view of the police reports as to the only disturbance that took place, and of the fact that, of the total number of 600 voters in this unit, 450 reside in Coalisland and 150 in New Mills, and the greater number of these would be unable to travel two miles after six o'clock and record their votes, that the accommodation in New Mills is unsatisfactory, there being neither telegraph office nor police station, steps will be taken to prevent the proposed change being carried out.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The duty of determining the number and situation of polling places and stations at local government elections devolves upon the returning officers for these elections, and the Local Government Board have no authority to intervene in the matter. It is open to the hon. Member to make a representation on the subject to the returning officer for county Tyrone, who is the secretary of the county council.

Outrage at Gortumloe, County Westmeath—Police Inquiry.
MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police authorities have taken steps to bring to justice the parties who fired into Deboe's dwelling-house at Gortumloe, county Westmeath; has the portion of the ammunition discovered on the scene of the outrage been compared with the stocks kept by the local dealers; and has any inquiry been made as to the movements of the parties on the occasion of the outrage who are licensed to keep breechloading guns in the locality; and whether he can state
180
what has been the result of the action, if any, of the police authorities in this case.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The police have used, and are continuing to use, all possible exertions to discover and bring to justice the offenders in this case. It is, for obvious reasons, undesirable to detail the steps which have been taken to that end, but the hon. Member may rest assured that nothing will be left undone which would tend to secure the object in view.

Interference with a Nationalist Procession at Loop, County Kerry.
MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds a contingent of Lissan Nationalists, returning on 17th March from a political meeting at Loop, county Kerry, were sought to be forcibly prevented from proceeding by the same route which they had traversed in the morning; whether, seeing that Money-more or district were not proclaimed, what official had power to disperse an orderly procession; whether he can state who gave the order to the police to use their batons; whether he is aware that after the baton charge the contingent was allowed to proceed by the original route; that prosecutions have since been instituted against the people who had been thus attacked; and whether inquiries will be made as to the cause of the discontent amongst the Catholic population of the district with regard to the character of the local police sergeant.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The proceedings on this occasion are the subject of a pending prosecution, and until the case is decided I must decline to discuss the matter.

County Donegal Land Appeals—Delay in Delivery of Judgment.
MR. MCFADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of delay in the delivery of judgment in the appeals in the land cases from county

181
Donegal, heard at Strabane on the 8th February last.
(Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Judgments were delivered in these cases on the 8th instant.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSBYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from serving on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Waldron and Mr. Harrington; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Vincent Kennedy and Mr. Charles Devlin.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill: Mr. Malcolm; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Ernest Flower.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

VEHICLES' LIGHTS BILLS.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. LABOUCHEREcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
House counted and forty Members being present.
*MR. BIGWOODsaid that in asking the House of Commons to give a Second Reading to this Bill he was asking hon. Members to assent to a principle which had already been carried out throughout the length and breadth of the land. Therefore, he did not think that he needed to take up a large amount of the time of the House because he thought there were very few hon. Members who would dispute the advisability of passing this
182
very simple Bill. He did not remember a more simple Bill being brought before the attention of the House of Commons. So far as he could sec it did not alter in one iota what already existed in the well-administered counties of England. Clause 3 of the Bill did not provide that additional lights should be carried, but it simply insisted that one light should be carried to show either before or behind the vehicle. No doubt it would be said that the farmers could not afford this extra cost, but he wished to point out that by an Act recently passed they had given to the farmers 50 per cent. of their rates, and they were now being told that they were really so poor that they could not afford the additional cost of a penny rushlight at the back of their vehicles. He did not think this needed much talking about. All he was asking for in this Bill was to establish uniformity of a practice which was now carried out in the majority of the best-regulated counties in England. He was not championing or voicing the objects of any of the associations which had made themselves so prominent—he alluded to motor-car, cycling, and road associations. They could very well take care of themselves. He was speaking entirely from practical experience gained in connection with bylaws with which he had been associated in passing for the county of Middlesex.
Those who knew Middlesex were aware that it was a county adjoining London through which there was a large amount of slow and sleepy traffic from the agricultural districts, and the drivers in charge of such traffic were not always found proceeding on the right side of the road, and the result was not everything that could be desired. He could assure hon. Members opposite that it was not so easy to pass by-laws as they appeared to think. No doubt he would be told that all they needed to do was to pass a by-law and get the Government Department to confirm it, and then they would have all they wanted. But they would not then have all they required because what he wanted was uniformity, and that was all he asked for in this Bill. It was much more simple to accept a Bill of this sort in order to secure uniformity, for it would

183
make the general practice the law. At the present time the Government Department was bothered enough by various by-laws. Some people expected the Government Department actually to approach the county councils and place before them model by-laws, but besides the county councils they had also to deal with the boroughs. This Bill would consolidate the whole of the regulations upon this question, and he would leave motor - car owners and cyclists to look after themselves. A similar Bill to this was discussed in the year 1897, but since that time there had been an enormous increase in the usage of public roads by motors and other vehicles. The motor was now being used for commercial purposes, and of course they must improve their regulations in this improving age. He remembered the time when lights were few and far between on the country roads. As a young man he always found his eyes on a dark night were good enough for anything, but they had got beyond that now. Motor-cars and motor-bicyles—fast running vehicles—were obliged to carry lights, but the slow-going vehicles and the cart left on the side of the road were not required to carry a light and so they were liable to be run into. Was that reasonable? In his opinion it was a perfect anomaly. This Bill sought to do what was being done in every well-regulated administrative county in this country.
On what ground was the hon. Member opposite going to move the rejection of this Bill? Surely if there were any benefits to be derived from it Scotland ought not to be excluded. He was aware that Scotland was a favourite touring place, but that was all the more reason why Scotland should have the benefit of the Bill as well as England. He would like to give to the House a few reasons in favour of the passing of this measure. In the county of Middlesex they had been establishing a very large system of light railways running into the suburbs and through into the country. He had received a copy of a letter from the general manager of the Wakefield and District Light Railways Company which had been written to the general managers of other companies,
184
in which it was pointed out that as tramways were now being carried further into the suburbs, the need for an enactment by which the men in charge of vehicles should be forced to safeguard themselves and others using the roads against accidents was becoming more seriously felt. The letter further pointed out that it seemed absurd that tram cars and motor-cars should be compelled to carry lights behind whilst a crawling waggon with the driver often asleep should be exempt from carrying any lights. Tramcars were as a rule so brilliantly lighted that it would indeed be a blind man who ran into a tramcar from behind, whilst motor-cars travelled so fast that it was almost impossible for ordinary vehicles to run into them from behind, and yet both tramcars and motor-cars had to carry lights behind. If hon. Members would only do him the honour of reading this Bill, they would see that it did not add any fresh powers in any shape or form to what already existed in this country. His only desire in pressing forward this Bill was to pass a measure which would benefit all those who used public roads. He begged to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
LIEUT-COLONEL TUFNSELLsaid that as an agricultural Member he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words upon this most admirable Bill which had been so ably introduced by the hon. Member for Middlesex. It was quite true that along country lanes motorcars and vehicles were running very often at great rates, and as they were all aware country roads and lanes were not lighted at all, so that the risk was all the greater to ordinary people who had to drive or walk along those roads at night. It was all very well in towns where there were lots of lights, but this Bill would not apply so much to the towns as to the country districts. One objection, however, he should like to point out, and his objection applied to the vast number of country carts which passed from the county of Essex to the London market. Very often it happened that in the early morning the drivers of these carts fell asleep and therefore they became a source of danger to the ordinary travelling public. The objection he wished to put

185
forward was that in the case of a sudden puff of wind or a severe jolt, this was often sufficient to put out the light attached to a vehicle. It had been frequently found that cyclists had been brought up before the magistrates and fined, not because they had no lights on their bicycles, but because the light had happened for the moment to go out in consequence of a puff of wind or a jolt. Admirable as this Bill was, he thought there should be something put in the measure to provide that if the lights accidentally went out in this way the drivers should not be fined. The fourth clause proposed that, "any person who shall cause or permit any vehicle to be drawn or driven" without being provided with the lamp or lamps required should be liable to a penalty. He suggested that if the word "wilfully" were inserted before the word "cause" the case would be met. If a lamp had gone out accidentally it would be rather hard that a man should be fined. Subject to that exception, he cordially supported the Second Reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he absolutely dissociated himself from any reflection on the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Second Reading, both of whom had spoken in a plain, practical, businesslike manner. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading had stated that there might be discussion on this measure for the purpose of preventing discussion on the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, which was the second order on the Paper that day. He could assure the promoters of the Bill now before the House that nothing was further from his thought than that. He would be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House that there was a strong and deep-rooted feeling against the Bill among his constituents. It was on that ground, and that ground only, he had given notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill. If he might say so without offence, the speeches of the mover and seconder suggested that the Bill was prompted partly by reactionary Toryism, and
186
partly by a desire to meet the demands of a very small, but very selfish class of men, namely, the motorists, who were making increasing encroachments on the rights of the general public. What he had described as the reactionary Toryism of the measure was to be found in the fact that it would strike at the principle of local government in the country. That was one of his main objections to the Bill.
It had been urged in support of the Bill that it would establish uniformity in the law. He and his friends who opposed the Bill did not want uniformity; they desired to leave to local authorities a fairly free hand in those matters affecting their own people. When the hon. Member said that the measure was introduced to do away with the feeling which existed in county councils in favour of their agricultural friends, he gave the keynote of the whole Bill. There was not a county council where the members would take the responsibility of putting an impost of this kind on the people. That was because it was felt that intense inconvenience would be caused. In Scotland the condition of affairs had been this. In every county in Scotland farms were divided by the public roads, and farmers had always been in the habit of using these roads for bringing cattle backwards and forwards, and for carrying on general farming operations. That being the state of affairs, the House could understand why it was that a feeling of intense irritation had been caused in Scotland over this measure.
He wished to state shortly some of the reasons which had influenced the Scotch Members, who were practically unanimous against the Bill. In December last this question was discussed at a local election in which he took part, and so strong was the feeling which was manifested on the part of farmers and agriculturists, that, before the end of the election both candidates declared that they would not support any measure of this sort. On January 14th a meeting was held in the Agricultural Hall, Edinburgh, at which a resolution was passed condemning the proposals in the Bill on the ground that they would seriously hamper

187
agriculturists in their work, and provide facilities for driving motor-cars at a speed inconsistent with the rights and the safety of the public. There was an absolutely unanimous feeling against these proposals on the part of the farmers who attended the meeting. This Bill did not propose to enact that when sheep or cattle were being taken along the public roads after dark there should be a boy in front and another behind, each carrying a light, but he would remind the House that that was the original proposal. In February, after the House met, the heather was on fire, so to speak, in Scotland, and he received a telegraphic communication from his constituents in Orkney stating that they were deeply alarmed by the report of the proceedings of the meeting in the Scotch papers, and at the effect which this measure would have on them. He replied that he did not believe there was the least possibility of the Bill being brought forward, or of the Government giving any countenance or support to it. The Employers' Parliamentary Council had passed a resolution expressing their strong objection to this Bill, and stating that if any further legislation dealing with lights on vehicles was required it should be limited to vehicles going faster than walking pace. The view expressed in that resolution seemed to him to be a very reasonable one.
The Scotch Members strongly objected to the measure on two grounds. In the first place it would destroy the power which could at present be exercised by the local authority in this matter. There was a constant effort being made to centralise all authority in this House, and to do away with the control and jurisdiction of the local authorities. He thought, it was of the utmost importance that the power and control of the local authorities should be protected and supported, in every possible way, and that people living in the country should not be able to come to this House, so to speak, to shuffle out of their responsibilities. The county councils dare not propose a reactionary measure of this sort, and, if that was so, why should Parliament enable them to get out of their responsibility where they had very properly refused to exercise their powers. This
188
question, at any rate in Scotland, had been brought forward by the Motor Union, and they had proposed even more drastic measures than were embodied in this Bill. The other reason why the House should reject the Bill was that it had not been in print for more than forty-eight hours. He had asked Mr. Deputy-Speaker whether it was in order to move the Second Reading of a Bill which had not been printed, and it was no breach of confidence to-say that the reply he received was that it was an excellent reason for moving its rejection. There were many hon. Members who had had no opportunity of studying its provisions. The whole of his constituents were bitterly opposed to the Bill, believing that rights and privileges which had been enjoyed from time immemorial would be seriously infringed. They felt that the Bill had been brought forward by a small class of selfish and greedy persons who desired to use the public roads for their own benefit. He begged to move.
*SIR HERBERT MAXWELLin seconding the Amendment, said he desired to dissociate himself from the imputation of any motive in connection with the discussion of this measure. He was told that the desire to protract the discussion had reference to a much more attractive subject than the one on which they were now engaged. He did not suppose it was possible to afford a better illustration of the paradoxical nature of this measure than was presented by the fact that it was moved by the hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex and opposed by the hon. Member for Orkney. The contrast between the character of the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill and the hon. Member who moved its rejection was a sufficient argument against the Bill. He did not dispute the competence of his hon. friend to speak of the necessities of the traffic in Middlesex, but would he not allow the Scotch Members some discretion in managing their own affairs? Parliament had committed that duty to the county councils. Was Parliament prepared to withdraw that responsibility? If that were so, he was afraid that all

189
their talk about devolution and encouragement of local responsibility must have been exceedingly hollow, because as soon as the local discretion was exercised they were to be told that it was inconvenient to the public. He had listened in vain to the speech of his hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill for any valid reason for what he called uniformity. The hon. Gentleman most faithfully described the condition of the traffic in Middlesex highways; but he observed that the hon. Gentleman made a curious exemption. He drew an alarming picture of the risks incurred by travellers if a cart were left unlighted by the side of a road, but he also observed, with some surprise, that the hon. Member allowed the wheelbarrow so to remain without a light. Now, an accident from an unlighted wheelbarrow might be quite as serious as from an unlighted cart. The danger of unlighted carts was, he could not help thinking, in a great degree imaginary, because motor - cars, in their own interest, carried a strong head-light. During last winter he had travelled as many hundred miles by night in a motorcar as most men. He had to do so in order to catch the main line train twenty miles off his place; and he said, without hesitation, that he had never had the slightest inconvenience from unlighted carts; but he had had some difficulty with unlighted flocks of sheep. If the hon. Member did not extend the Bill to other obstacles than vehicles he would not do much to increase the safety of travelling by night on country roads.
He thought the most serious objection to this Bill was the time at which it had been brought forward. Owing to the in-experience, unskilfulness, and in some cases the criminal carelessness of some people who used motors, there was no doubt that public opinion in the country was very profoundly agitated; and the question with reasonable people was how that traffic was to be properly controlled. Well, in the interest of the measure itself, and of those who supported it, it was unfortunate that it should have been brought forward at this time; because, let his hon. friend's motives in bringing this measure on now be what they might, he and his associates would be credited with acting in the interest of the motor
190
traffic. He did not think that this was a time when Parliament would willingly place any class or some industry at an inconvenience by laying restrictions on it in the interest of those who had rather high views of their privileges in the use of the roads.
The hon. Member for Orkney had rightly described the view taken of this Bill by agriculturists and by public bodies in Scotland. He had gone down to Scotland last week to attend a meeting of his own county council. He could not say that he had read the Bill. He did not know its provisions when he was asked what he intended to do about it when it came before the House. Its provisions were roughly explained to him. He did not know that the Bill was in charge of his hon. friend; and he trusted his reply would not be regarded as very disrespectful to him or his constituents. But he answered that from the description given of it, it was a Cockney measure, and that he could not imagine that this Parliament, or any future Parliament, would lay such a burden on agriculturists as would be imposed by this Bill. Now, he might be right or he might be wrong; but he asked the House to consider whether the conditions of traffic in Middlesex were a sufficient reason for imposing what must be irksome restrictions on traffic in thinly-populated rural districts?
Had a case been made out for the Bill? What was the object of having uniformity in regulations applying to two different sets of circumstances? He hoped that his hon. friend would be so convinced of the undesirableness of the proposals in the Bill that he would withdraw it; at all events, that he would confine its provisions to those parts of the country where they were better appreciated than in Scotland. Why, in this Bill, the hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal a clause in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act of 1903, over which Parliament spent a great deal of time, and which it was certainly a strange thing to interfere with in a private Members Bill. He could see no advantage to be expected from this measure, and no reason why it should be pursued any further. He would ask hon. Members

191
for Ireland what they thought of extending this measure to the country districts of Ireland. [Cries of "It does not extend to Ireland."] Well, if it did extend to Ireland how would hon. Members from that country look upon it? He was very much mistaken indeed if they would not strongly object to it. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for its rejection.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that this small Bill was of considerable importance to all classes of the community, because there was hardly any one who had not, in one shape or another, the necessity of using the public roads. He thought there was considerable danger to all kinds of traffic from slow-moving vehicles without lights. The first matter which the House had to consider was whether it was necessary that vehicles should have lights when upon the roads. It was supposed, very often, that the object of a light on a travelling vehicle was to give the person who drove it an opportunity of seeing the road in front of him and the ditches on either side. Now, as a matter of fact, that was not the real object of the light. He did not know about motor-cars, because he never owned one and hoped he never would. The lights of motor-cars were so strong that it was possible for the driver to see the ditches and the various obstructions on the road; but he had been in the habit of using horse-driven vehicles for many years, and he could say that, as a rule, unless you were passing a coach where there were five or six lights, these were no guide. In an ordinary vehicle the light was very often a drawback rather than an assistance in showing obstacles on the road because of the shadows which it cast. The object of a light on a vehicle was to let people see that somebody else was coming along the road. There was a case in which he himself was driving
192
along a narrow road in the dark with a light and he suddenly came upon a vehicle without a light and a collision took place. Fortunately not much damage was done, but it might have eventuated in serious consequences. He thought it was proved, beyond doubt, that it was necessary that all vehicles should carry lights.
Then the question came in, were lights compulsory at the present moment? So far as he knew, in the majority of counties in England the county councils had passed by laws making lights compulsory; and, so far as he knew, these by-laws had been sufficient to meet the public requirements of safety, and had been satisfactory to the great majority of the people concerned in making use of the roads. No doubt there had been cases where brewers, millers, bakers, and butchers who used the country roads might perhaps have objected to being compelled to carry a light; but it must be remembered that those who used the roads paid very little towards their upkeep, and that they should be obliged to carry a light. Perhaps, in regard to farmers, it was a different thing. It must be remembered that they did not use the roads very much except in a dairy-farming country, where the milk carts went to the railway stations, in the early morning or late in a winter's evening. In the two counties with which he was connected he knew that lights were carried. The question arose whether, in view of these facts, the House of Commons should pass a Bill making the carrying of lights compulsory? The argument had been used in favour of this measure that it established uniformity. He agreed very much with what the hon. Gentleman opposite had said. He believed that uniformity could hardly be established all over the country because the conditions were different. It was self-evident that the conditions varied in Middlesex and Orkney.
There was an argument against the Bill which seemed to him to be very strong. What was the use of establishing county councils and district councils if they did not leave questions of this sort—the lighting of vehicles

193
—in their own districts to their own control. He was not sure whether it would not have been advisable to pass a simple and reasonable Bill, but he did not think this Bill was either reasonable or simple. He believed the Bill had only been printed a few days ago, and hon. Members could hardly have had time to study it. However, he had looked at it, and confessed that some of its provisions were perfectly ludicrous. Subsection 2 provided that—
"Where any portion of the load which is being carried in or upon, a vehicle projects more than six feet to the rear beyond the back of the vehicle, such vehicle … shall be provided with two lamps, one of which shall be constructed and placed at the front of the vehicle upon the extreme off-side of such vehicle."
What was the extreme off-side? That light was to be a white light, but who was to decide what a white light was? In addition to that there was to be a red tail-light. He thought it was perfectly absurd. What on earth was the advantage of a tail-light? One could always see the light on the off side, which cast a shadow. If the driver was asleep it did not matter much whether there was a tail-light or not. A tail-light was not only useless, but would cause a large expense to farmers and small carriers which was altogether unnecessary. It was provided that if the off-side lights had a little red disc at the back that would be sufficient. Now, a dairy farmer who-sent his milk in a low cart to the railway station very often had a small lamp which was fixed on the splashboard; but the little red disc would be of no use because one could not see the splashboard from behind, and the farmer would have to put an iron rod on the off-side so that he could fix the lamp with the red light disc on it. He maintained that that would be quite impossible, and therefore a farmer with a big slow-moving wagon would have to have two lights, one in front and one behind.
There were other proposals in the Bill to which he would draw the attention of the House. Section 2 said that the term "vehicle" included every carriage or conveyance, whether with or without wheels, wherein any person or commodity was or could be carried or conveyed. Now a horse was a vehicle
194
without a wheel; a horse was something on which any person or commodity could be carried or conveyed. Therefore a horse came under this category. Just consider what might happen! Ladies who went to a hunt meet frequently returned to their homes twelve or thirteen miles off in their carriage, leaving their servants to take their horses home. In the case of his daughter and himself, for instance, he left his servant to bring the horses back, one horse being led. Apparently he would, under this Bill, require four lights—one on the servant's arm, one on his back, another somewhere on the side-saddle of the led horse, and a red lamp at his tail. To him that seemed to show the absurdity of the provisions of this Bill. Again, an old woman in the village who had been doing a washing of clothes for a neighbour and was taking it home would be a conveyance wherein any commodity was or could be carried or conveyed. Would that old woman have to carry a light also? He had endeavoured shortly to put before the House the very many objections to this Bill. He did not think they could be remedied in Committee. He understood that it was suggested that Scotland should be exempted from the Bill, but if the Bill were bad for Scotland it would be bad for England. He should vote against the Second Reading of this measure.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that like all those who had hitherto spoken, except the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill, he was wholly opposed to it. It was most unfair that a Bill of this character should only have been put into the hands of hon. Members on the previous morning, and that they should be asked to take the Second Reading with such speed. The hon. Member who proposed the Bill must be well aware that the general, opinion in Scotland, and in England as well, was opposed to it. It had not the remotest chance of passing through the House, and even if passed it would not be the best means of settling the motor question. In the interest of public business he appealed to the hon. Gentleman to recognise the condition of opinion in the House, that it was hopeless for him to proceed with the Bill, and that

195
he should therefore withdraw it. It had been suggested that Scotland should be exempted from the Bill. He should certainly accept the exemption of Scotland; but he should oppose the Bill even if applied to England. He held that it was preposterous to take away the duty of regulating road traffic from the local authorities. What were these local authorities there for except to discharge such duties? He thought this was a most retrograde measure.
MR. MOONsaid that the Cyclists' Tourist Union had supported this Bill for many years, and on their behalf he should like to recommend it as worthy of the serious consideration and support of the House. Those who, on business or pleasure, used bicycles after dark were exposed to great danger and risk owing to the negligence of sleepy or tipsy carters who kept neither to the proper side of the road nor carried lights. The hon. Member for Orkney had given a very good account of the wide Scotch roads, but things were different in England; and whatever might be the case in regard to Scotland, he urged that the Bill should be adopted for England and Wales.
MR. NUSSEYsaid it was hardly fair for hon. Members to speak at such length on this measure, not in the interest of the Bill itself, but to prevent the Bill on the second order coming on. This Bill was produced, it was alleged, in the interest of the blessed word "uniformity," which he thought was as good a word for the purpose as "Mesopotamia." In his opinion there had been far more people killed on account of that word "uniformity" than in all the ages by carts driven without lights. This Bill struck at the root of all local government. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill that the condition of the roads in the districts round the Metropolis was absurd, and that the local authorities desired this Bill because they were afraid to put their own by-laws in regard to traffic into force. He denied that. He thought the local enactments worked very well. He thought that the motor-cars scorching along the roads with great flaring lights, were far more dangerous to the ordinary
196
travelling public than even wagons without lights. Motor-car drivers had no consideration for anybody. They went ahead regardless of consequences, and they had had several instances of late in which the drivers had displayed utter callousness. He was told that in Denmark the speed in the day time of these cars was limited to eight miles an hour, and that they were prohibited from travelling at night. He did not suggest that such stringent regulations could be enforced in this country, but certainly something should be done to produce a better state of affairs. To return to the Bill. In his opinion it would inflict great hardship on the ordinary farmer. The cost might not be very great, but the inconvenience would be considerable, because if the Bill became law a farmer who moved a cart from a field on one side of the road to one on the other side would have to have a light. He had ridden a great many miles at night and had not met with danger from vehicles without lights. He would ask the House, in the interests of the ordinary travelling public, not to make the use of the roads more easy for high-speed travelling motor-cars.
MR. JOHN DEWARobjected to the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill. However important it might be in counties like Middlesex or Lancashire to apply such regulations it certainly was not necessary for Scotland. It seemed to him the present arrangement which left the regulations for lighting vehicles in the hands of the county councils was much better and more suited to the localities. This Bill applied not only to the ordinary highways of the country, but also to the most remote and secluded Highland roads, and he ventured to suggest it was most absurd to insist on the same regulations for roads in the neighbourhood of London and other large cities and towns and for those in distant parts of Scotland. One result of passing this Bill would be to tempt the farmer in Scotland to disregard the law, and that was always a misfortune. Then why was Ireland excluded from the Bill. It was not because the regulations were unsuited to the country, but because it was known that the Irish Members were opposed to the measure, and would

197
constitute a solid compact body which would prevent the Bill getting through. The representatives of Scotland were equally opposed to the Bill, and he therefore recommended the promoters to agree to the exclusion of that country from it.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he had listened with great interest to the debate, and did not believe the hon. Member for Middlesex would find many supporters for his Bill in the House. He thought it would be most objectionable to impose a hard-and-fast rule with regard to the carrying of lights over the country at large. Local authorities should be left the discretion, which they now possessed, of regulating the lights according to different classes of traffic and local needs. He knew that in Scotland and in some counties in England it was the custom to exempt from these regulations vehicles not built upon springs and which usually proceeded at a slow walking pace. But now it was proposed to sweep all vehicles of whatever kind into one net. He ventured to say, in the interest of both Scottish and English agriculturists, that such a proposal was impossible and that the House would never consent to it. Early that year he was present at a very large and representative meeting of Scottish agriculturists in Edinburgh. There were in attendance 400 or 500 delegates representing sixty associations, and they unanimously passed a resolution condemning in the strongest terms the measure now before the House. He was very much struck by a statement made by one of the farmers—a very distinguished Scottish agriculturist, whose brother held a high and responsible position on the Underground Railway system in London. The speaker said he had on the average two or three carts going daily to Glasgow, and it would cost him £50 a year to provide the lamps. He would require at least thirty, and in addition a man to look after them. The Bill would inflict a grave hardship on agriculturists. The high roads were being constantly used by the carts of farmers in the ordinary course of their avocation, and if this Bill were passed they would be obliged, if they only crossed a road from one field to another, to provide lights in the morning and evening. He did not think the
198
House was prepared to impose that obligation on them.
The Bill was for the benefit of motorists. The proper course was for motorists to use the roads at a moderate speed. He believed that the great body of owners of motor-cars would not tolerate the excesses committed by some of the men in charge of them, and he for one regretted that such misuse was made of the roads. After all, the roads were constructed long before motor-cars came into existence, and he did think it strange they should be asked to pass into law a Bill containing such extremely severe provisions simply in order to give certain people—who only, after all, used a fraction of the roads—opportunities for more speedy travel. Motor-cars, in fact, did not penetrate into many parts of the country, and, as the roads were made and kept up at the public expense the ratepayers ought to have more consideration shown them. The hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex referred to the use of the roads for light railways—well, he for one thought light railways were out of place on high roads. He hoped the House would, by an overwhelming majority, reject this measure.
MR. BRIGGsaid he was neither a cyclist nor the owner of a motor-car, but circumstances compelled him to ride upon the roads a great deal, and he had consequently a very fair knowledge of what was going on. He had no desire to interfere with the consideration of any other Bill, and would consequently make his observations as brief as possible. But he wished to point out that in one district, where provisions of this nature had been in operation for some time, no complaint whatever had been made, and in view of the opposition shown to this Bill he thought it desirable to make it known that there were a large number of people satisfied with provisions of this kind. Had he anticipated that so much opposition would have been shown to this measure he would have ascertained from a number of county councils, which had framed by-laws of their own, what had been their experience, and that experience might well have been placed against the complaints made by those who lived in the northern

199
part of the Empire. Apart altogether from motors and cycles, he believed there was a necessity for a Bill of this nature, and he thought it important that there should be a tail-light on wagons, and that that light should be so affixed on timber trollies and other vehicles as to show to those coming up from behind the exact extent of the load being carried. Special lights were provided for this purpose which could be used with great efficiency. As to the exact position in which the lights should be placed, he had seen lights abroad underneath the conveyance in such a way that it was very difficult to see them at all, and yet they fulfilled the letter of the law. He cordially supported the Bill, and was surprised to find that so many Members took a different view of it.
*MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREsaid that, although representing a Lincolnshire constituency, he had not received a single communication from any agricultural association against this Bill, but he had on the other hand received many communications from cycling associations and others in favour of it. If there had been any great opposition against the Bill on the part of the farming community the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford would certainly have been in his place to speak for the farmers. He was not at all certain that in the end the Bill would not prove to be rather beneficial than prejudicial to the agricultural community. The cost imposed by the Bill would be infinitesimal—probably not more than £2 a year—and in addition it would give the farmer a considerable amount of protection, not in the tariff sense, but against accidents. In fact, it would be a form of insurance. He had the greatest sympathy for the farming class, but he thought it futile to suggest that they should be exempted on the ground of cost. All vessels at sea had to be lighted whether they were Cunard liners owned by wealthy corporations or fishing smacks belonging to comparatively poor people, and a heavy penalty would be incurred in addition to the risk of being run down if a fishing smack was not lighted. That farmers might be exempted during the hay harvest, the lights
200
could be so placed as to obviate all danger of fire. Nor could he agree that summer nights were lighter than winter nights, because the foliage of the trees in the wooded parts of the country threw so much shadow over the roads that it was more difficult to see in summer than in winter.
He was constrained to vote for this Bill from personal experience. Last summer when cycling at night in the neighbourhood of Slough he came across a man lying on the ground bleeding profusely from the head. After being taken to the infirmary the man died, and at the coroner's inquest it was discovered that he had been scorching on a bicycle, and, riding with his head down, had run into a waggon, which he failed to see, and sustained the injuries from which he succumbed. Considerations of humanity alone ought to be sufficient to induce Members to support the Bill. He could not see that the measure embodied reactionary Toryism as had been suggested. It applied to bicyclists rather than to any other class of the community, and the bicycle was the poor man's horse. It was not at all a motorists Bill; in fact, motors would benefit from it far less than any other description, of vehicle, because having such powerful lights they were well able to see far ahead. As to sheep on the road they always raised considerable dust and gave plenty of warning, so that no traps were likely to run into them. With regard to wheelbarrows and perambulators there might be some slight danger, but as a mar had neither an on-side nor an off-side it would be difficult to determine on what part of his person a light should be placed.
He did not see why Ireland should be included in the Bill, inasmuch as there was practically no traffic on the roads at night except possibly in the North, and what traffic there was generally consisted of donkeys carrying turf or carts of so light a character that they would not cause any serious damage in case of collison. As to the argument that no county council would dare to impose such a burden, he had already shown that the impost was not a large one. The necessity for uniformity was very important, as it would be extremely confusing to pass

201
from one county where they were many lights into a county where there were none, and the line of demarcation was seldom clearly defined. In nearly every foreign country the different provinces had regulations requiring lights to be placed at the tail of vehicles, and he believed that if the Bill were passed into law it would be most beneficial in preventing accidents throughout the country. For these reasons and for others which had already been urged he supported the Bill.
*SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he had risen simply for the purpose of stating the reasons for the vote which he was about to give in regard to this measure. The Bill made provision against accidents which arose through vehicles not being properly lighted. Upon the Second Reading they had only to deal with principles, and as the main principle of this Bill was to prevent accidents he should give his hearty support to the measure. It had been said that county councils and other public bodies already possessed the necessary powers for dealing with this danger by making by-laws, but he saw no reason why in such a matter as the protection of life and limb Parliament should not step in. He understood that there was an obligation placed upon motor-cars and cyclists to carry lights, and surely as regarded the question of cost the saving of the life and limb of a human being was worth a good many lamps. He appealed to the House to go to a division as soon as possible in view of the important questions which stood next on the Paper.
*SIR HUGH SHAW-STEWARTsupported the Bill. He had often been asked to support such a measure by a great body of his constitutents, and it was chiefly from the cyclists' point of view rather than from the motorists' point of view that he now spoke in favour of the Bill. He knew that the agricultural interest were opposed to the measure, but he thought farmers would not find the necessity of hanging one lamp on the off-side of their carts such a burden as they expected when they once got into the habit of doing so. He believed if this
202
Bill were passed a cheap lamp would be put on the market which would be available for farmers, and therefore he did not attach much importance to the objection which had been stated to the measure on that score. But if the Bill were passed into law there would be no longer any excuse for motors to carry exaggerated lamps, and he thought if hon. Members who, like himself, were connected with the agricultural interest, supported the Bill it ought to be on the understanding that consideration would be given in Committee to the question whether there should not be some standard strength of lamp for motors beyond which it should be illegal to light them, because there was a great deal of danger in agricultural districts on account of motors going at a high speed at night with excessively glaring lights. Horses and the men driving them were for the moment dazzled, and he knew for a fact that accidents had happened from that cause. He hoped his hon. friend in charge of the Bill would think that suggestion worth considering.
There was another aspect of this matter from the agricultural point of view, namely, that districts such as Orkney and others represented by hon. Members who opposed the Bill, which were of an excessively rural character, might very reasonably be scheduled by county councils as districts containing roads on which there was no traffic but farm traffic. In Wigtonshire, Kircudbrightshire, and various rural parts of Scotland whole districts might be safely scheduled as districts where it would not be necessary that lights should be carried. [An HON. MEMBER: What about uniformity?] He did not care about the question of uniformity. He was thinking of the safety of life and limb for those who used the roads. He was not speaking from the point of view of the motorists. If these suggestions were taken up and considered carefully in Committee he for one should be happy to support the Bill.
*SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid he was very loth to place any impediment in the way of the legislative efforts of his hon. friend who had moved the Second Reading of the Bill, but when he

203
proposed legislation which many of his constituents looked upon with something like horror then friendship must be put aside and public duty must take its place. His duty under the circumstances would be to oppose the Bill unless he had some assurance that it would not apply to Scotland. He had no doubt this would be a very useful Bill in connection with the suburbs of London, and also in the home counties adjoining the Metropolis, where perhaps 100 cars were passing every day for every one running on Scotch roads. The Bill if applied to Scotland would become an intolerable nuisance to farmers. For instance, if a farmer wished after sunset to take a cart of roots to his sheep he would require to carry lights, although only performing a necessary part of his business, for the public roads usually intersected, farms. Then in the autumn when the harvest was going on it was frequently necessary late in the season for farmers to avail themselves of the opportunity to cart their grain in the moonlight. In that case they would require to have lights in front of and behind the cart. These, he thought, were perfectly unnecessary things. As had been pointed out by a previous speaker, if sheep were being taken along the public roads it would be necessary to have a man in front and another behind, each carrying a light, for if they were to have the Bill they must have regard to the danger caused by animals as well as vehicles. In Scotland they had the Burgh Police Act which regulated all questions about lighting within the boundaries of cities or burghs. Besides this the county councils had power to formulate regulations for the lighting of vehicles in the counties. The object of his hon. friend who moved the Second Reading was to make the law uniform all over the country. He believed the Bill would, if it created uniformity of the law, at any rate create a state of matters which, however desirable in one part of the country, was absolutely unnecessary in others. He thought the local people were the best judges of what should be done in the matter. If his hon. friend would give him an assurance that the Bill would not apply to Scotland he certainly should not oppose it any further, but if it was to apply to that country he should feel
204
bound in the interest of his constituents to give it the strongest opposition he possibly could.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he rose to echo what had already been advanced by his compatriots in opposition to this Bill. It was a measure which would never go down with the people of Scotland. It no doubt had elements of good in it. He supposed everybody desired that lights should be carried by vehicles on the public highways. In the southern counties of Scotland, with which he was most familiar, they had very good by-laws which answered the purpose exceedingly well. They had not had those by-laws for a very long time, but if the House passed a drastic measure of this kind for the purpose of bringing about what was termed uniformity and punishing everybody alike, there would be a revulsion of feeling against the regulations and against the Bill. Therefore, if his hon. friend the Member for the Brentford Division really wanted to make progress with this measure he had better bring it forward in a few years time after the public had had a more ample opportunity of ascertaining what was really wanted, and especially in the counties of Scotland. If this Bill were passed it would involve an outlay which would be very hard on farmers who occupied land on both sides of the public roads. It would be necessary to have lights on carts after sunset; and in time of harvest it often happened that they returned to the farm houses many hours after sunset. They would be put to considerable inconvenience if they were obliged to carry lights in the way proposed. It was all very well for the hon. Member to say that it would only cost £2 a year. He had to drive many hundreds of miles every year through wild country, and he liked to have plenty of light on the vehicle, and also to see lights on approaching vehicles. As a rule that was attended to, and if it occasionally happened that there was a sleepy-headed fellow on a cart, he did not think that was a really good reason for proposing legislation of this kind. The hon. Member for Gainsborough had stated that he had not heard a single word said against the Bill. He himself knew perfectly well

205
the feeling against the Bill on the part of his constituents. If the promoters of the Bill proceeded with it they would take the most unfair advantage of their constituents and of the country. If it were applied to counties with large areas, where motors were perhaps never seen, it would be most unjust. Very few of what were called "machines" were kept there at all—he meant vehicles on two wheels with springs. It was chiefly farm carts which would have to undergo the conditions imposed by this measure. To say that all these carts should carry lights was absurd. He was confident that the by-laws which had been enacted and which would continue to be enacted in the different counties were Sufficient for the purpose, and, if they were not, they could be made to meet the requirements of the case. The motive of his hon. friend was a good one, but he had mistaken the feelings of the Scottish people.
*MR. BROOKE ROBINSONsaid there were others who were entitled to consideration as well as the agricultural interest—these were the owners of carriages, and certainly 70 per cent. of those used in London and 90 per cent. of those used in the country had not lamps of the peculiar character required in this Bill. There were probably 500,000 carriages in England, and as the cost of new lamps averaged £3 per lamp, he ventured to think that before the House imposed on the owners a charge which would amount to £750,000 in getting new lamps, they should have stronger reasons than had yet been advanced in favour of this Bill. He ventured also to strongly object to the view that a burden in respect to lights should be imposed on the farmers of England from which it was proposed to now exempt the farmers of Scotland.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on this Bill were, almost without exception, representatives of agricultural constituencies, and he desired to say a word from the point of view of those connected with large cities and industrial populations. From their point of view, so far as he
206
had been able to obtain the opinion of the commercial community of Liverpool, they had no objection to the principle of the Bill. Every vehicle ought to be lighted in such a way as not to be a serious danger to other vehicles on the road, and if the Bill had been drafted in such a manner that it could have been adapted to every locality the objections stated that day would have been very largely minimised. It appeared to him that if the Bill was likely to gain success it should have been drawn in such a manner that it would have been left to localities to apply, or not apply, its provisions as they thought necessary. What was wanted was elasticity rather than uniformity in the law. A law might be simple, while at the same time extremely drastic. As to Liverpool, he might say that the cart-owners, who were a very large body, were strongly against the Bill because they thought it unnecessary, and because the city of Liverpool, like other large cities, was very well lighted by electricity and gas. There was no danger from vehicles being driven in well-lighted streets as compared with rural districts; secondly, they held that in a city like Liverpool there was no necessity for such regulations, at all events as regarded carts and lorries which proceeded at a walking pace.
The Corporation of Liverpool were entirely of the same view. A few years ago that corporation passed a by-law in which it was laid down that every vehicle passing along the streets during the night should have a light, except vehicles passing at a walking pace. But they exempted the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Estate. Here they had a large area set aside for working the loading and unloading of ships. They had docks, quays, and sheds, and there were roads communicating with these sheds to which the public had access. These sheds were filled with goods, many of them of a highly inflammable nature, such as cotton, oil, and hay. Now, if vehicles proceeding to these sheds carried lights there was the great danger of fire. A careless carter might, in lighting his lamp, throw a burning match somewhere among the goods. It was absurd

207
to pass such a regulation as that lorries and carts going along these crowded thoroughfares should have to carry lights. Therefore, the Corporation of Liverpool, in the by-law to which he had referred, excepted entirely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Estate.
He thought the promoters of this Bill were a little to blame for the manner in which they had received suggestions. They all knew the Bill was promoted by the Cyclists' Union, which was entitled to protection as much as anybody else. Though he had great sympathy with the Bill, and though he would be sorry to oppose it on principle, yet he thought the promoters should give the assurance that they would freely accept Amendments in Committee intended to preserve the rights of local authorities to adapt particular localities in the way they thought best; or, perhaps, better still, having regard to the numerous objections which had been stated, they should withdraw it on this occasion, in order that they might carefully consider the question of bringing it forward in an amended form in another year.
MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid he represented perhaps one of the most scattered constituencies in Scotland. Although he held that vehicles should be properly lighted, he thought that in the case of counties where only one cart might be found in forty miles of road it was not necessary to put in force the provisions of this Bill. He suggested that such counties should be exempted in the schedule. The real dangers which they had to guard against were those which were to be met with round towns. He believed that if local by-laws were properly carried out this Bill would be absolutely unnecessary. If the Bill were passed great injustice would be suffered in the rural districts where there was very little traffic on the roads.
MR. LABOUCHERE,who was received with cries of "Cochrane," said it was all very well to say "Cochrane," but this was a most important Bill.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the hon. Member was in conspiracy with the Government.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had not the slightest notion whether the Government were in favour of the Bill or against it. He thanked God that the hon. Member was not the Speaker or the Dictator of the House. He would pursue his course whether it pleased the hon. Member or not. He should take the liberty to speak on any Bill when he thought it desirable to lay his opinions before the House. He had observed that hon. Members who had spoken had commenced by dissociating themselves from any desire to prevent the discussion of the Bill that was to follow. He, therefore, desired also to dissociate himself from any such desire. The fact was that he held strong views both in regard to ladies and lights. He had given notice that he would move that the Women's Enfranchisement Bill be read that day six months, and in that way he had shown that he was desirous to lay his views before the House. At the same time the Bill now before the House was an important one, and they had duties to perform to their constituencies in fairly discussing it. Most of the debate had been carried on by Scotch Members, and he wished to congratulate Scotland. He had often wondered why Scotland was so much better governed than England. He believed it was because it had better representatives than England. Some of the Scotch Members had said that if Scotland were excluded from the Bill they would not take much interest in it. Other Scotchmen said that they did not take this local view of the matter, and that they would consider it their duty to oppose the Bill in the interest of England as well. A great many valuable grounds had been urged against the Bill by the Scotch Members. It seemed to him that their arguments were equally applicable to England, and he was really surprised that so few English Members had got up to oppose the Bill.
He had no doubt that the hon. Member for the Brentford Division was a most valuable member of the county council of Middlesex. It appeared that that county had already the rules which he wished to impose on other counties. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to perceive that what might be good for Middlesex was not

209
necessarily good for the entire country. In Middlesex there was a vast amount of traffic, and, as there were carts coming at night to London with vegetables and other supplies, he could conceive that it was desirable to take special care to avoid collisions by having lights which would not be necessary in other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of uniformity. In the matter of regulations as to lights why was each county not to be able to judge for itself? The hon. Gentleman said there were some retrograde counties which would not follow the example of Middlesex. Let the hon. Gentleman rejoice that he was connected with Middlesex, which was not a retrograde county. There was too great a tendency on the part of Metropolitan Members to think that what was good for them was good for everyone else. He had not the slightest idea, because he was an inhabitant of London, of sacrificing the rights of his constituents who did not happen to be inhabitants of London. There were a great many counties where there was exceedingly little traffic, where motor-cars were very rare, and where there was no practical danger of an accident taking place. The Bill proposed that there should be lights on everything except a perambulator or a wheelbarrow. Why was a perambulator or a wheelbarrow to be run over? He wished it to be optional to the county council of each county to decide whether there should be lights on vehicles or not.
The real fact was that this Bill was brought in in the motor interest. All the leading men of the motor interest were in favour of it. It had been said that men who were driving carts went to sleep in the carts, but supposing a lamp went out the danger would be even greater. They were told that in voting for the Second Reading they were only voting for the principle of the Bill; but he contended that the principle on which the Bill was based was thoroughly unsound. The principle was—never mind local rights; think Imperially, centralise everything. He was opposed to that. The Bill attacked the very first principles of local government, and therefore he felt it his duty to vote against it. He had not had an opportunity of studying it greatly,
210
but that was not his fault, because it had only been issued the day before. He had comforted himself, however, with the thought that the Bill was of such great importance that many Members would have discussed it at length and thrown greater light upon it than he could, on the theory that this was a question on which England expected every man to do his duty. Those who were supporting the Bill, he held, were overstepping their boundaries when they insisted on imposing their will on the whole of England.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.)said that a great deal of the discussion had not been directed to the measure the Second Reading of which had been moved. He was afraid that the hon. Member who had last addressed the House, who professed to have a single eye to the present Bill, protested a little too much; and he had some slight suspicion of the same motive on the part of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham.
MR. CROOKS: "Oh, ye of little faith."
*MR. COCHRANEsaid that the hon. Member for Peckham had drawn a picture as to what would happen to him, if the Bill were passed into law, when returning from hunting—that it would be necessary to light up his horses, both before and behind. Such an exaggerated picture hardly commended itself to serious consideration. Then the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland burst into metaphors as to petticoats, cloven hoofs, and curly tails, which he mixed in the most extraordinary manner in one sentence. This was not a new question. It had often been before the Houe. As far back as the year 1897 a Bill was read a second time and it had been brought forward several times since. It was a question which affected all users of the roads and not merely motorists and cyclists. It had been recognised by the Legislature that that was the case, and various powers had been given in different parts of the country to make by-laws. No doubt if they could have reasonable uniformity it would be most desirable. But on this occasion he feared the

211
question had not been considered quite on its merits. It had been overshadowed by the great motor question, which they all felt. No doubt motor-cars gave rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction. The unreasonable manner in which they were driven, the abominable dust which they raised, the ruin caused to suburban gardens, the alarm to people whose children were playing on the road owing to the way the motor chauffeur bustled past, all tended to affect the unprejudiced consideration of the present question. He desired to approach it from the point of view of public safety on the roads.
What most of them desired was that the roads should be made as secure as possible to all users, due regard being had to all reasonable interests on the roads. Now, a great number of accidents had occured on the roads long before motorcars were ever heard of by reason of the absence of lights on vehicles or of their improper lighting. He had had sent to him a long list of accidents, but he could not vouch for its accuracy. In one case a mail-cart driver going into a dark avenue ran into a brewer's van and the drivers of both vehicles—neither of which was lighted—were seriously injured. And lest the temperance party should be induced to make too much of that case he would cite another in which three Wesleyan ministers driving in a cart ran into the horse attached to an approaching vehicle, the shaft of their cart piercing its breast and killing it. One hon. Member had declared that the roads were so dangerous now-a-days that he preferred to fake his exercise along the railway lines for it was possible to tell when a train was approaching. But that was exaggeration to say the least of it.
Turning to the actual proposals of the Bill, he found that the drafting left considerable room for improvement. The proposal roughly was that all vehicles except wheelbarrows and perambulators should carry a white light in front and a red light in the rear. The requirement that there should be a red light in the rear of every vehicle was an entirely new one, and would require most careful consideration before any responsible Department would suggest that it should be universally adopted. The responsibility which was thrown on the driver not only
212
to keep the lights burning, but to provide lamps, was also one that should not be placed upon him. In the definition clause the words "a vehicle with or without wheels" went somewhat far, and the requirement that the lights should be seen at a certain distance "if the weather be clear" would give rise to considerable difficulty. In these and other particulars the Bill fell short of what could be recommended to the House. The model by-laws issued from the Home Office to county councils which desired to put them in force, he thought, really provided the safeguards which were required. He would like to read them to the House. They were as follows—
"Every person who shall cause or permit any vehicle to be in any street or highway during the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, shall provide the same with a lamp or lamps so constructed and capable of being so attached as when lighted to show to the front a white light visible within a reasonable distance to persons meeting or approaching the vehicle. If only one lamp is so provided, it shall be attached to the off or right side of the vehicle, and if the lamp or lamps are so constructed as to permit a light to be seen from the rear, that light shall be red."
"He shall also, if the vehicle is used for the purpose of carrying timber or any load projecting more than six feet to the rear, provide the same with a lamp or lamps so constructed and capable of being so attached as when lighted to show to the rear a red light visible within a reasonable distance to persons overtaking the vehicle."
"Every person driving or being in charge of such vehicle as aforesaid in any street or highway during such period as aforesaid shall keep such lamp or lamps properly trimmed, lighted, and attached."
"Any person offending against any of the foregoing bye-laws shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5. There is no power to impose any higher penalty than this for a second offence, nor any daily penalty for a continuing offence."
As he had said, these model by-laws provided all the safeguards which were required. They had been largely adopted by county councils. They were not hard-and-fast regulations. They had been altered in different directions, but the variations, he acknowledged, sometimes led to difficulty and trouble. He repeated that he did think greater uniformity than they had at present was desirable.
His hon. friend the Member for West Renfrew had referred to a speech

213
made at a meeting at Edinburgh by one of his own constituents. But there was another speech made by a farmer for an adjoining constituency (Ayrshire) in which attention was drawn to the inconvenience caused by the fact that in one county two lamps were required to each vehicle and in the other only one. Again, in one district a cart had to be lighted up an hour after sunset and in another two hours. He thought that if some uniformity could be arrived at on moderate lines it would be a great advantage. The County Councils Association had petitioned the Local Government Board to the effect that the time had come when legislation should be passed making it compulsory to carry lights on all vehicles. The need of uniformity was felt, and in sixty out of sixty-two counties in England the model by-laws had been adopted with some modifications, and in 223 out of 324 boroughs.
Objection had been taken to this Bill on the ground of inconvenience, expense, and risk of fire, especially in the case of carts carrying hay and similar loads. No doubt it was more or less inconvenient to carry out by-laws, but with regard to the risk of fire it had not been very marked in the cases where the by-laws were already in force. But there were one or two points which needed careful consideration. It would be admitted to be intolerable to compel a farmer, having fields on both sides of the road, to light a vehicle when merely moving it from one field to another. Scotland had been very fully represented in the discussion that day, and it would appear as if that country were backward in this matter. That, however, was far from being the case. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, contained provisions similar to the model by-laws issued by the Home Office, and they had practically in all the burghs by-laws, restrictions, and regulations regarding the carrying of lights at least equal to, if not in advance of, those which obtained in this country. These had been compulsorily adopted in all but five burghs, two of which—Edinburgh and Dundee—had by-laws of their own far more stringent than any laid down in this Bill. His own county (Ayrshire) had indeed gone beyond what it seemed to some they were legally
214
entitled to do, for they had placed an interpretation on Section 104 of the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878, which seemed almost like straining the law. In something like twenty-seven counties in Scotland there were by-laws in force; in only six there were none. In Ayrshire they had very good by-laws indeed, and he hoped that in time other counties would come up to their standard. He trusted his hon. friend would induce the Renfrew County Council to follow their lead.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: We have precisely similar by-laws, except so far as there is a difference in the treatment of vehicles not on springs.
*MR. COCHRANEcould not admit that Renfrewshire quite came up to the standard of Ayrshire in this matter. Still they need not indulge in any further internecine warfare. But he was prepared to admit that it might be extremely inconvenient to treat some parts of Scotland in the same way as Middlesex, and, therefore, if the hon. Member succeeded in getting the Second Reading of his Bill, he hoped he would make it clear that Scotland would not be included in the measure. He suggested further that if the hon. Member succeeded in getting the Second Reading, he should ask the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee, where evidence might be taken and the subject thoroughly threshed out. If he took that course, and was prepared to adopt Amendments as he had suggested, he might say the Government would take no hostile view of the measure, but as the Bill was at present drafted there were so many objections to it that he could not for the moment give it any more cordial support.
MR. BRYCEsaid it was eminently desirable that some uniformity should be introduced into our by-laws regarding the lighting of vehicles; he could conceive nothing more inconvenient than the existence of so many different systems. Local government was all very well and they all desired to encourage it; but there were things in which uniformity was a great deal better than variety. This was a difficulty which increased

215
every year with the growth of population. Fifty years ago, when our roads were much less used than now, and when new villages and new towns did not spring up in every direction, this was not such a pressing question as at the present time, when our population was very rapidly increasing and our roads were being used more than ever, people even going back to them and not confining themselves to the railways. The question had become more urgent and the need for uniformity was greater than ever. He did not speak for the motorist, but on behalf of the humble cyclist. His experience was that the cyclist ran great danger not only from the rapid but also from the slow-moving vehicle; indeed, it was the slow-moving vehicle which was the greatest danger to him. He did not, therefore, think any Bill would be satisfactory which exempted the slow-going vehicle, though he thought they might, and he hoped the promoter of the Bill would, endeavour to meet the
case of the farmer who used the road for say 100 yards—from one farm to another. He thought a real, substantial case had been made out for passing some such Bill; and he considered uniformity was needed in Scotland as well as in England, though it might be that the Scotch law ought to be considered by itself. He hoped the House would accept the Bill, and that, after every opportunity for amending it had been given, the Government would make every effort to pass it into law.
*MR. BIGWOODsaid he was disposed to accept the offer of the Government, on condition that special facilities were given for the future progress of the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 157.)

AYES.

Allen, Charles P.

Gilhooly, James

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Austin, Sir John

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Myers, William Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Graham, Henry Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrington, Timothy

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bill, Charles

Helder, Augustus

Paulton, James Mellor

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Brigg, John

Higham, John Sharp

Pierpoint, Robert

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestley, Arthur

Burns, John

Johnson, John

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Ridley, S. Forde

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cameron, Robert

Jordan, Jeremiah

Schwann, Charles E.

Cawley, Frederick

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Shackleton, David James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Chapman, Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Crooks, William

Macdona, John Gumming

Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Toulmin, George

Davenport, William Bromley

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

Tully, Jasper

Delany, William

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Turnour, Viscount

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Ure, Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Valentia, Viscount

Emmott, Alfred

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Field, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Yoxall, James Henry

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moss, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Garfit, William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bigwood and Colonel Denny.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Hayden, John Patrick

Parrott, William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Heaton, John Henniker

Perks, Robert William

Allsopp, Hon. George

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rankin, Sir James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reddy, M.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Joyee, Michael

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Labouchere, Henry

Robinson, Brooke

Bathurst, Hn. Allan Benjamin

Lambert, George

Roche, John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Lamont, Norman

Roe, Sir Thomas

Boland, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bright, Allen Heywood

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

Rose, Charles Day

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Leveson-Gowor, Frederick N. S.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Slack, John Bamford

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Grombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lundon, W.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cullinan, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Devlin, Chas Ramsay (Galway)

M'Fadden, Edward

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Doogan, P. C.

Milvain, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mooney, John J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fergusson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Murphy, John

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (Yorks.)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Young, Samuel

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Doherty, William

Cathcart Wason and Sir

Gunter, Sir Robert

O'Dowd, John

Herbert Maxwell.

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
*MR. SLACKin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, expressed his regret that the measure should have come on at so late an hour in the afternoon, and said that as a comparatively new Member he felt almost appalled at the extraordinary abuse of the forms of the House which that afternoon had been witnessed, manifestly and in some quarters avowedly with a view to preventing discussion of this Bill. A study of previous debates on the question of the Parliamentary enfranchisement of women had convinced
218
him that no detailed argument in favour of the principle was necessary. The arguments of John Stuart Mill on Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill in 1867 were still unanswered and, in his opinion, they were unanswerable. The question was not one of Party, the principle having been supported by a majority of every Party in the House. The enfranchisement of women was a necessary factor in modern social progress, which had already been accepted by British colonies and which before long the mother country also would be compelled to accept. The principle had been discussed seventeen times in that House. In 1897 a Bill similar to the one under discussion was read a second time by a majority of seventy-one, while last year a Resolution affirming the principal was carried by a majority of 114. This week, Punch, that popular journal which generally had its finger upon the pulse of genuine public opinion, had put the case for this Bill in

219
a nutshell, or rather in a cartoon, entitled "The Dignity of the Franchise."
The object of the Bill was to place women electorally in precisely the same position as men now occupied. The Bill would enfranchise women of every class, married and single, working women and women of leisure. It was certainly the intention of the promoters that it should enfranchise married women, and in Committee he would be glad, if necessary, to insert words, making this quite clear, providing that women should be enfranchised whether under coverture or not. The class chiefly concerned, however, were the working women of the country. The Bill embodied no new-fangled fancy franchise, but simply extended all existing franchises to women. It equalised the Parliamentary suffrage by admitting women as citizens on the same terms as men and abolishing the electoral disqualification of sex. It would enfranchise the great and numerous class of women occupiers. It had been ascertained that in the Bradley Ward of the Borough of Nelson more than 95 per cent. of the women voters now on the register were working women, while in Bolton the percentage was no less than 90, and out of 5,234 women voters now on the municipal register, and whom this Bill would add to the Parliamentary register, no fewer than 4,752 were working women. In St. Pancras, out of 5,231 women on the local register, 3,221 were working women. And in two wards of the city of Leeds 532 out of 536 and 1,100 out of 1,190 women voters were working women.
Fifty-three years ago Herbert Spencer wrote—
"Equity knows no difference of sex. The law of equal freedom manifestly applies to the whole race, female as well as male,"
and that was just as good philosophy today as when first written. During the generation since Disraeli's Bill of 1867 there had been a great advance in public opinion on this question. Women could now vote for county, borough, and parish councils and boards of guardians. and a few weeks ago the House decided by a large majority that the women who were qualified to vote for those municipal bodies should also be qualified to be elected to them. It
220
was these same women who under this Bill would be qualified to exercise the Parliamentary franchise. The national attitude had changed, but in this House the recent tendency had been retrograde and reactionary. Women had lost ground both as regarded educational and municipal administration. They were no longer qualified for direct election to the education authorities, nor were they eligible to sit on the London borough councils, which had taken the place of bodies for election to which they were previously elegible. These disqualifications would never have been imposed had the principle of this Bill been the law of the land. Women had no Parliamentary vote to protect the position they had gained, and in legislative assemblies unrepresented interests far too frequently went to the wall.
The test he would apply to this as to all other matters was simply, "Is it right?" and he held that few men could say from their conscience that it was not right to give to women the Parliamentary franchise. The disfranchisement of women was unconstitutional, inexpedient, mischievous, and unjust. It was wrong to force reasonable and responsible citizens to obey laws which had been enacted without the possibility of sanction or protest on their part. Women were excluded from the learned profession, ineligible for service on juries, and for the magistracy. Before the law women were prosecuted, defended, tried, and judged by men, and thus the door was opened to prejudice, error, and injustice, Give them the Parliamentary suffrage and the greatest of their grievances would be assuaged, their wrongs mitigated, and the injustice to a certain extent remedied, because they would have a voice in the constitution of the highest Court of the realm. In this House, by their own representatives, they could then voice their case. This Bill was framed as a reasonable measure—to extend the franchise to women on the same terms as to men. It was intended to enfranchise every woman, who if she had been a man would have had a vote, whether as owner, occupier, or lodger. The Bill was drawn on a sound and broad basis—sound, because it made no invidious legal distinctions between different classes

221
of women, and broad because it took the existing basis in regard to men. It sought to establish the principle that now and always there should be precisely the same qualification for men and women, and that the future broadening of the vote which must come should carry women with it. The area covered by the Bill could not be usefully widened or narrowed; if it were on a different basis it would be open to the charge of introducing a fresh complication into our already over-complicated, antiquated, and discredited electoral system. Women asked for no privilege. They claimed a sacred and inviolable right which had been recognised by colony after colony with the best possible results. They begged no favour but a fair field for a great body of responsible citizens. They demanded bare justice, the redress of a great wrong, and the adjustment of a glaring inequality. Their claim was based on the eternal principles of liberty, equality, equity, and justice, and also of national morality and righteousness—principles to which this House could never for long consent to turn a deaf ear. The House had nothing to do with the consequences of a measure which simply sought to do justice. Withholding justice always led to public danger and discontent. He ventured to prophesy that the results of this measure if passed would be both beneficent and permanent, the bounds of freedom would be enlarged, and government would be more broadly based because based upon the will of all the people. He begged to move.
*SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid he was glad to have the opportunity of seconding the Motion that this very modest Bill should be read a second time. That women who had the same qualifications as men should be placed
222
on the Parliamentary register, and that sex should be no bar to the franchise, was a proposal which, in his opinion, was rendered both desirable and necessary by the modern conditions of industry, and by the development and extension of that commercial and industrial system on which the prosperity of this country rests. The position of female labour in many countries was such that woman was the servant of man, working for him, not as a free agent, but in a state of dependence upon him whether wives or daughters. In England at least women were free, going to their work as the equals, and, indeed, as the competitors of men, receiving their wages and disposing of them as they thought well. In many trades, where the handling of fine fabrics and the manipulation of delicate machinery was necessary, it was found that the labour of women was superior to that of men. Thus in the great development of manufacture, it had come about that female labour took a large share in the production of the national wealth, and the commercial prosperity of the country might be said to be largely dependent upon it. But while women took their places in industry side by side with men, their position was by no means the same. They complained that they were peculiarly subject to the exactions of the sweater, that they received lower wages than men even for the same work, and that, as regarded technical education, their needs were almost wholly disregarded. They were shut out from all schemes of industrial reform. This they attributed, and rightly so in his opinion, to political helplessness. All would recognise the great improvement in the condition of working men since the establishment of trades unions, and how, by combination, so much had been obtained for

223
the benefit, of working people, and probably all would agree that that improvement and that benefit would not have been secured, at any rate to the same extent, if the members of trades unions had not been endowed with the vote. And, now that women as much as men worked in their factories and workshops, now that they were in many cases the breadwinners, and in some cases the sole breadwinners, what argument was there for withholding from them the privileges of democracy which men enjoyed? While the foundation of their vast system of commerce rested so much upon female labour, while women shared so largely in the upkeep of the nation by the contribution of their labour to its trade, he submitted that no argument could be advanced in favour of sex remaining a disqualification for the franchise.
Many persons who were in favour of the franchise being given to women with a property qualification were opposed to this Bill. Personally, he took no interest in the extension of the franchise only to women with a property qualification. He did not believe that women with property cared in the least about the vote; to many it would be a luxury, to some even a nuisance, and Parliament need not trouble itself on account of those who were indifferent or were not pressing the matter forward. But women who worked for a weekly or daily wage did care about the vote; to them it would be not a luxury, but daily bread. He believed that inquiry had shown that 90 per cent. of the women who would go upon the register if this Bill passed would be working women. He understood that 7s. a week was the average wage of the working women of this country, and he remembered hearing
224
it stated by a member of a deputation last year that she had worked ten hours a day welding chains for 5s. a week. These were the women who wanted the same chance in life as men, and while they did the same work and furnished so large a proportion of the labour supply of the country, there could be no reason why they should be denied political rights. It could not be to the interests of a commercial State which required for its sustenance a constant supply of well-fed and healthy labourers that cheap labour of this kind should be exacted from any section of its citizens. The question to-day was not how much or how little the franchise should be extended, but that in that franchise, whatever it was or might be, there should be equality, that one worker should not be denied what was given to another. He cared not what effect such a reform might have upon the balance of political Parties. A State, highly civilised and advancing in civilisation, conducting its internal economy on principles of equity and justice need have no fear of disturbance of political power.
He hoped the Bill would be read a second time. In any case, if those who opposed or supported the measure did so moderately and without prejudice, so satisfied was he with the arguments in its favour that he was certain the discussion would prove a step forward in the path of a reform for which the advancement of this country and its people would give ample justification. Their great commercial system was based upon the industry and intelligence of the people, and it might be said that the working people had the greatest stake of all in its maintenance and prosperity. Anything which injured that system

225
contracted its operations, or impaired its machinery, must be felt firstly and most severely by those who worked for daily or weekly wages. Consequently their stake in the prosperity of the country was a great one, and that so large a proportion of those who had this large stake should be kept out of political rights was a condition which, in his opinion, both needed and demanded alteration. The request for that alteration was now made, and he could assure the House there was intense energy and force behind it. In the past there had been great men in the Conservative Party who had not been slow to recognise the aspirations of democracy, nor to discern, even though from a distance, the operation of forces not, perhaps, visible at the top, but the strength and intensity of which were clearly to be seen below. There had been statesmen on their side, who, in response to that instinct, had been the first to initiate and to bring to maturity democratic changes in the constitution of this country. He hoped and believed that the species was not yet extinct, and he further hoped that the next great measure of electoral reform might come from their side and that it might embrace at least that modest extension of the franchise suggested in the Bill before the House and of which he was glad to have the opportunity of supporting the Second Reading.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. LABOUCHEREin moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said that
226
reference had been made to the views of John Stuart Mill. It was true that he voted for Mr. Mill's Motion, but he did so with great hesitation, and certainly not because he regarded his arguments as unanswerable. He remembered asking Mr. Mill, at Mr. Bright's suggestion, whether he was really in favour of giving the franchise to all women or only to a few. It was only when Mr. Mill replied that he was in favour of giving it to a few that Mr. Bright was prepared to vote for women's suffrage. Therefore Mr. Mill, whose arguments had been referred to as unanswerable, would himself have been against this Bill. That was thirty-seven years ago, and in thirty-seven years one increased to a certain extent in experience. Every successive year since then had made him more and more regret the vote ho then gave, and he had endeavoured to make up for it as a penance by opposing the Women's Franchise Bill tooth and nail ever since. He was entirely against female suffrage, and even if he were in its favour, he would, as a Radical and a democrat, oppose this Bill. After all, women were different from men physically and intellectually. We did not know how the difference had arisen. According to Darwin we all commenced from a single cell; the protoplasm by evolution became in some cases a man and in others a woman, and as a result of the processes in the laboratory of nature the sexes differed intellectually and physically. There were many physical tasks performed by men for which women were not fitted. They could not serve as soldiers.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are not a soldier.
MR. LABOUCHEREagreed, but he recognised that in every country in the last resort it was the business of every citizen of the country to go to its defence, and therefore he constituted one of the Reserves. Apparently, his hon. friend suggested that the franchise should be given to women because they could fulfil the duties of citizenship by turning out as soldiers after all the men had been destroyed. But that was not women's business; they could not do it; it must be recognised as one of their limitations. Neither could women act as policemen. Order and liberty, the social fabric, rested ultimately upon force, and the fact that women could not contribute to that force was a limitation of citizenship. The vote should be given only to those who could maintain a Government by force if necessary, provided, of course, it was a sound Government, but women could neither defend a good Government nor upset a bad one. It was the same in industrial life. As civilisation increased, the hard manual work was taken out of the hands of women. In this country the law had interfered to prevent women from doing men's work. He thought, therefore, it might fairly be said that women could not fulfil the duties of citizenship. Of course, it was not their fault that they were more beautiful than muscular.
There was also a difference between women and men in mental equipment. In some things they were superior to men, but in other things men were very much their superiors. During the first years at school girls outstripped boys, but after a certain age the boys more than overtook the girls. In domestic matters women were much more useful and understood them better than men,
228
and in certain little trades in which women engaged they might be able to give points to men. But in the consideration of the great problems which came before the Imperial Parliament they were certainly inferior intellectually to men. There were doubtless exceptions, but he was speaking of the sex as a whole. Women were nervous, emotional, and had very little sense of proportion. Every man know what it was to argue with a woman. He had given it up. A woman would lay down her views, and though it were conclusively proved to her that she was wrong, she would continue stolidly to repeat her old arguments. But whence did she get her opinions and conclusions? Very often from someone who had influence over her.
Considering the nature of this great Parliament and what its duties were he was convinced that women, fitted as they were for many things, were not fitted to have votes. It was said that women were entitled to the franchise as a right. But the giving of votes must depend upon whether it was an advantage to the community, and it would be a great disadvantage to the community to give women votes. It would also be injurious to women themselves. It was said also that the argument against women being unfit for the franchisé was disproved by the fact that this country had an excellent Queen for many years. But it must be remembered that the Queen could only act on the advice of her Ministers, and in his opinion it would be easier for a woman to act as Queen than to act as a simple voter. Women exercised a great influence over men, and they desired to retain that influence. The laws of nations had been largely shaped by women, although women had

229
no hand directly in the making of the laws. This influence would be lost to women if they had votes, and that was the reason why the vast majority of women did not desire the franchise. In fact, women had at present such an influence over the actions of men that if they had been really united in the desire for the franchise they would have got it long ago. It was only a few women with masculine minds who took an interest in politics and desired to have votes in order that they might enter the political arena. This matter must be considered from a broad point of view. Whatever the Bill might say, the admitted object of the promoters was to put men and women in a position of absolute equality in the matter of the franchise, to break down the barrier of sex, and to give women the vote precisely as it was now given to men. What would that mean? Somehow or other there were more females than males born, and at the time of a general election there were always more men than women absent from the country. Therefore, as there were more women than men in the country, if the female franchise was established it would mean the absolute abnegation of the rights of men, and the surrender of the whole government of the country to women. It was true that on ordinary questions women would not all act together; they would be split up into Parties; but when it came to a question of the interest of women versus the interest of men they would be absolutely united against the male portion of the community. It was, therefore, absolutely dangerous. Women would want to sit in Parliament. Whether his hon. friend was in favour of that or not—
*MR. SLACK: I am not in favour of assisting you to talk it out.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Talking it out! Was it really supposed that a measure of this tremendous importance could be voted upon after a discussion of two hours? No, it was not a question of talking it out; he was trying to convert his hon. friend. But whether his hon. friend was in favour of it or not, it would matter very little if women were given votes, as the right to sit in the House could not then logically be denied.
Now, would it really be desirable to turn this venerable and respectable Parliament into an arena with a promiscuity of sexes? He thought it would be most undesirable There were young men there. He had seen in the lobbies all sorts of political flirtations going on to get their vote. As an old man he could not conscientiously countenance placing them or anybody else in the hands of those ladies. He had had cards sent in to himself, and gentlemen had come to him and said, "The ladies want to see you." Well, he was cautious. He remembered the intelligent Ulysses closed his ears not to hear the sirens; and so he did not go to those ladies. If he had gone—man was weak—he might have been cajoled and humbugged into taking their part and voting for this measure. No, it was really not safe. That was the view taken in all other matters. Boys and girls were not now taught together; it was recognised that the education for the one was not exactly suited to the requirements of the other sex. Would anybody suggest that there should be juries of women?

231
["Certainly."] Mixed juries? ["No."] They would not go so far as that; even they drew the line there! The general opinion was that the administration of justice would not gain by having jury-women instead of jurymen. Men were calmer and more likely to give a fair verdict. Would his hon. friend suggest that there should be women Judges and women advocates?
MR. CORRIE GRANT: All we want is freedom.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that was what he wanted. He wanted freedom for men. He was not going to be crushed under the dominion of women. He was a follower of John Knox, who wrote of "the horrible regiment of women." He went further; he was a successor of St. Paul. St. Paul objected to women talking in churches. Apparently the church was then the place where discussions were carried on. Take the Church now. Were Archbishops women? He admitted that many working women did not get fair treatment in the matter of wages, but to give them votes would not raise their wage by one shilling. How was it that men bad obtained better wages? Not by legislation, but through their trade unions, and those who desired to improve women's wages would do better to go and preach trade unionism to the women workers than to endeavour to secure them a barren vote which would do them no good at all. If his hon. friends would promote legislation to secure to women a minimum wage he would heartily support them. But even if he were in favour of women's suffrage, as a Radical and a democrat he would oppose this Bill.
232
Under the Bill as it stood, only propertied women, lodger spinsters, and female servants would get votes. If a woman married she would loss her vote.
*MR. SLACK: The hon. Member is entirely inaccurate.
MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that the hon. Member should read the Bill for himself. If it passed without modification marriage would be practically penalised. He would never accept what he did not think was an honest Bill. There was a deliberate attempt in the present measure to get in the thin end of the wedge. Women might be useful members upon subordinate local boards, for they had capacity for administrative work, and that work affected both sexes, but could not his hon. friend appreciate the vast difference between a board of guardians or a school board and the great Imperial Parliament? The Bill was thoroughly undemocratic and opposed to the most elementary principles of Radicalism. Votes in favour of women's suffrage had increased, it was said, and possibly that was so. Men were very weak in regard to women. Ladies came to them and adjured them to support the cause, and promised in return to canvas for the candidate, who in the belief that the movement would never come to a head weakly gave a promise. A vast number of Gentlemen had incautiously made such promises, and were anxious to avoid the fulfilment of their obligations. ["Oh."] Yes, they were glad the Bill came on for discussion too late for a division. He did not shirk the expression of his views in opposition to the Bill. An important Bill came on dealing with a

233
matter on which he had a strong opinion, and it was supposed that discussion should be restricted under pain of being accused of a desire to talk out women's suffrage. But let supporters of this Bill understand that they could not have it both ways, and if women came into political life they must accept the conditions equally with men. The polite deference to women in drawing-rooms did not obtain in politics, but it was supposed, perhaps, that if ladies had seats in the House male Members would yield them precedence in speaking, though a man might hold strong views, as he did, on the question of vehicle lights. To give the franchise to women would destroy the best relation between the sexes. Think of a married man after having hoard speeches maundering on all the evening having to go over the whole again with his wife and daughters. They might be on opposite sides, and it would mean the destruction of the social relations that had existed from time immemorial. Those who were Radicals should vote against the Bill, even if they were in favour of women's suffrage, because it was not a Radical and democratic Bill, and Conservatives should not be induced to support it by the limitations attached, for they might be assured that if once a certain number were admitted to the franchise every woman in the country would soon be clamouring not only for votes but for the right to sit in the House.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that he for once was in full agreement with the hon. Member for Northampton. When men exercised their Parliamentary franchise they were creating the great body with whom ultimately must rest not only the making, but the enforcement of the laws. It
234
might be perfectly possible that in certain constituencies the votes of women under the Bill might be in the majority, and as the undoubted desire of the promoters of the Bill was to extend it to all women, in the end that majority would be probable in all constituencies. To carry out the principle logically both husband and wife would have to have the vote. Supposing a House consisting to a large extent of Members elected by the votes of women passed a law to which men as a whole objected, did hon. Members suppose that it would be possible to enforce that law? They could not force men's obedience to laws passed by the influence of a majority of women, contrary to the opinion of men on whose power the final sanction of the law rested. Something like a revolution would result. They would have dissociated the real from the nominal power of the country. The real sanction of any law at present was that it was backed by the power of the men who passed it, and by allowing women to come in, and in certain circumstances to control the election of Members to Parliament, they would vest the creation of the legislative power in one body, while the sanction for the maintenance of the laws passed by the Legislature was vested in another body. The agitation now experienced in consequence of the passing of the Education Act would be nothing compared to that which would follow an Act framed on the demands of women contrary to the wishes of men. Nothing but another Bill restraining the power of election and bringing the power back to its real source of origin would be able to set the matter right.
His information as to the opinion of the colonies, where women had received

235
votes, regarding the success of that change did not agree with that given to the House that day. On the contrary, he was informed that the colonies were seriously dissatisfied with the result, and that there was a desire to repeal that legislation. In canvassing for county council elections he had been struck by a general failure on the part of women voters to take a broad or all-round view of a question. In almost every case they fixed upon some minor detail, and refused to consider anything else. That was not the spirit in which it was desirable to conduct elections to that House. Men did not regard matters in that light at a general election, though they might at a by-election. The hon. Member for Leicester described the Bill as a modest measure. Any adjective less appropriate it would be difficult to find. It was distinctly the most ambitious Bill in this direction ever brought before Parliament. He cordially agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester that women of property did not care about the vote and that it would be a nuisance to them. The vast bulk of women did not desire the franchise.
SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I entirely dissent.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he was speaking from his own experience. Although he had made long inquiry he had been unable to find any desire in this direction among either property owners or any other class. The hon. Member for St. Albans had urged that John Stuart Mill's opinions ought to be sufficient to induce Members to support this Bill. But John Stuart Mill would not have been in favour of such a Bill,
236
as his Motion undoubtedly had reference to propertied people.
*MR. SLACK: Mr. John Stuart Mill proposed exactly what I propose to-day viz., to read the word "person" for "man" in the Reform Bill of 1867, and that would have enfranchised every woman that my Bill seeks to enfranchise.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that, at any rate, that was some years ago, and public interest in the question, however strong it might have been at the time referred to, was not so strong now.
*MR. SLACKrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that for the hon. Member to say that no one could conscientiously refuse to support the Bill appeared to be a parody of the whole situation.
And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.