Lords Sitting of 17 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with. Croydon and District Electric Tramways; Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
Broadstairs Gas Bill; Hyde Corporation Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of
974
Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No, 11 (1903).
  Accession of Denmark to the International Convention of 9th September 1886, establishing an International Union for the protection of literary and artistic works, and also to the additional Act and Declaration, signed at Paris, 4th May 1896. (1st July, 1903).
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)
  Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, for the year 1902.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 389. Sierra Leone; Report for 1902.
  TRINIDAD.
  Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad. Papers relating to the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad; Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Glasgow, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (POST OFFICE).
  Fourth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Office of His Majesty's Postmaster-General which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  THE ACCESSION OATH.
  *LORD BRAYE, who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to propose any further legislation in reference to the Accession Oath imposed on the Sovereign by the Statute of William and Mary, commonly called the Royal Declaration" said: My Lords, since placing this Question on the Paper I have learnt that it is the intention of certain members of your Lordships' House to re-open the question of the Accession Oath early next session, and to propose legislation in reference to it. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Question standing in my name for the present, and to express the hope that when the time comes the Government may deal favourably with and adopt any satisfactory measure that may be propounded in the direction of a remedy.

  THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF MALTA.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, who had given notice "To call attention to the
  976
  Papers relating to the Political Condition of Malta recently laid before the House," said: My Lords, as I understand it would be very convenient to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Scotland, to proceed as rapidly as possible with the Motor-Cars Bill, and as I believe it would be in accordance with the wishes of the House that I should not interpose between your Lordships and the Committee on that Bill, I will not proceed with my Question at the present time.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I should like to express my thanks to the noble Marquess for the course he has taken. I nearly asked him to postpone his Question but I did not like to do so in case it might place him in any difficulty; but with the courtesy which is usual between us, the noble Marquess has taken this course entirely on his own initiative.

  MOTOR-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [THE EARL OF MORLEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to insert words to provide that the driver of a motor-car, when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, exceeded the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, did not slow down, and, if requested, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle, he should be guilty of an offence. He said it appeared to him that there were two great principles which should be kept in view in legislating on this question. The first was not to place any restriction upon motor traffic except that which was absolutely necessary for the public safety, and the second was to secure a ready means of identification of those who broke the law. As regarded the present law, to fix twelve miles as the maximum speed for a machine which had been proved in Ireland to be capable of going at the rate of ninety-five miles an hour was an absurdity, and it seemed to him equally absurd that the

  977
  same speed which was applied to roads in the country should also be applied to the streets of Piccadilly and St. James's. He contended that twelve miles an hour in a town was far too excessive. He did not believe that there was any horse-drawn vehicle in London which travelled more than ten miles an hour, even if as much as that. What had been the result of fixing a special speed? Why, the law had been broken in a shameful way. Men went about in goggles and in a ghastly sort of headgear too horrible to look at, and it was clear that when they put on that dress they meant to break the law. If they were not going to break the law but to confine themselves to a speed of twelve miles an hour, why should not they dress like any ordinary person? It was quite clear that they intended to break the law, and he grieved to say that within the last ten days he had seen two members of His Majesty's Government thus strangely attired. He knew nothing to compare to this lawlessness except, perhaps, the passive resistance of the Nonconformists. They, however, before they passively resisted, held prayer-meetings and prayed for strength to be able to resist the law. He did not believe that motorists who broke the law had prayer - meetings before they did so, or offered up any silent prayer They trusted to their speed, and carried no distinctive mark, so that they could knock down people in the highway and inhumanly pass them by at a high rate of speed. Lord Camperdown had referred the other day to the case of a young lady at Cheam, whose horse was frightened by a motorcar and who was thrown into a ditch, where she was found severely injured. The motorist, however, drove off. He thought the Home Office ought to offer a large reward which would bring that person to justice.
  Notwithstanding their experience of the twelve miles limit, some people were desirous of fixing a limit of twenty miles or more. What would be the result? They would simply be altering the speed, but the illegality would go on just the same. Motorists capable of going thirty miles an hour would not be content with twenty, and the public would be in the same difficulty as before. That was why he had
  978
  endeavoured to put on the Paper an Amendment which, although it did not fix any positive rate of speed, would protect the public if it were inserted in the Bill. The first part of his Amendment was practically the same as the Resolution which he read to their Lordships when two months ago he put a Question to his noble friend as to whether the Government were or were not going to legislate on this question. It came to their Lordships backed by the unanimous support of one of the County Councils of the country. His Amendment covered the whole of the points with regard to which there should be caution, and if their Lordships adopted it the clause would read—
  "If any driver of a motor-car when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, shall exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, shall not slow down, and, if requested, stop so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle; and if any person drives a motor-car on a public highway recklessly, or at a speed which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and the use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might be expected to be, on the highway, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
  The County Councils Association of Scotland had sent a Memorial to his noble friend on this subject, in which they pointed out that in that country there were very many roads which were exceedingly narrow and steep. He thought his Amendment would meet the requirements of that Association At any rate, this was a much better way of dealing with the question than by fixing any special rate of speed. He felt strongly that the question with which Clause 1 dealt should not be left to the local authorities, and that there should be one law with regard to the safety of the public and reckless driving.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after 'any' to insert the words 'driver of a motor-car when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, shall exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, shall not slow down, and, if requested, stop so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle: and if any')."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, and I will endeavour very briefly to state the reasons. The noble Earl has covered a somewhat wide field in moving it, and I shall not follow him on to all the points which he has raised. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I see a good many Amendments on the Paper of a practical nature, and on a great many of the points raised I hope to be able to meet the wishes of noble Lords who have put down Amendments. Although I have to ask your Lordships not to accept the first Amendment to which I am speaking, I hope the House will not assume that I am in the slightest degree going to take up a non possumus attitude with regard to many of the proposals on the Paper. But this proposal would not do on several grounds. In the first place, the general idea of the clause is to put in the forefront of its provisions the prohibition against reckless driving of all kinds, and to make reckless driving under all circumstances, whatever those circumstances are, the offence for which the punishment is to be meted out. The noble Earl proposes to alter the phraseology. I put it to the House that the first part of his Amendment is absolutely covered by the general provision against rash and reckless driving, and the second part of it proceeds on very dangerous lines, because it specifies certain instances of reckless driving, and when you specify instances without making sure that you specify the whole, you spoil the effect of the generality of the prohibition in the earlier part of the clause. The latter part of the Amendment with regard to the question of frightening horses is clearly a matter to be dealt with by regulation and not by statute. It is already provided for in the existing regulations, and if those regulations are not strong enough, I am quite prepared to listen to a proposal to make them stronger. But these regulations have the force of a statute, and do not run counter to the idea of the noble Earl that there ought to be general legislation and not legislation at the instance of the local authorities. So far as the precise wording of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl
  980
  is concerned, I hope the House will not accept it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD HENEAGE, who had given notice to move the insertion, after the words "If any person drives," of the words "or being the owner, permits to be driven," said he desired to make a slight alteration in his Amendment. He had been informed that the word "permits" would cover the fact that the owner was obliged to be present; but since placing the Amendment on the Paper he had taken other advice, and was informed that the word "present" ought to be put into the Amendment. He therefore wished to alter his Amendment so that it would read "or, being the owner, is present and permits to be driven." This was an Amendment which was desired by those who wished to strengthen the Bill, and it had the entire approval of motorists generally. Seeing that those who were not motorists, and that those motorists who desired that reckless driving should be put a stop to were agreed with regard to the Amendment, he ventured to hope that His Majesty's Government would accept it. He was quite certain that until the owner was made responsible it would be quite impossible to stop reckless driving. What owners and drivers of motor-cars had got to be made to understand was that motor-cars, however useful they might be, could not monopolise the roads and terrorise over those who used the roads, and that could only be accomplished by including the owner within the clause. They could not expect the paid drivers to show that courtesy and consideration which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had properly said the other night was wanting on the part of many motorists, if the owners of the motor-cars did not themselves give the drivers an example; and it was not unfair to assume that when an accident happened and the driver drove away, he had the consent of the owner, if the owner was in the car, even if he was not acting under his direct authority. It was a cowardly thing to do, and yet they saw in the newspapers day after day that people who were knocked down and injured were being, left lying in the road by motorists, and

  981
  he was sorry to say that in most cases the owners of the cars were in them. He had been asked to make the clause applicable to owners in all cases, but he did not think that would be fair. He had also been asked to include the hirer: but there again he did not think such a provision would be fair. But he failed to see why the owner should not be made responsible when he was present on the car. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said the other night that there was a provision in the Summary Jurisdiction Act on which he relied. Under Section 5 of that Act the provision, which made the owner an accessory, read as follows—
  "Every person who shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any offence which is or hereafter shall be punishable on summary conviction, shall be liable to be proceeded against and convicted for the same."
  It might be difficult sometimes to prove that against the owner of a motor-car. He did not want to bring in the owner as an accessory, but to make him primarily responsible for the act of his servant if he was on the car at the time of the accident. He thought the proposal a self-evident one. It had the support of Mr. Scott Montagu and other motorists, and he ventured to hope that it would be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'drives' to insert the words 'or, being the owner, is present and pennies to be driven.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord went very thoroughly and fairly into what I indicated the other day would be my answer to his Amendment. But he did not altogether appreciate the point I wished to drive home. The kernel of the Amendment is to make sure of the responsibility of the owner. If the House is satisfied that under the existing law the owner, being present, can be made responsible for the acts of the driver, the case for this Amendment will fall to the ground. The noble Lord correctly referred to Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which provides that
  "Every person who shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any offence which is
  982
  or hereafter shall be punishable on summary conviction, shall be liable to be proceeded against and convicted for the same."
  The noble Lord used the word "accessory." I am informed—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that there is no such thing as an accessory in a misdemeanour. Everyone who assists in aiding a crime is a principal. I am advised that if the owner is present—and you do not wish him to be punished if he is not present—when the car is driven recklessly, he will be held to have aided and abetted the commission of the offence. I am assured that the point is not one of doubt but of absolute certainty. In those circumstances, it being unnecessary, I think it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.
  EARL SPENCERthought it would be better to make the matter perfectly clear by inserting the words proposed in the Amendment. There might be some doubt about the point, and it would have to be proved that the owner aided, abetted, counselled, and procured the act that was illegal. Surely the words proposed by Lord Heneage were very much simpler. The noble Lord merely moved to insert words providing that if the owner was present therefore he became legally responsible. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment, he should feel disposed to support it.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNinquired the meaning of the word "owner" under the Bill. Would a man who hired a motor-car be, pro tem., considered the owner?
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid it should be made perfectly clear that not only the owner but whoever was being driven in the car should be responsible if he gave orders for the car to be driven beyond the proper speed. It often happened that an owner lent his car to a friend, who instructed the driver to go at a high rate of speed. He had been told that people driving from London to Newmarket, a distance of sixty or seventy miles, had stated that they wanted to be there in two or three

  983
  hours. He hoped it would be made clear that not only the owner but also the person who controlled the driver would be responsible.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought that the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act were rather wider than the Amendment. If he correctly understood the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, not only the owner of the car but any other person sitting on the car who might instruct the driver to go faster would come under that Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (THE EARL OF HALSBURY): I do not think, with all respect to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that the proposition laid down by my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland can be doubted by any lawyer. It is one of the cardinal principles of the criminal law that there is no such thing as an accessory. Anybody, whether the owner or not, who aids and incites the driver to go at an excessive speed, will be responsible. I think it would be an undesirable thing to cut down and qualify the responsibility which the law casts upon all persons who, having the power of either persuasion, inducement, or command, encourage others to commit an offence, and who are made principals in the first degree.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he apprehended, from the speeches that had been made, that there was no
  difference of opinion with regard to the matters of fact. Every one wished, apparently, to make the owner liable. The "owner" was mentioned in the Act of 1865, and surely it was very much better that he should be mentioned in this Act. If there was any objection at all, it was that they would be thereby making the Bill less stringent; but they were all anxious that the owner should be liable. If his noble friend proceeded to a division he would support him.
  THE EARL OF CREWEdrew attention to a later Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to move to insert after Clause 9 the words—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect any liability of the driver or owner of a motor-car by virtue of any statute or at common law."
  In that case the noble Lord used the word "owner."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My objection is not to the use of the word "owner," but I am afraid that by putting in that word you will afford a loophole of escape for the man who is on the car but who is not the owner.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid that while he regarded the Amendment as an excellent one, the position taken up by Lord Balfour was much stronger as giving better protection to the public.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents 17; Not-Contents 95.

  CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Spencer, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Thring, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Herries, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Coventry, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Craven, E.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Dartrey, E.

  Portland, D.

  Abingdon, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Ancaster, E.

  Derby, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Cairns, E.

  Bath, M.

  Carnwath, E.

  Eldon, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Belper, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Braye, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Burton, L.

  Norton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Reay, L.

  Powis, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Savile, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dnuboyne, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Cross, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Goschen, V.

  Foley, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Portman, V.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Lindley, L.

  THE EARL OF JERSEY, who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the words, "If any person drives," the words, "or causes to be driven," said that in view of the division which had just been taken, which had not been encouraging, and the statement of the Lord Chancellor that everyone in a car the driver of which exceeded the proper limit would be held liable to fine and imprisonment, he did not think it worth while moving his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I must protest against that version of what I said.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNasked the Lord Chancellor if he would answer the Question which he had put to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—namely, what was the real meaning of the word "owner?"
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the ordinary meaning of the word "owner" is that which is put in the Act of Parliament and interpreted by it; but that does not decide the question as to who is responsible. Anybody who aids, abets, and assists in any way by his presence and knowledge of what is being done would be a principal misdemeanant. That is why I think all words limiting their responsibility would be calculated to interfere with the efficiency of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved an Amendment to make the Bill apply not only on a public highway, but also "on any roadway to which the public have, or are granted, access." He explained that his Amendment was drafted for the purpose of preventing a motorist escaping; responsibility for an offence owing to a technicality. There were a number of roads in the country which, while they were of a public nature, did not actually come under the definition of a public highway, and it was certainly very desirable that they should be included in the Bill. There was another class of roads which he desired to include—namely, those roads to which the public were granted access by their owners. He might be told that there was the remedy of closing the roads, but he urged on their Lordships that it would only be fair to give the landowners in those cases the opportunity of taking advantage of the law of the land, and so avoiding what must always be to them, an unpleasant necessity.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'highway' to insert the words 'or on any roadway to which the pubic have, or are granted, access.'"—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have great sympathy with the object which the noble Marquess has in view, and I think he has hit a point on which the Bill requires some Amendment. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships

  987
  who open private roads to the general use of the public would desire to take the unpleasant course of closing them in order to exclude riotous drivers of motor-cars. I am prepared to accept the Amendment if the words "have or" are omitted, and if the noble Marquess will alter it to read, "or on any roadway to which the public are granted access."
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHexpressed his willingness to accept the suggested alteration.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to insert after "recklessly," "or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour." Supposing these words for the moment to have been inserted the clause would read in this way—
  "If any person drives a motor-car on a public highway, or on any roadway to which the public are granted access, recklessly, or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour, or at a speed which is dangerous to the public," etc.
  He thought that would make the moaning of the clause quite clear. His Amendment did not give, as had been erroneously supposed, any permission to motor-car drivers to drive at a speed of twenty miles an hour, irrespective of whether that would be reckless or dangerous; but what it did enact positively was this: that in no circumstances should a motor-car exceed the speed of twenty miles an hour. The Bill, as it stood, altered the law; in fact, it exactly reversed the law. At the present time the law, when taken with the regulations which had been made by the Local Government Board, was that when a car exceeded a speed of twelve miles an hour the driver was liable to be summoned. This Bill, as it now stood, proposed to reverse that, and to leave the limit of speed entirely within the option and at the discretion of the driver, subject only to this, that he did not drive recklessly or at a speed which was dangerous. The question whether he drove recklessly or at a speed which was dangerous was a matter which he presumed would have to be decided by the magistrates before whom the case came. But those magistrates would not have been there, and would have to form their opinion upon the evidence brought
  988
  before them, whatever it might be. He had some hesitation in putting this Amendment on the Paper because the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said, on the Second Reading, that the Government were opposed to any Amendment which fixed a speed limit. He listened very carefully to the arguments which the noble Lord then used, and he had read them since. He had read them with every desire to be convinced, but, after full consideration of the noble Lord's arguments, he could not arrive at the conclusion that there was really anything in them. In the first place, let them consider for a moment what was the logic of the Local Government Board with regard to this matter. They said that under the present law motorists were limited to twelve miles an hour, but that there was considerable difficulty in finding out whether a car was going at twelve miles an hour or at sixteen miles an hour. What was it they now proposed? Why, that motorists were to be allowed to go at any speed they liked, subject to magistrates being able to fine them for driving recklessly or furiously. Therefore, the law was absolutely changed, and the discretion was entirely placed, in the first instance at all events, in the driver.
  What were the arguments to which the noble Lord had called attention against fixing a speed limit? He said that any limit must be in some cases excessive and in others unduly restrictive. The first part did not matter; it was not to the argument. Undoubtedly there would be some cases in which a twenty miles limit would be excessive, but that, of course, was on the other side of the question. But where were the cases in which a speed of twenty miles would be unduly restrictive? In what sense could it be said that a speed of twenty miles was unduly restrictive? Anyone other than a motorist who drove at twenty miles an hour on the high roads would be immediately brought up for furious driving, and why should drivers of motorcars desire to go at these enormous speeds? They were all agreed that the roads in this country were not intended, and were not suited, for these very great speeds; and the only reason he understood

  989
  Lord Balfour to give the other night why these speeds should be permitted at all was, that there were places like Salisbury Plain. But there were not many of them. Suppose a noble Lord or a farmer was driving in a dog-cart over Salisbury Plain and was met by a motor-car going at the rate of forty miles an hour. It might be said that they ought not to object, because the motorist had such control over his car that he could pull it up immediately. But he did not pull it up. Not once in four times had motor-cars which he had met altered their speed on approaching him. Indeed, the drivers argued that it was safer to pass horses going at a tolerably good speed than at a slow speed. That might be so, but when on horseback and being passed by a motor-car, he had very often had a strong feeling that in a very few seconds he would be at the bottom of a ditch. The noble Lord had said that it was only reasonable freedom to place the discretion as to speed in the hands of the driver; to him it appeared an unreasonable licence.
  So much for the arguments against fixing a speed limit. What were the positive arguments in favour of such a limit? First, the narrowness of many of the roads and lanes in the country. Secondly, a speed limit of twenty miles an hour was a great increase on the limit allowed by the present law. He quite admitted that a restriction to twelve miles was unreasonable, but when they had added to that by 66 per cent., and made it up to twenty miles, he submitted that they really were giving to the drivers of motor-cars every power that any reasonable man could desire. In the event of a driver being brought up for reckless driving, it would be perfectly competent to him to plead that while he was going forty miles an hour an accident did occur, no doubt, but that the way he was driving was hot dangerous and not reckless. He might say that the car was perfectly under his control, and that the speed at which he was driving was not, in his opinion, dangerous to the public. He submitted that the roads being what they were, and the traffic of the country what it was, it was neither reasonable nor desirable that a driver should be able to put forward a plea of that sort. To drive a motor-car at anything over twenty
  990
  miles an hour upon narrow roads was unfair to the rest of the traffic. He believed that the public would demand that there should be some speed limit. They all knew that at the present time motor-cars constituted a terror in suburban districts. Instances had occurred since he last addressed their Lordships of drivers causing accidents and making off, thereby getting scot-free. Further, there was the great and serious dust nuisance. Lord Balfour had said the other night that they could not deal with the question of dust. It was true that they could not deal with it directly, but they could indirectly. He contended that if they allowed cars to run at a very great speed they were thereby increasing this particular nuisance, which very greatly deteriorated the value of the houses on the margins of the roads. It was for these reasons that he believed there should De a speed limit, and the speed limit which he proposed appeared to be a reasonable one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'recklessly,' to insert the words' or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD HERRIES, who had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, said that if any member of the Government would go to any agricultural meeting or County Council meeting in the country, he would find that there was a very strong feeling in favour of a speed limit. He thought twenty miles an hour fast enough for anyone to travel. They were told that motor-cars were likely to be more numerous. Lord Rosebery had stated, when the Bill was introduced, that before long there would be three times as many motor-cars on the roads, and the danger would then be increased threefold. Was not that a matter for serious consideration? Were the people to be driven off the roads altogether by motorcars? In many parts of the country there were bye-lanes branching on to main roads which were concealed by trees and high hedges, and it was impossible for motorists going at a high rate of speed to see pedestrians or vehicles emerging from these lanes. He believed that fully 90 per cent. of the people in the country were in favour of fixing a speed limit. Why should their Lordships, because many of

  991
  them had motor-cars of their own, interfere with the enjoyment of the roads by their fellow citizens? If people wanted to travel at a greater speed than twenty miles an hour, they should go by train. Electric trams would not be allowed to travel along the highways at anything like forty miles an hour, and why should motor-cars, which were quite as dangerous? He hoped His Majesty's Government would agree to fix the speed limit at twenty miles an hour.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that motors were being put under very heavy restrictions indeed under this Bill, and if motorists were put under these protective penalties, at least they might be allowed to choose their pace so long as they did not drive recklessly. With regard to the question of dust, of which grievance Lord Camperdown had more than once complained, there would be just as much dust thrown up by a motor going at the rate of twenty miles an hour as by a motor going fifty miles an hour. He pointed out that under Clause 5 power was given to restrict the speed at dangerous parts by regulations of the Local Government Board. The Bill would be absolutely killed if the speed limit proposed were put in, and he hoped it would not be accepted.
  LORD KELVINsaid the noble Earl who had just spoken had answered the only reasonable objection that could be made against the Amendment by pointing out that Clause 5 provided for the local authority making exceptions to the proposed restriction of twenty miles an hour. It surely could not be contended that a speed of more than twenty miles an hour was safe for the public in the lanes and on the roads of this country. If the Amendment was rejected the House would incur a very grave responsibility. Under Clause 5 the local authority could suggest that in certain places a higher speed might be allowed, and the limit could be enlarged in such places. The motor industry had been mentioned several times in the course of that debate, but the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had clearly pointed out that the object of the Bill was not to promote the motor-making
  992
  industry, though there was no desire to do anything which would be unfair to that industry. He felt convinced that the motor industry would never have justice done to it while motor-cars remained rich men's toys. Whilst he would not mind going across Salisbury Plain at ninety miles an hour, he would not allow himself to be taken more than twenty miles an hour along any ordinary road, straight or bent, narrow or broad. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment, remembering that Clause 5 enabled regulations to be made extending that speed where it could safely be extended.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to think it might be convenient if, at this stage, but without the slightest desire to cut short the discussion on this point, I were to state the views which, after listening to the arguments put forward, both on a former occasion and to-day, I have come to and am entitled to express on behalf of the Government. We have reached in this Amendment perhaps the most critical point we have to decide. It is certainly the point around which the largest amount of controversy centres, and one upon which it is not difficult to see that there is a very strong feeling in both directions. I am rather sorry that the main line of the discussion has come upon this particular Amendment, because it is not really germane to this clause. But I will not raise any technical objection, as I am anxious that the Committee should decide this question on its merits and with a full knowledge of the real importance which underlies it. The framework of this clause—and this is, in fact, the most important clause in the Bill—is designed for the purpose of getting away from the present position of matters, which the Government think wrong, and a very essential part of which is the fixing of an arbitrary limit of speed; and the object of the clause is to put the onus of reckless driving upon the offender irrespective of any such limit. I am bound to say that I am not moved from the general position which I ventured to take up the other night by any of the arguments which I have heard advanced to-day. I adhere most strongly to the view that in the nature of things it is absolutely impossible to fix any

  993
  general limit of speed which would be suitable in the circumstances of every case.
  LORD KELVIN: The Amendment would not absolutely fix a speed limit because it would be liable to extension under Clause 5.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will come in a moment to Clause 5. The facts of the case as they at present stand are that the Act of Parliament says you shall not go beyond fourteen miles an hour, which has been reduced by the Local Government Board Regulations to twelve miles an hour. Now, obviously, that can only fit a certain class of circumstances, and even the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment, and who has taken the lead against the motor craft to some extent in this House, admits that twelve miles is too narrow a limit and is willing to raise it to twenty. I am of opinion that there are many cases of open and straight roads where, having regard to the fact that motor-cars, as now made, are extraordinarily well under control, twenty miles an hour need not be a reckless or a dangerous speed. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches who spoke last said that nothing would induce him to go at a higher speed. I cannot say whether I have ever been at a speed of twenty miles an hour. If I knew, I do not suppose I should confess it, but the prospect of going twenty miles an hour has no great attractions for me. I do not own a motor car. But if it has, attractions for some people, and if they can do it without reckless or dangerous driving, there is nothing criminal in it. Why should they not, under suitable circumstances, be allowed to indulge their fancy? If we were on Clause 5, which is really the speed limit clause, I should be able to show that in some quarters that clause has been misunderstood. Upon that clause I am prepared, on the part of the Government, to offer substantial concessions. It has been supposed that that clause prohibits the municipal authority from scheduling the whole of their borough and confining the maximum speed of motor-cars within those limits to twelve or fourteen miles an hour. If there is any doubt on
  994
  that point I am prepared to make it perfectly clear. I am ready to make it clear that a County Council, if it has a long stretch of narrow or bent roads, may schedule the whole of those narrow or bent roads.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The whole country?
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The whole of its narrow or bent roads, but I am not prepared to allow a County Council out of pure opposition to the craft of motoring to schedule the whole of its area, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case. I venture to hope that the House will reject the Amendment as not necessary in the interests of the public. Every legitimate interest of the public can be met by an extension or Amendment of Clause 5. I venture to put it again to the House that the only really efficient remedy—and I think all experience proves that it is a better remedy than the one we have now got—for reckless driving is to make the offence depend on the circumstances of each case. A man can be fined or imprisoned if he goes at ten miles an hour in a dangerous place, and the safeguard to the public is that the pace of the car should be suited to the locality and the circumstances of the case. I venture to put this point—and I believe it to be a point of very real substance—that any speed limit which you insert in a clause will be considered by the motorist as a minimum instead of a maximum, and will be regarded as a chartered right. At present the only thing which the motor-car driver knows is that he is not allowed to go beyond twelve miles an hour. We want to get away from that, and to give greater freedom in places where greater freedom is legitimate, and to enforce the necessity for care wherever the circumstances require it. From the point of view of the public, a limit of speed has the same tendency to blind their eyes, and also those of the police, to the fact that the offence of reckless driving exists alongside with the speed. I want to make reckless driving the offence. At present I think there is too much tendency on the part of the police to consider that their only duty is to

  995
  stop motor-cars going beyond the legal limit, although the circumstances are such as to render the legal limit much less than is safe. That is undoubtedly irritating to the motorist himself, and not fair to the police. There is an immense volume of police testimony in this direction. I will only give one quotation. A short time ago a letter appeared from Mr. Anson, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, in The Times, in which he said—
  "In common with most other police officers I am not enamoured of a speed limit in miles per hour. It is most difficult to estimate the absolute pace of any vehicle, and endless confusion will be caused if every urban district is to have a speed limit of its own."
  I believe it to be absolutely impossible for a man looking at a car to say whether it is going eighteen, twenty, or twenty-two miles an hour. It is much easier to prove whether the thing is reckless, dangerous, or improper in the circumstances in which it is done. If you have this artificial restriction it will tend to continue, if not to increase, the hard swearing which takes place in police-courts, and to concentrate the energy of the police on points where the driving of a motor-car at a high speed is perfectly safe, and to take away their attention from points where it is dangerous, and where their assistance is really required. I believe that the effect of putting a limit of speed into an Act of Parliament would be actually to decrease what must ultimately be the really effective machinery for stopping reckless driving, namely, that which ensures a penalty following upon reckless driving in all circumstances. We are, in this Bill, making for the first time an effective system of identification and registration, and you will, if the Bill passes, be able to catch the man who breaks the law in a way in which you have never been able to catch him before. The Bill puts an immense power into the hands of those who want to check what is wrong, and if you run the risk—I do not say you will—of losing the Bill for the sake of an arbitrary speed limit, you will be doing great harm to the interests of this industry. The general lines on which the Bill is cast are wiser, safer, and more in the interests of the general public, than the proposal in the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMexpressed his disappointment with the speech which had just been made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He had always understood the protection of life to be one of the functions of good government. The noble Lord had made no reference whatever to the terrible accidents which were happening daily. They read in the newspapers how His Majesty's subjects were being daily killed and maimed by reckless motor driving, and yet the noble Lord had said nothing about that. Not very long ago, at a meeting of a district council in Yorkshire, a resolution was passed against motor-cars being allowed on the roads at all. They said they were dangerous machines, and that it would be far better not to allow them to use the public roads. He contended that it was undoubtedly reckless driving to exceed twenty miles an hour. Therefore, in the interests of the public, he felt that a speed limit should be imposed. His noble friend Lord Balfour seemed to have taken the motorists under his wing, and to have ignored altogether the interests of the public. If effective steps were not taken to prevent reckless driving, the feeling of the country would eventually demand more stringent measures than those with which it would now be satisfied.
  LORD STANMOREpointed out the danger which arose in regard to crossways, and contrasted the minute and stringent precautions which were taken with regard to a level crossing on a railway with the entire absence of any protection to the public on a level crossing on the roads. In the vicinity of his own house there was a main road which was crossed by another road, the corners of which were completely masked, so that no one driving on either of the roads could see a driver on the other road until he was actually at the crossing point, at which it would be absolutely impossible for a motor-car to draw up or stop. He felt that a case had been made out for some protection of the public by the imposition of a speed limit. He was in favour of the Amendment, and of allowing the County Councils to relax the speed limit in particular cases.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYregretted that he could not go into the Lobby with his noble friend who had moved this Amendment. He thought that a measure such as this, must be largely governed by the principle of conciliation between the parties concerned—in this instance the public on the one hand, and the motor-car industry on the other. He objected to the Amendment as likely to endanger the passing of the measure, and as affording less safety to the public than the Bill as it stood. He was of opinion that the words "at a speed which is dangerous to the public" covered all the ground. No one felt more hostility than he did towards the class of motorists who caused accidents, and possibly loss of life, and then drove on without taking the slightest trouble to render assistance. Those people, who were now known by the police as "road hogs," would be dealt with under the existing provisions of the Bill, and he hoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment.
  EARL SPENCERopposed the Amendment. He thought the Secretary for Scotland had in a most able and conclusive way proved the case which he desired to put before their Lordships. He believed that the proposal of His Majesty's Government was more likely to protect the public against reckless driving. There was nothing so wrong as to put on the Statute-book an unworkable clause, and he thought the Amendment would be unworkable. People would not be bound by what they considered an unreasonable limit. Take

  CONTENTS.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Knollys, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Herries, L. [Teller.]

  Sherborne, L.

  James, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cross, V.

  Kelvin, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bath, M.

  Ancaster, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ripon, M.

  Cairns, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  Portland, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Craven, E.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Crewe, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Abingdon, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  the case of a motor-car travelling along a straight piece of road without a single person in sight, which might extend for a mile or a mile and a half. It was perfectly safe for the car to travel at this point at more than twenty miles an hour, and he believed there would not be any motorist who would not be tempted, when he saw a clear space before him of this character, to go at a greater speed than that laid down by the law. For the reason that he believed it dangerous to pass an unworkable law he could not vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he did not rise to prolong the discussion, or even to speak to the point which had been so ably urged on both sides, but to make a practical suggestion to the Secretary for Scotland. He shared the views expressed by Lord Stanmore as to the great danger of crossways, and he suggested that the word recklessly implied simply a dare-devil rate of speed, and that if the words "or carelessly" were added they would cover the case of cross roads and be of assistance in controlling bad driving. Perhaps the noble Lord would take that point into consideration before the Report Stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will certainly take it into consideration, but the noble Earl would not expect me to accept it off-hand.
  THF EARL OF ROSEBERY: No, I only want the point taken into consideration.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Non-Contents, 111.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Derby, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Abinger, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Grey, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lyveden, S.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M Granby.)

  Harewood, E.

  Belper, L.

  Howe, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Braye, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Oranmore and Browne. L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Burton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Robertson, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Mayo, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Powis, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Saville, L.

  Romney, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Shand, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Selborne, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Spencer, E.

  Foley, L.

  Thring, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Harris, L.

  Welby, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Goschen, V.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Portman, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  LORD HENEAGEwho had given notice to move to delete from the first sub-section of Clause 1 the words—
  "Including the nature, condition, and use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might be expected to be, on the highway,"
  said that looking at the lateness of the hour and the fact that there were several important Amendments to come on later in which he was interested, he would postpone this Amendment until a later stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would state the reason for inserting the words which Lord Heneage had intended to move to omit.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not understand the noble Marquess to allege any positive disadvantage. If he thinks there is any disadvantage in these words remaining in the clause, I shall be glad to hear what they are. I have never heard them objected to before this moment, and I am not prepared to give any very definite answer.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid that as he understood Lord Heneage
  1000
  would move his Amendment at a later stage, he would deal with the point then.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to omit the words "or which might be expected to be." These words were, he held, extremely vague, and would throw the onus on to the driver of a motor of speculating as to what might be expected to be on the highway. He thought that the clause without these words would be quite sufficient and would avoid the difficulties and undoubted difference of opinion which would arise if the clause was passed in its present form.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'or which might be expected to be.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The words express in clear language what the law has been declared to be by the Judges who tried two recent cases, and they are purposely included in this clause to make it clear to motorists who may not read the Law Reports what the law is that they are expected to obey. The two cases I refer to are Smith v. Boon and Mayhew v. Sutton. They

  1001
  were both cases under the general Highways Acts, and it is for the advantage or every one concerned that the law should be clearly stated.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid that after the noble Lord's explanation he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment making it an offence for the driver of a motor-car to keep the engine in motion when the car was stationary, after he had been requested to stop the engine. He said their Lordships would have noticed that very often when a car was drawn up by the side of the pavement, the engine was left in motion, and the car continued to pant and make a great noise which was very disturbing to horses. There had been cases in which the motorists had been requested to stop the engine but had declined to do so. He thought they ought to be compelled to stop after a reasonable time when so requested. He proposed to move the Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appeared on the Paper, because it had been represented to him by some motorists that a car might be brought to a stop by a block in the traffic, and that would not be a case in which the driver should be expected to stop the engine. He did not think that such a stoppage would be held by any Court to be stationary, but he had no objection to inserting words to make it clear.
  Amendment, moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'highway,' to insert the words 'or when the car is stationary, owing to causes other than a block in the traffic, continues to keep the engine in motion after he has been requested to stop it.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree with the noble Earl that this has proved to be a very great grievance, but I think the matter is better dealt with by regulation than by statute; and if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will give him a pledge that the point will be dealt with by the Local
  1002
  Government Board when issuing their general regulations.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the insertion of a new sub-section. He said there had been many cases of drivers of motor-cars resisting and obstructing police constables in the execution of their duty. The words in his Amendment were at the present moment part of the regulations issued by the Local Government Board, but by inserting them in this Act the offence would be punishable by more severe penalties.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Sub-section (1) to insert the following new sub-section—'If a driver of a motor-car or any other person resists or obstructs a police constable in the execution of his duty under this section, or if he does not stop the motorcar and keep it stationary as long as may be reasonably necessary when requested by a police constable or any person having charge of a horse, or of sheep or of cattle, or on such constable or person holding up his hand as a signal for that purpose, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'" — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. The first part of it, which deals with the obstruction of police constables in the execution of their duty, is already fully covered in the Prevention of Crimes Act, and therefore there is no sort of reason for putting it in here. The rest of the Amendment is merely a matter for regulation. The regulations now prescribe that the person in charge of a horse is the person to hold up his hand he wants to stop a car, and cases have occurred where, owing to the technicality of the man seated by the side of the driver holding up his hand, it has been held that a request to stop has not been legally made. I am perfectly prepared to have that amended, but it is a matter which would be better done, I venture to suggest, by the flexible method of regulations by the Local Government Board than by statute. I do not think there is so much to be said with regard to horses, sheep, or cattle, because I think the motorist, if he is a wise man,

  1003
  will do all he can to avoid running into sheep or cattle for his own safety. With regard to the matter of giving a signal, I hope the noble Earl will accept the pledge I have given.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that if the Local Government Board proposed to deal with this matter in the new regulations under this Act, of course that would make any violation of the regulations an offence under this Act, which was his object. He therefore withdrew his Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The regulations will be clearly issued under this Act. The present regulations would have been amended before now if it had not been for the prospect of legislation.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to insert the words "in uniform" after the word "constable" in Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, which provides that—
  "Any police constable may apprehend without warrant the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section within his view."
  He said the insertion of the words "in uniform" would put an end to the constant annoyance experienced by motorists of being held up for the amusement of pedestrians. If the Amendment was accepted there would be less friction between motor-car drivers and the general public.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'constable,' to insert the words 'in uniform.'"—(Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Under the Highways Act a constable, whether in uniform or not, may arrest a wrongdoer, and it is obvious that if a motorist and a driver of a dogcart are on the high-road together they should both be under the same law in regard to the police. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought a police constable ought to be able to apprehend for an offence even if it were not committed within his view. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'within his view,' and to insert the words 'if such car have no mark of registraion, and if such driver be unknown to him and refuses to give his name and address.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The argument which underlies this is a technical one, but I think I can put it shortly to the Committee. If you omit the words "within his view" from this clause, it will make an alteration in the general law. The section which gives power to the constable to arrest an offender who commits an offence within his view is right for this reason: that if a driver refuses to give the constable his name and address, he is clearly guilty of an offence under this section, and he is committing an offence within the view of the constable. If he does give his name and address, the power to apprehend is not material, because he can be summoned for driving a car which is not registered. If the noble Earl really wants to strengthen the Bill in this matter, the best way to do it would be to insert in the next clause—"And any police constable may apprehend without warrant any such person who commits an offence within his view." But I could not accept an Amendment to allow a constable to arrest an offender without seeing the offence, for the offence is, after all, only a misdemeanour. I believe there is no precedent for such a power except in the case of a felony. I think it will be seen that the Amendment is not necessary for the purpose in hand.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit the words "any car who commits" from Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 — which provides that if the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section refuses to give his

  1005
  name and address, or gives a false name and address, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act — and to insert, in lieu thereof, the words "a motor-car charged with." He presumed that the driver could not be said to have committed an offence until it had been proved.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'any car who commits,' and to insert the words 'a motor-car charged with.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This section runs practically in the same language as the Highways Act of 1835, and both on the ground of precedent, and on the ground of actual verbal accuracy, I think the Amendment is not required.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord if he would explain the wording of the clause, which ran—
  "If the driver of any oar who commits an offence under this section refuses to give his name and address, or gives a false name and address, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act,'" etc.
  What was the object of saying that if the driver of a car committed an offence he should be guilty of an offence?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the technical way of saying that he commits an offence under the Act which subjects him to the penalty clause.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHmoved to insert at the end of the first subsection—
  "And no car shall be registered for ordinary road work capable of going more than thirty miles an hour on the flat."
  He was in agreement with the Government that a speed limit was not desirable, because there was no limit of
  1006
  speed in a motor-car which was actually safe. He had driven in motor-cars at over forty miles an hour in France with perfect comfort and perfect safety, and he had driven in motor-cars in England at six miles an hour, where the driver was a terror to himself and everybody else. The arguments he had heard brought against this proposal were these. In the first place, he was told that if they had a limit power of thirty miles an hour on the level, the car would not go up hill as fast as that; on the other hand, he was told that it would go down hill a great deal faster. He did not see why motorists should want to go up hill at the same speed as on the flat. Other vehicles had to go up hill at a modified speed, and if they went down hill faster than the public safety permitted they were dealt with under other provisions. The one argument that did seem to him to have weight was that a motor-car of this power would be unable to draw any weight up any very considerable gradient. But if a motor-car that was capable of going thirty miles on the level could not draw a reasonable weight up a reasonable hill, then the sooner those who made motor-cars turned their attention to making cars that would do this, instead of aiming at a great speed on the flat, the better. His object was to keep racing cars off the roads altogether. Noble Lords had expressed great jubilation that in the Gordon-Bennett race nobody was actually killed. He hoped that was the last race on public roads in this country.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'them' to insert the words 'and no car shall be registered for ordinary road work capable of going more than thirty miles an hour on the flat.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH, who had an Amendment on the Paper with the same object, said that both he and the noble Earl desired by their Amendments to provide that motor - cars fitted with monstrous engines should not be allowed to run along the high roads at all. Surely it was not too much to expect that they could arrive at some standard beyond which it was not desirable that motorcars should be registered for traffic on the ordinary roads. He believed that the only safe way to do that was by

  1007
  regulating the power of the engines with which motor-cars were fitted to the weight of the cars. No doubt it would be said that it was a very hard thing indeed that a man who had a very powerful motor-car should not be allowed to use it on the roads, and that he need not go at the extreme speed that his car would allow him to go. But human nature being what it was, he thought that any noble Lord or any gentleman who possessed a motor-car able to go at a very high rate of speed would be tempted to take advantage, on some occasions at any rate, of that power, and run the car at full speed. It was said that these very high speeds might be indulged in without any very great danger, but he knew that many skilful motorists admitted that when they got to fifty, sixty, or seventy miles an hour they were necessarily incurring considerable danger whether the roads were empty or not. He would put another point. Suppose a motorist was going at fifty miles an hour, and wanted to pass a vehicle, what happened? He would slow down to about thirty miles an hour, which was far too high a speed at which to pass any vehicle; whereas, if he had been going at from thirty to thirty-five miles an hour, he would slowdown to about fifteen miles an hour, which was a speed at which he might properly pass other vehicles on the road. The Amendment which he had drafted for dealing with this question was as follows—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 25, after 'them' to insert 'provided that no motor-car shall be accepted for registration fitted with engines giving more than thirty horse-power, and that every motor-car if fitted with engines of from twenty to thirty horse-power, shall weigh at least twenty-four hundred weight ready for the road; if fitted with engines of from twelve to twenty horse-power, shall weigh at least fifteen hundredweight ready for the road; and if fitted with engines of from six to twelve horsepower, shall weigh at least nine hundredweight ready for the road.'"
  He believed that if his Amendment was accepted motor-cars would be capable of registering a much higher speed than that suggested by Lord Dartmouth. His Amendment would allow a speed of at least forty miles an hour to be attained, so that he did not think the Amendment was at all illiberal to the motorist who was fond of going at a high speed. If the Government were disposed to accept words similar to his own in preference to
  1008
  those of his noble friend, he was quite ready to accept them; but he ventured to press on the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the desirability of accepting the principle that some standard of speed should be fixed beyond which motor-cars should not be registered. The various arguments urged earlier in the debate against any speed limit did not apply with regard either to the Amendment of his noble friend or his own. They got rid of all questions of the police, of stopwatches, and the spying system. What they said was that manufacturers should not make cars giving more than a certain power if those cars were to be registered. He was quite prepared to accept the decision of the House on his noble friend's Amendment as covering his Amendment.
  *LORD KELVINsaid that the Amendment proposed by Lord Dartmouth was, in his opinion, unduly restrictive, because cars so limited would be unfit for work, say, in the Highlands of Scotland, where it was necessary to go uphill. It was inadvisable to restrict cars from possessing the power of going at very high speeds on the flat, as without this power they would be of little use in hilly districts. There should not be a limitation as to the power of motorcars which would prevent an owner taking advantage of any relaxation as to speed which might be allowed under Clause 5 by the local authorities and the Local Government Board in certain parts of the country. He believed that local authorities would give permission in certain places where it was safe for motor-cars to be driven at rates varying from thirty to forty miles an hour, and if the Amendment was adopted motors would not be capable of going even at a speed permitted by the law.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEasked what was to happen to the existing larger cars. Would the owners have to sell at a loss, or was there a means open to them by which they could alter the machinery in some way so as to enable them to be registered?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that it would be quite easy to have the engines altered so as to bring those cars within the requirements of the law.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have the greatest possible sympathy with the idea, and I agree with the noble Lord that if we could carry out this principle, it would be a fair, judicious, and sensible way of regulating the speed of motor-cars. But according to the advice I get from more than one source and not only from my professional advisers, both Amendments are impossible and Utopian. They could not be carried out in practice. The object of both noble Lords is to keep what are practically racing cars off the road. I am informed that racing cars are really of no practical use for general road work No doubt they have had a certain boom, but that boom, if not already passed, is at any rate passing away, and I believe that racing cars on an ordinary road will really die a natural death. In answer to Lord Ribblesdale, I am informed that about 55 per cent. of the cars now in use would be unable under these Amendments to obtain a certificate, and would have to be wholly redesigned; refitting would not do. I do not, however, base my opposition on that ground, but on the ground that, as I am advised, this is an impracticable proposal. I am positively assured that cars which have power to go at thirty miles an hour on the flat would really be unable to go even up to ordinary speed in a hilly country. The difference of power required to climb an ordinary hill and to go on the fiat is so great that there is no regular relation between them. Moreover, any man who desired to evade the law could alter the gearing of the car in a very few moments. There fore the Amendments would afford no protection. Though I am in sympathy with the idea contained in the Amendment, I am assured by those who have special knowledge that it is impossible to put it into practice.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that recently he had been driven in a 40 h. p. Mercedes car from Ascot to Windsor and did the journey of six and a half miles in just over seven minutes. That was a very comfortable car, capable of carrying six or seven persons, but he did not think it was the type of car that should be allowed on the road.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that if 55 per. cent of the cars now in use would be unable under his Amendment to obtain a certificate, the owners would have to get new ones, which would be an excellent thing for the motor industry.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHintimated that he would not move his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to amend Sub-section 2 of clause 2, which provides that—
  "A mark indicating the registered number of the car and the council with which the car is registered shall be fixed on the car, or on a vehicle drawn by the car, or on both," etc.
  He moved to leave out the words "or on a," and to insert, in their place, "and on any," and to omit "or on both." The effect of his Amendment would be to require that, if a car had a trailer, the mark indicating the registered number of the car and the council with which the car was registered should be placed both on the car and on the trailer. As the clause now stood, it was unnecessary for that to be done.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 28, to leave out the words 'or on a' and to insert the words 'and on any,' and to leave out the words 'or on both.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the power to direct that the mark shall be fixed on one or other or both, is better than the provision that it shall be on both, and for this reason, that a trailer may not always be used with the same engine. I think it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with in the regulations of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD HERRIESmoved an Amendment in Sub-section 3 to substitute £1 for 5s. as the amount to be charged by the Council of a County or county borough on the registration of a ear. The Bill would impose a great amount of expense on the local authorities, who would have to erect signposts and provide additional constables to see that people

  1011
  did not drive recklessly on the roads. He thought that the fee to be paid should certainly be more than 5s.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'five shillings' and insert the words 'one pound.'"—(Lord Herries.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It was not intended that these fees should be a source of revenue, and I would prefer to leave this matter to be decided in the other House of Parliament, where I understand questions of taxation in connection with the Bill may arise.
  LORD HARRIShad hoped that the Government would have given a sympathetic support to the noble Lord's proposal. At the present time traction engines had to pay as much as £10 for a licence. Of course they broke up the roads very seriously, and he did not think £10 any too much to make them pay; but motor-cars also took a good deal of wear out of the roads, judging by the dust which they threw up, and he hoped that before the Bill became law a much heavier charge than 5s. would be imposed on the registration of a car.
  THE EARL OF MAYOcould not see how a motor-car any more than a cycle could take any wear out of roads.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid that if the noble Earl who had just sat down was acquainted with the amount of money that had had to be spent by County Councils in repairing the damage done to roads by motor-cars he would be convinced to the contrary.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid that Sub-section 4 of Clause 2 as at present drafted, provided that if a car is used on a public highway without being registered, or if the mark to be affixed in accordance with the Act is not so fixed, or if, being so fixed, it is in any way obscured, or rendered, or allowed to become not easily distinguishable, the person driving the car shall be guilty of an offence under the Act. He moved to insert, after "distinguishable,"
  1012
  the words "except from dust or mud."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 8, after the word 'distinguishable' to insert the words 'except from dust or mud.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I could not possibly accept this Amendment, because dust and mud are the very things I want to provide against. The whole kernel of this clause is to lay the responsibility for a clear number and a clear light upon the owner of the car. I have heard that there are some men who oil or grease their lights in order that dust and mud may stick to them. I have never seen it done, but I think such a thing is possible.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he would put in words to exempt the driver where the number was not obscured wilfully.
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No; we want distinctly to lay the obligation on the driver of the car to keep his light and number clear. The whole point is to lay the onus on the driver of the car.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that a person shall not drive a motor-car for hire or reward unless he is licensed for the purpose. I move to omit the words "for hire or reward," the Amendment having the effect of requiring all drivers of motor-cars to have a licence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'for hire or reward.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the object of the Amendment standing in his

  1013
  name was to provide that no licence should be granted to any person under the age of sixteen. He felt that the majority of their Lordships would agree with him that there should be some limit of age. Under the Bill any child, on payment of the fee, could take out a licence to drive a motor-car. He had fixed sixteen as the age, because there were a large number of steady and intelligent lads earning a living in motor workshops, and he would be sorry to do anything which would deprive them of the means of earning their living.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'reward' to insert the words 'no such licence shall be granted to any person under the age of sixteen.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This Amendment is a very reasonable one in itself, but it raises a principle of some importance on which I should like to ask the opinion of noble Lords who have studied the question, in the Bill the proposal is that anybody shall have a licence. If you put any limitations upon that, it restricts the right of a person to get a licence, and I think you might almost have to go further and provide a series of conditions under which County Councils should give licences. I have no objection to this Amendment and am prepared to accept it, but I may have to bring up clauses for carrying this and similar Amendments into effect at a subsequent stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment providing that a licence shall be produced when demanded by a police constable. Otherwise, he did not see the value of the licence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'reward' to insert the words 'such licence must be produced when demanded by a police constable.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no objection to this Amendment.
  LORD HENEAGEasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he had any
  1014
  objection to altering the word "shall" into "may" in Sub-section 2, which ran—
  "The Council of a County or county borough shall grant a licence to drive a motor-car for hire or reward to any person applying for it on payment of a fee of one shilling, unless the applicant is disqualified under the provisions of this section."
  He thought some discretion should be given to the County Council in order that drunkards and objectionable people might not get licences if they were pointed out by the police. His Amendment would not injure the clause in any way, but would give the County Council a very desirable discretion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'shall' and to insert the word 'may.'"—[Lord Heneage.)
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsupported the Amendment and expressed the hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would see his way to accept it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that this Amendment would cut deeper into the framework of the Bill; than the noble Lord seems to think. If it were carried, a County Council might say that they would not grant a licence. It seems to me that the granting of licences by County Councils requires some consideration by the House. I did not put an Amendment on the Paper because I heard that this question was to be raised. But I had it in view to consider whether there should be a general power for a man to get a licence in any part of the country, whether he was domiciled or not in the county in which he applied. I was rather inclined to make it compulsory on a County Council to grant a licence, except for certain specified reasons, but not to make it obligatory on the County Council to grant a licence to a person not domiciled in their district or known to them. I think that would be a better way of regulating the matter. I hope noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill will give some general indication of what they think is the wisest course to adopt, and if the decision is in the direction of not leaving the Bill exactly as it stands, but of limiting the right of the applicant for a licence to get it from only one County Council, I would be

  1015
  prepared at a subsequent stage to put down a code of clauses which would regulate the matter in that direction rather than in the way suggested.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I suppose a licence from one County Council would hold good all over the country?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Clearly. Bat what I had in view was that, if a man were allowed to apply to more than one County Council for a licence, he might when one licence was endorsed with a conviction, and he was again convicted, produce another licence which he had up his sleeve and which was unendorsed. I think, therefore, the principle adopted should be one man one licence, and consequently one man one place in which to get a licence. But I think it would be impossible to entrust complete discretion to the County Council, which might put undue difficulties in the way of a person domiciled in its district getting a licence.
  LORD HENEAGEwithdrew his Amendment, but expressed the hope that the noble Lord would deal with the question at a subsequent stage.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked whether the licence should not be obtainable only in the county or district in which the car was registered.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no objection to taking that into consideration, but at present it is compulsory on every County Council to give a licence to anybody who applies for it, without making any inquiry whether he has obtained a licence before from any other County Council.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment making it a condition of the granting of a licence that the applicant should produce a certificate, signed by the chief of the police of the county or county borough, of his competence
  1016
  to drive a motor-car. This point was debated on the Second Reading, and it certainly did seem to him that the whole weight of argument was in favour of requiring some such proof of competence. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had asked who was to examine. He (Lord Tweedmouth) supplied the answer in his Amendment by putting in the police. The noble Lord might ask what regulations were to be made for the examination; but two or three times that night the noble Lord had stated that the Local Government Board were prepared to frame regulations for this and that purpose. If it was necessary that there should be uniformity between one district and another, then surely regulations could be framed and laid down on which the police might act. Then it was said that a man might get a licence more easily from one authority than from another. After all, that was an objection which was to be found with regard to examinations of every kind. According to the examiner, and according to the place, there would be a certain difference of qualification required for exactly the same purpose; but by this Amendment they would, at any rate, get a certain proof of some competence, and he held that it was far better that the driver should be required to show some competence than that he should be allowed to have a licence whether he could drive or not. Then it was said that they could not really test the competence of a driver unless they put him in some difficult place, and that that could not be secured in the case of an examination. He admitted that the most competent driver, if put in a tight place, might utterly fail to meet it if he had not sufficient nerve. The question of power to deal with the exigencies of a tight place would always depend upon the courage of the individual, and would not be met by any question of skill; but, for his own part, if he had to be in a tight place on a motor-car, he would sooner be in a tight place with a competent driver than with one who knew very little about his business.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 18, after the word 'it' to insert the words 'and who produces a certificate signed by the chief of the police of such county

  1017
  or county borough of his competence to drive a motor-car.'"—Lord Tweedmouth.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had asked him, on the Second Reading, to frame an Amendment on this subject. He had done so by providing that any County or Borough Council might withhold or subsequently cancel such licence if, in their opinion, the applicant for, or owner of, such licence should be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car. The only difference between his Amendment and that of his noble friend Lord Tweedmouth was that, in the latter, the police were substituted for the County or Borough Council, and to that he was agreeable. He suggested that the representative of the chief constable or the County or Borough Council should ask the applicant to drive his car round a portion of their town or village which they had had measured, and see that he was not only able to drive at regulation speed, but with care and caution, before granting him a licence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As your Lordships will remember, this matter was discussed at some length on the Second Reading, and I then indicated my views, with which the noble Lord, quite fairly, professed himself not satisfied, and he has to-day, as I fully expected, returned to the charge. I may say he has not converted me, and I hope he has not converted the majority of the House, because it seems to me, as I said then, that while there is a good deal to be said for it at first sight, it is really impossible satisfactorily to carry out in practice, and, even if carried out, in an emergency would be a delusion and a snare. In the first place, I say without fear of contradiction that in this country there is no Government Department which could do it for the whole of the country.
  I do not understand that to be challenged, and therefore it must go into the hands of the County Councils or of the police. As I stated on a former occasion, neither of these bodies have any technical knowledge or technical advisers, and I ventured to say—and I have since been confirmed in the statement—that the accidents that have happened have not been from want of competency on the part of the driver. But the most serious objection I have is that I believe any examination which would be more than a mere farce, would be impossible to carry out without a great expenditure of money, time, and trouble, utterly disproportionate to its real value. If it is to be an efficient examination it must be continuous for a certain amount of time, and every variety of contingency must be provided for. I believe that anything short of a very thorough examination would be a delusion, and would give a false sense of security. What I believe would really happen would be that whoever examined the applicant would make him drive backwards, then forwards, and then stop, and then go through some very slight exercises. As I said before, competency to drive one particular kind of car does not necessarily mean competency to drive another car, and I think it will hardly be suggested that the licence is only to be one to drive one particular kind of car. I suggest that this is really not a useful and practicable proposal, but I do see that there are some deficiencies in the regulations under which licences are granted, and I will, at any rate for discussion, put down a code of clauses at a subsequent stage, which will, I think, regulate the matter better.
  On question, their Lordships divided:
  Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 59.

  Bath, M.

  Morley, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Morton, E.

  Harris, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Romney, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Heneage, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kelvin, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Portman, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Derby, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Belper, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Howe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Forester, L.

  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House, but it has been suggested to me that possibly it would be convenient, to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill in Committee until Tuesday next. I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am ready to go on now or to adjourn, but I venture to think that the progress we have made to night would justify an adjournment until Tuesday. Moreover, it would give the Local Government Board a little more time to put down the new clauses which I have promised, and would really facilitate the progress of the measure.
  EARL SPENGER: If, as the noble Lord says, an adjournment will be more conducive to the efficiency of the Bill I shall certainly not oppose it.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Tuesday next.

  VOLUNTEER RANGES.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to give the details of the manner in which the £170,000 allocated for Volunteer ranges in the years 1900–1901 has been distributed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: (The Earl of HARDWICKE): The Return which I promised by
  1st August is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope to present it to the House in the course of the next few days.

  PISTOLS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read, and discharged.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill has passed without opposition through the other House, and is to enable land to be acquired in Dublin for the purpose of a Royal College of Science and other offices and buildings for the public service. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.