HL Deb 21 July 1903 vol 125 cc1256-92

House again in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 3.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, the clause under discussion when we adjourned the Committee stage last Friday was Clause 3, and the first Amendment on the Paper to-day is in my name. It has been put down to give effect to an undertaking which I mentioned on Friday last. The Amendment provides that licences are only to be granted to persons resident in the county or county borough whose Council is to give the licence. The main object of this change, as I indicated the other day, is to make more sure that the endorsement or suspension of a licence will be properly enforced. It has been suggested that if anyone in Devonshire, for instance, had his licence endorsed, he might go to Northumberland and get another, or might take out two at the same time and produce one on the first occasion for endorsement and the other on the second. This Amendment, and the others I have given notice of, will make it very much more difficult, and probably impossible, to commit a fraud of that sort. I do not propose to make any provision for taking out new licences on a change of residence during the year, as at the end of the year the licence will not be renewable except in the county into which the licencee has removed.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 18, after the word 'it' to insert the words 'who resides in that county or county borough.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF ROSSLYN

asked whether the noble Lord had considered the case of foreigners coming into this country. Where were they to obtain a licence.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think that point will require to be met by some provision. I am not able to state the exact form it will take, but it is obvious that if a foreigner arrived at Dover it would be a hardship to prevent his driving to London. I will provide for that at a subsequent stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ROSSLYN

moved to insert words empowering a licensing authority to withhold or subsequently to cancel a licence if, in their opinion, the applicant should be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car. It was, he said, with some hesitation that he moved the Amendment standing in his name, because it was very similar to one moved by Lord Tweedmouth and rejected on the previous Friday; but he asked their Lordships to look most carefully at the position in which the clause now stood. It was stated, in the earlier part of the clause, that a person should not drive a motor-car unless he was licensed for the purpose, and, later, it was provided that the Council of a County or Borough should grant a licence to any person applying for it on payment of a shilling. It was pressed without success on the previous Friday that the Government should accept an Amendment substituting the words "may grant" for "shall grant." In other words, that the Council of a County or County Borough should not be compelled to give a licence to anybody who applied for it. The Government, however, had refused this Amendment, and were going to compel County Councils to grant licences to anyone who paid the necessary shilling, whatever he might know about the driving of a motor-car. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper gave County or Borough Councils the right to withhold or subsequently cancel such licence, and he had added the words— If in their opinion the applicant for or owner of such a licence shall be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car. He thought County Councils should have the right to say whether a man was fit to drive a car or not. It was true that a slight Amendment was agreed to by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that licences should not be granted to anyone under the age of sixteen. But he still thought that County Councils should be given an opportunity of refusing a licence for any valid reason. It had been said by the Secretary for Scotland that people who drove horses had not to prove their competency, and why should drivers of motor-cars? That was an altogether different matter. He might as well say to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that if it was necessary to obtain a master's certificate to take charge of a yacht, why was it not necessary to obtain a certificate to drive a motor-car? When the First Reading of the Bill was taken Lord Rosebery rightly said that it was necessary to keep under the severest supervision the capacity of those who undertook to drive motor-cars, and the noble Earl added that he would have been glad to hear that a demand would be made for some proof of a driver's fitness to undertake the management of those machines. He (Lord Rosslyn) trusted that His Majesty's Government would give way on this point, and accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 19, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'But any County or Borough Council may withhold or subsequently cancel such licence if in their opinion the applicant for or owner of such licence shall be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. We argued this matter very fully on Friday, and the House by a very substantial majority confirmed the clause in this respect as it stood. I could not for a moment think of simply accepting "may" instead of "shall" without any qualifying words, because that would give the power, with the Amendment which I have just inserted providing that a man is to be resident in a county to get a licence, to a County Council which is hostile to motor-cars to refuse to give licences at all, and then nobody in that county would be able to drive a motor-ear. The particular Amendment on the Paper raises the whole question of granting certificates of competency. That was a point which we argued at length the other day, and, as I have said, the Committee supported the view which I put before it by a considerable majority, and I hope that decision will not be reversed on this occasion. I waited for a moment after the noble Earl sat down to see if anyone else rose, but no one got up. Unless the noble Earl receives some support, I think I should be consulting the convenience of the House if I did not repeat the arguments which I put forward last Friday.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

said he was quite out of Court in this matter, because he had to leave the House before the exhaustive discussion to which the noble Lord had referred took place. But did he understand that the Government under this Bill did not contemplate any test of competency for drivers?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

We do not. It is impossible adequately to test the competency of a driver in any time which can be given to it. We think there is no proper machinery in this country for doing it, and that the other provisions of the Bill providing for suspension and endorsement will be sufficient. No one has suggested the machinery by which this can be done, and I feel bound to say that this is a much less convenient Amendment than the one that was negatived by the House the other night.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

asked whether the noble Lord was aware that no one was allowed to drive a motorcar in France without a certificate of efficiency. If that was possible in France, why was it not possible in England? Might he suggest that this would be a fit subject for further Cabinet enquiry?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not think it is necessary to make enquiry, because we are fully informed of the condition of affairs in France. The information we receive is that the examination, as conducted there, is of the most superficial kind, and affords no test of fitness in an emergency. As I have already informed the House more than once, there is no ground for assuming that accidents which have happened in the past have been due to the in-competency of the drivers. They are due more to drivers taking risks or going at speeds which ought not to be permissible upon a public highway.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

said that the argument of the noble Lord appeared to be that because the examination in France was superficial therefore there should be none at all in England. His information as to the examination in France did not tally with that of the noble Lord. He must protest against the idea that these machines were to run loose on the highways without any guarantee of the efficiency of those who guided them. If that was the opinion of His Majesty's Government he would be compelled, if the noble Lord pressed this matter to a division, to vote with him.

LORD LAMINGTON

pointed out that owners who employed persons to drive their cars must have some method of assuring themselves of their competence. Surely, therefore, it would be possible to institute some system of examination.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the Amendment now before the House went rather farther than his Amendment did. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said that one of the objections to this Amendment was that it provided no method of carrying out the examination. The noble Lord added that no such method had ever been suggested, but it would be within the recollection of the House that in the Amendment which he (Lord Tweedmouth) moved on the previous Friday, and which was rejected, he did suggest that the examination should be carried out by the police, and that the chief of police in a county or borough should give a certificate, and that the applicant for a licence should produce that certificate.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

asked who was to teach the police.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the police would have to make proper regulations. It was an extraordinary thing, because at this moment there was no machinery to do a particular thing, that therefore for ever afterwards we should be without that machinery. This was a new form of traction and must give rise to new conditions, and the obligation should be laid on the local authorities to take the proper precautions, and provide the necessary facilities for taking those precautions, in order to make the roads safe for ordinary traffic. Though the question had been decided by their Lordships, he did not think it was decided after very full discussion. His own feeling was that the House did not look at this question from all sides. His noble friend Lord Craven, who was himself the holder of a licence in France, would be able, if necessary, to give the House an account of how he obtained that licence and the method adopted in France, which was one that did afford at any rate some proof of competence. It was an extraordinary proposition to put forward that it was better to have no proof of competency than to have a proof of competency which was not absolutely without stain. He agreed with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that they could not test the competence of a man to extricate his car from a difficult position, but that would always be a question of the nerve of the driver.

LORD THRING

asked whether it was suggested that County Councils should be compelled to give licences to notorious drunkards or bad characters. No such obligation had ever been imposed on County Councils before. Surely there ought to be some words inserted giving a County Council, when it was proved to them that the applicant, though not incompetent, was quite unfitted by his character to receive a licence, the power to refuse to grant him a licence.

LORD BURGHCLERE

asked whether under the Bill as it stood "recklessly" meant the same thing as "incompetency," and whether if it was proved that a driver through incompetency endangered the lives of the public this would be an offence under the Bill. He thought that it ought to be made an offence, and suggested the insertion of the words after recklessly, "or without due care."

*EARL SPENCER

said that he had seen and heard things which had appeared to him to throw some light on this question of competency. That morning a motorcar stood opposite his house. The driver lost control of the machine and the car was backed not only over the pavement but up three steps against his front door. Another instance which seemed to favour this plea of competency occurred one evening last year when he returned home from dinner and found a motor-car opposite his door. The horse in his carriage became restive, but he was able to get out without difficulty. To his surprise he found that the driver of the car was a great friend—a very distinguished member at this moment of the present Government, but not the Prime Minister. What had happened was this—his friend had got the car backed against the kerb near the door and had no power of moving it. His chauffeur was not with him, directly the chauffeur came the car was at once moved off. Perhaps these difficulties of controlling and driving the car would not have arisen if there had been a previous guarantee of competency.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sure the noble Earl will allow me to express sympathy with him in the damage to his front door. But the instances he gave do not necessarily prove the incompetency of the driver. The trouble may have been due to the inefficiency of the car. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Burghclere) asked whether "recklessly" would cover incompetency. I would say certainly not. An incompetent man may be reckless, or the most competent man may be reckless. Lord Tweedmouth was very severe upon us for not accepting this Amendment. Are we really, he said, to trust ourselves to people who have given no proof of their competency? The other day the noble Lord regaled the House with a story of how on one occasion he had travelled six and a half miles in seven minutes. Did the noble Lord demand any proof of the competency of the driver before he entrusted himself in that car?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I was aware that the driver was probably the most competent chauffeur then in England.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It would be extremely inconvenient if the House should reverse its former decision. I would point out that there are many different kinds of cars, and competency to drive one kind of car by no means proves that the driver is competent to drive them all.

THE EARL OF CRAVEN

It is mentioned on the French certificate what car the holder can drive.

LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Then I suppose the certificate is only to be for a particular car.

THE EARL OF CRAVEN

Yes.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That goes with much more minuteness into the matter than has ever been suggested. I can only say that I think this certificate, if given, would be an entirely delusive guarantee of the real competence of the driver; nor do I believe that any examination which can be conducted by the police would give any real security to the public. If I did I should not resist this Amendment. If the House chooses to reverse its former decision it has the power to do so, but I shall certainly be obliged to divide the House. I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

thought that the lives of the inhabitants of this country were of far more importance than the consistency of their Lordships' House in dealing with the Amendment. He did think it would be with consternation that the country would learn to morrow that under the settled policy of His Majesty's Government there might be next year 20,000 of these powerful machines in use on the high roads without any other guarantee of efficiency than the competency of the driver to pay a shilling.

*EARL RUSSELL

did not imagine that anybody who had been in the habit of driving a motor-car for any considerable time would experience the slightest difficulty in passing any examination which might be instituted, but he wished to extend his support to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in his contention that any examination of this sort would be, from the point of view of public safety, entirely illusory. He thought that noble Lords who had spoken in an opposite sense were under the impression that because a man was competent to drive he would drive carefully and with due regard to the convenience of other vehicles and the public, but the general experience in this country was that Frenchmen, who were, perhaps, the most qualified motorists, drove their cars with far less regard for life and limb than those who were not so experienced. The Amendment used the words— Shall be deemed to have practical knows ledge of the method of driving a car. Did that mean practical knowledge of how to make the car go and stop, or did it mean practical knowledge of how to repair the ear when it went wrong? The particular instance which was given by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was a remarkably unfortunate one. The noble Lord said that the master of a ship had to obtain a certificate of competency, but their Lordships knew that the owner of his own yacht might sign as master and put to sea without any certificate, of competency. If that was allowed in the case of a private yacht, there did not seem any reason for imposing the proposed test in the case of motorists. As a matter of fact, people who owned motor-cars would always insist upon the competency of the driver before they risked their valuable property. A mere certificate of proficiency in driving a car would be no safeguard to the public, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not recede from the position he had taken up.

LORD BURGHCLERE

, referring to Lord Balfour's reply to his question, said it was quite clear that a driver might be both reckless and incompetent, but he might also be incompetent without being reckless. The question he wished to put to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was whether under the Bill as it stood, supposing it were proved that a driver, through incompetence, had endangered the lives of the public, that would be an offence under the Act.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It would be a question of fact at the time for the Court, as to the degree of the incompetent recklessness.

LORD BURGHCLERE

said his point had reference to incompetence without recklessness.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

thought an examination as proposed would be found illusory. How was a man to learn to drive? He clearly could not obtain a certificate of efficiency till he had learnt to drive.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (the Earl of ONSLOW)

said that any man who was proved to be incompetent would be driving to the common danger and would commit an offence under the Bill. In his judgment a certificate of competency would be entirely illusory. On one occasion he took a powerful car over to France and took care to employ a certificated French chauffeur. He thought that with these precautions he was bound to be fairly safe. But on the first day the chauffeur passed another car on the wrong side, throwing an old lady out, and on the second day, in order to avoid a car which was being driven slowly, the chauffeur ran the car into a ditch. The exploit cost him a great deal of money, and after getting rid of the chauffeur he sold the car. No certificate

of competency even in France was a real guarantee that a car would be driven in an efficient manner.

LORD REDESDALE

said the object of this Bill was to afford some degree of safety for His Majesty's lieges in a new danger, but unless care was taken to see that the men who drove these cars knew their business, the greatest danger to the general public might arise. After the Bill had been passed it would be very difficult to get the law amended, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would reverse their former decision on this point, even if they thereby incurred the charge of inconsistency.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

asked what was to happen if a man who had been granted a certificate of efficiency had his licence taken away because he drove recklessly. Would he then be photographed and his photograph circulated all round the country? Otherwise, how could they prevent him going to another part of the country and driving?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The last Amendment which your Lordships inserted will prevent that happening. It is an offence under the Act to have more than one licence, and under the Amendment to which your Lordships have just agreed a person can only get a licence in the County or County Borough in which he resides, and in which the car is registered.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said the driver might lose his licence and yet at the same time go to another part of the country and continue driving until he was found out. How was it proposed to detect men who did that?

On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 37; Not Contents, 52.

CONTENTS.
Grafton, D. Allerton, L. Lindley, L.
Rutland, D. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Lyveden, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Macnaghten, L.
Ripon, M. Burghclere, L. Manners of Haddon, L. [M. Granby.)
Congleton, L.
Craven, E. Dunboyne, L. Mostyn, L.
Jersey, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Reay, L.
Kimberley, E. James, L. Redesdale, L.
Lytton, E. Kelvin, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)
Rosslyn, E. [Teller.] Kinnaird, L. St. Levan, L.
Spencer, E. Lamington, L. Sandhurst, L.
Saye and Sele, L. Thring, L. Wandsworth, L.
Shand, L. Tredegar, L.
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Kenyon, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Yarborough, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore).
Bath, M. Lawrence, L. [Teller.]
Lansdowne, M. Cross, V. Lovat, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Ludlow, L.
Abingdon, E. Portman, V. Manners, L.
Ancaster, E. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Chesterfield, E. Abinger, L. Muncaster, L.
Denbigh, E. Balfour, L. Norton, L.
Hardwicke, E. Belper, L. Penrhyn, L.
Ilchester, E. Braye, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Lauderdale, E. Colchester, L. Robertson, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Davey, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Morley, E. De Mauley, L. Wenlock, L.
Northbrook, E. Ellenborough, L. Windsor, L.
Onslow, E. Glenesk, L. Wolverton, L.
Russell, E. Harris, L. Wrottesley, L.
Selborne, E. Heneage, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The next Amendment standing in my name is really to carry out the policy I have already indicated to the House.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 19, after the word 'section,' to insert as fresh paragraphs:—'A licence shall remain in force for a period of twelve months from the date on which it is granted, but shall be renewable, and the same provisions shall apply with respect to the renewal of the licence as apply with respect to the grant of the licence.' 'A person shall not be entitled to hold more than one licence.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).

*EARL RUSSELL

asked whether the endorsement of a licence would be carried on from one year to another.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said that, as his noble friend's Amendment covered in principle the one he had placed on the Paper, he would not move his; but he would like to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible for a County Council to make regulations for the issuing of these licences, say from the county offices, so that regular resolutions would not have to be passed?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The answer to that question is in the affirmative. It is hoped that this will be very much a matter of machinery which the County Council can delegate to its responsible officers. The answer to the question put to me by the noble Earl opposite, Earl Russell, is also in the affirmative. The endorsement will be carried on from one year to another.

THE EARL OF ROSSLYN

moved to insert a new sub-section authorising the licensing authority to refuse a licence to anyone who might be physically or mentally incapacitated. He asked the Government to accept this as a matter of common sense, so that the licensing authority could refuse to grant a licence to a blind man, a deaf man, and a lunatic.

Amendment moved— After Sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—'The Council of a County or Borough may, in their discretion, refuse a licence to anyone who may be physically or mentally incapacitated.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The object of this Amendment commands a certain amount of sympathy, but how really is it to be enforced? What degree of deafness is to disqualify, and are you going to set up a County Council as a judge of lunacy? I think you will find this extremely difficult to carry out. The idea of the Bill is a better one, but I am quite aware, from the previous discussion, that there may be a certain amount of sympathy for this Amendment. My case against it is that it is absolutely unworkable. I do not think the County Council can decide the question of sanity. If a man is going about the country he must be presumed, I suppose, to be sane enough to drive a motor-car. Surely you cannot ask the County Councils to set up a new standard of sanity.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

thought the noble Lord was quite right to be consistent in the pursued policy of the Government to authorise incapacity of every kind on the motor-cars of the country and therefore he would not urge the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to divide. But he would point out that there was such a thing as local knowledge of the persons who applied for a licence. It was also possible that when a man had been found driving, whether from deafness or other physical incapacity, to the common danger of His Majesty's subjects, the County Council might wish to refuse him a licence.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I venture to think that that is not a fair representation of the position of the Government in the matter. If a man is found, as the noble Lord presupposes—which means found by a Court—to have been driving in the way he describes—

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Not necessarily found by a Court.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

In that case the licence would be endorsed, and if the licence is endorsed the County Council has power over it. It is not reasonable to set up a standard in the vague terms proposed.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

put it to the noble Lord whether, supposing when he (Lord Balfour) was going out of his park gate in Scotland a stone deaf neighbour nearly ran him down through not hearing his carriage wheels, would the noble Lord not think himself entitled to represent to the County Council that his neighbour was not fit to control a motor-car?

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said these were questions which even a superficial examination of the competency of persons who applied for licences would find out.

LORD HENEAGE

pointed out that as the Bill was drafted it not only gave a man who was a notorious drunkard, and well known in the district as such, power to obtain a licence in the first instance, but the Council were bound to renew that licence unless he had driven recklessly. He was told that a great many of these accidents happened not when men were driving recklessly, but when, having delivered their cargo, they went to the public-house and refreshed themselves, and went home the worse for liquor.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Surely if a man is discovered and convicted of such conduct as that, the proper thing to do is to bring him before a Court and endorse his licence.

LORD HENEAGE

But could the licence be endorsed if he was not driving recklessly?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes; it could be dealt with under Clause 1 if he is driving to the danger of the public.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

said he did not think it would be necessary to move the Amendment standing in his name, providing that the licence of any person who had been convicted under the Act, and who had appealed against such conviction, should be suspended pending the hearing of such appeal, because he had been informed that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had met the object he had in view, which was to provide against persons who had been convicted under the Act, and had appealed against the conviction, driving in the meantime.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The Amendment standing in my name, which comes next, was devised avowedly to meet the point which the noble Marquess brought to my notice by means of his Amendment. Under the Bill an appeal would only lie where a person is sent to prison without the option of a fine, and the noble Marquess urged that a person ought to have an appeal in the case of his licence being suspended for more than six months where he is not sent to prison, and that is provided for by this Amendment. A further question arose as to the operation of the suspension during the time of the hearing of the appeal. We think the suspension should not be got round by a person appealing, because in that case considerable time might elapse before the appeal was heard, and during all that time the driver whose licence had been suspended by the Court of first instance could go on driving. Power is given in this Amendment to the Court to allow the driver to go on driving if they see fit, but it is in the discretion of the Court of first instance. I venture to suggest that this is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty which surrounds this point.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 4, after the word 'licence' to insert, as a new paragraph: 'Any person whose licence is suspended under this section for a period of six months or more, or who is declared disqualified from obtaining a licence under this section for any such period, may appeal against the order for suspension or disqualification to a Court of quarter sessions in the same manner as a person may appeal who is ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine; and the Court by which the suspension or disqualification is ordered may, if they think fit, pending the appeal, defer the operation of the order'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD BURGHCLERE

asked the noble Lord to point out in what portion of the Bill the provision occurred that any person driving to the danger of the public could be dealt with in the way suggested. So far as he could make out, it was necessary that he should be driving at a speed which was dangerous to the public, which was a very different thing.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is not, I think, very convenient to take one back to a clause which is not dealt with by this Amendment, but I will do my best to answer the point which the noble Lord has raised. The offence that has to be proved is driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public. Surely those two things together are sufficient. If you have the case of a drunken man driving, surely he is driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public. Lord Rosebery has suggested the insertion of the word "carelessly" which I have already informed the noble Earl I cannot accept, but I am willing to insert "negligently" after "recklessly" at a subsequent stage.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the Amendment standing in his name did not originate with him but with Lord Herries, who was unavoidably absent on this occasion. He did not think he need make any lengthened speech in support of it. He thought every one of their Lordships would be of opinion that the driver of a motor-car who caused an accident, or who was concerned in an accident, and who then drove away, committed as grave an offence as it was possible for him to commit, and one which deserved very severe punishment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause: 'Should any accident happen to a passer-by or his horse or vehicle, it shall be the duty of the driver of the motor-car to stop his car and give such assistance as he can; and, if he fail to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not think the precise wording will do under any circumstances, and I am rather inclined to suggest to the House some considerations on the other side altogether. The noble Earl does not suppose that the accidents must necessarily have been caused always by the driver of the motor-car.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No; but whether the motor-car was to blame or not.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

That gets rid of the technical objection. But is it really thought that a provision of this kind can be useful? If the accident is caused by reckless driving, the fact of a man driving away without rendering assistance, will, of course, be an aggravation of the offence, and, if proved, it will have the effect of increasing the penalty. This proposal seems to me to be an attempt to enforce gentlemanly conduct by statute. A friend of mine has described it as an attempt to make good Samaritans by Act of Parliament, though in the parable the good Samaritan was not responsible for the injuries to the man he succoured. But do you think that assistance which is given under a fear of a fine of this kind will be really worth having? I venture to say that it will not, and that the clause is really not necessary and inexpedient. The proposal is to make a man who drives away guilty of an offence under this Act, but if an accident is owing to reckless driving the driver will have already committed an offence under the Act, and you cannot really make him guilty of two offences. It is one offence aggravated. As I have said, the clause is really useless, but if the sense of the House is in favour of it I personally will offer no objection. I quite agree that if a man in a motor-car causes an accident and then drives away without stopping to see if any assistance can be given he is guilty of a most serious offence. I think it is adequately punished under the Bill as it stands, but for fear it should be said that we do not regard this conduct as a serious offence I would rather accept the Amendment than divide the House upon it. But unless there is a very strong feeling in favour of it I would prefer not to accept it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the noble Lord had surprised him very much when he stated that the object of this Amendment was to create good Samaritans by Act of Parliament. The object was not to do that, but to punish cowardly persons who first caused an accident and then drove away, leaving the unfortunate victims to get on as best they could. Whether the driver of the motor-car was in fault or not, surely, when an accident had occurred in which he had taken part, the least thing he could do would be to stop and assist as well as he could. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that assistance compulsorily given was of no use. What he wanted was the assistance. He did not care whether it was given owing to compulsion or in any other way. Only two or three days ago a man drove away in a car which did not belong to him, and knocked over a sergeant in the Irish Guards, breaking that unfortunate man's leg. But the motorist drove off, leaving him lying in the road. It so happened that this scoundrel was taken up on the charge of stealing the car, and it was then discovered, through investigations that took place, that he was the person who had knocked over the sergeant. But for this fact, however, it would never have been discovered. The Amendment might create a second offence under the Act, and even if it did he would be very glad.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

said he was very glad to see that the Government, though they were not particularly anxious to provide against accidents, took a more favourable view of what he might call post mortem Amendments. But he did not feel that he could support his noble friend in this Amendment, because he thought it went too far. If the Amendment provided that the person causing the accident should stop his car and give his name, that would be enough. If, on the other hand, he was called upon to give assistance, that might be used as a means of some oppression by persons who have sustained very slight injuries.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

was quite ready to accept such an Amendment as the noble Earl had suggested.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think in these circumstances it would be better not to put in these particular words, but to negative this Amendment now under an undertaking from me that I will put down words to endeavour to give effect to the sense of the House at a subsequent stage.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he was perfectly prepared to accept that undertaking.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 4.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

LORD KELVIN

moved an additional paragraph enabling the Board to make regulations to secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds. He said his Amendment went towards an object that was admitted by the House last Friday to be one of importance with reference to the safety of the public. It seemed to him that by the mode proposed in his Amendment the object could be carried out in a businesslike way and without making a general rule as to either speed or the power of which the car was capable. It was pointed out clearly by Lord Balfour that the possibility of running at a high speed on the flat was necessary to allow a car to be competent to do a great part of its regular and proper work, and therefore the condition, if it was to be made, to secure against dangerous cars, must not specify precisely the qualities which the car might have. But the Local Government Board had duties put upon it facilitating the identification of motor-cars, arranging also about licences to be granted by Councils of Counties and County Boroughs, and so on. It seemed to him that to add a third paragraph enabling the Local Government Board to make regulations to secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds, would be to place upon them a duty which they might rightly discharge, and he trusted that it might be found possible for them to undertake it.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 32, after the word 'police,' to insert as a new paragraph '(c.) To secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds.'"—(Lord Kelvin.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Upon this matter I have, of course, to speak upon the information supplied to me by others. I am neither engineer nor mechanician enough to test the information, but I am told that it is absolutely impossible to make this proposal effective by any antecedent regulations whatever, or to do more than take care that the motor should be under proper control. I am told that it is absolutely impossible to attempt any interference by regulation with the mechanical construction of a car. I believe that no effective machinery can be provided for the purpose, because any sort of machinery which controls engine-power in the car is of such a kind that it can be constantly altered by any competent person who is in charge of the car, and to attempt to carry out this proposal by legislation would involve constant examination, almost from day to day, of every car which is to run along the public roads. I am told that it is impossible, after the engine has been put into the car, to tell what its real horse power for driving purposes is. In these circumstances, all that would happen would be that a car would be called a six, a twelve, a twenty, or a thirty-horse power car, according to the will of the manufacturer, and the County Council would not really be able to apply any effective test. It is a perfectly useless operation to put upon the Local Government Board the duty of framing regulations which they tell Parliament they cannot frame in such a way as to be effective.

LORD KELVIN

said that if it seemed inadvisable, he certainly would not press his Amendment. But he contended that the horse power of the engine after it had been put into the car could be tested without the slightest difficulty. He trusted that he might be pardoned for not accepting the information which had been given to the noble Lord by the professional advisers of the Local Government Board.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

did not think the final objection given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—that the House ought not to put on the Local Government Board duties which they had declared themselves incapable of undertaking—was a valid one, because they had declared themselves incapable of doing so much with regard to preventing accidents that they would be left no power at all. He admitted that they were all children in these matters, and were groping rather in the dark. Taking expert against expert, he preferred the authority of Lord Kelvin to that of any expert that could be named. If the noble Lord opposite would arrange a meeting between Lord Kelvin and the expert, and the latter could convince Lord Kelvin that his proposal was incapable of being carried out, the House would be in a position to deal with the question on Report. It was so serious a matter that it could not be dealt with by reading out the opinion of an anonymous expert at the Table.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have not the slightest objection to endeavouring to arrange the meeting which the noble Earl has suggested. If the Amendment is not pressed, I will certainly endeavour to make that meeting possible.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that under the Bill they were giving large powers to the Local Government Board. They were enabling them to make regulations which would have the force of law. It was becoming more and more the habit of Departments to take upon themselves, or to have placed upon them, functions which more properly belonged to Parliament itself. Surely these regulations, when made, ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses, and then it would be in the power of any Member of either House, if he saw a regulation which he thought objectionable, to bring it under the notice of the House with a view to its alteration. The words in his Amendment were inserted in the regulation clause of the Act of 1896, and he thought it only right that they should be inserted in this Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 34, after the word 'Board' to insert as a new sub-section 'Every regulation made in pursuance of this section shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am glad that the noble Earl has not moved the clause in the shape in which it first appeared, inasmuch as, according to the Amendment as originally drafted, the regulations would not become law until they had been laid on the Table for forty days.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he had never put the Amendment down in any form other than that in which it now appeared on the Paper.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I was under the impression that the Amendment had appeared in the other form. With regard to this Amendment I can assure the noble Lord that this is already provided for. Section 6 of the Locomotives Act, under which the regulations are made, provides in so many words that the regulations shall be laid on the Table of Parliament, and it is only under that section that the regulations can be made.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he could not see any objection to inserting the Amendment in the clause. If it had a fault, it would merely be one of repetition; but, at all events, it would enable members of both Houses to see clearly what was the intention of the Act.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have the greatest dislike to inserting words which are superfluous and unnecessary, and which are likely to throw doubt on the other clauses. There is no power to make regulations except under Section 6 of the principal Act, and that section provides that any regulations made under it shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he would not press his Amendment, but at the same time he thought the insertion of the words would have been very useful.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

*THE EARL OF JERSEY

moved to insert the word "not" after "is," the effect being to leave the speed limit as at present. He admitted that after the decision the other night there was rather an awkward fence to get over; but still, there might even on that clause be a little wavering on the part of Members. It was certain that in many parts of the country there was a strong opposition to the idea that motor-cars should be allowed to go at any rate of speed which the driver might choose to adopt, and it certainly seemed hard that the general public should be jeopardised by motor-cars travelling at a high rate of speed. Lord Balfour had argued the other night that it was difficult to enforce a speed limitation clause, but he hardly thought that could really be the case, because in that very clause the noble Lord proposed in certain places to adopt a limit of speed. The Board of Trade imposed a limit of speed in the case of tramways, and surely if those rules could be carried out, there would be no difficulty in enforcing a restricted rate of speed with regard to motor-cars. The noble Lord made a great mistake if he thought that this Bill, without such a restriction, would be well received in the country districts. He moved his Amendment as a strong protest against the principle of unlimited speed. In the few days since the House first went into Committee on this Bill he had had an opportunity of seeing the people in the part of the country in which he lived, and everyone to whom he had spoken was aghast at the idea that their Lordships' House had gone in so thoroughly for unlimited speed. The Government appeared to have taken the side of high speed motor-cars drivers as against the public.

Amendment moved. In page 3, line 36, after the word 'is' to insert the word 'not.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I venture to state that it is hardly fair to say that the Government have taken the side of the motor-car drivers as against the public in regard to this Bill. I am quite sure the motor-car drivers, at any rate, do not think the Government have taken their side. Probably the real fact of the matter is, that the Government have taken the extreme view of neither party in this Bill, but have endeavoured to bring in a measure which will fairly regulate matters in the future without unduly hampering those who like the sport of driving in motor-cars, and at the same time do all that is reasonable to preserve the roads for those who do not enjoy that form of amusement. I think the House will not accept this Amendment when it learns that the effect of it would be universally, with certain exceptions provided by the local authorities, to preserve the existing speed limit; for, if one thing more than another has been settled by the previous discussions it is that the existing speed limit has been found wanting. If we were to accept this Amendment, we might just as well leave the Bill off the Statute-book. I cannot accept this Amendment, nor the one in the name of Lord Kelvin which stands next; but when we come to a subsequent Amendment it will probably be convenient to indicate in a more general way what improvement I think can be made in this clause. In the meantime I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD KELVIN

said he felt so strongly that there ought to be no interregnum between the passage of the Bill and the issue of Local Government Board regulations, during which there would be absolutely no fixed limit of speed in any part of Great Britain or Ireland, that he thought either his Amendment, or perhaps some modification of it, ought to be adopted. It was surely not asking too much to ask that the public should be protected against that state of things. The Bill was aimed at reckless driving, but it was more easy to say at what rate of speed a car was driving than to give a satisfactory definition of reckless driving.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 36, to leave out the word 'except' and insert the word 'only.'"—(Lord Kelvin).

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The arguments which I ventured to put before the House a moment ago were intended to apply to the two Amendments, which are absolutely identical. I trust I shall not be thought discourteous if I do not repeat them. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

moved an Amendment to provide that "in no town, village, or populous place" should the speed of any motor-car exceed twelve miles an hour. He said that the Government, with the assent of the House, had refused to enact any speed limit; they had refused to enact any power limit, and they had refused to require any proof of competence on the part of the drivers of motor-cars. He thought those three refusals formed a strong reason for the adoption of the Amendment he now moved. Clause 5, as it stood, repealed the present enactment with regard to the speed of motor-cars, but it retained the present rate of speed up to fourteen miles an hour in all cases where the local authority applied for leave from the Local Government Board to retain it in respect of any special limits or special places. That was a form of local option with regard to the regulation of speed given to local authorities, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board. If every local authority were allowed to fix its own limit of speed within scheduled areas there would result a most confusing patchwork of speeds over the country. It was much simpler to provide one limit for all populous places. He had selected the limit of twelve miles an hour because it was the maximum speed of horse traffic, and because, therefore, it was easy to tell whether the speed was exceeded. In populous places there would then be no necessity for signs.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'except as respects,' and insert the words 'provided that in no town, village, or other populous place, nor within.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not wish to burk discussion upon this clause, but I think I shall probably meet the convenience of the House if I make a few remarks at this stage as to the effect of this clause, and what the Govern- ment are prepared to do to meet the suggestions made the other night in the Amendments which are now on the Paper. The noble Lord made a most moderate speech, and one with which, in very large measure, I find myself in agreement. The Bill, he truly said, repeals the speed limit, except under the conditions set out in the clause. Speaking generally, there are three dangers to be guarded against in this clause. The primary object of this Bill is to punish the man who drives recklessly or negligently, and nothing should be done to suggest that if he keeps within a certain speed limit, up to, say, ten, twelve, or fourteen miles an hour, he is in any way absolved from the necessity of being careful. I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is undesirable to have too many varying speed limits all over the country. There may be special cases where a very low speed ought to be fixed, a speed lower than ten or twelve miles an hour, but they will be very few. We think that where there is a special limit imposed it should in almost every case be the same limit, so that when a driver is within the prescribed points he should always keep within the same limit. It would be very inconvenient to have a limit in one county of fourteen miles an hour, in another of twelve, and in another of ten; and the President of the Local Government Board is prepared to agree that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, the limit of speed for special areas should be uniform, and that that limit should be ten miles an hour. The House will see that we are going a considerable distance to meet those who have Amendments down in regard to this clause. Another danger to be guarded against is the undue caprice of local authorities. They cannot be allowed a roving charter to impose limits wherever they like, but must be under the controlling authority of the Local Government Board, so that one consistent policy may be adopted throughout the whole country. The proposal of the noble Lord opposite is to take "populous places." The words "populous places" are by themselves objectionable, as it is unfair to the drivers as well as to the public to leave to their discretion the decision where a "populous place" begins and ends. I hold that it is absolutely necessary that notices should be posted up wherever a special speed limit is prescribed, and that between the two notices posted up the driver is not to go beyond the special limit of speed. Though I do not like the Amendment of the noble Lord, I am prepared to strike out the word "special" in each of the three places where it occurs in the clause. The clause will then read— Section 4 of the principal Act (which relates to the rate of speed of motor-cars) is hereby repealed except as respects any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulation made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County Borough in which the limits or place are situated. I believe from communications which have been made to my right hon. friend and myself that this proposal will go very far to meet the views of those who have suggested Amendments to this clause. But the idea is that the County Council should be able to recommend those places within their areas to which this limit of speed might be usefully applied. It may be applied to the whole or any of the country towns, or to populous places where the traffic is considerable, and to any dangerous places in the country roads, to steep hills or sharp corners. There is no limit to the distance over which the prohibition might apply, but of course the power will have to be fairly and reasonably exercised and not used capriciously. I hold strongly that the ultimate decision as to the speed should rest with the central authority, because if local authorities are left to decide the question much irritation and difficulty will be created. I do not for a moment conceal from myself, nor does my right hon. friend Mr. Long conceal from himself, that this will impose a difficult task on the central body, but we believe that the great majority of the local authorities will do their best to assist the central authority, and will not be unduly extravagant in their demands for special regulations. It must remain incumbent on local authorities to put up the necessary notices; from that I cannot depart. If in the future the Local Government Board thinks that the limits of space over which the speed is to be brought down to ten miles per hour are too large, I should like to preserve the initiative of the central authority to amend them. I do not propose to give the central authority any power itself to initiate the closing of spaces; but to meet cases where it has approved the closing of spaces and then finds that it has gone too far, I shall propose at a subsequent stage to allow the central authority to modify the limit which it had previously agreed to.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the noble Lord had given him nothing at all. The omission of the word "special" did not meet him in any way. His great desire was to have a uniform speed limit in towns and populous places.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If it were to be made a condition of accepting the proposals I have made, I would see if I could not do even that before another stage.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said he would withdraw the greater portion of his opposition provided the noble Lord would introduce words into the section that the speed limit should be a uniform one of ten miles an hour in such places.

LORD HENEAGE

, as one who had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause, said he was grateful for the concession announced by the Government—namely, that a speed limit, in the areas in question, of ten miles an hour should be put in the clause. His object in suggesting a limit of ten miles was to prevent cars from being driven at high speeds through country villages and towns, and especially at corners where traffic converged. A uniform limit of speed was desirable, and he was glad it was proposed to insert ten miles in the clause. He agreed that it would be disastrous if different rates of speed obtained all over the country.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

thought the conclusion arrived at by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was a right one. The standing Joint Committee of Hampshire had discussed this matter, and they felt that there would be very great difficulty in making special recommendations for limits of speed in different parts of the county. Therefore it would be better if the noble Lord followed the example contained in the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1865, and altered the clause so that there should be a limit of speed of ten miles an hour when motorcars went through any city, town, or village, leaving it to the different local authorities to ask, if they desired it, for a lower limit of speed in any particular place; and this, he thought, the Local Government Board would be disinclined to sanction except for very good reason.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

asked whether the Local Government Board were prepared to lay on the local authorities the duty of marking out the dangerous places by signals, especially cross roads. He did not think that the posting up of notices to show where the special rate of speed was to begin and end was enough for public security or for the safety of the drivers themselves. Would it not be possible by regulation on local authorities to secure the marking of dangerous places by a signal which would be generally recognised?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

called attention to the practical working of the change outlined by the Secretary for Scotland, and calculated that for the future two-thirds of the roads of the whole country would come under the speed limit. He was very glad indeed that the Government had come round to adopt a fixed limit of speed.

VISCOUNT HAMPDEN

wished to know whether the Local Government Board would exercise any veto on the caprices of local authorities.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

confessed that he did not quite understand the position in which the House was. He understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had stated that he was prepared to do certain things, but that he did not quite see how they could be done. With regard to fixing a limit of ten miles an hour, he submitted that the view of his noble friend would be met by the insertion after the word "repealed" in line 36, of these words "provided that within any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulations made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County Borough the speed of any motor-car shall not exceed ten miles an hour." He was rather pre-disposed to put it on local authorities to look after their own people, but the general sense of the House had converted him to believe in a speed limit of some sort.

*EARL RUSSELL

regretted that the Government were going back to the fatal principle of so many miles an hour. Motor-cars were habitually driven in London at twelve and fifteen miles an hour with perfect safety, and to the satisfaction of the police. It would not be a reasonable thing to enforce a speed limit of ten miles an hour in open country simply because it happened to be within the boundary of a town. Again, a village might be very populous in the middle of the day, but would it be a populous place at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning when the inhabitants were in bed? One Amendment on the Paper suggested that cars should be limited to ten miles an hour at turnings. There were turnings which it would be dangerous to go round at six miles an hour, and there were others which it would be safe to go round at fifteen miles an hour. Speaking as one who was not altogether without experience in driving these cars through all sorts of towns and villages, he very much preferred the clause which the Government had drafted and which appeared in the Bill, because by that clause the Local Government Board would reserve to themselves the power, on the advice of the local authority, of placarding a particular section of road and saying that on that section of road the speed must be limited. But to endeavour to include particular classes of places would always give too high a limit in some places and too low a limit in others. He hoped the Government would not include a rigid limit of ten miles an hour, but would endeavour to maintain the clause as it was.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am satisfied that the offer which I made is much more in conformity with the general views of the House than the argument of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I would point out that, even if these proposals are accepted, we do not mean to depart from the obligation on the local authority to put up notices warning drivers of motor-cars when they have come within the limits within which they are not to go beyond ten miles an hour. I think that the Amendment which has been handed to me by Lord Ribblesdale, and which he read to the House, goes so near what I propose that I am prepared to accept it now and to put the words in the Bill, on the understanding that the drafting may be improved, if necessary, at a later stage. I cannot agree with Lord Northbrook that County Councils should not have to send up their regulations to the central authority. I am afraid I must maintain that provision, and in answer to Viscount Hampden I wish to say most distinctly that the Local Government Board do intend to exercise their own judgment as to the reasonableness of a proposal made to them. In no other way will it be possible to get this Bill accepted by Parliament. The Local Government Board are responsible to Parliament in a way in which County Councils are not responsible, and I think Parliament will be slow to place this responsibility upon any body which is not capable of being controlled. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, referred to the provisions in the Bill with regard to the notification of dangerous places. If the noble Earl thinks those provisions are not satisfactory, and will make a suggestion to me in writing, I will see if I can meet his views still further. I did not put my Amendment on the Notice Paper because I desired first to gather the wishes of noble Lords as to the precise form of words, and I hope I have succeeded. I am glad to think that we shall pass from this most important clause without any very serious divergence of opinion.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

said the Amendment which had been read to the House by his noble friend Lord Ribblesdale was practically his own Amendment, with a few words added, which he had handed to the noble Lord to suggest. He was glad that the Government were prepared to accept it, and he begged to withdraw his previous Amendment and to move it in the amended form.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 36, after the word 'repeal,' to insert the words, 'provided that within any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulation made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County Borough the speed of any motor-car shall not exceed ten miles an hour.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

trusted that every possible effort would be made to prevent there being a large interregnum between the lapsing of the existing Act and the coming into operation of this Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If this Bill should fortunately become law, there will be considerable time, between the end of July or the beginning of August and January 1st next, for the necessary arrangements to be made. I should view with disfavour any proposal to postpone the operation of the Bill.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

expressed regret that the Government, in giving way on this question, had fixed a speed limit. A speed of ten miles an hour was too fast in many dangerous places. The better way to have dealt with this would have been to enact that the speed should be that of ordinary horse traffic in like circumstances. He gave notice that on Report he would move the rejection of the speed limit and substitute "the speed of ordinary horse traffic in like circumstances."

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

said the object of the next Amendment standing in his name was to fit the punishment to the crime. Under this clause a driver who infringed a by-law by going through the streets of, say, Winchester, at a mile or so above the speed limit would come under the same penalties as if he had been driving recklessly and furiously. He thought it was a remarkable provision that the Court before whom that man was brought could not deal with him except under the penalty clause. The fault of the Bill, as at present drafted, was that there was one tremen- dous penalty applicable to all kinds of offences.

Amendment moved— To insert the words 'and the Local Government Board may impose on any driver of a motor-oar infringing such by-law, for the first offence a penalty not exceeding £5, and for any subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding £10, or in the discretion of the Court imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.'"—(Lord Ribblesdale.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Lord is mistaken. A driver who merely exceeds the speed limit would not be guilty of an offence under the Act. He would be guilty of an offence under the by-law and would be punishable only by fine, the maximum fine being 10s.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

asked whether, in the event of the owner of a motor-car saying to the chauffeur, "Never mind regulations; go as fast as you can," he would be liable for reckless driving.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. Anyone who aids and abets the driver to commit an offence is liable in the first degree.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

THE EARL OF ROSSLYN

moved an Amendment to give the Court in each case power to withhold or cancel a licence in addition to the fine or imprisonment.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 13, after the word 'months' to insert the words 'and the Court shall in each case have power to withhold or cancel a licence in addition to the fine or imprisonment.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Clause 3 already gives the Court power to suspend a licence, and it is bound to endorse it.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill how far the word "person" extended. The question was an important one, and had come up quite recently on one or two occasions. In one case he was informed that an officer in the Army, who had been driving a motor-car at the rate of nineteen miles an hour through a village, was summoned at the Petty Sessional Court. He was defended on behalf of the Treasury on the ground that the Crown did not come under the Act. Therefore, any servant of the Crown might endanger the lives of the public in any way he pleased without being amenable to the ordinary law. A similar case arose in his own county. The servant of a contractor for the War Office exceeded the speed limit laid down in the 4th Section of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1865, and was summoned at the Petty Sessional Court. The excessive speed was admitted, and the man convicted and fined; but the Treasury called for a case to be stated, and it was argued out in the High Court, with the result that the sentence of the Magistrates was reversed on the ground that the Crown did not come within the Act of Parliament. He urged that some steps should be taken to bring officers in the Army, drivers of contractors' steam engines, and other servants of the Crown under the same obligations as applied to all other persons. Otherwise they would have officers who were attending manœuvres careering about on motor-cars at any speed they liked to the danger of the public.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I can hold out no hope to the noble Earl that anything can be done to derogate from the actual privileges of the Crown in this matter. Although he did not state the facts distinctly, I am sure he will at once admit that this could not happen except in the case of officers or servants who are actually on duty at the time.

*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said that one of the cases he alluded to was that of a driver of a traction engine employed by a contractor of the War Office. Surely it could not be contended that that man was on duty.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Of course, I cannot argue upon the exact facts of the case because I do not know them; but if the noble Earl will send me a report of the case I will promise to have it carefully considered. At the same time I do think that if any officer, even when on duty, unnecessary endangers the public, he ought to be censured by the authorities.

*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

said a censure was not enough. What he asked was that some steps should be taken to bring officers under the same obligation as applied to all other persons.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Causes 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

Amendment proposed— After Clause 9 to insert the following new clause: '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'."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

explained that the object of his Amendment to this clause was to remove a grievance which existed at present with regard to motorcycles. In the eyes of the law, if a motorcyclist had attached to his machine an arrangement for conveying a passenger that machine was instantly transformed into a traction engine, and the legal speed limit then was six miles an hour. Cases had occurred where people had been fined for exceeding that limit, although the machine they had been driving was simply a motor-cycle, and he hoped this disability would be removed.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, after Sub-section (1) to insert as a new sub-section: 'In the case of motorcycles to which an attachment is affixed for carrying one or more persons in addition to the rider of the cycle, such attachment shall not be dealt with as a separate vehicle'."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

There is no doubt that this machine, which, I believe, is called a trailer, is not a light locomotive for registration purposes, but I believe that for all other purposes it is. If there is any doubt about the present regulations they can be altered to meet the wishes of the noble Earl. His Amendment only appeared on the paper to-day, and if he would allow me to look into it before the next stage I should be glad. I have no doubt that I shall be able to say that the present regulations cover it, but if they do not I will have them altered to meet the point.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Will the Bill be circulated as amended before the next stage?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. If we were to postpone the Standing Committee till next Tuesday I think we should imperil the Bill, and I propose, therefore, to ask that a special meeting of the Standing Committee be held on Thursday. I believe the Bill can easily be circulated before that time, and then we can take any points left over from to-day. I am exceedingly anxious to get the Bill down in the other House this week in order that it may have a chance of being passed into law this session.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.