Lords Sitting of 24 July 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  The CHAIRNAN of COMMITTEESinformed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Friday last discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Braye be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Lawrence; read, and agreed to.
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Committee on the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill; read, and agreed to; all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against, the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That Lord Sherborne be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Kinnaird; read and agreed to.
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L]. The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  206
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Great Western Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3038: Russia (Poland and Lithuania).
  No. 3039. Mexico (Vera Cruz).
  No. 3040. Norway.
  No. 3041. Sweden (Gothenburg).

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Estimates for 1902–1903 and 1903–1904 (in continuation of [Cd. 1363], November, 1902).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSS OF LIFE).
  Return showing the lives lost by wreck, drowning, or other accident in British merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1891 to 1902 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1253.]).
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FISCAL POLICY.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council whether the inquiry on which His Majesty's Government are engaged is confined to the effect of modifications of the tariff of the United Kingdom only; or whether information will be laid upon the Table as to the views of the self-governing colonies; and what modifications, if any, they are prepared to make in their own fiscal policy, The great problem now before the nation is partly fiscal and partly political. There are some who, while regret, ting on fiscal grounds any change in our system, are ready to consider any wishes expressed by the colonies in a friendly spirit, and who may be willing to make some concession of their economical convictions if by doing so they can satisfy themselves that the colonies can

  207
  be induced, not, indeed, to erect additional barriers against foreign countries, but to make some substantial progress in the direction of free, or, at any rate, freer trade with the mother country. Is the preference to be given by lowering the duties on our manufactures, and if so, at what are they to stand, or are the duties to remain at the present rate on our produce and to he raised as against foreigners? The effect in the two cases will be, of course, very different, and if the latter course were adopted the benefit to our trade would be very slight. Again, what articles are to be affected? I take it for granted that there cannot be one ad valorem rate. Foreign gold, for instance, cannot be taxed. Though it may seem a contradiction in terms, we might be given preferential rates, and yet duties might be so imposed as to fall specially on British goods. For instance, Canada has given us a preference, and we recognise it gratefully; but her fiscal system presses with special severity on British goods, and even after the preference we pay a higher rate than other countries. The rate on British goods is, on an average, 18 per cent.; that on American goods only 12 per cent.; or, if we take dutiable articles only, the rates in both cases, after allowing for the 33 per cent., 25 per cent. As to future changes, the statements in the Blue - book are not definite enough to enable as to estimate their probable effect. For instance, the Cape and Natal fore-shadow a difference of 25 per cent., but suggest that this is to be arrived at, not by lowering duties on our produce, but by raising those on produce from foreign countries; Australia says, "preferential treatment not yet defined as to nature or extent;" New Zealand suggests a general preference of 10 per cent. either by reduction of the present duty or by raising that on foreign produce; Canada promises a further reduction, but does not say what. It is impossible to judge whether, and to what extent, if any, it would be wise of us to alter our present system without much more information on these points. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will be able to state that the facts to be laid before the country will include some information as to the
  208
  desires and intentions of the self-governing colonies.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, in the absence of the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, my noble friend will perhaps allow me to reply to his Question. It seems to me that some of the matters to which he referred in his speech were of a kind which it would be obviously impossible for you Lordships' House to discuss at the present moment. His object is to obtain from us an assurance that we shall take measures to make ourselves aware of the opinions of the self-governing colonies with regard to the question of tariff policy. I think it has been stated repeatedly and in speeches which have been delivered from this Bench, that the colonial aspects of the case will certainly be considered by His Majesty's Government. But it has been said also, and I think it was said last night by the noble Duke, that in our view it is necessary, in the first place, that we should, so to speak, clear our own minds, and ascertain, so far as the interest of this country are concerned, whether it is possible to make a change of the kind which has been under discussion; and that when that point has been disposed of the time will have arrived for approaching the self-governing colonies and ascertaining from them to what extent they are prepared, in exchange for anything we may have to offer to them, to give us preferential treatment which may be acceptable to us. We are at present engaged on the first branch of that investigation, and until it has been further advanced I do not see how it is possible for us to approach the second branch. The only other observation which it occurs to me to make is this. The noble Lord dwelt on the necessity of bearing in mind the political as well as the commercial aspects of this problem, and I entirely agree with him in that. To my mind, so far as the self-governing colonies are concerned, the political considerations which arise in connection with this question are fully as important as those considerations which are purely commercial or economic in character. That is all I can tell the noble Lord in

  209
  reply to his Question. I see that the noble Duke is now in his place, and he may possibly desire to supplement what I have said.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As the noble Duke is now in his place I should like to call his attention to a pamphlet which has been sent to me by the Liberal Unionist Association, of which I see the noble Duke is chairman. I certainly understood, from what the noble Duke said last night, that not only had he not committed himself in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, but that no member of the Government, except the Colonial Secretary, was committed to them. The noble Duke is reported to have said last night—
  "I believe that if free trade has not done for us all that some of its authors expected that it would do, it is not very difficult to prove that any alternative proposal would not remedy the evils complained of, and might involve us in greater evils still."
  From the language used by the noble Duke himself I think it fair to infer that he is at the present moment a free-trader; but in this paper, which contains a list of publications for anti against the proposed changes, the noble Duke is stated to have delivered a speech in favour of the proposed changes. Lower down, however, the noble Duke appears as being against the proposed changes. In other words, the paper would appear to give the impression that the noble Duke had delivered two contradictory opinions on the subject. I desire to ask, therefore, whether this paper has his approval, and whether he is prepared to assume the responsibility Which the paper attributes to him of supporting Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. It is very important that papers should not be circulated which will mislead the public as to the noble Duke's position.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I think it would he more convenient if Questions of this sort were asked after notice. But I am perfectly able and willing to answer this Question at once. The list of leaflets to which the noble Earl has referred has been published by the Liberal Unionist Asso-
  210
  ciation, of which, as the noble Earl states, I am chairman, and a certain number of them have been published with my knowledge. The noble Earl has evidently not taken the trouble to look at the leaflets themselves. If he had done so he would have seen that what is published, in what he referred to as the list of those in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's policy, represents the Duke of Devonshire as being in favour of inquiry. The extract is taken from a speech which I delivered in this House, and I can have no objection whatever to having a passage from my speech in favour of inquiry reproduced. It is not in the least, and does not profess to be, a paper in support of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals.
  The subject then dropped.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of the House that when Parliament passed the Light Railways Act of 1896 it treated that measure more or less as of an experimental description, and confined its operations to the period of five years. Since the expiration of that period Parliament has renewed the Act year by year, and the object of the present Bill is to make it permanent, as the Board of Trade consider that it has been a success. To prove its success I will quote a few figures. Up to now the orders that have been applied for number 442, of which the Board of Trade have confirmed 194. These comprise a total length of line of over 4,000 miles, at an estimated expenditure of £31,550,000. To make the Act of 1896 permanent is the effect of Clause 1. Clauses 2 and 3 reform the procedure. Under the existing Act if the Board of Trade think a light railway scheme to be of such importance that it ought to be submitted to Parliament the preliminary work on the Order is wasted and the promoters have to begin de novo.

  211
  Clauses 2 and 3 remedy that state of things.
  Moved, that the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Wolverton.)
  THE CHAIRMAN or COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I do not rise to offer the slightest opposition to this Bill. On the contrary, I think the measure is a very useful one. If promoters have to resort to a private Bill they should not be compelled to commence the whole proceedings de novo. There is no doubt that the existing legislation in regard to light railways and tramways is not in a very satisfactory condition, and I would appeal to the Board of Trade to consider before another session whether they should not introduce a more comprehensive measure which would bring some order into the law. The Tramways Act was passed in 1870, before there was any idea of electric tramways, and it deals with a set of circumstances entirely different from those that obtain to-day. As I pointed out when the Light Railways Act of 1896 was passed, there is nothing to differentiate a light railway from a tramway on the one hand or an ordinary railway on the other. The only difference is in procedure. In the case of tramways the consent of the local authorities and of Parliament has to be obtained in the ordinary way, whereas in the case of light railways the preliminary consent of the local authorities is not required, and the Orders are obtained from a body outside Parliament. I do not say that that is by any means a bad procedure. I only point out that it is possible for these schemes to be dealt with in two distinctly different ways, and it is not at all an uncommon proceeding, when it is found to be too late to comply with the necessary formalities connected with the promotion of a Private Tramway Bill, to substitute a Light Railway Bill, and that can be done without the consent of the local authority being required. I venture to hope that before another session the Board of Trade will consider what can be done to bring some order into this legislation.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  MOTRO-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL or CAMPERDOWNsaid he had a personal explanation to make. About a week ago he quoted in that House from the Standard newspaper certain cases in which motor-car drivers had behaved in a manner which, certainly on the face of it, appeared to be anything but praiseworthy, and one of them was a case in which a lady had an accident near Sutton, which, it was stated, had been caused by a motor-car which had not stopped, but simply left her where she was. He had yesterday received a letter, dated 21st July, which said—
  "In your speech on Tuesday last you quoted a ease of furious driving near Sutton. I live in Sutton, and am a member of Sutton District Council, and, being a motorist myself, I thought fit to have some inquiries made in regard to this accident. My wife saw the sister of the lady who was, according to the newspaper reports, the victim of a motor-car fiend, and ascertained from her own lips that the accident was not from a motor-ear at all, but from her horse bolting by being frightened by a haymaking machine. There was no motor-car involved in the question at all."
  Of course he was bound to read this to the House. It showed that in that particular case the Standard was misinformed.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I am very glad that the noble Earl has had an opportunity of making that explanation. I will answer at this moment a Question which the noble Earl asked me yesterday as to the application to Scotland of the provision which makes the owner or other persons on a car liable under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, in common with the driver, for an offence under this Bill. I am informed by the Lord Advocate that the common law of Scotland will cover all the expressions in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and I am also informed by the Irish Office that the provision will apply equally to Ireland.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHinquired whether the meetings which the noble Lord had promised to arrange between Lord Kelvin and the Local Government Board expert on the subject of the possibility of imposing a power limit had taken place.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The meeting that was arranged for has taken place. The Local Government Board expert has convinced Lord Kelvin of the impossibility of carrying out that noble Lord's suggestion, and my noble friend Lord Kelvin has authorised me to say that he intends to take no further action in the matter.
  LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE moved an Amendment by which offences would be regarded as being committed by driving "without due care," rather than by driving "negligently." The adoption of his Amendment would strengthen the Bill, as it would bring an incompetent driver who was neither driving recklessly nor negligently within the scope of the Bill if he caused an accident.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'or negligently' and to insert the words 'or without due care.'" —(Lord Burghelere)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have made special inquiry regarding the choice between these two expressions. I frankly admit that to the lay mind there is not very much difference between them, but I am assured that "negligently" is a word which is very usual in Acts of Parliament. It is perfectly understood in the legal sense, and there is less likely to be a difference of opinion about it than in the case of the expression, "without due care." if a man drives in a manner which is dangerous to the public he will come under the clause as it stands, and really that is all that it is necessary for us to provide for. I confess, speaking only for myself, that I have a great misgiving about the use of the word "due." I have never been able to make up my mind whether it strengthens or weakens the amount of care it is supposed to predicate. If I reply to a correspondent that I will pay "due" attention to his letter, it is an
  214
  open question whether I wish to express any intention of paying a greater or a less amount of attention to it. I do not much like the word, and I am advised by those who are more competent than myself to express an opinion on this matter that "negligently" is the better word.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsuggested the insertion, after the words "or negligently," of the words "or without care," leaving out the word "due." He thought the clause would be strengthened in the right direction by the insertion of these words.
  LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH: I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on this point.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BRAYE LORD BRAYE referred to the large number of accidents caused by motorists failing to give the necessary warning when turning corners. He thought that a provision on this subject should he inserted in the Bill rather than be left to the regulations to be subsequently made by the Local Government Board, and he hoped the noble Lord would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page I, line II, after the word 'roadway' to insert the words 'or shall, when about to cross a spot where two or more streets or thoroughfares meet, fail to sound the motor horn if driving a car propelled by steam or by petrol, or fail to ring the bell if driving a car propelled by electricity.'"—(Lord Braye.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BUELEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BUELEIGH: Under the Statute as it stands, which will not be altered by this Bill, every motor-car must carry a bell or other instrument capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach of the car to any point of danger. To my mind this is a matter winch is much better dealt with by regulation, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name is one which I do not think the House will have any difficulty in agreeing to. It is suggested by the County Councils Association, and the object is to prevent fraud in the use of registration and identification marks. I think this is an offence which will not often be committed, but we ought to have the right to punish it when it is committed, because it clearly partakes of the nature of fraud.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, after Clause 3, to insert as a new clause. If any person forges or fraudulently alters or uses, or fraudulently lends or allows to be used by any other person, any mark for identifying a car or any licence under this Act he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL moved to delete the words "motor-car" from Clause 4 and to insert the word "vehicle." Clause 4 provided that a person driving a motorcar should, in any case, if an accident occurred to any person, or his horse or vehicle, owing to the presence of the motor-car on the road, stop, and if required, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner of the car; and if any person acted in contravention of this section, he was made liable for each offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £10. He ventured to think that this offence should be punished equally if committed by the driver of a horse vehicle. Surely what was sauce for the motor-car goose should also be sauce for the horse traffic gander. In support of his Amendment the noble Earl mentioned an instance where a car belonging to himself, which was quite stationary by the side of the road, was run into by two partially intoxicated persons in a light gig, who did £8 worth of damage to the car and when asked for their names and addresses drove off and escaped all responsibility for their action.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 2S, to leave out the words 'motor-car' and to insert the word vehicle'; in line 30, to leave out the words motor-car' and to insert the word vehicle';
  216
  and in line 32, to leave out the word 'car' and to insert the word 'vehicle.'"—Earl Russell.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I shall not go into the merits of it, although I join with the noble Earl in condemnation of the action of the driver of the vehicle to which he referred. But I would remind the noble Earl that we are engaged in amending the Light Locomotives Act and not the Highways Act. It would be beyond the scope of this measure to amend the Highways Act, and such a course would be legitimately objected to.
  *EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL said that after the noble Lord's statement he would not press his Amendments. But he hoped that when the Highways Act was being amended this point would be borne in mind.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 4 providing that the penalty for contravening this section should be that imposed "for an offence under this Act," instead of a fine of £10 as proposed in the clause as it stood. He said that for such an offence as driving off after causing an accident a fine of £10 was inadequate, especially as there was no increased penalty for a repeated offence. There was no cumulative penalty provided. He thought that in the first instance the offence should be visited by a fine, which might amount to £20, or imprisonment, which might amount to one month, and its repetition by a fine of £50, or six months imprisonment. Imprisonment was a most effectual deterrent, and it was for that reason he proposed the insertion of these words.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words liable for each offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and to insert the words 'guilty of all offence under this Act.'"—(The Earl, of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I think no terms can be too strong in regard to anyone who knowingly causes such an accident and

  217
  then bolts; but if drivers cause damage it is certain that they will come under the purview of Clause 1 for having driven recklessly or negligently or in such a manner as to be dangerous to the public. They would, therefore, be guilty of an offence under the Act and could be punished. For causing danger to the public, or for fraud, I think that imprisonment is a fair penalty, but for this particular class of offence I do not think it is quite fair. The fine imposed may not be large enough, and it may be a question whether it should not be raised for a subsequent offence. At any rate, I am prepared to consider that point.
  THE EALL or PORTSMOUTHcited the case of a driver who passed through a village and accidentally ran over a child. Thereafter the driver bolted, and if he was not caught nothing happened; bur if caught he had only to pay £10. It seemed to him that the offence was a very serious one, because the driver used the extra speed of the motor-car to evade justice. In the interest of the public some penalty of the kind suggested might be inserted, for a non-cumulative penalty was of no value.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)said that the noble Earl's illustration was not happily chosen, for the driver of the motor-car would always be liable, under the provisions of the Act, to punishment for reckless driving.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought that a driver who had caused a serious accident would come within either the provisions of Clause 1 or of Clause 6. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill might say whether he was prepared to increase the penalty for a second or subsequent offence, say, to £20.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Or imprisonment.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No.
  *EARL RUSSELLsaid that a driver who had caused a fatal accident, if caught, would be liable to indictment for manslaughter. But in the cases
  218
  they were considering he thought that the penalty provided was ample.
  Lord BURGHCLEREsuggested that it might be possible to approximate the penalties to those in Clause 6, and the fine might even be raised to £50 for third offence.
  EARL SPENCERsaid they had to contemplate the case where the driver of the car was not be blame at all for the accident. He agreed, of course, that the driver should stop when the accident has occurred, but he was not disposed to support the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am prepared to put down words making the fine £20 for the second and subsequent offence. I would rather not go to £50.
  On Question, Amendment negatioved.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to the desirability of regulating the lighting and rate of speed at night. The usual practice was for motor-cars to have very powerful lamps, the light from which covered the whole of the road and blinded those approaching the motor. The regulations had not dealt very effectively with the question of lighting, and he hoped that this matter would be seen to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe noble Earl has raised a very reasonable question, and one upon Which many communications have been received by the Local Government Board and myself. There is no doubt that some of the lamps as now used are in themselves a grievance, as they cause a great deal of fright to animals on the road. This, however, I suggest, would be better dealt with by regulation, would be more flexible than a hard and fast provision in the Bill. The matter is not free from difficulty, because while a horse will give some indication of an obstruction ahead, a motor-ear can do nothing of the kind, and therefore it is very necessary that a driver should have full light. At the same time, the lights should not be used so as to be a real annoyance, and the driver must accept the necessity of going

  219
  at a slower pace at night. It is the intention of the Local Government Board to attempt to deal with this matter in the amended regulations.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS pointed out that, by Clause 6, Section 4 of the principal Act (which related to the rate of speed of motor-cars) was repealed, provided that, within any limits or place referred to in regulations made by the Local Government Board on the application of the Council of the County or County Borough in which the limits or place were situate, the speed of any motorcar should not exceed ten miles per hour. He ventured to think that the fixing of this speed limit was a departure from the principle of the Bill, and on a previous occasion he had moved an Amendment providing that the speed in towns, villages, and other populous places, and in turning corners, should be the ordinary speed of horsed vehicles. But that Amendment was negatived; and he now moved an Amendment which, while it in no way interfered with the ten-mile limit, implied that that was not to be the normal speed, but that where the public safety required it the motorcar should be driven at a much more moderate speed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 1, line 21, after the word 'hour' to insert the words 'or such more moderate speed as circumstances and public safety require.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl is never so happy as when he is convicting somebody else of inconsistency, and he attempts to make out that the acceptance of a ten-mile limit in this clause is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. This clause was introduced with a fixed maximum limit of fourteen miles, reduced by Local government Board regulations to twelve, and all that we have done is to substitute for the maximum the limit of ten miles. Why did we do that I We did it in deference to the almost universally expressed opinion of the House that twelve miles was too high a maximum, an objection which I fully explained at the time I did not share, because I thought that for all purposes a twelve-mile limit was quite as safe as a ten-mile limit. But I saw
  220
  from the discussion that the general sense of the House was in favour of reducing it to ten miles, and to that we gave way. Another objection to the clause as it stood was taken by the noble Earl who leads the Opposition, who stated very clearly and convincingly that what we ought to avoid was a patchwork of different speeds all over the country, and that we should simplify the matter by fixing a uniform maximum speed limit in the protected places of ten miles.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: There may be many places where ten miles an hour is too high a speed.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BLTRLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BLTRLEIGH: As the clause now stands the Local Government Board have power to fix a less speed than ten miles in an extreme case, so that the Amendment effects no alteration in the clause, and is useless.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment standing in my name is the one suggested by the noble Earl who usually sits on the Cross Benches—Lord Rosebery. I do not myself attach very much importance to it, but I am prepared to leave it to the judgment of the House. I may say that Lord Rosebery has seen the Amendment and approves of it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, after Clause 6, to insert as a new clause, The Councils of Counties and County Boroughs shall within their areas cause to be set up sign posts denoting dangerous corners, cross roads, and precipitous places, where such sign posts appear to them to be necessary.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)pointed out that over by far the largest area of roads in the country the bodies named in the Amendment had no jurisdiction. Would it not, therefore, be better to leave out the words "Councils of Counties and County Boroughs,' and insert "road authorities?"
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The answer is this, that if you put this

  221
  duty upon every road authority you will have an enormous number of divers kinds of posts set up. The idea of putting the obligation on the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs was that they might probably agree to something like a uniform kind of post.
  EARL SPENCERquestioned whether parish roads could be considered "with-in the areas" of Councils of Counties and County Boroughs. If his contention was right, these Councils would be precluded from setting up signposts denoting dangerous corners and precipitous places in parish roads.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have one other Amendment to Clause 8. Under the Act of 1896, the Local Government Board have power to limit the speed of light locomotives, arid technically a motor bicycle drawing a trailer is affected by the limit speed for loco-motives, which, of course, is not easily defensible. The object of the Amendment is to make the powers in the hands of the Local Government Board more flexible.
  Amendment moved—
  "In clause 8, page 4, at the end of Clause, to insert, as a new sub-section: The power of the Local Government Board to make regulations under Section 6 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, shall, as respects motor-cars exceeding two tons in weight unladen, include a power to make regulations as to speed.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BRAVEasked if there was any reason why the Act should not come into operation before the period fixed in Sub-section 2 of Clause 15—namely, January 1, 1904. Why should it not come into operation the moment it received the Royal Assent?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Clearly it cannot come into operation the moment it passes, because regulations will have to be issued. The country districts specified in the Bill will have to make their proposals to the Local Government Board, and I think it will.
  222
  require an extraordinary amount of energy on the part of everybody concerned to get in into operation even by January next year. Every effort, however, will be made to get the Act in working order by that date. I should be reluctant to limit further, than it is limited in the Bill, the time in which, if the Bill passes, the intricate negotiations and arrangements to which I have referred will have to be got through.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSScomplained of a great noise which was caused a few days previously in St. James's Place by a stationary motor-car constructed like a torpedo and evidently built for speed. If all the bulls of Bashan had there been gathered together, and roared their loudest and, each in a different key, the noise could not have been worse. The motor belonged to a French gentleman, and he went out and had a talk with the chauffeur—the use of the word was pardonable in the circumstances. He asked him what was the name of that animal, pointing to the motor? Answer: un Mors. He then asked him if it was ill, and he replied that it was not. He then asked him if it always made such a terrific noise, and the chauffeur replied "toujours." There ought to be some redress against a nuisance of that kind.
  EARL SPENCERsaid that some motorcars were most amiable and the noise they made almost soothing. But he agreed with the noble Earl that the particular car in question made a most ferocious noise on the occasion referred to. There should be power to check such a nuisance, but he doubted if it could be provided in the Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The President of the Local Government Board is fully aware of the nuisance, and will deal with it by regulation if possible; it cannot be dealt with in the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next and to be printed as amended.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Mondaynext, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.