HL Deb 19 May 1903 vol 122 cc1054-62
THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to revise the regulations now in force in Scotland with reference to motor-car traffic, and to bring these more in accord with the policy suggested in the following Resolution submitted to him on the 3rd of November 1899, by the County Council of Haddington, viz.:— That it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor-car traffic, to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed, it being ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers shall not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, and that they shall further, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that, subject to these conditions, a motor driver shall be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear, on the understanding that the driving be not reckless. For the purpose of identification, a large number shall be attached to the motor before and behind, and illuminated at night. That this Resolution be forwarded to the Secretary for Scotland. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, in putting this question, to say a few words upon the matter at issue. We boast that we are a very practical nation, but I am bound to say we have not shown it in our dealings with motor-car traffic, because in 1896 it was laid down as a hard and fast rule that these cars, which we now learn can go at the rate of sixty, eighty and even ninety miles an hour, were to be confined under all circumstances to twelve miles an hour. That, my Lords, appears to me to be contrary to common sense, and the result of this retrograde legislation has been that the law is constantly broken, and the great lawbreaker is the present Prime Minister. So much so that Mr. Long has given notice in another place that he intends to bring in a Bill to deal with this question. Mr. Long has no jurisdiction over Scotland, and what I want to know is whether my noble friend, the Secretary for Scotland, intends to legislate also for Scotland, remembering that Mr. Balfour lives in Scotland, that he motors a great deal in that country, and that the law at present is the same as regards speed on both sides of the Tweed. If my noble friend, as I hope, intends to bring common sense to bear on the question, I want to know on what line he proposes to go. The Resolution which was passed by my County Council states that it is inconsistent with sound and enlightened policy in the matter of motor car traffic to lay down any hard and fast rule as to speed. That is what you have done, and Mr. Long has declared that the present state of the law is simply absurd. Therefore it would be a fallacy to lay down any special speed in your regulations, but plenty of security should be taken for the safety of the public and those travelling in motor-cars.

The Resolution goes on to say that it should be ordered and understood that when driving through towns, villages, turning corners, or passing branch roads, motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horsed conveyances, and that they should, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, slow down, and, if need be, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing the said conveyance, but that subject to these conditions a motor driver should be left free to exercise his discretion as to speed when the road is clear. That seems to me the common sense of motor-car traffic up-to-date. It is absurd to say that when the road is clear, and there is no danger, they should not take advantage of the speed that science has given them, and should be tied down to any fixed limit. Take the ordinary road traffic. You may not drive to the injury of human life, but there is nothing to prevent an American trotter going twenty-five miles per hour on your roads. In my own country I have been driving steadily at ten miles an hour, when one of these American trotters, to use an American expression, has passed me like a greased flash of lightning. It did me no harm; the road was clear. Why should not the same rule apply to motor-cars? I think it would be unwise to fix any speed, but there should be a general understanding that when passing through villages motor drivers should not exceed the ordinary speed of horsed conveyances. I think that would be found to work well. My Resolution stopped at the words "when the road is clear," but my County Council added the words "on the understanding that the driving be not reckless." I think it would be difficult to say what was reckless driving; in my opinion, "dangerous" would be a better word. Horses, we know, are getting gradually accustomed to these motors. Some of them do not like the stink any more than we do, and I think that on meeting horses motors should slow down. These seem to me to be the lines on which it would be well to work. A further addition to my Motion was made by my County Council providing that for the purpose of identification a large number should be attached to the motor before and behind. My impression is that it is only behind that the number would be any good. The other day, when leaving this House, I was passed by a motor which was certainly going at thirty miles an hour. It had passed me before I could have detected any number on the side, and I could not possibly have seen a number on the front, but I noticed that it had a low red box behind. If a number had been there I should have been able to see it. I would suggest that the number should be fixed behind and should be below the foot board. The extent to which the law is broken in London is disgraceful and intolerable. Motor cars are driven, regardless of everyone, at twenty-four miles an hour. In my opinion nothing can keep motor-car drivers in order except some means of identifying the car, and I think some of the police should be provided with cycles so that they could watch these drivers and overtake them. The noise of these machines is a public nuisance, for they groan, grunt, shiver, shake, and stink. The wearing of glasses and leather coats is an affectation, and the use of the word chauffeur is intolerable and should be prohibited. The introduction of these needless foreign expressions is odious. Thus we have Hotel Cecil instead of Cecil Hotel, Hotel Albemarle instead of Albemarle Hotel, and even the German word hinterland is in diplomatic use. I am afraid my noble friend can hardly deal with this, but I hope he will legislate in the spirit of the first part of the Resolution. We are in the infancy of motor traffic. It is impossible to say, if it is not interfered with by the State, to what it may lead. One thing is certain, that in time all traction will be by motor. Horses will be kept for Rotten Row and for the parks; for traction horses are doomed, and if it were not for the fact that they are wanted for the infantry and cavalry and other purposes I am afraid they would die out. This constitutes a bad look-out for agriculture. We grow corn, oats, hay, and straw. Motors do not eat oats, they do not eat hay, and they do not lie on straw, and when horses are done away with it will not be worth while our growing these agricultural articles of consumption, having lost our best customer the horse. But be that as it may, motor traffic is a great boon to humanity, and I think it is the duty of the Government not to interfere with it needlessly, but to encourage it, at the same time making ample provision for the safety of the public.

THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

My Lords, before my noble friend answers the question put to him by the noble Earl, may I, as one who some two years ago took a somewhat prominent part in the discussion with regard to legislation affecting motor-car traffic, say one or two words to your Lordships on the subject. Although the resolution of the County Council of Haddington only affects Scotland, the legislation which must be introduced before long on this subject must affect all classes of the community on both sides of the Tweed. In the main I entirely agree with the terms of the Resolution. Legislation on this subject is much more important in many ways to the general public than many of the measures with larger-sounding titles that have been brought in by the present Government, because motor-car traffic has come to stay, and undoubtedly the roads will day by day become more and more used by motor-cars. I agree that an unlimited speed should be allowed to motor-cars provided proper precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the public in places such as those mentioned in the Resolution. A horse which is well broken to motor-cars in London is frightened to death by them when it goes into the country. The reason is that the traffic with which horses are surrounded in London is absent in the country, and they see and hear these noisy things coming along, with the result, as I have said, that they are greatly frightened. The size of motor cars is now so large, and their speed so rapid, that they are practically small railway trains; and I think it is a moot point whether it will not be necessary a few years hence to extend or double the main roads in places where motor-car traffic is increasing. With regard to the question of identification, which I had the pleasure of taking up some two years ago in the Press, and for which I was very violently abused by the budding motor-car industry, I am happy to find that the more important motor-car clubs are in favour of identification. In addition to numbering for the purposes of identification, motorcars should bear the letters indicating the county to which they belong and they should be registered. Every driver of a motor-car should be licensed. He should always have that licence upon him, and if, after a first offence, he has done serious damage to life or limb, or to property, it should be a question of imprisonment without the option of a fine. I think if those points are carried out in any Bill which the Government may bring forward, you will only be doing justice to the general public. I think it is most important that there should be means of identification, and I cannot see why the owners of motorcars should object, as I understand they do. The Chief Constable of one county, Hampshire, reports that he, during the Easter holidays, received thirty or forty complaints as to motor-cars having done serious damage, but in only three or four cases were the police able to identify the drivers; they drove away. Legislation on this subject is undoubtedly necessary.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

Do you mean that every man or woman who drives a motor-car should be licensed?

THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY

I should like to see them all licensed.

LORD LAMINGTON

The other day I had the honour of calling attention to this question in your Lordships' House, and I laid special stress on the point mentioned by the noble Marquess, that drivers should be licensed. I may say that the very next day I was run into by a tyro in the art of motor-car driving, and a very serious accident nearly resulted.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, so far as the actual Question is concerned which appears on the Notice Paper the noble Earl who brought this subject forward, I think, supplied the answer. The question he asks is whether the Secretary for Scotland intends to revise the regulations now in force. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that the regulations as to speed are statutory regulations, which it is not in the power of the Secretary for Scotland or any other official to alter or vary without legislation. The noble Earl went on to say that he did not think we had been very practical in dealing with this matter, and he said the law as it now stands is not observed. So far as the latter of those two statements is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that the law as now laid down is not observed; and I am bound to agree with the noble Earl and the noble Marquess that the present state of matters is extremely unsatisfactory and does very urgently call for a remedy. The noble Earl then asked whether the change in the law, which has been announced in another place by the President of the Local Government Board as likely to be suggested to Parliament, would apply to Scotland. My answer to that is, as a matter of course, in the affirmative. I have been in communication with the President of the Local Government Board as to the details of the Bill which is being prepared, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it would be the height of absurdity not to make the law, as far as we can having regard to the different circumstances as to local Government, uniform. I am asked by the noble Earl what lines the Bill is likely to go upon; but I venture to say that it would be irregular for me to attempt an explanation of the whole policy of the Government in regard to this matter or what the Bill is which will probably be introduced in another place. But speaking quite generally, I cannot see that there is much to object to in the suggestions of the noble Earl or in the resolution of the Haddington County Council. I do not bind myself to the absolute terms either of that Resolution or of the suggestions made by the noble Earl and the noble Marquess; but I entirely agree that, while I think there should be some limit to speed in populous places, narrow parts of the road, and under other special circumstances, that if you have distinguishing marks upon motor-cars, so that those who do wrong may be easily identified, a very much more liberal allowance may be made in the matter of speed than exists at present.

I attach the greatest possible importance to having distinctive marks on the motors, so that those who misuse their privileges may be identified, and, if necessary, punished, and that the whole fraternity should not be prejudiced by the action of what I believe to be, comparatively speaking, a small minority. I think there has been unnecessary prejudice created against motor-cars by this evil conduct on the part of some of the drivers. I have had a great many complaints from different counties in Scotland of the action of persons who hire cars for a limited time and visit districts where they are not known and cannot be identified, with the result that a very bitter feeling has been created in many parts of Scotland on account of this conduct. I think it perfectly reasonable that if there is a liberal limit allowed in the matter of speed there should be a distinguishing mark affixed to the cars in some way that will not be objectionable to the owners. I further say that the obligation to have due regard to the safety of others must be distinctly laid upon those who use and drive motorcars, and they must be made distinctly responsible for their own acts as far as it is possible to make them. With these conditions, I do not see any reason why there should not be a liberal alteration in the question of the limit of speed. I can hold out no hope that the Bill will deal with the question of the King's English, as suggested by the noble Earl. Nor can I hold out any hope of double roads, at least at the expense of the ratepayers. I would venture to put in a word on that matter for the unfortunate ratepayer, and say that if special tracks are to be made for motor-cars the money must be provided out of some other fund than the rates. It is the desire of the President of the Local Government Board to introduce the Bill at as early a time as possible, and I sincerely hope it will be passed. I have no objection to coming under the obligation of telling my colleague what has passed here to-day, and I have no doubt he will be encouraged in the line which I know he proposes to take in regard to this matter.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I gather from what the noble Lord has said that a Bill is in course of preparation by the President of the Local Government Board, and that it is not far from being ready. At all events, he holds out some hope that it may be introduced during the present session of Parliament. I should like to ask the Government whether it would not be possible to introduce that Bill, when it is ready, in this House, where there is no pressure of business such as exists in the other House. It would be just as well that a matter of this kind, which, after all, is of great public importance, should receive a considerable amount of public consideration before it becomes law, and with that object I would ask the Government whether they could see their way to introduce the Bill in this House. Enough has been already said to show that it would be amply considered, and from every point of view in this House, and I think it would be to the public advantage if your Lordships had the Bill placed under your consideration. With regard to the question of speed, I quite agree with noble Lords who have spoken, that it is undesirable to limit speed in any unnecessary manner, and that much more considerable latitude should be given than is given by the present law, which makes no distinction between open country and a crowded town. The noble Earl stated that a motor-car passed him outside this House the other day at a speed of nearly thirty miles an hour. Of course, no motor-car ought to be allowed to go at that speed in a crowded place like London, nor is there any reason why it should. There is another matter which has to be considered. It is utterly impossible to train horses to face in the open country a motor-car travelling at thirty or forty miles an hour. That is a point which will have to be considered. In order to enforce any regulation with regard to speed you will have to impose very heavy penalties on drivers who place the public in danger. I believe it is in that way, and in that way only, that you will be able to enforce any provision you may make with regard to speed. I should like an answer with regard to my suggestion that the Bill should be introduced in your Lordships' House.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

As to the introduction of the Bill in this House, I can, of course, give no pledge, but I think the suggestion is one well worthy of consideration. The Bill is not, strictly speaking, under my control, and I have not exactly in my mind the terms of the pledge which was given by my right hon. friend to the other House with regard to the introduction of the Bill. If the question is deferred till later in this week, or till next week, I will undertake to confer with Mr. Long and see whether the suggestion can be given effect to.