Sitting of 1 June 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords]; Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Bolton Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Caledonian Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Bill; Dearne Valley Railway Bill [Lords]; Sheffield University Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Barry Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Electric Power Bill (changed from "Shropshire and Worcestershire Electric Power Bill"). Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Lands Valuation (Scotland) Bill. Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [28th March] further adjourned from Tomorrow till Friday, 30th June.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLICE ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's Certificate under Section 17 (2) of the Act to the River Tyne Police Force for the year ended 29th September, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th May; Sir John Leng]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 185.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREW'S.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University for the year ended 30th September, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREW'S.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's for the year 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 14, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Austria-Hungary providing for the settlement by Arbitration of certain Classes of Questions which may arise between the respective Governments. Signed at London, 11th January, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 15, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between the United Kingdom and Cuba for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals. Signed at Havana, 3rd October, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3387 to 3389 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LEAD POISONING IN EARTHENWARE AND CHINA WORKS.
  Address for "Return of the cases of Lead Poisoning reported as occurring in

  Dockyard.

  1st June, 1893.

  1st June, 1903.

  Present time.

  Established.

  Hired.

  Established.

  Hired.

  Established.

  Hired.

  Chatham

  1,333

  4,405

  1,392

  8,250

  1,620

  7,516

  Sheerness

  584

  1,256

  644

  2,002

  612

  2,105

  Portsmouth

  1,887

  5,386

  1,955

  9,276

  2,087

  8,803

  Devonport

  1,488

  3,707

  1,488

  9,116

  1,809

  7,550

  Pembroke

  503

  1,382

  515

  2,270

  583

  2,378

  Haulbowline

  1

  109

  54

  590

  70

  592

  West India Docks

  26

  100

  26

  205

  36

  195

  China and Earthenware Works during the years 1899 to 1904, showing (1) the number of cases in the several classes of works and in the various processes, the number of persons employed in 1900 and 1904, and the proportion of cases to persons employed; (2) the number of cases occurring in each month, of the year; (3) particulars as to the character of the attacks; (4) the number of persons suspended in certain districts by the certifying surgeons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 103, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Address for "Copy of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, showing the Amendments proposed to be made by the Workmen's Compensation Bill as brought from the Lords."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dockyard Staffs—Established and Hired Men.
  MR. DUKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the numbers of established and hired men respectively employed in each of the several Royal dockyards in June, 1893, June, 1903, and the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The numbers asked for are as follows:—

  Opening of Charing Cross End of Processional Road.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the Processional Road will be opened through to Charing Cross.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to fix any date for the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross. It must entirely depend upon the completion of the buildings at that end of the Mall.

  Sea Fisheries Regulations in the Lanca shire District.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that since the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee has been at work at public expense the yield of fish has been greatly diminished in the area covered by that Committee, that acres of cockles have been left to rot, and that foreign shrimps are being sold in Southport; and whether, in view of the distress among the native fishermen, who ate not allowed to take the fish, which are plentiful, he proposes to take any and, if so, what action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The Board have no reason to believe from the statistics before them that there has been any such diminution in the yield of fish in the area of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District as is suggested in the hon. Member's Question. The initiative in making or altering; regulations affecting the sea fisheries in that district rests with the Local Fisheries Committee; but I shall be glad to bring under their notice any representations on the subject which the hon. Member may desire to make.

  Small Holdings in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state how many proprietors have, during the last financial year, proposed to break up farm lands, in order that they may be divided up into holdings suitable for crofter and cottar tenants on their estates; and will he state the names of the counties in which the farms referred to are respectively situated, and the number in each county.
  422
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I regret I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires. In cases where proprietors make proposals to the Board negotiations must be confidential until they are adjusted.

  Reports of North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the Reports showing the share taken by this country in the North Sea Fisheries investigation will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The printing of the Reports is in an advanced state, and their publication is expected at no distant date.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the clerks to the surveyors of taxes are not established Civil servants and examined, in open competition as in other departments; and whether confidential work is entrusted to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The system of employing established clerks has been tried, but was abandoned as being unsatisfactory both as regards cost and efficiency. The surveyors of taxes are expected to retain in their own hands all really confidential work.

  Acceptance of Irish Bank Notes at English Post Offices.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Postmaster-General why notes issued by the Bank of Ireland are not accepted in payment by the post offices in England; and if he is prepared to make a regulation on the subject by which Irish visitors would be spared the inconvenience resulting from this practice.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Irish bank notes are not in general circulation in England, and if accepted at an English post office, the postmaster would have difficulty in disposing of them. I cannot see my way to direct any alteration of practice.

  Holloway and Mount Pleasant Postal Factories—Employees under Notice of Dismissal owing to Age Limit.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the

  423
  number of unestablished employees of over twenty years continuous service at the Holloway and Mount Pleasant Postal Factories who are now under notice of dismissal owing to age limit; and whether any provision can be made for them, considering that they do not come within the scope of the Superannuation Acts.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am inquiring into the matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and I will communicate the result to him.

  Trade Marks Registered in Great Britain.
  SIR WALTER PALMER: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state what is the total number of trade marks now registered in Great Britain, respectively, in London, Sheffield, and Manchester, and of this number how many belong to persons or firms existing outside the British Empire, and to what countries they belong.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The total number of marks registered at the

  Wine.

  Year.

  Rate of Duty per Gallon.

  Net Receipt of Revenue.

  Total Consumption.

  Consumption per head of population.

  £

  Gallons.

  Gallons.

  1898–9

  1s. and 2s. 6d. (In bottle, sparkling, 2s. additional)

  1,399,100

  16,864,992

  0·42

  1899–1900

  In cask, 1s. 3d. and 3s. In bottle, still, 2s. 3d. and 4s. In bottle, sparkling, 3s. 9d. and 5s. 6 d.

  1,729,540

  17,148,183

  0·42

  1900–01

  As in 1899–1900

  1,488,453

  15,088,155

  0·37

  1901–2

  As in 1899–1900

  1,449,687

  14,865,530

  0·36

  1902–3

  As in 1899–1900

  1,523,856

  15,399,432

  0·37

  1903–4

  As in 1899–1900

  1,335,792

  13,442,206

  0·32

  1904–5

  As in 1899–1900

  1,185,508

  11,912,892

  0·28

  Patent Office from 1st January, 1876, to 31st December, 1904, was 110,775, of which number 3,110 were registered in the Sheffield register, and 13,263 were registered in respect of cotton marks in Classes 23, 24, and 25. Of the above total 24,910 had been removed from the register at that date, leaving 85,865 still on the register. The number of Sheffield marks and cotton marks removed from the register is not known. No record has been kept of the numbers of the registered marks belonging to owners of different nationalities.

  Wine, Beer, Spirits, and Tobacco—Rates of Duty, Revenue Realised, and Con- sumption per Head.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what were the rates of duty, the total amount of revenue realised, the total consumption, and the consumption per head of population of wine, beer, spirits, and tobacco during each of the last seven financial years.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.):

  Beer.

  Year.

  Rate of Duty per Barrel.

  Net Receipt of Revenue.

  Total Consumption.

  Consumption per head of population.

  s.

  d.

  £

  Barrels.

  Gallons.

  1898–9

  6

  9

  12,103,373

  35,854,737

  31·96

  1899–1900

  6

  9

  13,364,239

  36,626,884

  32·32

  1900–01

  7

  9

  13,963,409

  36,044,736

  31·53

  1901–2

  7

  9

  13,741,628

  35,442,404

  30·71

  1902–3

  7

  9

  13,729,962

  35,425,279

  30·39

  1903–4

  7

  9

  13,483,676

  34,790,696

  29·55

  1904–5

  7

  9

  13,123,679

  33,862,068

  28·12

  Only the main rates of duty are specified in the second column of the foregoing tables.

  Action of Mr. Craven, Sub-Divisional Officer at Habigunj, Sylhet, Assam.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will cause inquiry to be made into the proceedings of Mr. Craven, the sub-divisional officer of Habigunj, Sylhet, Assam, in connection with a recent dispute between two zemindars, and to the strictures passed on his proceedings by the High Court.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no reason to suppose that the Local Government or the Government of India have not taken, or will not take, adequate notice of the case referred to in the Question, and I do not propose to order an inquiry.

  Sentence on Native Tramway Conductor at Alipore.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which the Alipore Joint Magistrate recently imposed two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of fifteen rupees on Husain Raza, a native tramway conductor, for alleged assault on Captain Ronayne on March 30th last, notwithstanding the fact that the conductor complained of serious maltreatment at the hands of the prosecutor.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have read the judgment in the case as printed in the newspapers. The sentence on Husain Raza appears to have been two weeks, not two months, imprisonment. The Courts are open to anyone who considers himself aggrieved by the decision, and I do not see that any good purpose could be served by ordering an inquiry.

  Compensation to Officers of the Goorkhas for Loss Caused by Earthquake in Dharmsala.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the losses of the British officers of the 1st Goorkhas from the earthquake in Dharmsala; whether he is aware that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Regiments of Goorkhas were given a guarantee that the stations originally assigned to them should never be changed without their consent; that
  428
  Dharmsala thus became the permanent headquarters of the 1st, and, when their second battalion was raised in 1886, the expansion of the cantonment was carried out with the knowledge that the regiment as a whole was assured of its fixed location; that accordingly the British officers purchased houses, and a mess house was eventually provided equal to the requirements of a double battalion; that in the latter instance debentures were taken up by the officers, the Government advancing such money as was required; and, seeing that the earthquake has wrecked the mess house and the private residences, and that this means little short of ruin to the officers, while all have to face liabilities over the mess, there being outstanding debentures of about 32,000 rupees, whether the Government of India will afford relief to the officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am aware that in some cases a guarantee has been given that Goorkhas shall remain permanently at their stations. Otherwise I am not in a position to reply to this Question which is, in effect, an amplification of a previous Question to which I replied on May 30th.† The Government of India have the subject under consideration, and, as I then said, any proposals which they may submit will be favourably regarded.

  Marine Works in County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can yet state when the marine works which have been sanctioned under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, are likely to be commenced in county Mayo.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this subject.

  Brown Hall Estate Grazing Lands.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, instead of dividing the grazing land on the Brown Hall Estate, which they purchased over two years ago, are this
  † See page 231.

  429
  year taking in grazing cattle; and whether he will see that immediate steps will be taken by the Board to have the fences made so as to enable the tenants to put their cattle on these lands.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Cattle have been taken by the Congested Districts Board for grazing on the Brown Hall Estate, until the arrangements for the disposal of the lands have been completed. The fencing must await the completion of these arrangements.

  Conacre and Turbary on the Brown Hall Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Brown Hall Estate, near Balla, county Mayo, are compelled to go three and four miles away from their homes in search of conacre in which to sow their potatoes and a distance of seven miles for turf, while there are several hundred acres of grass lands and a sufficient quantity of turbary on the estate, which the Congested Districts Board have had in their possession since 1903, and which they refuse to give to these tenants; and, if so, will he make inquiries into this neglect on the part of the Board with a view to remedying this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Some of the well-to-do tenants on the estate rent land for conacre. The Board have not refused turbary to any tenant upon the estate.

  Brown Hall Estate Grazing Lands.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board purchased the Brown Hall Estate, near Balla, county Mayo, so far back as 1903, and that, so far, no attempt has been made to stripe the grazing lands with a view to handing them over to the tenants whose holdings are small and uneconomical, he will at once give orders to have the striping and fencing done on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The delay in dividing these lands has been
  430
  due to pressure of work in connection with other estates purchased by the Board, but the Board's officers are now engaged in rearranging the lands and preparing them for resale. The fencing cannot be done until this work is completed.

  Establishment of a Royal Naval Reserve Battery at Ullapool.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state when it is proposed to proceed with the establishment of a Royal Naval Reserve battery at Ullapool.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) It is not possible at the present moment to furnish any information on this subject beyond that contained in the Answer given to a similar Question which the hon. Member asked on April 10th † last.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Policy.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the disposition of the ships included in the Return of Vessels struck off the Effective List, whether there has been any modification of the policy of the Admiralty since the publication of the Return.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): There has been no modification whatever in the policy of the Admiralty.

    Hythe Foreshore—Government Precautions.
    MR. HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what action he intends to take with reference to the protection of the foreshore on the War Office land at Hythe between the Dymchurch redoubt and the musketry ranges, and especially with regard to the portion of the foreshore where the sea broke through during last winter.
    † See(4) Debates, cxliv., 1010.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Measures are being taken to protect the foreshore in question by means of groynes, but no final decision on the subject can be arrived at until the result of the observations which are being taken of the action of the sea is ascertained.
    MR. HARDYasked if something would be done before next winter.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I take it the hon. Member thinks the foreshore is in serious danger. That is just what we are watching to ascertain.

    Peat Moss Litter for Army Horses.
    MR. HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether general instructions have been given to generals commanding districts to substitute peat moss litter for straw for litter for the artillery and cavalry horses; whether this applies equally to districts which have within easy reach a plentiful supply of home-grown straw; and whether any economy thus obtained is not neutralised by the necessity of increasing the allowance of oats to the horses in substitution for the straw.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Instructions have been given to General Officers Commanding to substitute peat moss litter for straw as bedding for Army horses at the principal military stations, where the supply of peat moss is more economical than that of straw, according to the respective scales of issue. The instructions given apply equally to all districts concerned; the cost involved being the determining factor as to whether peat moss litter or straw should be used for horse bedding. It is not anticipated that the economy thus obtained will be neutralised by any necessity for increasing the allowance of oats in substitution for the straw.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is not this peat moss mainly made in Germany?
    MR. MACVEAGH: And Holland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Amir's Title.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Amir has been erroneously described as Siraj-ul-millat-wa-ud-din in a Parliamentary Paper; whether he should have been set out as Siraju-'lmillat wa'd-din; whether he is aware the name Habibulla is a contraction for Habibu Allah; and will the authorities see that this matter is at once put right to avoid further confusion.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I am informed on high authority that the transliteration of the Amir's title indicated by the hon. Member may be considered more correct, as a matter of scholarship, than that, Adopted by the Government of India. The same authority informs me that the transliteration of the Amir's name indicated by the hon. Member is less correct than that adopted by the Government in India. It is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

    Death of a Pugilist in London Fields.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state under what circumstances a pugilist, named Lewis Wright, lost his life at London Fields on Saturday; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): Lewis Wright was stabbed, and the person who is alleged to have committed the crime is in custody.

    The Gravesend Murder.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a man concealed himself in a house in Gravesend last week, and after shooting dead one man and injuring one woman succeeded in escaping; and whether he can state what steps have been taken by the police to secure the murderer.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir. The murderer was found on Tuesday morning, but he committed suicide before he could be handed over to the police.
    MR. FLAVIN: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that Irish Members are expected to condemn crime in Ireland, English Members have done anything in that direction?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Indecent Crimes in England.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the total number of cases of rape, attempted rape, indecent assault, violation of girls under thirteen years of age, defilement, desertion of children, concealment of birth, procuring or attempting to procure abortion, abduction, unnatural crime, and bestiality, reported to the police in England during the past twelve months; in how many cases did prosecutions follow; and how many convictions were obtained.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The figures for the year 1903, which are the latest available, will be found in the annual volume of the Criminal Judicial Statistics. They are too long to quote separately. The figures for 1904 are not yet complete.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say the figures are too long to quote separately?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir.

    Cattle Maiming in the Birmingham District.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police authorities have received complaints as to the maiming of horses in the Birmingham district; and whether, in view of the fact that valuable horses have been found with their manes and tails cropped off, he will state what steps the constabulary authorities are taking to discover the perpetrators of these outrages.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I
    434
    gave to the hon. Member for South Down yesterday.† This was that in the neighbourhood of Solihull, which is in the Birmingham district, the manes and tails of three horses were cut on the night of the 19th instant, and that a man was arrested on the following day and is now in custody on the charge of having committed these offences. I have no further information.
    MR. FLYNNasked if the Government did not think special legislation necessary to deal with outrages of this kind.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think it necessary.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in England last year there were seventy-eight cases of killing and maiming cattle? Is it not necessary to bring in a Bill to put down these atrocities?
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the Constitution suspended in Birmingham and the district, or is this state of affairs the result of the fiscal campaign of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham?
    MR. GORDON: Do jurics deal fairly with these cases in England?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I believe the administration of justice in England is sound.

    Sale of Immoral Literature in London.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the open sale of immoral literature is largely on the increase in London; whether any censorship or supervision is exercised; and will this matter have the attention of the Government.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: This matter is under the constant supervision of the police, and they inform me that they believe that at no time has there ever been less trafficking in immoral literature in London than there is at present. The
    † See page 326.

    435
    police, I may add, would be very glad to receive any information respecting the open sale of such literature, in order that they may be able to take proceedings.

    Statistics on Suicide.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of suicides in London and England for the last year, distinguishing the sex and the number under twenty-one years old.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: From the Returns furnished by Coroners for insertion in the Criminal Statistics, it appears that in London, in 1904, 513 persons committed suicide, of whom 385 were males and 128 females. In the whole of England and Wales 3,421 persons, of whom 2,598 were males and 823 females, committed suicide during the same period. I regret that I have no information as to the ages of these persons.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked how many of the cases were certified to have been caused by poverty?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am afraid the Returns do not show that.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: And how many were due to drink?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Prosecutions in Cases of Motor-Car Fatalities.
    MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be a Treasury prosecution in the cases of the fatal accidents that occurred at Markyate and at Colnbrook.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The prosecution in the Markyate case is being conducted by the Hertfordshire police, who are employing a very competent counsel, I have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I agree with his view that nothing would be gained by taking the case out of the hands of the police. By the Colnbrook case I presume the hon. Member refers to the fatal accident
    436
    to a woman named Haines who was killed by a motor-car driven by one Hendasyde. Hendasyde has been committed for trial to the Buckinghamshire Assize on the charge of manslaughter. I have not yet had time to ascertain all the circumstances of the case, but when I have been able to do so I shall be happy to inform the hon. Member whether I think it necessary to direct the Public Prosecutor to take up the case.

    Motor-Cars and Cycles.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give any statistics of the number of motor-cars and motor-cycles at present in use in the United Kingdom, compared with the figures in the previous four years.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): Motor-cars were not required to be registered until January 1st, 1904, and I am not aware of any statistics as to the number in use prior to that date. The only statistics I have on the subject are those contained in the Return moved for last year by my hon. friend the Member for the New Forest Division. This showed the number of motor-cars and motor-cycles registered up to January 1st and April 1st, 1904, respectively.

    Convictions under the Motor-Car Act, 1903.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give the number of the convictions under Sections 1 and 6. respectively, of The Motor-Car Act, 1903, and the number of occasions on which the sentences have been imprisonment or a fine exceeding £10.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With regard to the number of convictions under Section 1 of the Act, I may refer to the Answer I gave yesterday † to a Question put to me by the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division. I have no information as to the number of convictions under Section 6.
    † See page 318.

    Motor-Car Accidents.
    MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total number of motor-car accidents that have been reported this year; and how many have been fatal accidents.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not able to state the number of motor-car accidents reported this year, but I am informed that the number reported during the last twelve months outside the Metropolitan Police District, but including the City of London, was 1,346. My information does not show how many of these cases were fatal. As regards the Metropolitan Police District I may refer the hon. Member to the table of particulars given by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary in answer to a Question, by the hon. Member for the New Forest Division on April 19th † last.

    Spanish Sugar Imports.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what quantity of Spanish sugar was admitted into this country during each of the last three years.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): No sugar was imported into this country from Spain in 1902 or 1904. About 100 tons were received in 1903.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that on April 19th no countervailing duties had been fixed with respect to any additional countries, he will explain what are the reasons for issuing the Order in Council of April 3rd prohibiting the importation of sugar from Spain; whether any representations were received from the Belgian, German, or French Governments on the subject; and whether it was in deference to such communications the Order in Council was issued.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Order in Council prohibiting the importation of
    † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 586.
    438
    sugar from Spain, from and after April 3rd, was issued in consequence of the importation of an appreciable quantity of Spanish sugar enjoying an indirect bounty during March. The Answer to the remainder of the Question is in the negative.
    MR. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any reason for this proclamation? Was it because sugar was falling and the Government wanted to put it up again?
    MR. BONAR LAW: The Order in Council was issued in fulfilment of an obligation under which we were placed by the Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand a decision was come to with regard to Spanish sugar?
    MR. BONAR LAW: Yes.
    MR. LOUGH: At what date?
    MR. BONAR LAW: A year or two ago.
    MR. LOUGH: Why was it not acted on at the time?
    MR. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is asking for information which has appeared in the papers. By the terms of the Convention we were not bound to issue the Order until an appreciable quantity of sugar had arrived.

    Failsworth and Droylsden Magistracy.
    MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that in the urban district of Failsworth, with a population of over 15,000, there is no resident magistrate: and that in the adjoining urban district of Droylsden, with a population of over 12,000, there is no resident magistrate; and whether he will take steps to remedy a state of things in those districts which is causing great inconvenience to the inhabitants.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir WILLIAM WALROND, Devonshire, Tiverton): I have made inquiries and I find that, with the

    439
    possible exception of the chairman of the Droylsden Urban District Council no county magistrate is actually resident within the areas referred to. I have been in communication with the Lord-Lieutenant of the county and I understand that he is about to recommend to me, for appointment to the county bench gentlemen residing in each of the urban districts in question.
    MR. CAWLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord-Lieutenant has been written to by the Members for the Division, who have got no answer?
    SIR WILLIAM WALROND: I understand that is so.

    Scotch Education Bill.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is now in a position to state when the Scotch Education Bill will be proceeded with.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I am anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with as early as possible, but I regret that in view of the state of business no further progress can be made until after Whitsuntide.

    Contempt of Court in Ireland.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the proceedings for contempt of Court against a man named Molloy recently in Ireland, counsel for the Attorney-General appeared to argue against Molloy; and will he say whether his appearance was directed by the Attorney-General; and whether, in view of the fact that the proceedings referred to were between private persons, he will say whether there is any precedent for such intervention by the representative of the Crown.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The Attorney-General's counsel, by the direction of the Solicitor-General, appeared for the governor of the gaol, a public official who had been served with notice, and simply argued that the
    440
    governor's action was legal. In this the Court concurred. The representative of the Crown frequently appears for public officials in cases initiated by private parties, in which those officials are sought to be made liable for their official acts.
    MR. FLYNN: What counsel appeared in this case?
    MR. ATKINSON: My counsel.
    MR. MACVEAGH: What was his name?
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: Was it not the right hon. Gentleman's son?
    MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.

    Irish Land Act—Appointment of Public Trustee.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the special qualifications possessed by Mr. Arthur M'Clintock that induced the Government to appoint him to the office of public trustee under the Land Act of 1903; what were his place of education, previous occupations, and experience of finance; and what are the names, place of education, salaries, and previous experience of the two persons since appointed without competitive examination in the Department.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question of Monday last.† Mr. M'Clintock's previous occupations have been already stated. As to the other particulars asked for, I must request the hon. Member to await the Return which is being prepared by order of the House on his Motion.
    MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my question as to Mr. M'Clintock's special qualifications.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, on a previous occasion.
    † See page 86.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman he has not.
    MR. WALTER LONG: That is a matter of opinion.
    MR. MACVEAGH: No, it is a matter of fact. You are afraid to answer it because it is a case of jobbery from beginning to end.

    Section 5 of the Land Purchase Act, 1903 —Test Case.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the test case submitted to Mr. Justice Mere-dith by the Estates Commissioners on the true construction of Section 5 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903 has been heard in the absence of the tenant purchaser; and whether no notice of the hearing was served upon him, although Mr. Justice Meredith directed that it should be done.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The case referred to is still sub judice, and, following the invariable practice, I must decline to discuss it through the medium of a Question.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It has been argued in the absence of the tenant.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I have nothing to do with that. It is a matter for the Judge, and I have no right to discuss his action.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: At any rate, that is what has taken place.

    Police Searches for Arms on the De Freyne Estate.
    MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Superintendent Supple and a number of police visited several houses on the De Freyne Estate on Friday last and searched them for arms; if so, at whose application did the Lord-Lieutenant issue his warrant for this search, and on what grounds was the search deemed desirable; and what is the last occasion on which firearms were used in a distur-
    442
    bance or in connection with outrage in this district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The warrants were issued on the application of the police authorities. I must, decline to state the grounds on which the search was deemed necessary. The last occasion on which firearms were used in connection with outrage in this locality was in 1877.
    MR. DILLON: I beg respectfully to ask will the right hon. Gentleman give some reasons why these irritating searches are made when no outrage has been committed for nearly thirty years?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must respectfully decline to give reasons.
    MR. DILLON: Then at the earliest opportunity I shall bring up the question of the different treatment meted out to the North of Ireland.
    MR. ROCHE: Is it not the fact that the searches are made simply for the purpose of preserving the game on Lord de Freyne's estate.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Gore Booth Estate, County Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the arrangements for the sale to tenants of the Gore Booth Estate, situate in Lavagh, near Tubbercurry, county Sligo, will receive the sanction of the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that the only evicted tenant on the estate, John Quinn, has entered into an arrangement with the present occupier of his farm, Edward Layng, and that the latter agrees to surrender the farm on being paid a cash compensation; and whether, seeing that this agreement has been duly signed by both parties, and that all classes in the district are anxious for an amicable settlement of this question, steps will be taken to have it finally settled and the tenant reinstated.
    MR. WALTER LONG: A detailed inspection of the holdings has yet to be

    443
    made before advances can be sanctioned. As to the remainder of the Question, I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question of April 17th†.

    The Carrowkeel Proclaimed Meeting.
    MR. CHAELES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the conduct of Mr. Higgins, J.P., in attending at and refusing to desist from taking part in a proclaimed meeting at Carrowkeel; and whether he can say if the Lord Chancellor intends to deprive Mr. Higgins of his commission of the peace.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Higgins has not been prosecuted for or convicted of any offence in connection with this occurrence; and the Lord Chancellor informs me that he has no machinery to institute an inquiry in the matter, nor would it be in accordance with the practice of his Department to attempt to do so.

    Trespass Action at Gurteen Petty Sessions.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Gurteen Petty Sessions on 5th May, when a summons for trespass was being heard against Patrick Costelloe on account of his cattle having strayed on to another man's land from his farm, on which a great part of the walls had been maliciously thrown down, one of the magistrates told him in open Court that his proper course was to give up the farm; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: As far as I have been able to ascertain, the remark mentioned, if made, did not come from any member of the bench, but from some person in Court.

    Eviction Notices in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
    † (4) Debates, cxlv., 313.
    444
    Ireland whether he is aware that 432 eviction notices under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 have been filed during the quarter ending March 31st, 1905; and, if so, whether, in view of the declared intention of Parliament by the Land Purchase Act of 1903 to facilitate the system of occupying ownership in Ireland, he will consider the propriety of introducing legislation to repeal this section, under which a number of occupying tenants are deprived of their status under the Land Acts.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is not proposed to introduce legislation of the character suggested.
    MR. FLYNN: Is it the intention of the Government to allow this alarming state of things to continue? Will the right hon. Gentleman not promise legislation early next session in order to do away with these anomalies?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think I had better make no promise of legislation for next session.

    Sacrilege in Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many cases of sacrilege have been, reported to the police in Ireland for the year ending April 19th, 1905, giving the numbers for each of the four provinces.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Nine; namely, five in Ulster, three in Leinster, and one in Connaught. There was no case in Munster.

    The Anderson Case.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the medical certificates of chastity in the Anderson case were dealt with by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary and retained in his office; and, if so, why these documents in the chain of evidence were not forwarded to the Under-Secretary, by whom the order for dismissal was signed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. The

    445
    recommendation to dismiss was made by the Inspector-General on November 30th, 1903, and approved by the Under secretary on December 3rd; and orders on it were issued on December 4th. The medical certificate was not received by the Inspector-General until January 3rd, and it was forwarded to the Under-Secretary on January 22nd, who approved of the letter, dated January 23rd, which the Inspector-General addressed to Anderson's solicitor, declining to reopen the case.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that after the medical certificates had been submitted, the Inspector-General wrote absolutely declining to reopen the case?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have said so.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is there any medical certificate to show that the constable did not attempt a criminal assault on this woman?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Boycotting in County Tyrone.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a man named William Coote has paid damages in settlement of an action for boycotting in county Tyrone, he can now state if Coote is to be retained in the commission of the peace; and whether it is intended to prosecute him for boycotting and inciting to boycott.
    MR. WALTER LONG: As I have already stated in answer to a previous Question upon the same subject, Mr. Coote paid no damages in settlement of the action referred to. He did, before trial, and by way of settlement, agree to make a contribution towards the costs of plaintiff in the action, but on the under standing that all further litigation on the subject was to cease. Subsequently, a second action was instituted in reference to the same matter, and, as an appeal is now actually pending from the decision in the second action, I must decline—until the appeal is determined—to make any further statement in the matter.
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure the second action does not refer to a totally different matter?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is a different plaintiff.
    MR. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find he is mistaken.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will inquire again.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the magistrate be suspended meanwhile?
    MR. WALTER LONG: No; that would prejudge the case.

    Lord Ardilaun's Estate.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of the agricultural tenants of Lord Ardilaun, at Killarney, have been prevented by the landlord from purchasing their holdings, though the largest portion of the estate (which was at the time owned by the late Mr. Herbert, of Muckross) was sold to the tenants; and if the Estates Commissioners have received any communications from Lord Ardilaun or his representatives as to a sale of the unsold portion.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This estate has not come before the Commissioners. They have received no communication from Lord Ardilaun on the subject, and have no knowledge of the statements made in the Question.
    MR. MURPHY: I am personally aware of the facts. Can the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to compel Lord Ardilaun to sell?
    MR. WALTER LONG: As the estate is not before the Commissioners, obviously the Executive Government cannot compel a landlord to deal with his property if he does not choose to do so.
    MR. MURPHY: His deer are eating the tenants' crops and he will neither sell nor give them protection.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not shoot the deer and eat them?
    MR. ROCHE: I will go down there.

    Major Boyle's Sligo Estate.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the untenanted portion of the estate of Major Boyle, situate at Oldrock, near Ballymote, county Sligo, has been sold within the past two years to a non-residential grazier; if so, will he give the name of the purchaser, and say whether any public money has been advanced for the purpose of perfecting the purchase.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No such sale can be traced.

    The O'Conor Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the agreement for the purchase of the O'Conor Estate, situate in Floughena, near Ballaghadereen, county Mayo, which was mutually agreed to by landlord and tenants alike, has yet received the sanction of the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he say what arrangement, if any, has been made for the reinstating of the orphans of the late Thomas Durkan, the only evicted tenant on the estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave yesterday † to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

    Irish Local Government Account Books.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in whose name the account books devised after the passing of the Local Government Act are registered or copyrighted; in whose name the account books required by the Public Bodies Order, 1904, are registered or copyrighted; whether any profits have accrued, or will accrue, in either case to any official of the Local Government Board; and when the copyright in the first set of account books expired.
    †See page 337.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have already informed the hon. Member that the prescribed forms of account have not been copyrighted. If any forms have been copyrighted by a member of the Local Government Board's staff, the Board have no cognisance of the fact. Such forms are not the prescribed forms, and there is no obligation on local bodies to use them.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Why were the copyrighting facilities given to Dr. Ellis refused to the clerk to the county council?
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he knew nothing as to that.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a straight answer—has he asked Dr. Ellis if he is deriving any royalties privately from the sale of these books?
    MR. WALTER LONG: In view of the Answer I have given it was not necessary to put such a Question to him.
    MR. MACVEAGH: The whole transaction is a public fraud.

    Crime in Ireland.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, in the Parliamentary Return, circulated last week, on all outrages and other offences of an indictable character in Ireland, there were committed in Ulster 33 per cent. of the offences against the person, 38 per cent. of the offences against property, 35 per cent. of the offences against the public peace, omitting alleged threatening letters, and 45 per cent. of all other offences; whether he is aware that, of the indictable offences in Ulster, 42 per cent, were committed in Belfast; and whether, if these figures be correct, he will state what special steps will be taken to more strictly enforce law and order in the province of Ulster.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The facts are correctly stated in the Question, save that as regards offences against the

    449
    public peace, omitting threatening letters and notices, only 23 per cent. occurred in Ulster. The Parliamentary Return referred to does not include the Dublin Metropolitan Police district. At the last census the population of Ireland (excluding Dublin) was 4,076,304. The population of Ulster was 1,582,826, or 38·8 per cent. The percentage of outrages in Ulster is less than this in three out of the four classes alluded to in the Question. Taking the four classes in globo, only 32 per cent. ocurred in Ulster. As I have already pointed out, the figures indicate that no special steps are necessary for the enforcement of law and order in Ulster.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give any Member of the Irish Party half-a-dozen specific cases of so-called outrage on private property, so that we may test the accuracy of the police report?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Untenanted Land in Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many acres of untenanted land in the county of Limerick have been purchased by the Estates Commissioners and the names of the estates in which it is situated.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No untenanted lands have yet been purchased, but the Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of 1,638 acres.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Where?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say without further inquiry.

    Limerick Evicted Tenants.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of tenants who have bought, or agreed to buy, their holdings in the Western Parliamentary Division of the county of Limerick; the number of applications made by evicted tenants for reinstatement in their holdings there; how many of these have been reinstated
    450
    since November 1st, 1903, by the landlords; and how many of them have been reinstated by the Estates Commissioners, or given equivalent holdings, since the same date, and the names of such tenants in both cases.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The records of the Commissioners are not kept by Parliamentary Divisions. Agreements for purchase have been received from 1,565 tenants in county Limerick. Two hundred and sixty-four applications of evicted tenants for reinstatement have been received, and of these four have been reinstated by the landlords, but none by the Commissioners. Three other tenants, who had not made application to the Commissioners, have been reinstated by the landlord. I will procure and forward to the hon. Member the names of the tenants reinstated.

    Irish Schools.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why it is that, under Rule 194 of the Commissioners' Code, building grants for adjoining boys' and girls' schools cannot be made unless there is an average attendance of fifty pupils in each school, while, under revised Rule 186, amalgamation of boys' and girls' schools shall not take place where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the average attendance would be over thirty, but for the operation of Rule 127 (b).
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners do not make building grants for new separate schools for boys and girls unless there will be an average attendance sufficient for the employment of a second teacher at each school. They continue, however, to make grants to existing separate schools for boys and girls with averages between thirty and fifty, and they have so far relaxed their requirements that they do not insist upon amalgamation unless the average at either school falls below thirty.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked why the alteration had been made in the figures of the average attendance.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I ought to have notice of that.

    Mrs. Hester Nevins' Limerick Estate.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of the estate of Mrs. Hester Nevins, of Mountshannon, in the county of Limerick, to the Estates Commissioners has yet been completed; if so, what is the area of the same and the purchase price; how much untenanted land is on the estate; how is it worked at present; whether it is yet divided into allotments for the evicted tenants; if so, have the Commissioners decided to whom to give them; what is the area of those allotments; and when will the evicted tenants be put into occupation of them.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The sale of this estate, which comprises 367 acres of untenanted land, has not yet been completed. Pending completion of the sale, I am unable to give the other information desired.

    Irish Land Purchase Regulations.
    MR. GORDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in framing the new regulations for the Estates Commissioners, care will be taken to provide that the funds available from time to time under the Land Act, 1903, shall be applied to carrying out purchases in the order of priority of such purchases, and without giving any preference to any purchaser or class of purchasers.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The matter has been considered, and the regulations I intend to publish will deal with it.
    MR. GORDON: But will priority be given to sales to the Land Commission or Congested Districts Board over sales between landlord and tenant?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think it would be more convenient to await the publication of the rules, but it seems to me priority should, generally speaking, be given according to date of application.
    MR. LOUGHasked if a fresh loan was to be issued under the Bill.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was not in a position to answer that Question.

    Mr. Lauder's King's County Estate.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the Estates Commissioners have purchased the property of Mr. Lauder, at Clonfanlough, Ballinahoun, King's County; whether there is any untenanted land or grass land let on the eleven months system on this estate; and, if so, do the Estates Commissioners intend to allocate these lands amongst the small holders so as to make the uneconomic holdings on this estate into economic holdings.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The estate has been inspected and reported on, but further inquiries are necessary. There are 581 acres of untenanted land on the property, with the distribution of which the Commissioners will deal in the event, of their acquiring the estate.

    Trinity College Commission Report.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the Report of the Trinity College Commission will be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Report will be circulated to-day.

    Mallow Postal Service.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Mallow Rural District Council and Board of Guardians, drawing attention to the inadequate postal service between Buttevant and Liscarroll and Churchtown; and, if so, whether he will now arrange for a mail car service to meet the increasing needs of the district.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): As I explained to the hon. Member by letter a few months ago, the improvement desired in the post to Churchtown and Liscarroll could not be carried out without causing serious hardship to the

    453
    postman who now conveys the mails from Buttevant, and I do not think the improvement is so urgently required as to warrant such a step.
    MR. FLYNN: Do the postal authorities intend, in order to preserve a private vested interest, to inflict great inconvenience and loss on the public?
    LORD STANLEY: If the hon. Member likes to put it in that way—yes.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether a day can be given for the Workmen's Compensation Bill before the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman make a general statement regarding the course of business?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: On Monday next it is proposed first to take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. There are two formal stages of money Resolutions. I believe the Secretary for the Treasury has already informed the House that another Consolidated Fund Bill is necessary; and it is proposed, therefore, to set up Committee in Ways and Means as the second order, then to take the Loans Bill and Report of Vote 10 for the Navy. On Tuesday the Speaker proposes to announce to the House his intention of retiring from the Chair. After that, Supply, the Board of Trade Vote, will be taken. On Wednesday the Scottish Churches Bill will be introduced under the ten minutes rule, and it is proposed to take the Motion for the holiday adjournment. On Thursday there will be the election of the new Speaker.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will the vote of thanks to Mr. Speaker be moved?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The vote of thanks to the Speaker will be taken on Wednesday, according to precedent. In reply to the hon. Member for Derby, I may say I am anxious to get the Workmen's
    Compensation Bill before the
    454
    Grand Committee on Trade. If I am fortunate enough to get the evening sitting on Monday, I shall be prepared to put the Bill on the Paper. I trust the House will send it to the Grand Committee on Trade that evening.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: What about the Whitsuntide holidays?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The House will adjourn on Thursday next until Tuesday, the 20th. On Thursday there will be practically no business. The Speaker adjourns the House at once, and business cannot be taken until his election has been approved.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to fix a date for taking the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I hope that it will be possible to take the Second Reading of this Bill on the first day on which the House meets again after the Whitsuntide recess (Tuesday, June 20th).
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is that day, then, definitely fixed on?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir.

    Objectionable Street Literature.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the fact that hawkers are hawking in the streets, of London leaflets and cards deeply bordered in black and containing matter most offensive to Russians in our midst. Have the police any authority in the matter, and can action be taken to stop this gross breach of courtesy.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I had not heard of the matter until my hon. friend called my attention to it five minutes ago. Evidently it is an extremely regrettable matter, and I will see if any action can be taken

    The Vote of Censure.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What day can the right hon. Gentleman

    455
    give us for the Motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I understood last night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick had taken this notice off the Paper. I had hoped my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury would be in his place to-day. I am afraid, however, that I must ask that the Question may be deferred. I hope my right hon. friend will be here on Monday.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There will be a day given.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot go farther than I went yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman took the Question off the Paper, he can make an application. [Cries of "No, no!"] I gave no definite promise that a day would be given. I said it must be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understood that arrangements were made in the usual way last night—that a day would be given, it being left to the Government to fix a day, subject to the convenience of the House.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I had not heard of that, but my right hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset has just told me he distinctly stated he must see the Motion. My right hon. friend has just whispered in my ear that some negotiation took place last night, but I understand him practically to confirm what I said, that any Motion of that sort would be handed to the Prime Minister, and he would give an Answer on his return to the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Motion has been taken off for the "convenience of the Government. It was part of the arrangement made. The hon. Member for Peebles-shire shakes his head. What part had be in the transaction? Was he present when the arrangements were made?
    SIR WALTER THORBURN: No, no!
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. Member had better keep his head steady. I distinctly understood my right hon. friend to remove the notice from the Paper with a view to reviving it and replacing it on the Paper after Whitsuntide, for a day which would be appointed after communication with the Government.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington): I suggested that the Motion should be taken off the Paper and that when the Prime Minister came back to the House he should be asked a Question as to whether he would give a day for it after Whitsuntide. I fully expected at the time that the Prime Minister would be in his place to-day and able to answer the Question.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I must remind my right hon. friend that I asked him particularly whether I was to understand that it was a case of Monday next or no day at all. He said he must take counsel on that point. He came back to me and said that if my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick would withdraw his Motion, and if my right hon. friend would put a Question to the Prime Minister to-day, an announcement would be made with regard to a day after Whitsuntide. It was an absolute condition of the withdrawal of the Motion that a day after Whitsuntide should be given.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I do not want my words to be misconstrued. I did not desire to force hon. Gentlemen to act against their wishes, and I thought that in the circumstances the best course was to take the Motion off the Paper and put a Question to the Prime Minister as to when a day could be given
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the question of a further consultation is to turn upon when a day is to be given we are quite content, but we do not wish it to turn on the question whether a day is to be given, and what the Home Secretary said rather tended in that direction.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I right in concluding that there is no intention on the part of the Government to refuse a day?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: There is no such intention. I was not aware this arrangement had taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds and my right hon. friend. I can not answer for the Prime Minister, but I have no doubt about the matter.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry to be pertinacious; it is necessary. I really do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not have been fortified with sufficient authority from the Prime Minister to give an Answer which would have been satisfactory to us. If he is not able to answer so simple a Question without referring to the Prime Minister it is placing him in a rather undignified position.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I regret if that is so. I thought the Prime Minister would be here to-day. I did not know this compact had taken place. I cannot pledge myself, in the Prime Minister's absence, to a definite statement on that point. I will undertake to do so on Monday if the Prime Minister is not here.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We shall assume that a day will be given.

    SUPPLY [9th ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £146,954, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he regretted to have to move the reduction in this form because the right hon. Gentleman had had nothing to do with the grievance of which he complained. The Motor-Car Act of 1903 was the result of a distinct compromise, and the point upon which that compromise turned was the question of speed, and of the local authorities having the power to regulate the speed in their own districts. At the time the Bill was under discussion many Members acknowledged and adopted the view of the then President of the Local Government Board that there should be no speed limit, but that motorists should be allowed to travel on long straight roads at any speed they chose at their own risk, but at dangerous crossings and when they came to towns and villages the local authorities should have power to enforce a speed limit and to control the traffic in their particular district, subject, of course, to the decision of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House that deliberate pledge, and upon that compromise the Bill passed into law.
    What they complained of was not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had been an unjust judge, but that he had been such a judge as this country had never seen before. He prevented the case coming to trial. The very first thing he did when he got, rid of the House was to circularise the local authorities to the effect that in Mr. Walter Long's general view it was not desirable to enforce this part of the Act until it was seen how the other provisions worked. There were no other provisions of any importance; Section 1 of the Motor Act really expressed the common law of England, and Section 2 gave the local authorities the power they always had to mark dangerous places. That was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman carried out the law which he was called upon to administer, and upon his shoulders rested the responsibility for the whole evil that had arisen in this country on this matter. He did not need to discuss any Amendment of the Act; the Act was not unfair, and, fairly administered, it would work as well as any other. He would.

    459
    have been perfectly satisfied to have had no speed limit so long as the local authorities had had some control in the matter. The noble Lord the Member for Chorley, the First Commissioner of Works, had limited the speed in the Royal Parks to ten miles an hour, although the rule was constantly being broken, but if the Corporation of the City of London or the local authority for Greater London wanted to stop cars going down the London roads at twenty miles an hour they had to go to the Local Government Board.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.),who had at this moment entered the House, said: The hon. Gentleman must pardon me; he has made a statement that I gave the House a definite pledge. May I ask him to produce that pledge?
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I will produce it. You told me in your own room. I instanced my own county of Shetland, where no one would dream of driving beyond a speed of ten miles an hour. Your remark to me, as far as I recollect, was that it was intolerable that in a great county like Yorkshire the speed should be reduced over the whole area.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman stated explicitly that I gave a pledge. I have asked him to produce the pledge, and he now proceeds to give his own recollection.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I say I am the pledge. The matter is absolutely within the common knowledge of the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: How can it be within the common knowledge of the House when the hon. Gentleman has stated that what he refers to took place in my private room?
    MR. CATHCART WASON: The right hon. Gentleman has never denied what I say.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I deny it now.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that the deliberate pledge was by putting words in the Bill in another place that the
    460
    local authorities should have control of the speed limit in their own districts, and that the discretion of the Local Government Board should not be unreasonably and unfairly exercised. That discretion had been unreasonably and unfairly exercised by the right hon. Gentleman.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)thought the hon. Gentleman had not read the circular accurately.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he believed he had quoted the circular accurately. They thought they could trust the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, and they had been very bitterly deceived. The issue of the circular was a grossly impertinent action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Order" and "Withdraw."]
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is quite un-Parliamentary language.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he desired to withdraw the expression, and said at all events it was an exercise of administration which no one expected from the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member then referred to the evidence given by the chairman of the Lancashire County Council (Sir John Hibbert) before the Royal Commission, to the effect that Lancashire had been compelled to spend £12,000 on their roads owing to the damage done by motor traffic. The President of the Local Government Board did not know anything of this scandal. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's action, heavy motors weighing up to twelve tons were now to be allowed to travel at twelve miles an hour despite all the evidence before the Committee from country districts.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the local authorities could limit the weight of the vehicles passing over the bridges.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that that did not exonerate the right hon. Gentleman's Department from having given motors weighing twelve tons the

    461
    right to travel at twelve miles an hour. He had no feeling as regarded the motorists themselves or the motor industry; he was only desirous to see that the public rights were safeguarded. It was, in his opinion, a very undesirable thing that the police should be denounced as spies and informers, and for setting traps for motorists, and he now hoped they would hear better things. He thought the law ought to be most strictly carried out, and that no privilege ought to be created in favour of that very small class whose only desire seemed to be to over-reach their neighbours.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he regretted that so good a cause had found such a poor advocacy as the speech they had just heard. He shared the view that the users and drivers of motor-cars abused their privileges and had given the public good cause for complaint. It would have been quite possible for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to have made out a good case without accusing the late President of the Local Government Board of breaking his pledges. The hon. Member had accused him of having broken a pledge which he gave to the House and when challenged on the point he fell back upon an interview which took place between the hon. Member and himself in his private room in the House. He agreed that such an interview took place, bat he denied emphatically and categorically the hon. Member's recollection of what took place upon that occasion. The hon. Member alleged that he promised him that discretion should rest in regard to these regulations with the local authorities. As the House was aware, the Bill was originally introduced without any speed limit and it was suggested in the House that a speed limit should be inserted. The hon. Member suggested that local authorities should have the right to make representations to the central authority. That right he conceded, and he had never denied it either in private interviews or in any of his speeches, but he had never for one instant surrendered the position he had always taken up, namely, that the final decision and discretion in this matter must rest with the central authority. Where was the breach of faith? What did the hon.
    462
    Member mean by accusing him of a breach of faith?
    After being driven from this charge the hon. Member fell back upon the circular, which he had described as "an impertinent interference with the local authorities." He regretted that the hon. Member did not take the precaution to bring the circular with him. The words of the circular were "and the Board are accordingly disposed." It went on to point out the view he had held throughout, namely, that the best protection to the public was to be found in the full exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1 of the Act, because the imposition of a speed limit carried with it dangers to the public, because the police, the public, and the careless drivers were apt to look at the statutory requirement in regard to speed lather than to the public safety. He maintained when the Act was before the House, and he maintained now, that there was no speed limit which could be imposed upon either a motor-car or a dog-cart which would under all circumstances be safe. He saw the other day a motor-car which was not going more than eight miles an hour, but even that was a great deal faster than it ought to have gone under the circumstances. The moment they laid down a statutory provision that the speed should be a certain number of miles per hour they at once ran the great risk that the police and the public would give undue attention to the restriction and not give sufficient attention to the general protection of the lives of the public. From the very beginning he had held that view with all the energy he was able to command, and that view dominated all his action in regard to the Motor-Car Act. Therefore it was a gross misrepresentation of the history of these proceedings to allege that he had given any pledge in any form whatever either in private or in public which departed in the smallest degree from the views he had laid down in the House. He denied that there were any words in the Act capable of that construction. If the circular was illegal then his action was also illegal, and the hon. Member had the usual remedy in a Court of law, and he ought not to waste the time of the House

    463
    discussing such a question. The paragraph in the circular which the hon. Member had described as impertinent simply stated that the Board were accordingly disposed to recommend the local authorities to refrain from proposing any extensive resort to certain powers conferred upon them by the Act until it was seen that the other provisions of the statute rendered such a resort indispensable. He appealed to the Committee to say whether it was possible for anybody to frame any less impertinent and less offensive words to be addressed to the local authorities than those. Until they had had some experience of the working of the Act the local authorities were simply asked to abstain from the imposition of restrictions which he believed would tend more to the danger than to the safety of the public.
    He did not propose to deal with the general question, which would be much better dealt with by his successor in office, but he did feel that it was impossible to allow the extraordinary charge which had been made against him to go unanswered. He could hardly regard a charge that he had been guilty of breaking a Parliamentary pledge a seriously made, but it was a serious charge, and indeed it was a charge which ought to be met as goon as it was made. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had produced no evidence in support of his charge, and he regretted that so good a case had found so bad an advocate.
    MR. SOAREScongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the very healthy doctrine he had laid down in regard to pledges. He had not the same hesitation as his hon. friend in regard to moving a Motion to reduce the salary of the President of the Local Government Board, in fact there were none of His Majesty's Ministers whose salary he would not like to reduce; therefore he would move to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £100. He wished to thank hon. Gentlemen opposite, and more particularly those who represented motorists, for assisting them to get an
    464
    opportunity for bringing on this debate, they had shown no desire to burke discussion and they had fully recognised with them that as this matter was one which affected the weal and welfare of so many of His Majesty's subjects, it ought to be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. He would endeavour to reciprocate that spirit and he would not say anything to endeavour to arouse prejudice. He had, therefore, no intention of alluding to motorists as "road hogs," "motor fiends," "goggled villains," or any similar epithets which had been bandied about from time to time. On the other hand the courtesy must be reciprocated, and he did not expect to be alluded to as a modern Mrs. Partington inimical to the cause of progress and progressive influences. They were dealing with a matter of very great importance which was agitating the minds of millions of people who used the public roads of this country, and therefore he thought they ought to discuss the matter in a calm and temperate spirit.
    They had been met with the familiar argument. "Motorists have come to stay," and the people who used that statement treated it as the Alpha and Omega of the question, the beginning and ending of the argument, but on his part he agreed with that argument in so far as they supplied a practical and well-known want. It seemed to him, however, that the statutory privileges conferred on motorists should always be regulated by the well-known rule that everyone must use what belonged to him in such a way as not to hurt what belonged to other people. To show that he was not bigoted he might say that he was glad to see from the papers that a company intended to run a number of motor hansom cabs in the City of London. Most horse-lovers recognised that the lives of many horses in this country were little short of tragedies, well-groomed, well-fed, well housed, well-cared for in the days of their youth, in their old age they were often sold for an old song and the last ounce of strength and life was thrashed out of them in the streets on London. Many of them would be glad to see an absolute end to

    465
    that sort of thing. He also recognised the fact that motors were of considerable advantage to professional men in the country districts. For instance the most popular veterinary surgeon in North Devon used a motor. There were also in Barnstaple many doctors who availed themselves of motor-cars and that meant that they were able to extend the area of their operations, and so relieve a much larger amount o suffering than would otherwise be the case. But this was a matter to be observed that though there was a considerable amount of strong feeling in his constituency against a certain class of motorists, there was practically no feeling at all against those local motorists to whom he alluded. That was because those gentlemen knew every turn in the high roads, knew exactly where one road was bisected by another, and knew how to act when they met a herd of cattle, a restive horse, or a flock of sheep. The fact of the matter was that they were always courteous and considerate in regard to vehicular traffic, and they recognised that though they were made for the road, the road was not made for them. Having made these admissions, he hoped he should not be looked upon as a wild and irrational opponent of motor-cars.
    He wanted to discuss the carrying out of the Act of 1903. When that Act was introduced he moved the rejection of it mainly on two grounds—firstly, because there was no speed limit proposed; and secondly, because the President of the Local Government Board refused to allow county councils to manage the areas within their jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman gave way on the first point, but not on the second. He thought then that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in refusing to give way on that point, and experience had now proved that to be the case. What had been the result of that Act in Devonshire, in which he lived? Their position had been worsened instead of being bettered by the Act. It had been a curse to them instead of a blessing. Nine out of every ten of the touring motors which came into Devonshire paid no attention whatever to the speed limit. It might
    466
    be asked: "Why do not you prosecute them?" Well, there was a clause in the Act which said that two witnesses were wanted in regard to the speed limit, and that would mean that the staff of policemen would have to be largely increased. That would involve a very heavy burden on the ratepayer. Then, too, in North Devon there were no scheduled areas at all, and the consequence was that motorists were allowed to go twenty miles an hour wherever they liked. They might be asked why they did not schedule the roads. That was a very expensive matter. It meant the putting up of notice boards, and if they were to do their duty to the motorists it meant the lighting of them at night. That would throw a considerable burden on the rates of the district. The rates were already very heavy. They had been largely increased by the education rate alone. He did not think it was right to ask the agricultural community to incur a heavy burden in order to protect themselves against dangers arising out of the amusements of wealthy men. The result was that at the Easter holiday time—and he had no doubt it would be the same at the Whitsuntide recess—some of the country roads in Devonshire were just as if hell were let loose on them. People were smothered in dust, ladies dare not drive along the road, and children who lived in cottages by the roadside had to be absolutely confined at home all day. If there was one thing more serious than another it was the question of the children. These country districts were the breeding ground of the nation, and all wished to see happy, healthy, and rosy-cheeked children in the country. Country cottages were not big enough for a lot of children to stay indoors all day long, and anything that affected the health of these children should be looked upon as a grave matter indeed.
    It was quite true that country people wore displaying inimitable patience with this. He wondered at the patience of poor people in regard to this and other questions. Let not the right hon. Gentleman think that, because there bad been no uproar, there was no great feeling on the matter. They felt the injustice of it,

    467
    although they did not know the remedy. Last Easter he spoke to a water bailiff near one of the main roads along which a large number of cars passed When asked what he thought of the matter he replied—
    "I don't mind them so much, but the worst is we have to keep the children indoors all day."
    That was the whole conversation. The old man did not grumble but he would confess that it angered him to think that on that beautiful spring day the children had to be kept indoors all day in order that wealthy people might enjoy the amusement of rushing along the roads at a furious pace! He asked the Committee to notice what the President of the Local Government Board—the present Chief Secretary for Ireland—said when he was introducing the Bill which was now the Act under which the whole thing was being carried on. He said—
    "It is not only the security of life and limb that has to be dealt with, but also the extraordinary discomfort suffered by people who live on the roads which motors largely frequent. Many houses alongside the public roads have been rendered almost uninhabitable, not only by the dust, which is an intolerable nuisance in the summer months, but by other inconveniences which follow from the improper use of this means of conveyance. It is in order to deal with these difficulties that the Government have thought it their duty to introduce the Bill to Parliament."
    He would ask—Had not the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman proved absolutely fallacious? Was not the prophecy which was made on that occasion as false as a pamphlet of the Tariff Reform League? He did not think that any fair-minded man could deny that that was the case. One of the main features with regard to the Act of 1903 was that it was a temporary and tentative Act. Why was it temporary and tentative? It was because it was felt that too great power ought not to be entrusted to local magistrates. Many of them were known to have strong prejudices against motor-cars. It was felt that if too drastic power was given to them the result might be the entire stoppage of the motor industry. After eighteen months experience of the Act there were very few cases which could be pointed out in which the magistrates had behaved partially with regard to motorists. There were a few, but it
    468
    should be remembered that they heard about every one of these cases. Motorists were powerful in the Press; they could all write letters, and therefore, whenever there was a case of injustice it was sure to be thoroughly well ventilated in the papers. On the whole, the magistrates had exercised the powers conferred upon them wisely, judicially, and well. Therefore the Committee might come to the conclusion that it would be perfectly safe, if it was thought necessary, to entrust the magistrates with wider powers than they possessed at the present time.
    Another reason why the Act was temporary and tentative was that it was not known how motorists were going to behave. Some had one view, and others had another view, as to their probable conduct. He was sorry to say, and he thought the Committee would agree with him, that, taken as a whole, the motorists had not come well out of the trial. He admitted that the hon. Member for the New Forest Division had done his best in the matter; he had issued rules and regulations from time to time, but they had been disobeyed. The fact was that the touring motorist thought he could do just as he liked so long as he paid the fine. A fine of £5 was nothing whatever to a man who could ride in a £1,000 motor-car. In answer to a Question which he put to the President of the Local Government Board yesterday the right hon. Gentleman told him that in England and Wales outside the Metropolitan Police district there had been 837 convictions under Section 1 (1) of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, during the last twelve months. These were convictions for reckless driving to the danger of the public. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that in regard to the Metropolitan district during 1904 there were 168 convictions under the sub-section. Did not this prove that fines were no preventive? Was it not a known fact that at the present moment many motor papers published lists of "Police Traps," and told their readers that there were certain places where the law could be broken with impunity and certain places where it could not. Motorists did not think the imposition of a fine was a proof of bad citizenship. They paid their money, considered it was a piece of bad luck, and then thought no more

    469
    about it. There was no moral sanction behind these fines so far as motorists were concerned. He thought, therefore, that time had proved three things. The first was that taking motorists as a class they could not be relied on to act in a proper and gentlemanly manner in motoring along the road. Then it had been shown that fines had not had a sufficient deterrent effect. It had also been shown that it would be safe to entrust the magistrates with more drastic powers than they at present possessed. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that power should be given to imprison anyone for the first offence on conviction of driving recklessly to the danger of the public. He would suggest also that power should be given to the county councils to manage the areas under their jurisdiction. They made the roads; why should they not manage the traffic upon them? If they were competent to manage the education of children, surely they were competent to manage the motor traffic.
    There many other questions in connection with this matter. There was the great question of dust. He believed that that was exciting the attention of the motorists as well as of the general public, and he would like to hear what they had to say about it in the course of the debate. Then there was the question as to whether the motors were sufficiently distinguished by their marks and the great danger which arose from motors driving at great speed at night. He was quits sure, if things went on as they were, there would be many serious accidents from that cause. Then there was the question of the wear and tear of public roads which was making motoring unpopular as much as any other cause. It was not fair that motorists should use the roads as they were now doing without bearing their fair proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the roads. He hoped before the debate closed that the right hon. Gentleman would make a promise to introduce legislation giving the county councils full power within their own area to regulate the motor traffic, and also giving power to magistrates to inflict imprisonment for the first offence of reckless driving. He did not think such an appeal could
    470
    be made at a more opportune moment than the present, because everyone knew that the Government did not know what to do with their time. They had to adjourn the House the previous day at half-past five o'clock. Their difficulty was not how to find time for work but how to get through the session. Therefore, he hoped that the Government would see their way to present a small and useful Bill on the subject, and to that end he begged to move to reduce, the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £100.
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Soares.)
    MR. ARTHUR STANLEYsaid that his only reason for intervening at this early stage of the debate was that he was chairman of the Automobile Club and of the Motor Union, and that therefore he might claim to represent the moderate view of motorists, and not those motorists to whom allusion had been made. He had certainly no reason to complain of the way in which this subject had been brought before the House. The hon. Member who last spoke must recognise that motorists had no wish to avert discussion. When he asked his right hon. friend to put this Vote on the Order Paper for an early day, he promised the hon. Member for Orkney that if that was not done he would support him in moving the adjournment of the House in order to obtain a discussion. He confessed that it would be a little difficult to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney, because, instead of dealing with the question on broad lines, that hon. Gentleman had devoted the first part of it to an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the last part of it to an attack on heavy motor traffic, which practically resolved itself into an attack upon the motor omnibuses at present running in London.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he had not attacked the motor-omnibuses at present in the streets; he had only used them as an illustration to point out

    471
    that vehicles double their weight up to twelve tons were to be allowed on our streets and roads.
    MR. ARTHUR STANLEYsaid he was very glad to hear that it was only one lass of motors which met with the hon. Member's disapprobation. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, he could not help thinking that his picture of children being kept indoors from fear of motor-cars was a little exaggerated. He had motored to a certain extent throughout the country, and he could answer for it that most of the children in country places were not kept within doors. Although he agreed with a great deal which the hon. Gentleman had said, he could not accept the recommendations which the hon. Member had made at the end of his speech. The hon. Gentleman had mixed up the two questions of reckless driving and the nuisance caused to the public by dust. Nobody deplored more than the average motorist the inconsiderate driving of certain motorists. Indeed, they had every reason to feel horror and disgust, even more than the ordinary Member of the House, when a motor accident occurred, because every accident of that kind was not put down to the individual account of an individual motorist. In fact, he had heard language of abuse in the House against motorists, which was generally considered to be the special prerogative of His Majesty's Ministers.
    He asked the Committee to consider that there was an enormous amount of exaggeration in the cases which appeared in print. There was a case reported in the Manchester Guardian and the Daily Mail, with large headlines, about a labourer on the road who had been injured by a motor and left insensible with nobody to help him. On investigation it was found that there was absolutely no truth in that whatever. There was no labourer on the road and the police were satisfied that there was no motor in the district. This was pointed out, but there was no denial of the original report in these papers Occasionally they had complained of exaggerated statements made in Parliament. For instance, when the Motor-Car Bill was before the other House,
    472
    Lord Camperdown gave an account of a lady who had been hurt in an accident on the road and that a motorist was to blame for it. When the facts were investigated it was clearly proved that the accident had arisen from quite a different cause, and that the only thing the motorist had to do with it was that when he came up he offered to convey the lady in his motor-car to her home. Of course, Lord Camperdown contradicted his original statement as soon as the facts were brought to his notice; but there was the old saying that, give a lie twenty-four hours start, it could never be caught up. There was another instance brought to public notice by the hon. Member for New Forest. An accident happened through a horse being frightened by a newspaper flying across the road. A motor-car was in the distance and the report of the occurrence was headed "Another Motor Accident." While there was a certain amount of exaggeration in these reports, still motorists in general were the last to deny that too many accidents were caused by motors. He did not wish to weigh in the scale the number of horse and motor accidents, but supposing that there were a thousand motor-car accidents last year, it was said that there were no less than 22,000 horse accidents in the Metropolitan area.
    The Automobile Club were doing all that they possibly could to assist in the reduction of accidents by punishing those who caused them. The club had established a special committee to deal with cases of inconsiderate driving brought before them. There were a great many cases which could not be met by fines; but there were also a great many cases which could be met by such a committee. It would be a less punishment to pay a fine of £5 than to be expelled from the club. In that way many cases could be dealt with by the committee which could not be met by the law. Then the second action which the Automobile Club had taken was to grant driving certificates. Under the existing law in England, anybody might apply for a licence and get it without examination. In fact, it was said that a blind man had obtained a licence. Now, in France, before a driver

    473
    obtained a licence, he had to pass an examination and to show that he was fairly efficient in driving. The Automobile Club proposed to set up a form of examination; and if everybody who owned or drove a motor had to pass such an examination, he was certain that the accidents would be enormously reduced because of the absolute certainty that everyone who drove a motor on the roads was efficient. They also intended that the examination should include a knowledge of the rules of the road, and of the provisions of the Motor-Car Act. It would, therefore, be useless for any person holding a certificate to contend that he did not know what the requirements were.
    He had had occasion to study the working of the Act; and he wished to endorse the opinion which had been expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken regarding the speed limit. That was the one blot on the Act. Many motorists, including the Chief Secretary for Ireland, expressed that view very strongly when the Bill was being passed; but they were overborne. He would give the Committee a few instances to show the injurious effect of the speed limit on the working of the Act. A case was brought before the Automobile Club the other day in which it was shown that a driver attempted to pass another car in a cloud of dust. He ran into a cart, but fortunately did not inflict any personal injury. That was not his fault. When he, was extricated from the debris he remarked that he was only driving sixteen miles an hour. The papers put the speed at sixty miles. From his evidence it appeared that he expected to be exonerated because he was not exceeding the legal limit. It should be remembered that a great number of professional chaffeurs would not be familiar with the provisions of the Act; and in nine cases out of ten they would claim to be entitled to drive twenty miles an hour. Under such circumstances the speed limit was a danger to the public. Here was another case. Mr. Edge, who won the Gordon-Bennett cup, and who was one of the most scrupulously careful drivers in the country, was informed regarding a police trap. He went himself to ascertain if it were on a fair stretch of road. He had on his car a speed indicator which he had
    474
    carefully tested; and he had two or three friends with him. Mr. Edge was in a position to prove that his speed was only twelve or fourteen miles an hour; but the police swore he was travelling at the rate of forty-three miles an hour. Mr. Edge was too sensible to take notice of a point like that. The result might be, however, that a motorist who was travelling fourteen miles an hour, and was stated by the police to be travelling forty-three, might say to himself that he might as well travel forty miles an hour as the punishment would not be greater. He ventured to suggest that it would enormously strengthen the Act if the speed limit were removed; and if they relied entirely on the section which dealt with danger to the public. He thought he could say on behalf of all automobilists that they would be perfectly willing to see the penalties increased, so long as, in cases of imprisonment, there was an appeal to a Judge. There were certain localities where magistrates were inclined to be severe on motorists; and his contention was that motorists should be dealt with equally in every district.
    The question of the maintenance of the roads had been referred to. The Roads Improvement Association was attempting to deal with that matter also. The Departmental Committee made certain recommendations on the subject; which, however, involved a charge on the Exchequer, and they were consequently unable to press them either last year or in the present year. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more money at his disposal, he sincerely hoped that the question of nationalising certain main arteries would be taken up. He need only mention that the Great North Road was under no fewer than twelve authorities, each of which could act as it liked without consulting the neighbouring authority. In conclusion, he wished to state that all reasonable motorists desired that the Act should be strengthened by the omission of the speed limit; and that all inconsiderate drivers should be driven off the road altogether. They were working on two principles. Ono was, naturally, to maintain and secure the rights of automobilists; the other, which was not less important, was, in every possible way to prevent the rights of others being infringed.
    SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he was sure the Committee realised the admirable tone of the speech of the hon. Gentleman. If all automobilists held his views and practised his doctrines, the public would not have very much to complain of. The hon. Member said he represented the views of moderate motorists; but they had to legislate, not for the moderate, but for the immoderate motorist. Legislation was based, not on the action of honest, but of dishonest people; and the Committee, in view of the circumstances, was bound to consider a great public grievance which undoubtedly existed. He was struck with one remark of the hon. Member, who referred to what the Automobile Club could and could not do. But there were a large number of motorists who were not members of the club and over whom the club could not exercise any disciplinary action. The debate indicated that the Act was experimental and tentative, and dealt with a novel state of circumstances. The House had proceeded very cautiously in the matter. It was all very well to say that the Government should bring in a Bill and pass it. He was afraid they could not. What the Committee, however, was considering was the administrative action of the Local Government Board in connection with the Act. The Act, as far as it went, was a very good Act; and to a certain extent it had worked well. He did not, however, agree that it was a blunder to have inserted the speed limit, When the speed limit was increased from fifteen to twenty miles an hour the accidents increased in similar ratio. The Irish Secretary said he had seen a motorist driving at not more than eight miles an hour, and that that driver ought to have been brought up under Section 1. That speed was almost invariably exceeded every day in London under circumstances which made it dangerous to the public. One of the faults to be found with the administration of the Act by the Local Government Board was that nothing practically was done to put a stop to this reckless driving. The Local Government Board was entrusted by the Act with the power of making rules, and many of the grievances of the public against motor-car driving could be
    476
    remedied by the administrative action of the Board. For instance, there was no country in the world where a licence to drive a motor-car was given so lightly. No municipality allowed a man to drive a hackney car without testing his capability to drive. But here was a man in the possession of an instrument dangerous to life and property, and he was granted a licence to use it without any conditions being laid down.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Local Government Board had no such powers as the right hon. Gentleman thought they possessed. Under the licensing provisions of the Act, the council of a county or borough were required to grant a licence to any resident in the locality on payment of an annual fee of 5s., unless the applicant was disqualified by being convicted of an offence under the Act.
    SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he was under the impression that the Local Government Board had power to control the licensing authority. At any rate, the Board ought to have that power. No man should have a licence unless he was capable of driving a motor-car without danger to life and property, and the test of his capacity should be made, not by the Automobile Club, but by the local authorities. They had also to recognise that in this matter it was not only motorists who had rights to the road but the rights which pedestrians, equestrians, and vehicles enjoyed were seriously interfered with under the present administration, and they were more likely to get at the true remedy for this evil if they fairly admitted that no one ought to possess rights at the expense of other people. Of course no one denied that automobilists had rights; and the question, was to what extent was it necessary to limit those rights in the interest of the community. The Local Government Board had the power to make special regulations to limit the speed of motor-cars in districts where they were asked to do it by the local authorities. But there was an impression among the local authorities that the Board did not look with favour upon

    477
    these regulations, that the trend of opinion in Whitehall was adverse to the granting of these limitations of speed. He thought to make the local authorities in this matter the sole authority would be a wise provision. The Local Government Board could not and did not appreciate the local difficulties, which could only be known by the local authority, who were the only persons to deal with them. In a large town the only persons who could know which streets required protection and which did not were the local council. There were limitations in London. Personally, he would have in the whole metropolitan borough of London a lower limit of speed than ten miles.
    With regard to the punishments provided by the Act, he thought they were inadequate, insufficient, and defective. He would abolish the distinctions laid down for the treatment of first offences and second offences. If a man broke the law, whether it was the first or the second time, he should be punished according to his negligence. The system of fines should also be abolished. A fine of £5 was no punishment to a man who could afford to pay £1,000 for a motor-car. No progress would be made in suppressing these motor-car nuisances until punishments were imposed which would be really deterrent punishments to the class of people who were liable to commit those offences. At the same time there should be a right of appeal in case of imprisonment to a competent authority. The offenders were a minority of automobilists, and it would be well if the Local Government Board were to invite the assistance of the Automobile Club in protecting the interests of the public; but at the same time the Board must uphold those interests and sternly deal with a certain class who curtailed the comfort and safety of the community, because they cared for nothing but their own pleasure and defying the law.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid no apology was necessary for discussing the extremely important question which formed the subject of debate that
    478
    afternoon. The question was how the law was to be administered in relation to motor-cars, so that other persons who had the use of the highways might not be interfered with. No one desired to deal unfairly with motorists. That was not the question. Since the roads were laid out for equestrian, vehicular, and ordinary pedestrian traffic motor-cars had come in, and it was abundantly obvious from the discussions that took place in 1903, and the experience under the Act passed in that year, that there must be careful legal and administrative arrangements made, otherwise those who were rightly and justly entitled to the use of our public roads would lose their birthright. It would be a mistake to be led away by direct instances of dangerous driving, and, on the other hand, they must be cautious of accepting the speech of the Chairman of the Automobile Club. All must agree that if all drivers of motorcars acted truly in the spirit indicated by the Chairman of the Automobile Club no law would be necessary to protect the common highways of this country. But there were a considerable number of motorists and motor-car drivers, who so far from adopting the conciliatory and fair attitude indicated by the Chairman of the Automobile Club disregarded every interest except their own, and it was the action of those men which had caused so much unpopularity in regard to motorists and motor drivers. Though no one was more desirous of stopping this sort of thing than the Automobile Club, he took exception to the claim they made that the administration of the law should be entrusted to a club of this kind. A large number of motorists did not belong to the Automobile Club, and he did not know whether any chauffeurs at all were members of it. If the chairman of the club had said that whenever the chauffeur of a member drove recklessly the owner of the car—who was often the person really in fault—would be punished, the club might be given more power. But was there any case in the history of the club in which a member had been expelled for reckless driving, or censured for the reckless driving of his chauffeur? In a large number of cases-the person who ought to be censured or

    479
    punished was not so much the chauffeur as his master, who, by allowing him to drive in a reckless manner had conduced to the accident.
    Then as to the administration of the Act of 1903. Whatever any individual's views might be as to a speed limit, that was not a question for the Local Government Board at all. Parliament had decided that there should be a speed limit, and it was the duty of the Local Government Board to administer the law. Remembering that in 1903 the present Secretary for Ireland did all lie could to prevent Parliament from imposing a speed limit, but was compelled by the general feeling of the House to give way, he could not help thinking, during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that, as President of the Local Government Board, he must have been biased and influenced by the views he still held, instead of carrying out, in a bona fide straightforward way as all Government Departments should do, the law as accepted and laid down by the House, and not as the head of the Department might wish it had been framed.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUpointed out that the Local Government Board had nothing whatever to do with the speed limit of twenty miles an hour limit.
    MR. CRIPPSagreed that fortunately the Local Government Board had nothing to do with it in that way, and his hon. friend would admit that he was likely to know the law so far as not to fall into an error of that kind. The first point of the right hon. Gentleman was in effect that he regretted the law was not left under Section 1 so that anyone might be punished for reckless driving. There was a complete answer to that. First of all, it was not the law, and secondly, as regarded the administration of the law, everyone who had dealt with these practical matters as a magistrate, whether under the Motor-Car Act of 1903 or under the Highways Act of 1848, knew the extreme difficulty of proving a case of reckless driving unless the reckless driving had been carried to such an extent as probably to endanger human life. Personally, speaking from pro-
    480
    fessional experience, he would not advise anyone to embark upon a case of that kind unless the facts were very patent indeed. They did not want reckless driving so much punished as stopped and avoided. Persons could not be present at their own inquest if they were driven over and killed, and in one's absence in a case of that sort every possible prejudice would be alleged on the other side, and there would be no guarantee whatever that proper punishment would be meted out to the reckless driver. After a child had been killed or damage done it was too late to punish a man for reckless driving; what was wanted was a system or a speed limit which, in the great majority of cases, would prevent reckless driving or punish the driver before he reached a dangerous pace.
    He would not reargue the question of the speed limit. It was the law and the Committee were considering, not an alteration, but the administration of the law. He believed it was the greatest possible safeguard to have a speed limit, and only under some such definite rule could they have any guarantee in the great majority of cases that motor-cars were driven at speeds not dangerous to a large number of people who had an equal right to use the highways. When the question was before Parliament, he argued that the safety of the roads should be entirely under the control of the local authorities who were responsible for their management and maintenance. Those who held that view were overruled on the principle, not that if the powers were given to the local authorities no such regulations would be made, but that if the powers were given to the Local Government Board, they might have a system of regulations of almost universal application throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman who was then at the head of the Local Government Board had to-day stated that he did not believe in the speed limit. What had been the result? Practically every application of the local authorities had been disregarded, and many other authorities had in consequence withdrawn their applications altogether. Was that fair treatment of a Parliamentary enactment in which the speed limit was introduced with the

    481
    common consent of the House? Furthermore, a speed limit of twenty miles an hour applied in villages and populous districts was entirely inadequate, and by its inadequacy might itself conduce to reckless and dangerous driving. The intention of Parliament was that the children of the villages—and they were an important factor in the question—should be fairly safeguarded in their everyday user of the roads, and it was a monstrous thing that in our villages and town districts the Local Government Board had done nothing; but in its dislike of a speed limit had allowed the maintenance of the twenty mile limit which was of no benefit whatever to those particular districts. Abroad, at the entrance to almost every village there were notices requiring a speed of much less than ten miles an hour to be observed while going through the village. He suggested to the Automobile Club that, if they really desired the motor industry to be fostered in this country, they should not, as they had done hitherto, appear at every one of these inquiries in order to oppose a proper speed limit in country districts, but recognising what the difficulties were, should do their best to secure a fair regulation in the matter.
    Licences as they stood were absolutely absurd, but the Local Government Board were not to blame for that, as they had no powers in the matter at all. As to penalties, it was perfectly clear that those prescribed in the existing Act were wholly inadequate as deterrents. That was particularly true with regard to the owners of the cars. Without wishing to raise any prejudice on the point, all must recognise the fact that in the majority of cases the owners of motor-cars belonged to the richer classes, to whom a £5 penalty meant nothing at all. He believed it to be absolutely essential—and he did not understand the Chairman of the Automobile Club to oppose it—that if reckless misconduct in driving were proved, even for the first offence there should be power of imprisonment. The right of appeal to a Judge might be a proper safeguard. The magistrates had done their best to administer fairly a very difficult Act, and he did not at all subscribe to the sugges-
    482
    tions of bias on the part of magisterial benches throughout the country; but every conceivable precaution ought to be taken against any subject of His Majesty being unjustly imprisoned. So long as they had matters of this sort which depended not on the strict law, but on the interpretation given regarding the particular facts in a particular case, he thought the safeguard of appeal should be given, but with that safeguard there should be an adequate system of penalties, so as to stop as far as possible reckless misconduct in the driving of motor-cars. They must insist as regarded the administration and as to any alteration of the law that the users of the country roads who had used them from time immemorial, and who provided and paid for them, should have an adequate guarantee that their rights would be preserved, not by keeping motors off the roads, but by keeping them under fair control.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid it appeared to him that hon. Members wanted motorists not to be bound by any speed limits whatever, but to be simply bound by the ordinary common law of the land. That was a very great demand to make. There was absolutely no analogy whatever between the motor-car and a horse and trap. A horse and trap seldom went more than ten or twelve miles an hour, whereas the motor-car wont thirty, forty, or fifty miles an hour. The comparison should be made between the motor-car and a railway train. At a level-crossing there was always some kind of signal or safeguard, and when an ordinary footpath crossed the railway the Committee upstairs said there must be a bridge over it, but here they had motors allowed to run on the roads of fifty or sixty horse-power. Motors ought not to be allowed to go at any speed proprietors thought proper. The roads were the property of all, and he did not see why people for their own pleasure should make the lives of the great majority of the people who used those roads miserable. The automobile journals had criticised Members of Parliament very unfairly, and one writer went so far as to threaten them, for he had told his friends not to vote for any hon. Member who voted for the imposition of further

    483
    restrictions. He believed the great majority of motorists did not wish to break the law. As a rule, it was the minority against whom they had to make laws. Why offenders who broke the law by negligent driving should not be punished he could not understand, and it was no excuse to say they did not know the law. It was no excuse for a poor man to say he did not understand the law, and yet it had been contended that there ought not to be a speed limit because chaffeurs did not know the law. The whole thing was absurd. He had no objection to motorists, but in the interests of the public the law of 1903 would have to be altered.
    The public were naturally indignant at the way in which the law was being administered. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had deprecated anything being said that would arouse class feeling, but the way in which the Local Government Board had administered the Act had certainly produced this effect, for it had given the people in the country to understand that the law could be broken with impunity by the rich whilst it had to be obeyed by the poor.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board has nothing to do with the administration of the law.
    MR. CAWLEY: They had refused all local authorities power to regulate speed, and in that way they had given the public to understand that they were in favour of motorists and disregarded the public safety. For the first time since the old régime, before the French Revolution, the poor people were beginning to look upon the wealthy classes as an intolerable nuisance to their brethren and were beginning to hate them. The poor man did not like to be run over by a man in a superior position to himself, and he did not always care to rush out of the way when somebody blew a horn. He really thought motorists would be rather disappointed if they did not have a few hair breadth escapes, because it was looked upon as a kind of sport and it was for sport that they used the roads to the terror and disadvantage of those who had to get their living on and by them. Therefore, it was the duty of the House
    484
    to protect those who had a right to use the roads and not those who desired to use them for sport.
    As to the refusal of the Local Government Board to allow local authorities permission to make a speed limit of ten miles an hour in certain areas, he did not think the Government would have got the Bill through the House if hon. Members had known that motor-cars would have been allowed to run through narrow streets and down steep gradients at over ten miles an hour. Whether a pledge to this effect was given or not, at any rate there was a distinct understanding when Section 9 was carried that local authorities would have power to restrict motor-cars to ten miles an hour in areas where there were narrow streets and steep gradients. The Local Government Board had disregarded the spirit of the Act and carried it out in direct contravention to it. They had frightened a lot of local authorities from applying for these powers. In the city of Winchester the streets were very narrow and the gradients steep, and in five days no less than 830 motor-cars went round a dangerous corner. The local authority applied for powers but they were referred to the common law of the land. The same thing occurred in Leeds, a city where they were allowed to borrow millions for great works and for an education scheme. Why was not Leeds allowed to regulate the traffic of its own streets? That was not the spirit in which this Act went through the House of Commons. The town of Bury applied for the speed to be limited within half a mile of the parish church. The streets were Very narrow and tortuous, and there were schools and mills whose doors opened out into the streets, but here again the President of the Board of Trade referred them to the common law of the land. That was not the spirit in which the law was laid down. That case illustrated what had happened in regard to all the towns that had applied to the Local Government Board. It had been said that not many local authorities had applied, but they were not likely to apply in these circumstances. If the Local Government Board gave the power in one case why should they not do it for everybody else when there was a good

    485
    case made out? The Act had been grossly misused by the Local Government Board.
    Who opposed the applications which were made to the Board? They were opposed by the Automobile Club and other clubs. These clubs of rich men had more weight with the Local Government Board than any local authority in the land. That was the only conclusion they could come to. These clubs brought forward a whole lot of skilled motorists as witnesses. The same inspector was sent out by the Local Government Board to inquiry after inquiry, although it was perfectly well known that the inspector would report against the authority which made the application. It was a farce! It was putting the local authorities to unnecessary expense, because, while they were going to tell the local authorities to abide by Section 1, they sent this man out to make inquiry as if everything were above-board and straight. He believed that motors had come to stay, but whether they had come to stay, running under present conditions, was another question altogether. He was entirely in favour of a speed limit. He did not think the ordinary law of the land was good enough to regulate motor traffic, considering the people who used motors. If the ordinary law was to be left by itself he did not see how they were to get any prosecution at all. It could scarcely be proved that a man was driving recklessly unless there was a speed limit. Supposing a man was prosecuted for reckless driving, he would say that he was driving at one speed, and the police would say that he was driving at another. It was a disgrace that the law in regard to the speed limit was not carried out in the way intended when the Act was passed.
    MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid he had one or two suggestions to make to the Local Government Board which might lead to considerable amendment in what he thought everyone seemed to regard as a most intolerable state of things. His first suggestion was that a difference should be made in the cost of the licences granted according to the size and the speed power of motor-cars. He was not
    486
    dealing with motor omnibuses or lorries, or different vehicles for the use of the agricultural classes where there were no railways; but with motor-cars alone. His idea was that a motor-car up to ten or twelve horse-power was a vehicle to be encouraged. It was generally driven properly and to the safety of the public. These he would license at a charge of some £2 or £3 a year. The moment they got over that limit he would charge £1 per horse-power, so that if a man chose to drive a forty horsepower motor he would have to pay £40 a year. In this way they would get a substantial contribution towards the cost of the roads which now had to be largely maintained to allow motor traffic to proceed with rapidity. His second suggestion was that there should be a speed limit, and a low speed limit when inhabited places were approached. He was the other day at the house of a brother county magistrate in Yorkshire, who told him that during the summer he had to keep the whole of his windows facing the road closed, because otherwise everything was covered with dust, on account of the motor traffic. His third suggestion was that when they were dealing with the question of certificates to drivers there ought to be some real examination and not the absurd bogus examination now in force. He had heard, and he believed it was true, that to see what would happen, a blind man applied for a licence, and got it. There should be a bona fide examination of some sort for everyone who drove a motor on a public road. His last suggestion was not so much to the Committee as to his brother magistrates outside. If they wanted to inflict a penalty which was really telling, let them suspend the driver's licence for a time. [An Hon. MEMBER: And the owners.] He quite agreed; if the owner chose to employ a man whom he could not trust then let him be responsible as well. Drivers did not mind a fine of £5 or £10, but if the power of driving a motor-car for six months was taken away, they would care about that. He hoped his right hon. friend would lend a favourable ear to these suggestions.
    MR. LAMBERTsaid he wanted to draw the atten-

    487
    tion of the Committee to one or two points which were mentioned by the president of the Automobile Club in the speech he had just made. It seemed to him that gentlemen who drove motor-cars wanted to discredit the police as much as possible. When the hon. Member stated that Mr. Edge said he was only driving at twelve miles an hour, and that the police said the speed was forty-three miles an hour, he could not help feeling that this would cast discredit on the police in the eyes of the general public. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the police discharged their difficult duties to the best of their ability, and that they did it very well. He was sure no policeman summoned motorists out of pure prejudice. It was because he believed it was his duty to carry out the law. If professional chauffeurs were asked the law in regard to motors, they would say that it required them to keep below twenty miles an hour. But they ought to know that they must not drive recklessly or to the danger of the public. There ought to be some examination to ensure that a man not only knew how to drive a motor car but that he knew the law of the land in this matter. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, when considering an amending Act, would insist on more strict punishment than even the censure of the Automobile Club on the chauffeur. It must be recognised that motor-cars had come to stay, but it must also be recognised that they must be driven with regard to the public opinion of the country.
    He thought the Local Government Board had been lax in interpreting the duties placed upon them by the Act of Parliament. He would mention a case which had been brought to his notice by a rector in Sussex. He said that a boy was knocked down and killed by a motor and at the inquest the driver said he would not swear that he was not going at more than twenty miles an hour. Now twenty miles an hour was a dangerous speed, for at no part of the road within 120 yards of the spot where the boy was killed was the road more than fourteen feet nine inches wide. The Local Government Board had power to issue regulations to prohibit or restrict driving motor-cars on
    488
    any highway which did not exceed sixteen feet in width. Here was a case where a boy was killed on a road only fourteen feet nine inches wide! He asked the President of the Local Government Board if he had issued any regulation that motor-cars should go at a less speed than twenty miles an hour on these narrow roads. If the Local Government Board were in favour of carrying out the spirit of the Act they would have regulations of that kind all over the country. A man driving at twenty miles an hour in these narrow road must be driving recklessly and to the danger of the public. It was the duty of the Local Government Board to protect the lives of little children. What he would say to the right hon. Gentleman was that he should allow much greater power to the local authorities to control the speed of motor-cars. Of course, the Local Government Board should have some power to bring these regulations into uniformity. In answer to a Question the other day, the President of the Local Government Board said that he had had forty-five applications from local authorities to fix a speed limit, that seventeen had been withdrawn for various causes; that twelve local inquiries had been held; and that in only two instances had the Local Government Board fixed the speed limit to five miles an hour. Take the case of the city of Winchester. Surely the corporation of that city knew better than an inspector sent down by the Local Government Board, what speed the motors should run in the streets of the city.
    He must confess, that all motorists were not so amiable as the president of the Automobile Club would have them to believe. A great many of them had banded themselves into a union, and there was a new pledge that no Member of Parliament was to get the assistance of motor-cars at his election unless he subscribed to the rules of the union. It seemed to him that the Automobile Club had taken up an attitude which might tell against themselves in the long run. After all, there was a good deal of human nature about.
    MR. ARTHUR STANLEYsaid that if Parliamentary candidates asked for cars, the club must prescribe regulations.
    MR. LAMBERTsaid that if the members of the Automobile Club were to assist candidates for Parliament who would carry out their own wishes, that was surely a species of bribery; and he hoped the Automobile Club would not take up such an attitude. What he, himself, wanted was a fair and reasonable speed on the highways. Agriculturists and others who used the highways for the purposes of their business and of getting their daily bread had the prior claim for the use of these roads over those who used them merely for pleasure. That was the principle which should animate the law; and that was the spirit which should animate the President of the Local Government Board in passing legislation through this House on the subject of motor traffic.
    SIR PHILIP MUNTZsaid that this was a question in which he had taken great interest for many years. When this Bill of 1903 was passing through the House he was in favour of a speed limit of fifteen miles an hour; and he was still of the same opinion. It was a great error to allow a limit of twenty miles per hour. What struck him was that the Local Government Board did not seem to appreciate in any way the strength of the feeling in the country in regard to this matter. In his opinion the Local Government Board had neglected its duty, with the result that there was a great and growing feeling against motoring throughout the country. In fact, it had come to this: either to stop motoring altogether, or to adopt stringent measures so as to secure the safety and comfort of the people on or adjacent to the highways, and the protection of property.
    He agreed with everything that had been said in regard to the danger to life and the wrecking of the nerves of people who used the roads, but there had not been sufficient said in the course of the discussion as to the injury to property caused by the high speed at which a large number of motor-cars were driven. Take some of the good old towns and villages like Stratford-on-Avon and Henley-in-Arden. They were pretty, with picturesque residences, occupied by professional and business men. He agreed with the hon. Member for Yorkshire in saying that in such towns and
    490
    villages every door and window had to be shut and the occupants could not even sit in their gardens on account of the dust which was raised by these motor-cars. The consequence was that, the whole value of their property was destroyed. This also applied in country districts to glass-houses used for the cultivation of fruit and flowers. He knew, of his own knowledge, that the value of such houses had been destroyed by the motor-cars. The tremendous dust raised by them settled on the glass, obscured the sunlight, and the fruit and flowers could not ripen or come into full bloom. [Ironical laughter.] This was no smiling matter for a great many people, and it might be relied upon that John Bull and Mrs. Bull were getting into a frame of mind that they would not stand this much longer. Why should ten or twenty thousand people be allowed to ride rough-shod over the great bulk of the population of these islands? That was a plain, sensible Question to ask; and he wanted the right lion. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to answer it.
    Then agriculturists were suffering very severely from the enormous plague of dust which was raised on the highways by those motor-cars. The dust rose like a cloud, hung for a whole day over the adjoining fields or was carried further by the prevailing wind and was finally deposited on the crops to their ruination. Again, when a farmer went out with his horse and waggon to take his produce to market, a motor-car came along, driven at excessive speed, and frightened the horse, and accidents continually happened. He had seen that happening in the narrow roads of Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire and many other parts of England. Naturally farmers were very sore indeed against these motor-cars. The Local Government Board certainly did not seem to appreciate the extent of the grievance, for, instead of administering the law and assisting the local authorities, the Department had obstructed the local authorities in dealing with the evil and had grossly neglected their own duty.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ripon

    491
    Division was a very practical one—namely, that the chauffeur who drove furiously should have his licence taken away for a considerable time and that the owner of the motor should also be prevented from using it for a period. That would have a very considerable effect on gentlemen who were fond of scorching. He himself had a motor in Italy, and engaged a chauffeur who was a very astute person. In the first week he ran over a pedestrian; it happened in the second week, and also in the third. Meantime, he himself had to pay a fine and an indemnity on each occasion. He mentioned the matter to a friend, who asked the name of the chauffeur. On learning it he remarked, "Oh, he was employed by a friend of mine, and he always stuck a member of his family in the way." When he himself told the chauffeur he would have to pay future indemnities himself the accidents ceased.
    He was not in favour of a general speed limit in the interests of pedestrians. In other countries there was no speed limit, yet the accidents were fewer in number. In German notices were posted at particular points, stating the speed at which all vehicles should travel. That was the real way of meeting the matter. For instance, the local authority might notify that the speed through a village should not exceed five miles an hour. If the speed through a village were ten miles an hour it would be dangerous, because the village street was the playground of the children. He did not believe that the proprietors of motor-cars generally did drive furiously; but a man might be in a hurry and might drive furiously along a straight road with no person in sight. He could not understand a policeman standing behind a hedge. It would have been infinitely better if he were stationed in a village where there might be danger. In France men who drove vehicles to the public danger were punished very severely, but the speed was not limited. It was suggested that the horse-power of the car should regulate the speed; but a ten-horse-power car with a light weight could travel as quickly as a forty-horse-power car. He remembered that many years ago there was galloping in the Park. The persons who indulged in
    492
    it were called "galloping snobs"; they were attacked in the newspapers, and they were put down by the force of public opinion. He thought the late President of the Local Government Board had not fairly administered the law. It was not sufficient to reduce the speed; neither would he allow each county to lay down a limit for itself. In his opinion there should be no general law as to speed; but he would allow any village or town to display a notice limiting the speed where there was danger.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the two grievances of the public in connection with motoring were danger and dust. These were rural rather than urban grievances. There was comparatively little difficulty in regulating traffic in towns. Urban motorists were in the main ignorant of the country districts through which they drove, and were a danger to all on the road. He did not know if it was possible to make a calculation, but he thought it would be admitted that the danger to rural dwellers had increased 50 per cent. during the last three years. If that were so it established the direct necessity on the part of the Government to endeavour to reduce the percentage of danger to a more reasonable level. The danger was universal. It applied to the cottager and to the farmer, as well as to all who used the road in a more luxurious way. It did not arise altogether from excessive speed, although that was a distinct element; but he had himself noticed that drivers of motorcars were now more audacious than formerly in using their vehicles. An old coaching man like himself naturally noticed these things. Motorists would drive within a foot of the wheel of his carriage, and he did not know whether the horse would swerve in one direction or the other. Then, again, motor-vehicles ran round corners at a great, pace, and brought an enormous cloud of dust. It was not possible to avoid danger under such circumstances. A farmer might have a young or a shy horse to train, but was now prevented from exercising it on the read, owing to the development of motor traffic. This was essentially a rural question.

    493
    They had had many remedies suggested for this danger, some of them practical and good. By all means let them insist that no man should drive a motor-car a yard along a public road who had not passed a stringent examination as to his capacity, and let the licence of any driver who failed to satisfy the police be endorsed in such a way that he would lose his licence altogether on a repetition of his misbehaviour. There was also a good deal in the suggestion that the car should be impounded. Nobody would desire to do such a thing hastily, but it certainly should be done on a repetition of the offence. The best remedy was to bring the punishment of reckless driving much more closely home to the owners of cars. He believed it would be quite right to rearrange the penalties in such a way that the owner of a car, on conviction or on the repetition of an offence in which his vehicle was concerned, should be not only fined but imprisoned. So far as could be judged from what one read in the papers, such an amendment of the law might lead to the temporary seclusion of some noble Lords, and he was not sure whether some noble ladies also would not disappear for a short time; but he did not think any harm would be done to them, and he was perfectly certain that the roads would be safer by reason of their disappearance. This was a matter upon which the public had a right to appeal to the authorities. They were talking in no exaggerated sense and in no sense of hostility to motor-cars, but because they thought it right that the public should be secured from the dangers arising from the way in which motoring was conducted.
    There were one or two little points of importance to the individuals concerned which he would like to bring to the attention of the Committee. They had heard a great deal of the sufferings of villages and country towns, but hon. Gentlemen sometimes forgot that a great proportion of our rural population was housed not in villages but in scattered cottages along the country roads, and he was not sure that the dwellers in these cottages did not suffer more than any other section of the population. There was a possibility of controlling access to a village; public opinion could be brought to bear upon the subject. But take
    494
    cases such as were within his own knowledge—the case of a sick child in one of those isolated rural cottages, whose life was perhaps dependent upon the admission of fresh air through an open window. It was impossible to give the child fresh air because of the constant passage of motor-cars. Again, if a cottage door were open the meals of the poor people who lived there were often spoiled while upon the table, owing to the dust raised by passing cars. Those who had travelled in the East knew the conditions under which a meal was eaten in a sand storm, and in such a case as that which he had mentioned people were subjected to similar conditions. Then, too, washing hung out to dry was often completely spoiled by the dust raised by cars. It was not as if the dust came once in a way; it was constant, day and night. He hoped that the damage, mischief, and danger involved to dwellers in the country would not be forgotten when this question was judged upon its merits.
    A remedy for the dust, he supposed, would ultimately be found in some treatment of the roads which would mitigate the nuisance. It was said that something had been found which should be applied to the roads; but at whose cost? At the cost of the people who did not want the motors, but yet suffered from all the dust which the cars raised. Was the improvement, to be carried out at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few? If motorcars were to be used for the amusement of the few they must pay for it. If it were held that those who drove motors were to have the use of the roads as part of the public, then the public must bear the cost of preventing the dust nuisance. But in no case was it fair that the ratepayers of a particular district should bear the expense. He trusted from what he had heard in that House that those who drove or owned motors would recognise that motoring was an absolutely selfish amusement, and that it gave pleasure to the few at the cost of the many. Let them appreciate that aspect of the question, and then let them seek to make their amusement less selfish and join with those who were trying to meet them in an amicable spirit.
    MR. NORMANthought that those who represented the motor interest should also take part in the debate. Therefore he rose, rather than because he had anything of value to add to the admirable speech of the president of the Automobile Club. That speech had dealt with the whole question, with a completeness, a frankness, and a wisdom which he had been glad to see so generously recognised by the Committee. He was thankful to recognise that motorists were getting off more easily than he had feared, and much more easily than they did during the debates of 1903. He came into the House with something like a feeling of trepidation, and when the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth rose he shook in his shoes; but so far from anything terrible falling from the hon. Baronet, he could quite sympathise with much that he said. After all, the idea of the hon. Baronet was that motors should disappear from the roads, for he desired to limit them to such a speed that it would not be worth while for anybody to buy or use a car. Doubtless the hon. Baronet's ideal was that every wheeled vehicle should be drawn by a shire horse of his own excellent breed. But the phrase that the motor had come to stay was now something more than a mere phrase. Its arrival involved not only a great industrial development and social movement, but a great civilising impulse. He repudiated the assertion that motoring was merely an amusement for the rich. No doubt at present more motors were used for pleasure than for anything else; but it was certain that the movement would have an enormous industrial side, destined to be of great benefit to the country. It was true that some property in the country had been damaged by motors; but, on the other hand, a considerable amount of property had increased in value owing to the same cause. The dust raised by cars might do some damage to agriculture, but the motor industry was going to render services to agriculture incomparably greater than any harm it had done.
    He protested against the suggestion that motorists were unpopular throughout the country. He motored a great deal himself and did not find that he was looked upon as a fiend in human
    496
    shape. On the contrary, he found his car added a new and educational interest to dwellers in rural districts. As to the statement that all the children in North Devon had to be confined inside their cottage homes all day, he thought it could scarcely have been put forward seriously. It seemed to him when he went motoring that not a single child in the United Kingdom was indoors. The point from which they should start in considering this question was that it was possible to drive a motor-car sometimes much faster than the law allowed and still to drive like a gentleman. He frequently drove very fast, but always stopped his car and, if possible, his engine when near a restive horse; he had never, so far as he knew, frightened a nurse with a perambulator; and had never been spoken to by a policeman. On the other hand, he had frequently been thanked by horse drivers for common courtesy, and he believed that to be the experience of a great majority of motorists. At the same time there existed a few who drove selfishly and abominably, and who ought to be suppressed by any means that could be invented. He had seen cars driven in such a way that if he were a magistrate and the drivers were brought before him he would, if he might use the phrase, "take the hide off them." Their conduct was abominable, but that had nothing whatever to do with the speed limit, because such offences happened more frequently in London than else where.
    He was prepared to contribute one or two suggestions to his anti-motor friends. In Paris recently a municipal by-law had been passed practically making it an offence to sound a horn in the streets. He believed the constant hooting of horns in the streets of London might be suppressed and that its suppression would have the effect of making men drive more carefully. Another objection was to the emission of clouds of blue and evil-smelling smoke. There was no need whatever for that, and a man ought not to be allowed to drive through the streets unless he could so control his engine as to avoid it, for it was caused through either ignorance or carelessness. Obviously the criticism which motorists had the greatest difficulty

    497
    in meeting was connected with the question of dust. One had to admit that that was a very grave nuisance indeed, and something or other would have to be done. Opponents of motoring would probably say that motors must go or the dust nuisance must be put an end to. Certainly motors would not disappear. They had come to stay; but the dust nuisance would have to be dealt with in some way, and he did not suppose that any great social development had ever come without bringing in its train some national burden, and when the best method of settling the dust question had been decided scientifically by experiment, that method would probably have to be put in operation at the charge of the whole community. He had made the suggestion that certain types of cars should contribute much more largely to public funds than at present, and he believed that if cars were charged so much per horse-power the burden would be much more justly apportioned than at present.
    Motorists did not desire in any way to shield nuisance who drove improperly. On the contrary, all decent motorists desired to do everything possible to bring such men to do justice and suppress them All they asked was that there should be a distinct line drawn between a real and a technical offence, that was, between driving so as to cause grave public discomfort or danger and committing any of the brutal and abominable acts to which reference had been made, and merely exceeding an artificial and technical speed limit. In the opinion of all experienced motorists a speed limit was an addition not to the safety but to the danger of the public. They had held that from the beginning, and when once that limit was abolished and every driver was made strictly accountable for what he did, they would have got much nearer to a settlement of the question and to the establishment of those harmonious relations among all sections of the public, which motorists were the first to desire.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUsaid he fully associated himself with the remarks of his hon. friend who had spoken on behalf of the Automobile Club. It was a source of great anxiety to all reasonable
    498
    motorists that for a long time past—certainly since the Act came into force—there had been a tendency on the part of a small section of the motoring community to drive at a reckless speed, or in such a way as to cause inconvenience to the public. He could assure the Committee that the harm such persons did was resented even more by the automobile community than the people who were inconvenienced. The danger so caused and the dust nuisance were the two radical causes of the unpopularity of motorists, and if they could be removed there would not be nearly so much objection in the future to the decent use of motor-cars or even to their use at high speeds. The question of dust was not at all a new one. Hon. Members who had observed the main road leading out of London would have seen by the roadside little pumps put up 150 years ago, in the days when coaches went rumbling along the roads, and the dust nuisance was evidently then as great as to-day. He did not at all agree that the dust problem was insoluble. As a matter of fact it was in a fair Way towards solution. Experiments in which he had taken a humble part had been made with a view to finding out the best way of laying dust, and it had been proved beyond all doubt that at an extra cost of about 2s. 6d. per ton there could be put, on the main roads, or wherever it was required, a material which would last longer, was non-slippery, and, above all, dustless. He did not think motorists would object to extra taxation, provided the proceeds were devoted to such purposes as road improvements and dust prevention, which would tend greatly to the removal of the grievances under which the public and they now suffered.
    In some of the attacks which had been made on the Local Government Board, hon. Members seemed hardly to realise that local authorities had power to put up warning posts without any application whatever to the Local Government Board. In his own county of Hampshire they had put up about 470 warning posts at dangerous crossroads, entrances to villages, and other places, and there was no reason why that should not be done

    499
    in every county in England. A proposal that such persons who drove recklessly after passing such warning posts should be more heavily punished would receive the undivided support of motorists in the House. With regard to the reduced speed limit in towns, he did not think the opposition had in every case been altogether wise or diplomatic from the public point of view. In certain places it had been opposed where a lower speed limit was possibly justifiable. But that was not so in all cases. As to the question of a reduced speed limit in towns, there certainly were places in which, in his opinion, a reduced limit was justified. Motorists generally would probably not oppose in future in a gratuitous fashion applications for a speed limit; but if the local authorities were wise they would not ask to be allowed to schedule in every case what was known as the borough area, as that area often extended a long way beyond the inhabited portion of the borough. He entirely agreed with the Chief Secretary that, if the police concentrated their attention on the enforcement of Clause 1 of the Act of 1903, they would do more to stop reckless driving than at present, and would receive every assistance in their efforts from motorists. That clause gave most stringent and wide powers not only as regarded traffic actually on the road, but traffic which might be reasonably expected to be there. The penalty for a first offence was a fine up to £20, and for a second offence a fine up to £50 with imprisonment and the endorsement or suspension of the licence. He would not oppose the suggestion that in certain cases there should be imprisonment for even a first offence, but, all the same, the penalties already provided by Parliament were very effective, and they had been put in operation over and over again in the country.
    He quite realised that motor-cars were unpopular in many places to-day, and must be so for some years to come. But every new movement of this kind must arouse opposition. On the other hand, however, the picture which had been drawn of children confined entirely to the house because of the dangers of
    500
    motor-cars was very much exaggerated. There was now a general tendency to use the roads more largely by all traffic including motors, and what was wanted amongst the drivers of motor-cars was more courtesy, but courtesy could not be enforced by law. What was required also was a little more common sense. As the hon. Member had said, they should drive on the road like gentlemen, and do all they could to conciliate public opinion. The whole motor-car movement was in its early stages. Only six years ago when he drove down to the House in his motor-car he was stopped at the gates and told that it was not a suitable vehicle to go into the Palace Yard. There had been a great change since then, for the other night, on the occasion of an important division, he noticed no less than thirty-four motor-cars in the Palace Yard. Motorists were anxious in every way to remedy the evils which existed, and they would not oppose any reasonable proposal of the Government or the local authorities to make the Bill more efficient if it came up for revision.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they would all agree that the Committee had had that afternoon a very instructive discussion, in the course of which interesting suggestions had been made. With some of these suggestions he cordially sympathised, and there were, of course, others with which he did not altogether agree. In the course of the discussion suggestions had been made in regard to changes which it would be desirable to make in the Motor-Car Act. While he did not regret that the debate had been to all intents and purposes a Second Reading discussion upon a Motor-Car Bill, he might, perhaps, recall the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Motion before them was one for the reduction of the salary of the President of the Local Government Board and, strictly speaking, nothing was relevant to such a Motion except the administrative acts of the Board.
    The extent of the administrative powers and duties of the Local Government Board under the Act had been strangely misunderstood by some speakers. One hon. Member

    501
    seemed to think that it was possible for the Board, not only to make regulations, but to see that they were carried out. That was not the case. They had power to make regulations in regard to identification marks, the registration of cars, the granting and renewal of licences, the size and colour of notice boards to be erected at dangerous places, and the limiting of speed to ten miles an hour within particular limits or places on the application of the local authority. These were the functions which the Local Government Board had to discharge under the Act. The discharge of the duties of the Board had been impugned only as regarded the making of regulations for heavy motor-cars and for the limit of speed which was to be fixed on the application of the local authorities. The hon. Member for Orkney made a violent attack on the Board and on the Committee which had been appointed to consider the question of the regulations for heavy motor-cars, which he described as a lop-sided Committee. Well, it was a Departmental Committee of which the right hon. Member for Somerset was Chairman, and it included among its members Sir William Arrol, Mr. Munro, Mr. Law, of (he Local Government Board, and two eminent engineers. He did not think there was any ground whatever for suggesting that the constitution of the Committee was an unfair one, still less for the charge that the evidence taken was of a partial character and did not show the true state of the facts. It was unnecessary to go at length into the criticisms of the hon. Member for Orkney. He had indeed great difficulty in following the hon. Member, but, so far as he could follow him, he did not think any of the statements made could be justified by the Motor-Car Order. If the hon. Member had studied the Older with more care he would have found many of his Objections largely mitigated.
    There were two clauses in the Act under which speed might be limited by regulation of the Local Government Board. Under Clause 9 a maximum of ten miles an hour could be imposed within any limit or place, and in making a regulation under this clause the Board had to consider if it was required in the interests of public safety and not merely the
    502
    desire of the local authority. Under Clause 8 motor-car traffic might be prohibited or restricted in any highway when the width of the roadway did not exceed sixteen feet, or where the traffic would be a possible danger. Under this section the Board could take action without application from a local authority, but had not done so, nor was it desirable the Board should. Applications, however, had been received, and in respect to these criticism had been most severe. It was only fair in defending the policy of his predecessor to point out that comparatively few local authorities had applied, only forty-nine out of 277, and of these seventeen wore formally withdrawn, a considerable number wore allowed to remain in abeyance, twelve local inquiries were held, and two applications were granted. Under Section 9 no order had been issued. His right hon. friend had explained the reasons why the majority of the applications had been refused. He took the view that it was better to proceed under Section 1, which prescribed no limit of speed, than to impose a limit of speed which might afterwards be in danger of being regarded not as the maximum but as the minimum. Ten miles an hour might in many cases be an excessive speed; and if ten miles an hour were fixed there would always be the temptation to the driver to regard any speed up to ten miles an hour as justifiable under all circumstances. No doubt, as the discussion had shown, there was great difference of opinion on the question of speed limit, He did not think it fair for the hon. Member opposite to charge his right hon. friend with having shown special favour to motorists as against the general public. His right hon. friend, in taking the course he did, believed he was consulting the safety of the public, and he was inclined to sympathise with his right hon. friend's view. Of course an application from a local authority ought to receive very serious consideration and careful examination in an unprejudiced, impartial spirit.
    MR. CAWLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman send an inspector down?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was quite ready to consider the suggestion

    503
    made by the hon. Gentleman. The motor question presented many difficulties, and would present more in the future, As the hon. Member for Barnstaple had said, motors had come to stay and the increase in their number was growing from day to day. Vast capital was embarked in the manufacture of cars, and the development of the industry showed that it would be crushed out of existence by a limitation to fourteen miles an hour, [Cries of "No" and "Why?"] Such was his opinion. He did not think that it would be the view of the Committee generally that a restriction which would seriously impede the speed of motor-cars and would threaten to strangle the manufacturing motor industry would be in any sense desirable. On the other hand he realised that public opinion had been greatly stirred by the danger of motor-cars when recklessly or negligently driven and the accidents that occurred. In addition there was the intolerable nuisance of dust to dwellers by the roadside. Difficulties had to be met without unduly checking the use of motor-cars. Something could be done by Local Government Board administration, more by increased stringency on the part of local authorities and the police, and a good deal by legislation. The Act was a temporary one, and next year it would be reintroduced in an amended form. Further, he thought that next session there should be a full inquiry by Committee or Commission into the working of the Act. He expressed no opinion on the various suggestions made, he thought in his position it would be premature to do so. He suggested to the Committee it would be hardly fair to vote the reduction, which would imply censure on his predecessor and a Department which under difficult circumstances had done its best.
    MR. SOARES: Are we to go on as we are until 1907?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he wished to protest against the selfish and reckless indulgence, at the expense of the public safely and convenience, of the rich lower class, and against the wretched technical plea advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to the case put forward. As a foreigner, he
    504
    asserted that the English people in this matter showed themselves either very patient or very stupid. He could not understand why they had not taken the law into their own hands once or twice and put down motorists with a strong arm. He had received a letter from an Anglican clergyman, the Rev. F. G. Welby, of Marsden, whom he did not know, and who wrote—
    "All honour to you for your gallant stand. We here live with our lives in our hands. Last November I ministered by the side of one of our school children as he lay dying in agony after having been knocked over by one of these accursed motorists. The chauffeur returned to the spot, saw the child sweltering in his blood, said he would be back in a minute, and then rattled off to Henley without offering any assistance. Railway trains travel on rails; and what is now wanted is that motor-cars, should travel on tracks."
    Hon. Gentlemen who represented the Automobile Club were full of righteous indignation to-day against those who went in for reckless driving. What Pharisees hon. Gentlemen were! Had they no scorchers in the House? Some months ago an hon. Gentleman opposite was fined for furious driving; and then attempted to found a breach of privilege against the magistrate who had very properly fined him. On May 15th he himself asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consent to a Return of titled persons and Ministers of the Crown who had been fined for driving motor-cars to the peril of the public. The right hon. Gentleman, replied that a Return singling out a particular class of the community could not be prepared without a great deal of trouble. The right hon. Gentleman himself would have been first on the list, because he has been fined three times.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUsaid that the Prime Minister himself had not been fined.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLstated that the Prime Minister in answer to a Question put by himself, admitted he had been fined. He was brimming over with curiosity, and as the Prime Minister had told him he liked to be asked Questions, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether be did not think the fines inflicted were inadequate, and the right hon. Gentleman in reply said he had no reason to believe they

    505
    were. In his opinion the fines were grossly inadequate when it was remembered that they were inflicted on men who owned motor-cars and to whom money was no object. If these offences were committed by poor men Imprisonment and not fines would be the result. He had tried to define the intellectual environment of various motorists, and it appeared to him that they were wanting in regard to moral sense. He thought it was a gross injustice that a man who had been fined £20 for furious driving one day should be on the bench the next, and sentencing perhaps to fourteen days a famishing boy who had stolen bread. He had a letter from a magistrate which illustrated this fact. That gentleman wrote to him that he had not the honour of his acquaintance, but he would be obliged to him if he would tell him why he (Mr. MacNeill) had made a personal attack on him in the House of Commons; that he was not charged with furious driving, which was a serious offence, but with the mere technical offence of exceeding the time limit. He did not reply to the letter, and he did not know the gentleman, but it was a curious fact that anyone should have thought that any hon. Member would have used his position in the House for the purpose of making a personal attack on anyone. He had never done such a thing in his life.
    He held in his hands a comparison, drawn up by a very eminent gentleman, of the speeds allowed in different parts of the Continent and in this country. After comparing the different regulations on the Continent, he said that in New York City no car was permitted to proceed at a greater pace than eight miles an hour, but in London cars might be seen every evening proceeding at the rate of thirty miles an hour, thus rendering the streets for ladies and timid cyclists impassable. So it was all through this attempt to allow our roads to be destroyed, dust thrown in our faces, our furniture ruined, and the lives of old persons and young children to be endangered, and all for the benefit and amusement of, he believed, not more than 2,000 people. It only showed how demoralised this country had become.
    506
    He would draw attention to one more fact, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board and also the Automobile Club would think of this. At an inquest held at Richmond on the previous day on an aged lady who was
    knocked down and killed by a motorcar while she was crossing the road, the jury returned a verdict of accidental death. The owner of the car, a City merchant, said he was driving at the rate of only four miles an hour, and the coroner stated that as long as the law allowed motorists to tear along at twenty miles an hour they would have to give them fair play, but he had just said to the counsel for the Automobile Club that if the Prime Minister of England had not been the chief off under the twenty mile limit would never have been adhered to. He had spoken feelingly on the subject as he had been two or three times within appreciable distance of being knocked over by motor-cars, and two people had been killed within a stone's throw of his residence in Dublin. He appealed to the House in every way possible to put a stop to this great and selfish iniquity which had destroyed rural life in England.
    MR. HOUSTONobserved that in his view the regulation as to the speed limit was a dead letter. He had recently taken to motoring, and had not had any kind of accident, but he entirely agreed with many of the suggestions made by the opponents of motoring. With regard to the chauffeur, he quite agreed the licence fees ought to be much heavier as well as the tax on motors, and he would favour the imposition of a much heavier charge on the licence for a foreign chauffeur than for an Englishman, in view of the difficulty which might arise with respect to the foreigner if he committed an unlawful act. The point he wished to raise, however, had reference to the position of the law in so far as it was laid down that a person should not, under any circumstances, drive a motor-car on a public highway at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour. It did not say at a rate exceeding twenty miles an hour, but a speed, and therefore it seemed that until twenty miles had been

    507
    run the enactment was a dead letter. He would be glad if that matter could receive the attention of the law officers of the Crown, as this was a penal Act, and must therefore be read strictly in accordance with the wording of the section. He ventured to submit, reading it in that way, that all the fines inflicted for excessive speed had been illegal.
    GENERAL LAURIEsaid the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that this was a Motion for the reduction of his salary. That was true, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that Members had been speaking personally against him. Such a Motion offered the only means the Committee had of getting at the Department over which he presided. It was true that Parliament had passed a certain Act, but that Act empowered the Local Government Board to draft regulations. At the present moment mechanically-drawn vehicles in London were under three sets of regulations. Those regulations were drawn by the Local Government Board, who stated with absolute truth that they were not responsible for their enforcement. That duty devolved upon the police. If, however, a policeman's attention were drawn to a particular vehicle he would say to himself, "I wonder whether that comes under one, two, or three of the regulations?" Two or three days ago he called the attention of a policeman in Park Lane to a motorcar with a trailer attached, travelling at least eight miles an hour, and the policeman stated that he was not certain under which regulation it came, that he could ascertain only by stopping the car and examining certain small letters upon it, and that he could not do that because it would obstruct the traffic. Consequently the car went on. Three times he called attention to that car with the same result. He then wrote to the Local Government Board, who informed him that if the car had certain marks on it it came under one regulation, and if it had not it came under another, but that in any case it was not their duty but that of the police to prosecute. How on earth could regulations be enforced unless the authority which had to enforce them knew under
    508
    which regulation a particular vehicle came?
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to-make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

  EVENING SITTING.

    NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    (BY ORDER).
    As amended, considered.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid that in moving the Motion which he had upon the Paper, he and those who supported him did not desire to upset the decision of the Committee to any great extent, but to try and get carried out what they understood and what they hoped was promised in the Second Reading. They had hoped the clause as put before the Committee by the promoters would avoid unreasonable competition. The point he was taking up, partly on behalf of the town he represented, and partly on the part of others affected, was that where there were tramways supported by the local rates, tramways run under Parliamentary powers by municipalities, they should not be put in a bad position. They thought the Bill as presented to the House would press hardly upon such tramways, because the clause he wished to omit would give the railway company powers for running motor' buses in towns in such a way as to compete in what was called the "pick up" traffic; that these 'buses would not only serve those who wished to go by train, but also those who wished to go from one part of the town to another, and they could not say to what extent that would compete with the existing tramways. If they did compete they must lessen the receipts of the trams and thereby impose a greater liability on the ratepayers. They were not trying to interfere with the facilities of those who wished to go to the railway station,

    509
    but to stop unreasonable competition. The clause not only affected the towns but the country districts. The alteration he suggested did not affect the country districts in any way, and it only affected those towns where they had municipal tramways, and therefore would not interfere with the powers the company would get under this Act to serve the public in the country districts. All they wanted to do was to safeguard the existing rights of those towns and urban districts which possessed municipal trams, and to safeguard the ratepayers as far as possible. It might be urged that it was impossible for motor-'buses to compete with electric trams and that might possibly be so, but that was not yet decided, and at any rate if it was possible to compete they wanted to prevent that competition. He thought railways had quite enough to do to serve the places they now served, which in many cases they could not do, and it was therefore a great pity that they should get powers to perform a work now very well done by the municipalities. He did not ask the House to interfere with those districts where the trams were run by private companies, because he saw no reason why they should interfere with one company in favour of another.
    The clause which he wished to move provided that the company should be able to run 'buses and carry on a certain amount of traffic in towns with the consent of the local authorities and of the Board of Trade. The company had to get the consent in writing of the local authority and then of the Board of Trade. That protection, he submitted, was sufficient, because if he was successful in his Motion the Board of Trade would not allow the consent of the local authority to be withheld for any unreasonable cause. He did not intend to occupy the time of the House at any length, but to put the matter before the House and let it decide. This was practically a new power. It was true it was given to the Great Eastern Railway last year, but this was the first time this point had been raised. Two or three railways had similar clauses in Bills this year but they were eliminated before the Bills went to Committee, and it was
    510
    left for this railway company to test this very important point first in Committee upstairs and then in this House. He did not wish to contest the decision of the Committee, but he thought they were justified in bringing a new fact before the House. The question was, should a railway company be allowed to so extend their position as to give a motor service all over the country or should they be allowed to extend it only to those districts which were not served by an efficient tramway service, and only then when the Board of Trade considered it should be done. That was the question in a nutshell. He begged to move.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid in rising to second the Motion he desired to make a few observations for the purpose of showing the reasonableness of the position its supporters had taken up in this matter. The powers the North-Eastern Railway Company were endeavouring to obtain were exceedingly numerous and were for the purpose of running motor-'buses, with whicht hey had been experimenting, in the rural districts through which their railway system operated. Everyone was prepared to give them all assistance possible towards utilising, for their own purposes and for the purposes of the public, a system of motor-'buses in badly supplied rural districts; those who supported this Motion had the fullest sympathy with the railway company in their attempts to supply rural districts with this means of locomotion. They also wanted to use these motor-'buses for the purpose of carrying passengers, passengers' luggage, and mails in the cities and towns as well as the rural districts. In that also the supporters of this Motion went a long way with them, but they differed from the railway company when they asked for powers to enter into direct competition with the municipal tramways in urban districts. If this Bill with the Amendment went through, the company would have full power to extend their present experiments in rural districts and with permission in the district of an urban or municipal authority, but would not have power to enter into competition with a public tramway which might be on the route they wished to travel over. He

    511
    submitted that the supporters of the Amendment had a perfect right to object to the company getting any such power. But it was clearly laid down in the evidence given before the Committee by Sir George Gibb, the chairman of the company, that that was the object the company had in view. They were anxious "to get a little of their own back," which had been taken away from them by the public authorities. But, if that was going to be allowed, the tramways which had had to come to this House for their powers, and whose lines had been curtailed, would have their revenue curtailed, also and the municipality would suffer and the ratepayers be placed under greater liability.
    He and those who acted with him objected to those powers being given because they thought it would be unreasonable competition with the municipalities who had to come to Parliament for their powers. In the last twenty years or so this House had sanctioned an expenditure for tramways of £28,625,000; that expenditure had been sanctioned, approved, regulated, and controlled by the powers given by this House, and now when the debt had been created on the security of the rates, was it just that they should be asked to consent to a Bill which would enable a private company which had a considerable monoply in the North of England to endanger the position of the ratepayers who were pledged to pay part of the £28,000,000, by entering into competition with them? If this power were given to the railway company, it would be one of the strongest weapons in their hands for preventing the encouragement of municipal tramways. He argued this point from the general standpoint, because if this power was given to the North Eastern Railway to-day, next year other companies would come to the House for similar powers and quoting this Bill as a precedent. And what would be the position of the towns in the districts which these railways served? The railway company would be in a position to threaten the municipal authorities and say, "If you get your trams we have already power to initiate a system of motor-'buses and we will put them on your streets in competition with your trams,"
    512
    and owing to the great influence that could be brought to bear in small towns there would be no attempt on the part of the municipal authorities to go on with their undertaking.
    There was one most significant point in connection with this Bill, and that was that this company, which was prepared to enter into competition with the tramway authorities, was not willing to enter into competition with other railways, and run 'buses in the districts served by them. That was most significant. With regard to the attitude of the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, whose absence to-night they regretted, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Ripon, he might say that the hon. Member for Halifax had an instruction on the Paper on the Second Reading, and certain promises were given and a certain understanding was arrived at between the promoters and opponents of the Bill. The hon. Member for Berwick on that occasion said,
    "I understand the object of my hon. friend who moved the instruction is to secure that in the Committee there shall be certain safeguards or limiting words which shall, in his opinion, protect the tramways."
    Those were the words of the Gentleman responsible for the conduct of this Bill through the House He went on further and said—
    "The Bill might proceed to Committee, and if there is not a settlement in Committee which is satisfactory to my hon. friend, of course there are opportunities on the Third Reading and the Report Stage when he can bring the matter before the House."
    That was how the understanding had been departed from. What did the hon. and learned Member for Ripon say? He said their object was not a competitive one, and the instruction was withdrawn upon that understanding. He sincerely trusted that the Amendment would be carried.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 39, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (d) of Clause 54, and insert the words, (d) Nothing in this section contained shall authorise the company, in any city, borough, or other urban district provided with a system of tramways owned or worked by the local authority, to run any railway omnibus otherwise than for the conveyance of railway passengers, passengers' luggage, and mails to or from a station or hotel of the company, without the consent in writing of the local authority for such period as may be therein specified."—(Mr. Pemberton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL BOWLESsaid that, as the Chairman of the Committee which had this particular question under consideration, he wished to say a few words. He desired to deal with this question not from its broader aspects but simply in a judicial manner. The case of the Committee was so conclusive from a judicial point of view that it needed no other. He only wished that hon. Members opposite had paid some attention to the evidence brought before that Committee. It had been said that the North-Eastern Railway did not wish to run in competition with other companies. He desired to point out that it was the Committee's own regulation that no such competition should take place. The North-Eastern Company had powers over other lines, but it was explained that they did not wish to bring their motors omnibuses to Bradford and other places where there were tramways, and so the Committee thought the simplest way would be to exclude those places where the company had no stations or lines and where they only had running powers. Therefore he thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle were very unfair. Those inaccuracies only went to show how great was the danger of the House upsetting the judgment of its Committees. The evidence given before the Committee was most impartial and it was very carefully sifted. The hon. Member had tried to put before the House the great bugbear that this would constitute a precedent for other railway companies. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] If the hon. Member who said "hear, hear" had taken the trouble to be present in the Committee-room he would have known that these powers were already possessed by the Great Eastern Railway Company. Another railway company had withdrawn a similar clause to this because the Post Office demanded certain regulations. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle was apparently not aware that if his Amendment were carried it would take away from the Post Office the very powers they asked for from the railway company,
    514
    and that was that they should take up and put down their mails.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Member will find that we include the mails in my Amendment.
    COLONEL BOWLESbegged the hon. Member's pardon and said those words had escaped his notice. He pointed out that the powers asked for were already possessed by the Great Eastern Railway Company, and at the present time a railway company, if it chose, could promote another company which could carry out all these objects without coming to Parliament. The Amendment, it carried, would deprive the railway company of the power of picking up or setting down passengers between its station and its hotel, and it was clearly shown before the Committee that there would be great difficulty in carrying out such a regulation. He thought that questions of this kind ought to be left to the judgment of the Committee upstairs. He could not help feeling that the prospects of this railway company competing against the existing tramways had been to a very considerable extent exaggerated and were imaginary. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick had pointed out, what they desired was that they should have these powers in order that the omnibuses might act as feeders to their railway system. It was true that the manager of this railway did clearly state that he would not be averse to running omnibuses in opposition to the tramways, but he could not help thinking that as he had been under a severe cross-examination he had for the moment allowed the irritation caused by that cross-examination to get the better of him. They had it in evidence, he admitted, that the manager of this railway would not bind himself not to run in competition with the tramways. It was impossible to run a new system of motor-omnibuses without to a certain extent running in opposition to something already in existence. The real question was, Was this a reasonable opposition? And the Committee, after carefully sifting the evidence, had come to the conclusion

    515
    that there would be no unreasonable competition between these motor-buses and the tramways. He thought the opposition was more sentimental than real, and he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that Sheffield had a very efficient tramway system in which they had invested £1,000,000, and they did not want to have within their boundaries the competition of an outside body like a railway company. They had no objection whatever to allowing motor-omnibuses to run to and from the railway stations and the hotels carrying passengers and passengers' luggage, but they objected to them picking up passengers in other places than the station and the hotels, and so competing with the system of the Sheffield Corporation. He deeply regretted not to be able to support a Committee of the House, but this clause put forward by the North-Eastern Company was evidently regarded as a test clause by the other railway companies, and, if it were carried, doubtless next year the Midland and other railway companies would ask for similar powers. This Bill would introduce a new principle, and it would constitute a distinct hardship if railway companies were allowed to come in and compete with large corporations. He asked the House to pause before they adopted a principle of this kind, which would be very oppressive to local authorities.
    SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsupported the Amendment on behalf of the corporation of Leicester, who thought the Bill in its present form might authorise systems of traction which would compete with their tramways in a manner that might not be quite fair to those whose money they had been expending on that undertaking by the authority of Parliament. The general view of the corporation was that railway companies ought not to be permitted to take up and set down passengers except they were journeying between the various railway stations or railway hotels. Leicester had expended £750,000 upon a complete system of electric traction, and
    516
    the corporation had made special arrangements and facilities to expedite the transfer at reduced rates of passengers passing between the various railway stations in the town of Leicester in order to meet the convenience of railway passengers. This Amendment was not supported in a spirit of hostility to the railway companies, which they recognised had done great service to the public in developing the great towns of the country. He begged to support the Amendment.
    MR. YOXALLsaid that Nottingham did not lie in the area served by the North-Eastern Railway, but it was situated in the area of a railway company which would no doubt like similar powers conferred upon it to those contained in this Bill. He trusted that hon. Members would realise that this was a very grave question. This was not a matter which lay between the North-Eastern Railway Company and the Committee on the one hand and a few Members of Parliament who sat for constituencies within the North-Eastern Railway's area. It was a matter which lay between the railway companies which, one after another, would seek to obtain these powers if the powers were given now, and the great municipalities of this country and their tramway enterprises. It was as a precedent that he opposed the clause in the Bill and supported the Amendment.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that as one of the representatives of the city of Manchester he should be inclined to speak on this question from a municipal point of view. A great deal had been said in this debate about the strong objection entertained by municipal councils to competition by motor-omnibuses, but he could not think that that opposition was well founded. He did not think that view would commend itself to the House, because it would be upsetting the deliberate judgment of the Committee. Too little attention in these days appeared to be paid to the decisions of Committees of the House. On the Second Reading of this Bill Amendments were put down by the representatives of the

    517
    various great cities in opposition to the Bill because it contained this clause. That opposition was modified in order that the clause might be considered upstairs, and the result was that municipalities had been protected by the clause which had been placed in the Bill giving railway companies the power of only running their omnibuses in connection with their system to and from their railway stations or hotels, so that the companies were prevented from running their motor vehicles without limitation. It was all very well to say that the tramlines brought passengers to the railway stations, but they did not enter the stations, and persons arriving with luggage would not have the same accommodation by tram as they would have by motor-'buses which would take them right into the station.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that that is provided for in the Amendment.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he did not think that this House should do anything which would diminish the advantage to the travelling public of competition. He could not think it was a wholesome principle that municipalities should not only be enabled to enter into this kind of trading, but that they should be protected against competition by special legislation. He regarded the proposal of the company as conferring a great boon upon the travelling public.
    MR. HARWOODcontended that Committees upstairs had to deal with particular cases and not with general principles, and that the House had a perfect right to intervene when a general principle was involved, as it was in the matter now under consideration. The House had no concern with the intention of a particular railway company. What they had to consider was what would be the inevitable result of the thing as a whole. If this power were given to the North-Eastern Railway Company, every other railway company would come for it sooner or later, and it would be held as a sword of Damocles over the head of every corporation who wished to extend its system of tramways. They knew how
    518
    bitter the feeling was in regard to the competition of the tramways, and if they granted railway companies such powers the danger would be not so much what they would actually do with them as what they would threaten to do, and in that way they would check municipal enterprise considerably. The corporation of Bolton, which he represented, was not immediately concerned in this Bill, but Bolton had spent a large sum of money on electric traction, and now was the time to guard themselves, because, if this principle was adopted, it was inevitable for the whole country. All he asked for was that corporations who had spent their money on tramways should have the same protection in these matters as was given to railway companies. The clause in the Bill was opposed to a well-known principle of railway procedure. When railway companies had running powers over each other's lines they guaranteed that they should not call at intermediate stations, and that they must go from one point to another. All that the local authorities were asking was that the same thing should be done for them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester said the omnibuses would go to the railway station. The supporters of the Amendment did not wish to stop them going there, but they wanted to prevent them stopping on the way. That was the point. The railway magnates whom he saw before him should act towards the corporations in a spirit of fair play. They treated each other in the spirit in which the House was now asked to treat the corporations. The House was now asked to take a most important and just decision. It was asked to guard the rights of the masses of the people, and they would be most justly indignant if the House did not give them as much justice as was given to the monopolist railway companies.
    MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid it was a somewhat remarkable fact that hon. Members on the other side of the House were seeking to deprive the working classes of the country of a large additional means of transit, for if these 'buses were to carry anybody they were most likely to be people of the working

    519
    classes. [An Hon. MEMBER: No.] Why not? The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division was there as a representative of working men, and yet he was to-night attempting to stop a means of transit which had already been approved by the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, and which had been passed by a Committee upstairs. The corporations were afraid that if the North-Eastern Railway Company tried to do their duty to the district which they served there might be some precedent set up detrimental to tramway services which had been established probably at too great a cost. There had been talk about the poor ratepayers, but the North-Eastern Railway Company paid in rates £450,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: Where does it come from?] It came out of the pockets of the owners of the railway. [An HON. MEMBER: Out of the pockets of the public.] They had had to pay one-sixth of the cost of the Newcastle tramways and one-sixth of the cost of the Hull tramways, and he thought that was worthy of the attention of the House. What was really the object which the North-Eastern Railway Company had in view? Their object was to assist passengers to get to their destination, and therefore this Bill was very much in the interests of the travelling public. Hon. Gentlemen who were opposing the Bill would, if their action succeeded, prevent a good deal of facility being given to travellers by rail which they would obtain if the company's proposal was carried out. Sir George Gibb in his evidence had said something in regard to competition.
    He wished to say something as to what that competition would be in the case of Hull, which was one of the largest centres of population on the North-Eastern Railway. A passenger arriving there would find a motor-'bus which he could enter provided it was going in the direction in which he wanted to go. It was very possible that the motor-'bus would have to go a certain distance along the road which the tramway now traversed. If that was competition he admitted that competition to a certain extent would take place. But what about the traveller? What the
    520
    hon. Gentleman opposite proposed was that that man should have to go into the street carrying his goods or getting a porter to carry them to the tramway car which would be followed by the motor-'bus for about a mile. Then he would have to get out of the tramway car and get into the motor-'bus in order to get to his destination which was probably four or five miles out in the country. That was the pleasant journey he was to have instead of the one provided for in this Bill. That was the competition which, the House was asked to say was so adverse to the interest of the British public. He maintained that the Bill was very much in the interest of the British travelling public. As to the earning power of motor-'buses he could tell hon. Members that last year, if they were on one side or the other in that matter, they were on the wrong side. The railway company did not ask this Bill in order to earn a large amount of money. They had a great monopoly, and they were trying to do their duty to the public within that monopoly by providing a comfortable way of travelling which hon. Members opposite were trying to prevent.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester had stated that the House should be slow to interfere with the decision of a Committee upstairs. He quite agreed with that general principle, but when the Chairman of a Committee came to the House and said that the House had no right to put down Amendments to their Report it was taking the matter a little too far. He wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill he said he should be sorry if it were not clearly understood that a city in the position of Manchester, in common with any other large place, should not have competition against the tramways except under proper regulations approved by the city. The effect of the Amendment would be to carry out the view expressed by the right hon. Baronet. This was not a question of municipal trading at all. It was a question of general principle as affecting this House. He had had some experience of

    521
    Committees upstairs, both as a member of them and as an advocate who had appeared before them for some years, and he submitted that when a great scheme had been sanctioned by Parliament, and when great expense had been incurred on account of it, Parliament had always been careful not to sanction any conflicting scheme for a long time. This principle ought not to be departed from because the scheme sanctioned by Parliament happened to be that of a municipal body. Parliament would be stultifying itself if it refused to give careful consideration to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland. Municipal bodies had equal rights with private companies to the benefit of the principle upon which Parliament had hitherto acted in connection with schemes which involved the borrowing and expenditure of large sums of money.
    It was not necessary to go far for a precedent in support of the Amendment. There were lines of omnibuses running daily between the railway stations in London, but they did not stop in the streets to pick up passengers. A friend had informed him that on one occasion he was going to Euston Station in a cab which met with an accident, and that he had to leave the cab, his luggage being placed on the wayside. On hailing a railway omnibus his friend was told by the conductor that he had no power to stop, and that he dare not take him up. Reference had been made to the evidence given before the Committee, and particularly to what was said by Sir George Gibb. Sir George Gibb was an expert on all matters relating to railway traffic in Great Britain, and there was scarcely a case upstairs where he was not called upon to give evidence. He gave evidence in favour of an amalgamation scheme of certain railways in Ireland, and the House passed the scheme. What was the result? A few days ago the company which executed the system of amalgamation had been asked to call a public meeting of the shareholders in order to consider the disastrous position brought about by the evidence of Sir George Gibb in connection with that amalgamation. Therefore, schemes which were supported by Sir George Gibb should be looked upon with some
    522
    suspicion at least. For these reasons he would vote in favour of the Amendment.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars)said the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that there was in this matter something in the nature of a principle involved affecting this House. He felt, therefore, as the representative of the Board of Trade, that he ought to say something about it. He considered it would be a most disastrous thing to carry the proposed Amendment, In the first place, to do so would be to upset the decision of the Committee, which had considered all the evidence and the facts in this particular case. They all understood perfectly well why so much fuss was being made about this; the drum municipal had been beaten again. So far as the principle was concerned this case was exactly the same case which was discussed in connection with the Newcastle tramways; it was the question to what extent municipal authorities, because they were engaged in a particular kind of trading, should be allowed a monopoly which would not be given to anybody else engaged in the same trade. In the case of the Newcastle tramways the proposal made was that the matter should be referred again to the Committee; it was not proposed that this House should decide the question on the spot. Why was not that course taken, to-night? He thought he knew the reason. The Committee on the Newcastle Tramways Bill reaffirmed their original decision, and the municipalities or their representatives felt that they would not dare to face the House of Commons again on the subject, and, therefore, accepted that decision. But now they wished to avoid any danger of that kind by carrying their proposal in the House, most of whose Members had not considered the arguments.
    With regard to the question of competition, nothing had surprised him more than that hon. Gentlemen should speak as if this were a form of competition to which railways were never subjected. It was true railway companies did get a monoply, but they paid very dearly for it, they paid a great deal in Parliamentary expenses,

    523
    and they had to buy the ground over which their lines passed. Municipalities on the other hand, started a large system of tramways which were not confined to their own district, without having to buy any of the land over which they ran and if they were successful it was to some extent at the expense of the railway companies with whom they competed. The railway company, too, was probably the largest individual ratepayer in the district. When there was any talk of running trams over Westminster Bridge municipal representatives said that motor omnibuses could not possibly compete with trams. [An HON. MEMBER: In London.] Over and over again witnesses representing municipal owners of tramways had appeared before the Traffic Commission and given evidence to the effect that owing to the greater cheapness of tramways motor-omnibuses could no compete with them. Yet when a railway company wanted to run motor-omnibuses, as in this case, the municipalities said just the opposite. The Board of Trade was compelled constantly to interfere with railway companies and to carry out Acts which were in the interests of the public, but which undoubtedly meant great deal of expense to the railway companies; and he thought that the representative of the Board of Trade was equally called upon to use whatever influence he could to prevent railway companies from being unfairly treated.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid there was a difference between a public and a private enterprise.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid that as long as this House permitted private enterprise to engage in the same kind of industry as public enterprise they were bound to see that they were allowed to compete on fair terms. For these reasons he sincerely trusted the House for once would not listen to the municipal interest. It was beginning to be a question whether this House should direct the municipalities, or whether the municipalities should control the House.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that as he was the Member who had taken action on
    524
    the Second Reading, and had withdrawn the instruction which he had moved on the assurance of the Vice-Chairman of the North-Eastern Company, he wished to state his reasons for supporting this Amendment. He considered that the Amendment was most reasonable. If it were carried it would do three things. In the first place, it would allow a free hand to the railway company in the rural districts and would let them carry any traffic they chose to take. In the second place, it would allow them to carry traffic to and from railway stations and hotels in towns; and in the third place it provided that where the company proposed to pick up passengers in the district or town where Parliament had authorised a system of tramways, the matter should be referred to the Board of Trade, or a Committee of this House, to decide whether the claim was reasonable and legitimate.
    MR. BONAR LAWsaid that if the question were left to the discretion of the Board of Trade he was perfectly willing; but he understood that the Amendment would not permit the Board of Trade to settle the principles on which this clause was to be carried out.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Amendment should be read in connection with the final sub-section of the clause in the Bill which gave the Board of Trade power to alter or vary the conditions. He could say with perfect confidence that those who supported the Amendment did not desire to prevent equal competition, but unequal competition. At present any corporation or tramway company in an urban district had to come to this House, or to the Local Government Board for a Provisional. Order; and why should not this railway company go through the same process? The danger of passing the clause as it stood was a very real one; it was the danger of crushing out competition. It should be remembered how the railway companies had used the canals. It seemed to him that the clause as it stood was a threat to prevent the growth of municipal or other tramways which would interfere with the railway monoply.
    SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that he would not have intervened in this debate but for the observations made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He thought the House had a right to expect that in a matter of this kind the hon. Gentleman would have sustained a judicial character. Instead of that the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to stigmatise municipalities for setting up a tramway system antagonistic to railway companies. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that that was unfounded. No such attitude had been taken by the municipality of Newcastle, which was the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman. In all his experience, the House of Commons in matters of this kind looked broadly at what was bust for the public interest and not at what was best in the interests of either a municipality or a particular company. The arrangements which had been made between the Midland Railway and one of the great provincial municipalities was a fair compromise. They could not ignore the fact that a broad principle was at stake here. When the question of principle was raised a sort of pledge was given by the representatives of the
    North-Eastern Railway that no competition was intended with the tramways. He was opposed to the railway company obtaining absolutely unfettered powers to institute motor-omnibus services in towns, and he suggested-that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee upstairs for the purpose of having it made clear that claims of this kind by the railway company should be referred to the Board of Trade, and dealt with according to the varying circumstances of each particular case.
    MR. BRIGGsaid he would like to put before the House the case of a town with a system of electric tramways which were only just paying their way. A railway company had two stations in that town, and if they were allowed to run motor-omnibuses between the two stations, they would run along the principal streets and might almost ruin the tramways of the corporation.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 192.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex. F.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Doughty, Sir George

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Elibank, Master of

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col W.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Kerr, John

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lamont, Norman

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Finlay, Sir RB(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Bill, Charles

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lawson, John Grant(Yorks NR.

    Bingham, Lord

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Lee, Arthur H(Hants. Fareham

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Forster, Henry William

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Brassey, Albert

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol. S)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lowther, G. (Cumb. Eskdale)

    Bull, William James

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Caldwell, James

    Gordon, Hn. JE (Elgin & Nairn)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Campell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Moconochie, A. W.

    Chapman, Edward

    Grenfell, William Henry

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Gretton, John

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

    Hamilton. Marq of(L'nd'nderry

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Helder, Augustus

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Tuff, Charles

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Percy, Earl

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks)

    Worsley-Tay or, Henry Wilson

    Purvis, Robert

    Spear, John Ward

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Randles, John S.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lords(Lancs.)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Colonel Lockwood and Mr.

    Roberts, John Bryn(Eifion)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Herbert Robertson.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

    Allen, Charles P.

    Johnson, John

    Reddy, M.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Jones, Lief (Appleby)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Renwick, George

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Boland, John

    Lambert, George

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Brigg, John

    Langley, Batty

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

    Roche, John

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Lundon, W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burns, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rolleston, Sir, John F. L.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Runciman, Walter

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Shackleton, David James

    Cremer, William Randal

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Crooks, William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Delany, William

    Murphy, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Norman, Henry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northants

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Flower, Sir Ernest

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

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Toulmin, George

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gorst, Rt. Hon Sir John Eldon

    O'Malley, William

    Ure, Alexander

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne)

    Hammond, John

    Parrott, William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

    Partington, Oswald

    Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

    Harwood, George

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Young, Samuel

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Pemberton and Mr. J. H.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whitley.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill to be read the third time.

    NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order for the Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    DR. SHIPMAN, who had a notice of Motion on the Paper that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said that an understanding had been come to, and under the circumstances he did not propose to offer any opposition to the Bill, the promoters having agreed to accept the Instruction which was on the notice Paper.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the North-East London Railway Bill that it hear the parties on the Petition against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office of this House on the 11th day of February last by the Promoters of the Hammersmith, City, and North-East London Railway."—(Dr. Shipman.)
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the North-East London Railway Bill that it hear the parties on the Petition against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office of this House on the 11th day of February last by the Promoters of the Hammersmith, City, and North-East London Railway.—(Dr. Shipman.)

    SUPPLY [9th ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £146,954, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."
    MR. SOARESsaid he understood that his Amendment had lapsed, but having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board he should like to take a division upon his Amendment.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But I have called upon the hon. Member for Woolwich.
    MR. WHITLEYasked when an Amendment lapsed owing to the dinner hour was there any precedent for not allowing the Motion to be renewed?
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chairman can call upon whom he pleases.
    MR. SOARESsaid he would renew his Motion to reduce the salary of the President of the Local Government Board by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Local Government Board."— (Mr. Soares.)
    MR. CROOKSsaid he had one or two things to mention in relation to the Vote, and first he desired to know when the Department intended to take some action in reference to the unequal administration of the Poor Law in London. When did they intend to consider recommendations made by various boards of guardians some two years ago? Boards wore allowed to pay gratuities to deserving officers, but always they had reasons from the Commissioners why they could not have assistance from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. That fund was at the present time very unevenly administered, and it pressed very heavily upon the poorer districts of London. The administration of the fund was most unsatisfactory, for while the city of London obtained £11 11s. 2d. and Fulham £7 15s., the amounts gradually decreased until Poplar, needing most help, received only £3 5s. 2d. per head. A clause in the Local Government Act of 1888 enabled the County Council to raise a sum of money to be paid out at the rate of 4d. per head of workhouse inmates, and no revision had been made since 1888. Under that clause the City was entitled to £6,672 and got £9,840, while Poplar got £10,500 while being entitled to £22,500. If the rate were equally divided

    531
    over the whole of London, Poplar would be paying 7s. instead of 12s. in the £, or 4s. 6d. per head of the population, for the maintenance of their poor. The object of this fund was to equalise the burden all over London. They had claimed a good many times that the poor of London belonged to the whole of London, and that the Metropolis should be one and not thirty parishes. It seemed to him downright robbery that in one parish of the Metropolis which was a very poor locality they should have to pay 2s. 6d. in the £ as the poor rate whilst in another rich parish the rate was only 3d. in the £. At the present time in Poplar they were paying £38,000 a year in outdoor relief, and that meant that every man, woman, and child there paid 4s. 6d. per head to maintain the poor. The Prime Minister himself had pointed out the unequal burden of the poor rate, and the President of the Local Government Board ought to make the Order so complete as would enable the poor districts to bear their burdens easier. Instead of a rate of 12s. in the £ the proper share for Poplar was about 7s. in the £, and what a difference that would make to Poplar.
    The last Order issued by the Local Government Board with reference to underfed children had been a great disappointment to every one. They had thought the guardians would be carefully excluded from any interference with the underfed children, and that the education authority would have power to make a little additional grant. The whole system was cumbersome, and applied only to children living with their fathers and whose fathers were permanently impoverished. Could anybody define exactly what poverty meant? They were pleading for the children of those who were out of employment. Various associations had been started in London, such as the London School Children's Dinner Association and the "Referee" fund, and they realised that there were other children who required to be fed besides those provided for in the circular, and these associations treated them in a proper manner. With regard to the recovery of any sum that might be incurred in the feeding of children in consequence of the parents neglecting to maintain them,
    532
    let them suppose that a certain number of children were attending school and the father had neglected to maintain them. They might even suppose that the mother was too lazy to get up in order to get the children their breakfast. That had been given as an instance where the children ought not to be fed. The President of the Local Government Board said in that case they ought to feed the children and then they could see to the parents afterwards. Supposing that in such a case the feeding of the children of these negligent parents went on for a week at a cost of 1s., and they then resolved to commence an action against the father. What would it mean? They would have to create a department to find out whether the man was a responsible person who could afford to pay. They would have to look up the evidence of the teacher to find out whether the children were habitually underfed. Having accumulated all this evidence they would then have to employ a solicitor to place the case before the magistrates, and they would have to call their officers and an endless number of witnesses to prove the case conclusively. Therefore to recover this 1s. they would probably have to spend 30s. in the process. He did not want such parents to escape, but why should they throw good money after bad in that way. He protested against the argument that an elaborate system of legal machinery should be set in motion at great cost to recover 1s. from a parent who did not fulfil his duty by properly feeding his child.
    His suggestion was that the education authorities should be allowed to co-operate with the existing charitable agencies to fill the gap, that they should make an effort to preserve the independence of the children from the Poor Law taint, and that fathers and mothers should not be allowed to drag their children with them into the workhouses. The demoralising effect of associating the children with the Poor Law was beyond exaggeration. The guardians already had the power to subscribe to any institution that could render useful aid to the administration of the relief of the poor. How easy it would be, then, for any properly organised association to come to the

    533
    guardians and ask for a subscription for the underfed children, and thus they might remove the taint of the Poor Law from the children at once. This could be done until such time as the House decided that the local authority should undertake this duty without any voluntary association at all. He might be asked what would he do with the blackguardly father and mother who refused to maintain their children? There was only one way of dealing with them, and he would send them to prison. The teachers in the schools would be able to say to them, "Here is a man in receipt of good wages" or "Here is a woman whose income is so much." If such parents habitually neglected their children and refused to pay for their food, of course the children ought to be fed in the meantime. He reminded the Committee that there was a society known as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children which could deal with such cases. This society had done excellent work in the past and it would do excellent work in the future. If his suggestion were carried out the teachers in such cases as he had alluded to might communicate with the guardians, who in turn might institute a prosecution against the man or woman for neglecting to maintain their children, and in that way they would get all the safeguard they wanted, and at the same time they would have secured that no underfed child would be in attendance at school. It was because he saw, from information received from all over the country, that the Local Government Board Order, issued in all good faith, meant increased officialism and increased expenditure without any advantage to the children, that he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Order and adopt the suggestion he had made.
    SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)said he differed from the hon. Member, to whose remarks he was sure the Committee had listened with sympathetic interest, in feeling deeply grateful to the President of the Local Government Board for the action he had taken in this matter. When Parliament met it appeared from Questions that
    534
    were put that the Local Government Board had not taken into consideration the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration or taken any steps with regard to the children whom that Committee found were in the habit of attending school in a state of semi-starvation. The then President of the Local Government Board took the matter under his personal consideration, and doubtless the circular which the Board had issued was the best that could have been done in the circumstances of the case. It was a clumsy and, he dared say, a very imperfect method of meeting the difficulty; but it was the only method which the President of the Local Government Board could have adopted without further legislation, which in the present session was practically an impossibility. Whilst he thought there was a great deal of truth in the criticisms passed, he did not think the circular was one which could not be worked if the local education authorities and the local boards of guardians would co-operate with each other in order to carry out its provisions. The circular established this—that it was a matter for the concern of the local education authority to see that the physical condition of the children in the schools was properly attended to. That was a great gain. The local education authority had no power to spend the school rate in relieving the necessities of the children, but it was their duty to apply to the Poor Law guardians to provide the funds for relieving those children who were in a state of absolute destitution.
    He agreed that all this could be extremely well done by the proper organisation of volunteer relief committees, and he read the circular as encouraging the formation of such committees, but it was essential that those volunteer committees should possess some kind of public authority. The great mistake in the administration of the Poor Law was not that voluntary assistance was not availed of, but that those who rendered voluntary assistance were not clothed with public authority. In Germany there was a system under which the municipality could call on individuals to render aid in the administration of the Poor Law. In most German cities there was a regular staff of volunteer agents who visited the poor in

    535
    their homes by public authority. He believed that if a system of that kind were carried out in this country a great many of the difficulties regarding the condition of the children would disappear. It was done by the late London School Board in a great many districts. They appointed volunteer committees to visit the children in their homes and to inquire into the domestic circumstances of those who were in an unsatisfactory physical condition, and where the system was well carried out it produced the most remarkable amelioration in the condition of the children. In Seven Dials before the appointment of a committee £40 was spent every winter in an imperfect attempt to feed the children; now a sum of £5 per annum not only fed but clothed the children who required assistance. This result was brought about by visitation and urging parents to do their duty; in short, by the sort of public pressure that was brought to bear. He believed the effect of these circulars of the Board of Education and Local Government Board, if properly carried out, would be to set on foot some organisation of that sort. The experience we should gain would enable such legislation as would give additional powers to the education authority to be carried out next session, probably with the universal assent of the House.
    Those who were taking up the case of children in the schools did not mean to stop at feeding, Medical aid was also of great importance, and exactly the same principles applied as to feeding. They must take care that proper medical aid was given to all the children in the schools. There was a certain conflict of authority between medical officers of health and boards of guardians, and whereas the experience of the medical officers led them to urge the poor to send for the doctor on the appearance of the first symptoms of illness, the policy of the guardians was rather to deter people from applying for medical relief. He urged that in the interests of the public health generally
    536
    people should be encouraged, particularly in the case of children's complaints, to make the earliest application for medical assistance. The doctors said that phthisis could be stamped out altogether if they could only act at once upon the half-starved children, who were the seed-bed in which the disease took its rise. He hoped, therefore, the President of the Local Government Board would apply to medical relief exactly the same principles as to starving children.
    DR. MACNAMARAwelcomed the Order which had been issued in respect to the feeding of hungry children, but expressed the fear that on three grounds it would prove in practice to be almost a dead letter. It would be a dead letter in London because, as the matter was left to the boards of guardians, the charge resulting from it would be a local and parochial charge and not a county charge, and therefore the poor parishes, with their very heavy burden of rates, were not likely to undertake it. He would ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it was not possible without any serious legislation to make any expenditure under this Order a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The whole of the county area would then contribute, and he was not sure that the West End would not be glad to be called upon to bear their share in such a deserving cause. Again, the Order did not deal at all with the case of any child which was not living with its father, and the cases of greatest distress were generally those where the mother was a widow or had been deserted by her husband. What was to be done about these children? They formed a substantial proportion of the whole, but they were left out completely by this Order. The third ground was that the Order left it entirely to the discretion of the guardians whether or not fathers should be disfranchised. If a father had neglected his child when he could have fed it he thought that man should be disfranchised, and treated in the most severe manner. But when it

    537
    could be shown that the child was hungry through no fault of the parent, because the father was out of work, for instance, in that case he should prefer that the decision to disfranchise should not rest with a hard-mouthed guardian who was not anxious to begin operations under this Order. Under such circumstances he did not think the father ought to be disfranchised. There was only one way in which this Order might be effective, and that was that where there were voluntary agencies in existence with the necessary machinery the guardians should make a lump sum contribution to their funds from time to time. The Poor Law treatment of the case was the wrong one. There was the possibility of inflicting a grave injustice on the parent, and that was a very serious responsibility to impose. If he were a teacher he would seriously consider his position before he recommended that a child should be fed under this Order.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Why?
    DR. MACNAMARA: Because I might be inflicting injustice on the parent.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: But you would inflict a graver injustice on the child.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid in that case the child should be fed at once, but it was a serious responsibility to place on the teachers. It might mean quite undeserved disfranchisement. He thought the Order had damped down a movement which was fraught with good to the children, and, frankly, while grateful for the spirit which prompted it, on the whole he should have
    538
    preferred that it had not been issued, so that they might have had something better and more permanent. As it was, they would be compelled to go on until they got a complete acknowledgment on the part of the community as to its responsibility for the physical condition of the children.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)said he could not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Woolwich, who complained on the one hand that there were so many exceptions to the Order that it might as well not have been issued, while on the other hand he contended that its operations would cause the guardians to throw good money after bad. These two contentions seemed hardly to be in harmony. The circular issued by the Local Government Board invited the guardians to co-operate as far as possible with the voluntary associations in the work of relieving underfed children, but it did not propose that they should do so by way of contribution. The Board were strongly urged to do what they could by way of administration without fresh legislation, and in response to that appeal this Order was issued. Without fresh legislation it would not be competent for the Local Government Board to empower the guardians to contribute towards such associations.
    MR. CROOKS: Then how are we to co-operate with them?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid cooperation without contribution was not as difficult as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. The boards of guardians

    539
    would be entitled to use the associations as their agents. The associations might feed the children, and the guardians might pay the associations for the expenditure that was incurred.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A lump sum.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that as far as he knew it might be a lump sum, but it would have to be a definite payment for the assistance given, which was a different thing from a general contribution from the guardians to such associations.
    The hon. Member for Camberwell seemed to fear that the Order of the Local Government Board might prove to be a dead letter. His first reason was that the charge would be parochial charge and not a Metropolitan charge. In his opinion, it was a matter for careful consideration whether in any future legislation this charge ought to be thrown on the Metropolitan fund. That, however, could not be done without legislation. The hon. Member's second reason was that the Order did not deal with any child not living with its parent. It was impossible for the Local Government Board to deal with those cases without fresh legislation, because the Poor Law Act of 1834 did not empower them to do so. The hon. Member also complained that the Order left the guardians to determine whether a parent should be disfranchised or not. He thought the hon. Member was under a complete misconception. The Order did not alter the existing law. If the guardians provided food for a destitute child, the parent was ipso facto disfranchised, because it was held to be relief given to the parent, and
    540
    he believed that would still be the case, even if the sum expended was subsequently repaid. He could not argue the legal point, but the question had been carefully considered, and that was the conclusion he had come to. The last thing the House would desire to do was that a person who could provide food for his children but neglected to do so should be relieved of the penalty of disfranchisement because the guardians recovered the money by process of law.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I agree.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURconcluded by saying that the Order as it stood was the utmost that the Local Government Board could do without legislation.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODthought the hon. Member for Woolwich had overlooked what was really a great point in the question before the House, viz., that it was the duty of the Government to do the best it could for these children without fresh legislation.
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Return presented, relative thereto [Address 1st June; Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]
    Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.