*MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (Hampshire, | MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, New Forest) said that the whole of this Fareham) said he hoped that his right clause was very stringent, and he hoped hon. friend would accept this Amendthe President of the Local Government ment, because it was very undesirable Board would see his way to give some that vague terms should be used in this more easy and effective power of appeal Act. than there was in the Bill as it stood.

MR. SEELY said he objected to the latter half.

clause. The President of the Local These words covered all the cases in Government Board was right in his esse and in posse, and if the extension endeavour to make this perfectly clear to stopped there they would have loose, the public, that they were to be protected, vague, and ambiguous language, which but he submitted that the real way out would have this two-fold effect. It might of the difficulty was to take it out of the mislead the magistrates, and would power of the magistrate to send to mislead the public. prison for the first offence, and make imprisonment the penalty for the second offence, so as to give people time to find out what the opinion of the magistrate was as to reckless driving. These were a lot of new words, and nobody knew what these particular words might be held to mean, or what style of speed and driving might be held to be covered by the words. The real way out of the difficulty would be to take these words out of the clause, and give up the attempt to enforce such a heavy penalty in the first instance, having regard to the fact that some of the magistrates were hostile to motoring.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said no one would wish to restrict unneces

sarily a very important branch of industry, and to repeat the mistakes committed in other Bills; but on the other hand the personal safety of the public had to have equal consideration. It seemed to him that on the whole these words ought to be retained. It was said that previous words covered these heads. That might be so. The additional words were simply suggestive to the bench of a consideration which under no circumstances ought to be lost sight of. There was one particular reason for the inclusion of these words, and that was that the whole of the public were entitled to the use of the roads at law, and there might be places that were particularly dangerous. If that was so, they ought to be relieved of the terrible anxiety they were under about motor-cars at points of danger, and therefore additional caution should be imposed on the drivers of

motor-cars.

MR. LAWSON WALTON said the argument of the hon. member for Islington, although supposed to be in favour of the Amendment, was fatal to it, for the reason that he was trying to make these vague words explicit. The Committee had already passed words which were as vague as they could be "that they should have regard to all the circumstances."

Mr Seely.

MR. LAWSON WALTON said the

magistrate had to determine whether
a motor was being driven recklessly
or negligently or at a pace that
seemed to him to be reckless. There
was a general principle of law that
loose and ambiguous language should
be avoided, because the tribunal called
to
upon
interpret an
have no idea of the intentions of
Act could
Parliament when passing it, and be-
cause the public did not know what
they had to do under the Act. If it
was stated explicitly that the motorist
was to have regard to the actual traffic
in the road and the possibility of traffic
arising the matter was made clear.
For these reasons he trusted the right
hon. Gentleman would not oppose the

Amendment.

MR. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth) opposed the Amendment. He said many of the country roads were very narrow, and a speed which was quite safe on the average road might be very unsafe in such roads. It might be reckless to go at even fifteen miles an hour in some of these narrow lanes. He had received notice of a case, which occurred in his constituency, where one of his constituents was driving down a road which was only seventeen feet wide from hedge to hedge, and only thirteen feet wide when three feet was allowed

that some qualification of this kind was needed in the interest of industrial progress, otherwise people would not be at liberty to test the speeds of motor-cars even on a private trial ground. Without these qualifying words also the manufacturers of this country would be unable to compete with foreign competitors, and the sub-section would be subversive of all trade interests.

Amendment amended by inserting in line 1, after the word "car" the words "on a public highway."-(Sir Albert Rollit)

away in the interests of one section. The Bill would not unduly interfere with trade. It was not the manufacturers who wanted the high-speed regulation; it was only the selfish pleasure seeker who wanted to be allowed to rush all over the country, and to dash through the narrow streets of our villages oblivious of the safety of the hundreds of thousands of children whose sole playground was the roadway. He hoped that the House by a substantial majority would reduce the speed limit to fifteen miles.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended

"In line 2, to leave out the words 'twentyfive' and insert the word 'fifteen.'”—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

'twenty-five' stand part of the proposed Question proposed, "That the words Amendment, as amended."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said he

speed limit, and he thought that was a more reasonable suggestion than the proposal now before the Committee. The Bill was very necessary, but he recognised that if it was to be carried some compromise would have to be made. He hoped twenty would be inserted instead of fifteen, and that the representatives of the motor interest would accept that as a compromise. ("No.")

MR. BROADHURST said that in moving to reduce the speed limit to fifteen miles he would not detain the Committee at any length, for the question had been fully argued on the Second Reading. They desired to get the Bill through if possible, and he for one was not an opponent of motors as such. He was, indeed, in favour of using them in bounds of reason, and not to the alarm and danger of the had an Amendment on the Paper to public using the highways. Even fix twenty miles per hour as the fifteen miles was a great speed to travel on a public highway and twenty-five miles in his judgment was far too high. Such a high limit would involve all the dangers they now ran from the reckless driving of these machines from the nether regions. He did not know if many hon. Members had seen how these high-speed motors on the highway caused alarm, consternation and dismay in the minds of inoffensive people who be it remembered had as much right to use the roads as the MAJOR JAMESON said that many of motorist. He had been personally in the criticisms of the hon. Member for convenienced; he had been in danger, Leicester arose from ignorance of the and he felt very strongly that in the motor car itself. In the recent public public interest the speed should be trials at Glasgow it had been proved limited. Fifteen miles was sufficiently that a motor-car going at twenty-five high, and any one going at a greater miles an hour could be brought to a rate could not enjoy the beauties of the standstill within a distance of fifteen scenery. All they experienced was a feet, whereas a horse and cart travelling maddening sensation of rushing through at only eight miles an hour could not the air careless of the comfort and be pulled up in less than three times that pleasure of other people. Unfortunately, distance. No motorist averaged twenty motor-car owners and drivers were miles an hour over a whole tour; the most unreasonable, and by their very idea was absurd. There were cases in unreason had made this legislation which five miles an hour would be too essential. He appealed to the House great a speed, and the man who went to protect the rights of the citizens, at five miles an hour when there was and not allow them to be taken danger ought to be punished, rather Sir Albert Rollit.

than the man who travelled at thirty part of the House to accept the twenty miles an hour when there was no danger. mile limit, he would fall in with it. All these alarms were raised simply because Members had not taken the trouble to study the question. If thirty miles an hour was fixed as the limit it would probably be found that the average speed of a journey would not exceed fifteen miles an hour. The penalties were out of all reason, and twenty-five miles far too low a limit. Throughout the whole year there had not been a single fatal accident in the Metropolis, and yet it was proposed so to penalise this pursuit as to take away from it all pleasure and enjoy

ment.

MR. CRIPPS said the larger question was altogether outside this discussion as it had been decided that a speed limit should be imposed; the only point was whether or not twenty-five miles an hour was a fair limit. No one desired to deal unfairly with motorists, but the question had to be asked whether in view of the manner in which the roads were used by children, pedestrians, and persons riding or driving, it was right to allow a four-ton vehicle to be driven along those roads at twenty-five miles an hour. In his opinion it was most certainly not. It was a question not of the average, but of the maximim speed; the average had nothing to do with the matter. issue was a simple one, and having tried to arrive at a fair conclusion, he agreed with the hon. Member for Peckham that a limit of twenty miles an hour would protect the road traffic, and not in any way press unduly on the motorists. The ruling consideration was, that nobody, whether motorist or otherwise, ought to use the roads either to the danger or the inconvenience of the general public.

The

*SIR F. DIXON HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge) thought the Committee had no idea of the feeling which existed in the country with regard to this question of speed. It was a singular fact that 92 per cent. of the convictions in the counties for furious driving had been for speeds between twenty and twenty-five miles an hour, so that the whole of the present dispute was as between fifteen and twenty. It was not merely a question of danger. With a skilful driver the danger might not be great; it was also a question of convenience, and there was a general feeling, on the part of people, that in consequence of the speed at which motorcars were driven, they dared not use the roads, or allow their children to use them. Another question was that of the dust. That constituted a most obnoxious annoyance to all parties. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the fifteen miles limit. The feeling was so strong in certain districts that if Parliament did not deal with the matter the people themselves would take steps to obstruct the traffic. heard it stated in some of the country all this themselves, for they declared that villages that if they liked they could stop they only needed to put down a few boulders and then the motor-cars could not go along that road. Of course, he did not at all agree with that mode of state of public feeling upon this question, settling the question, but it showed the and it would be much better to have a

reasonable rate fixed.

He had

said he was extremely shocked to hear MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) the hon. Gentleman suggest even remotely that such an outrage as the placing of boulders upon the public highway should be perpetrated. He congratulated the MR. WALLACE understood the right hon. Member upon his courage in making hon. Gentleman to say that he had fixed that statement, and he would remind him the limit of twenty-five miles, having that if he had said that in Ireland he regard to the average over the hour. If, would have been put in gaol. It was however, he was disturbed by a vehicle quite evident that if this Bill passed at all rushing by at the rate of thirty or forty it would have to be passed by compromise. miles an hour, it would be no consolation The President of the Local Government to him to be told that the rate for the Board recognised the other day that comprevious three-quarters of an hour had been promise was necessary, and he inserted a only six miles an hour. He was aspeed limit of twenty-five miles. Now the supporter of the fifteen mile limit, but if Member for Leicester had proposed that there was a general disposition on the the limit should be fifteen miles, and while