Mr. LOUIS SINCLAIR said that, to be fined these penalties, for, perhaps, the penalty for a second offence should an initial error, and suggested that the be subject to the proviso that the second cumulative penalty should not be imposed offence was not committed on the same for practically the same offence. day, his object being to guard against cumulative fines if the defendant was prosecuted in adjoining districts for the same excessive running. He pointed out that going down hill made a lot of difference in the speed, and magistrates would fail to take that matter into account. It had been shown that these atrocious penalties were practically illegal, and he hoped the Government would abandon this policy of eternally piling up fines. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU pointed out that in going down a road a motorist might unconsciously be travelling just over the limit, and three or four private persons, having taken his number, might summon him. In this way a man, without knowing he had committed an offence, might be fined £10, £20, or £50, all in the same day, and along the same road. That would be a monstrous injustice, and he thought some such words as those proposed ought to be inserted. MR. T. M. HEALY thought it was unreasonable that a man should be liable MR. MARSHALL HALL said the difficulty might be met by the insertion of the provision that the second fine on the same day should not be incurred unless there had been an intimation to the person driving that an offence had been comA man mitted in the first instance. might be going twenty-one miles an hour without knowing he was exceeding the limit, and four or five persons might summons him for practically the same offence. If, however, he had received an intimation, and still continued at the same pace, the initial penalty should be repeated. SIR ROBERT FINLAY thought there was something in the argument that there should not be more than one penalty for what was practically the same offence, and undertook to consider the point before the Report stage. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND moved an Amendment providing that for any *THE CHAIRMAN said the hon. Member should have risen as soon as the hon. Member for East Clare stated where his Amendment would come in. MAJOR JAMESON said he did not hear the effect of the Amendment stated until nearly the end of the speech. *THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the ordinary course was for a Member to write out his proposed Amendment on paper and bring it to the Chair. If he did not take the trouble to do that, he ought to watch the proceedings carefully to see that he was not shut out by other Amendments being moved. offence subsequent to the second the penalty should be "a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month" instead of a fine not exceeding £50. He urged that the great object of the Committee. should be to find a punishment that would fit the crime, and the magistrates should be empowered to impose imprisonment for repeated offences against the law. Fines were no deterrent to wealthy motorcar owners, but a short term in prison would produce a salutary effect even on a millionaire. He acknowledged that the President of the Local Government Board had gone a long way in his endeavour to bring about a compromise, and he was also aware that the right hon. Gentleman had declared he would not allow imprisonment to be inflicted for an infringement of the speed limit, but he felt bound in MAJOR JAMESON said that while he common justice to move the Amendment, thought the suggestion of imprisonment as a fine which a wealthy man would not was not half so bad as the other penalties feel in the least degree might be a very in the clause, he must oppose the severe punishment to a poorer man. It Amendment. The sole desire of the was true that imprisonment did not deter hon. Member for East Clare was to Irish Members of Parliament from punish millionaires. He was not a declaring their political opinions, but he millionaire, therefore the enactment believed it would do some of these flying would not affect him. Ile had not the millionaires all the good in the world. slightest objection to the penalty being He begged to move. inserted, but things ought to be done in proper order; it was absolutely unfair that it should be sandwiched in at this point, and he should vote against it. Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended "In line 6 to leave out the words 'a fine not exceeding £50,' and insert the words 'a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month.' (Mr. William Redmond.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended." SIR ROBERT FINLAY said that the Amendment was a departure from the basis of settlement which had induced his right hon. friend to bring forward this clause, and which was, that imprisonment should not be coupled with the laying down of a speed limit. The infringement of the speed limit was, after all, a less serious offence than driving to the public danger. The two offences were in different categories, and driving to the danger of life and limb was punished more severely. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. MAJOR JAMESON said he had desired to move to reduce the penalty for the second offence from £20 to £10. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether something could not be done in the direction he had indicated. Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn. MR. DALZIEL moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment the words "provided that proof of the exact measurement and rate of speed should be produced." He said that all he asked was that satisfactory proof of the rate of speed at which the car was travelling should be produced in Court. present, in many cases the charges were based on a mere guess of a policeman, and it was only reasonable, if these substantial penalties were to be imposed, that satisfactory proof of the offence should be forthcoming. At Amendment proposed to the proposed some of that spirit of compromise for mendment, as amended "At the end, to add the words provided that proof of the exact measurement and rate of speed be produced.'"-(Mr. Dalziel.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added. MR. WALTER LONG said he did not think those who were interested in motoring were doing any gord to their case by invariably assuming that every Court would be prejudiced against motorists and were going to act unfairly towards them. He could not think there was any necessity in this case to impose on magistrates an obligation in regard to evidence which was not imposed on them in any other case. MR. T. M. HEALY asked if the convictions of motorists in England counted for promotion in the case of the policeman. If it did, it would be a very easy thing for him to sally out from the police station, stop-watch in hand, and shortly afterwards to find two stripes blossoming out on his shoulder. It would be a great temptation to a policeman to be thus able to become a sergeant "on easy terms." He was surprised to hear that the aristocracy in England had so much suspicion of the police, as when the peasantry in Ireland harboured such a feeling they were at once condemned as possessing a double dose of original sin, and it was really most painful to find this suspicion of law and order arising in England. SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said the Amendment was scarcely practicable. He would be very sorry if any general impression obtained that the magistrates did not do their best to administer justice impartially. Speaking with some experience, he ventured to say that, on the whole, magistrates did their duty conscientiously and arrived at correct conclusions. He agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that these matters were best left to the general laws of evidence. which the right hon. Gentleman had always hitherto been celebrated. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would give way in this matter, and he appealed to him to do this in order that the Bill might go through. MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR said that, taking it as a whole, he thought they got justice from the magistrates, but there existed an enormous amount of prejudice in this matter. Although he had not yet been convicted, unjust attempts had been made to stop his car whilst driving to the House of Commons. Coming down Cornhill upon one occasion about five miles an hour, a policeman stopped him and demanded his name and address. He gave his name, and his address as "the House of Commons," but the officer refused to take that address. He was summoned, but the case was dismissed, and although the magistrate agreed with him the Commissioner of Police disagreed, and he awarded this particular policeman two days' holiday. There was an enormous amount of prejudice against motorists. They had heard a good deal about stop-watches. Not long ago a policeman produced a stop-watch, and upon examination it was found that the works were completely out of order, and the case was dismissed. In one case a stick was thrown at a motor-car, and when the owner applied for a summons the magistrate held that as the motorcar must have been going at a furious rate the man who threw the stick was not responsible for the damage. He thought it was unjust not to issue a stick. He hoped the right hon. Gentlesummons against the man who threw the man would insert something in regard to these penalties which would satisfy justice. None of them wanted to travel faster than twenty miles an hour, but he thought words should be inserted demanding some proof as to the rate of speed. SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley) said he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would maintain the position he had JOR JAMESON said that this taken up. If this Amendment were ment ought to be met in a accepted no conviction would ever be ay, and they ought to have obtained, except by setting a trap. MR. unreasonab MR. DALZIEL: Not necessarily. SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY said if any ordinary person observed a car travelling at a high rate of speed, unless he could state the exact speed at which the car was going, and declare that it was twenty and a-half miles or twentyone and a-half miles, or some definite speed, no conviction could be obtained. Therefore this clause would be rendered null and void. If his hon. friend persisted in this Amendment he hoped it would be rejected. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU said that as a means of getting out of this difficulty, he would suggest that some such words as those contained in his Amendment on page 19 should be inserted. He thought the evidence of the police constable should be corroborated by some other material evidence. He suggested that his Amendment should be incorporated in this clause. If no safeguard were provided there would be no guarantee that the prosecutor was any judge of speed at all, and a motorist might be brought up 200 miles from his home to defend a trumped-up case. He would suggest that the testimony of the constable should be corroborated by some other material evidence implicating the accused. (Cries of "No.") CAPTAIN GREVILLE (Bradford, E.) protested against the aspersion cast upon certain hon. Members by the right hon. Gentleman who stated that they were interested in motor-cars. MR. WALTER LONG said he did not think his hon. friend was entitled to say that. His language had been misunderstood, and he had explained to the Committee that it was never intended to be so interpreted. After that explanation he did not think the hon. Member was entitled to deliberately ask the Committee to accept that interpretation of his language. I anti-motorists. Why should a man holding definite anti-motorist views be allowed to adjudicate in regard to an offence of this sort ? Was it unreasonable to ask that some proof should be given in regard to the rate of speed? There was nothing more liable to error than the calculation of speed. Hon. Members who owned horses would be very hard put to it to say whether they were going at five miles or ten miles an hour, and yet they were asking the House of Commons to put motorists at the mercy of an ignorant constable, who was probably full of energy and ready to do his duty, but who was no judge of the speed of motor-cars going along ordinary roads, unless he timed the speed with a reliable watch over a measured distance They had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow a more definite proof in regard to the rate of speed to be brought before the magistrate before those almost savage penalties were inflicted. MR. WALLACE said that it was an extraordinary thing to attack magistrates on the ground that they were so prejudiced againt motor-cars that they could not discharge their ordinary duties as magistrates. He had never heard of any difficulty in magistrates trying poachers because they happened to be interested in the Game Laws. It had not been suggested that in regard to motorists they were going to convict without evidence. He was not now dealing with penalties. He was dealing with the question of conviction. The hon. Gentleman opposite differed the proof ought to differ also. did not suggest that because the penalties There ought never to be a conviction without sufficient evidence. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the clause as drawn. They were greatly obliged to him for the way he had met them in regard to this Bill. There was, however, a danger that unless they got on faster they would lose the Bill altogether. CAPTAIN GREVILLE apologised to MR. T. M. HEALY said he thought the right hon. Gentleman and withdrew his statement. He said that magistrates he could undertake to convince the had not shewn themselves willing to accept definite proof on this matter. was all very well to say that they were not biassed, but they were, because many magistrates had given expression to views which showed clearly that they were right hon. Gentleman in charge of It the Bill that some Amendment of this nature was requisite. Why was that? When the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Bill it was without a speed limit, because all the chief constables of England were agreed that that was the proper course to take. Why was it the proper course to take? Because in regard to this question of speed, above all others, it was almost impossible for the human judgment to be infallible. In a painful case he was connected with last week he heard a barrister swear that the car was going at forty miles an hour, a law student swore that the speed was twenty miles an hour, and a sensible policeman said it was going very fast, but he could not say how fast. He had not the least apprehension in regard to the aotion of the Irish police or the Irish Bench in this matter because they always acted fairly, except in political cases. Once they left religion and politics out of the question, in Ireland they had far better Judges and law and magistrates than here in England. Of course, the things that aroused their passions were questions of religion and politics. So far as Ireland was concerned he was not in the least alarmed by the proposal in the Bill as it stood, but unless they established a trap system how could a magistrate, when there was a conflit of testimony, come to a conclusion in regard to speed, and the very drastic penalties which were to be imposed? His hon. friend the Member for Perth had said that it was a monstrous thing to state that the magistrates were prejudiced. All people were prejudiced. He hated motor-cars himself, and he was perhaps the most prejudiced man in the House against them. To say that the magistrates were prejudiced was to say that they were human beings. Everyone was prejudiced very much against motorists, unless he was a motorist himself. He should not regard any one connected with the motor industry as unprejudiced. He thought it would be a far more profitable industry than the one in which he was himself engaged. [Cries of "No."] Be that as it might, they were dealing with a very difficult question. They were dealing with a case where public liberty and life and limb were at stake, where the tendency of the Bench and the police was to down the few men against whom practically every man's hand was turned. As he understood, every man's hand here was against the motorist, but in Ireland it was not so. It might be because they Mr. T. M. Healy. had not so many motorists in Ireland. It seemed to him in regard to this very difficult question of speed that some greater precision in points of evidence was desirable. His hon. friend the Member for Kirkcaldy had suggested the production of some corroborative or particular form of evidence. He did not think that anybody's liberty was safe if the man in the street was to be entitled to say "I believe that man was going at thirty or twenty-five miles an hour." It seemed to him, therefore, that although motorists belonged to a class which had very seldom been brought into contact with the law, they were beginning to feel that they were in the position of the common man in England or the poacher in Ireland. They would begin to feel now that, so far as offence against the law was concerned, they had more interest in the general democratic administration of the law. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself as being most anxious to get this Bill. The House of Lords, conservative as it was, initiated this Bill, and they might have a word to say upon the Amendments. While he was most anxious to see the speed limit reduced he was also most anxious to see the Bill become law. It might happen in this case, as happened in regard to the Children's Bill recently, that there would be a strong fanatical body on one side and another strong fanatical body on the other side. It was for the House itself to take up a position of moderation. This Bill would go back to the Lords, who had no electors to send them to Parliament, and, therefore, they might take a very different view from the House of Commons with regard to the necessities of the case. Therefore, if the Bill was to become law, he begged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether something more was not necessary than the mere ipse dixit of a policeman or a villager. SIR ROBERT FINLAY said he could not help thinking that it would be better to adhere to the usual rules of law. The question of the speed at which a motor was travelling was a question of fact, and surely it was better to leave that question of fact to be determined by the magistrates. He did not believe it was |