wanted to borrow half-a-crown. Nothing that the owner should act the spy upon would again induce him to stop for a man in plain clothes.

*THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the section referred not to stopping, but to arresting.

MAJOR JAMESON said a man could. not be arrested until he had been stopped.

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN said that in view of the statement made on behalf of the Government that the constable must be in uniform he would not press the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU formally moved to amend Sub-section 2 by inserting after the word "view" the words who refuses to give his name and address, or whose motor-car does not bear the mark or marks of identification."

Amendment proposed

"In page 1, line 14, at end, to insert the

words,who refuses to give his name and address, or whose motor-car does not bear the mark or marks of identification.'"-(Mr. Scott-Montagu.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT moved to substitute "or" for "and" in line 17.

Amendment proposed

"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word 'and' and insert the word 'or.'"-(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Amendment agreed to.

a

his own driver. He did not believe there were three Members of the House who would dream of doing such a thing, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow these words to be deleted.

Amendment proposed

"In page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word Act,' to end of clause."-— (Major Jameson)

Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. WALTER LONG pointed out that when a constable had taken the number of a car, the only way in which the name of the owner could be ascertained was by reference to the might think it advisable to attempt register. In the meantime, the driver to evade justice. Surely in such a case the owner ought to be called upon to give what assistance he could to find the driver. There was only one alternative, and that was to make the owner liable for the acts of the driver. He

thought the better course was to call upon the owner to give the necessary information.

MAJOR JAMESON asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could conceive evidence against his own driver. of any owner coming forward to give It was a grossly unfair provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. ALLHUSEN thought it rather hard that an owner should be liable to imprisonment for the offence here provided against, and in order to elicit the view of the right hon. Gentleman he moved to insert after "Act," in line 22, the words, "and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10."

Amendment proposed

MAJOR JAMESON moved to omit from "Act" in line 17 to the end of the clause. He thought the object of the Amendment would be apparent to everybody. Under the clause as it stood it would be the duty of the owner of motor-car to give any information within his power to lead to the identification of a driver, and failure to do so would render him liable to be fined. Anything more grossly unfair was never put into an Act of Question proposed, "That those words Parliament. It was seriously proposed be there inserted." Major Jameson,

"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words, and shall be liable on £10." (Mr. Allhusen.) summary conviction to a fine not exceeding

It simply meant that any person in charge of a mule might stop a car and compel the engine to be turned off.

MR. WALTER LONG thought the | the right hon. Gentleman hardly realised hon. Member hardly appreciated the the effect of this proposal. gravity of the Amendment. Before this penalty could be inflicted the driver must have committed an offence and have refused to give his name and address, or have given a false name or false address. It could not be suggested that it was not a serious matter for a driver to be guilty of such conduct, and the owner to refuse to assist in his identification.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER LONG said that what

he had undertaken to do was to accept the principle of the proposal; he would take care that the regulation was framed in a fair and reasonable way.

MR. DALZIEL said the point of this proposal was that if a motor-car was SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved standing still, and the engine was on, a to add the following new sub-section :person in charge of a mule could compel "(4) If a driver of a motor-car refuses to him to turn off the engine. [An HON. stop the movement of the engine when MEMBER: Why not?]" He hoped the the motor-car is stationary when requested right hon. Gentleman would do nothing to do so by a police constable or by any so foolish as to accept this proposal. If a driver of a motor-car saw a horse in person having charge of any horse or mule, he shall be guilty of an offence trouble he almost invariably slowed down. under this Act." He understood that the It would be very unfair that a person in motorists had no objection to the Amend-charge of a mule should be able to insist ment provided certain words, which he was willing to accept, were inserted.

Amendment proposed

"In page 1, line 22, at end, to insert the words, (4) If a driver of a motor-car refuses to stop the movement of the engine when the motor-car is stationary when requested to do so by a police constable or by any person having charge of any horse or mule, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"-(Sir Frederick Banbury).

upon a man stopping his engine.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said the hon. Member opposite was quite mistaken in thinking that this was not a grievance to the people who drove horses. The other day the driver of a motor-car standing stationary near his horse deliberately refused to stop his engine until a police constable appeared, and then he had to do it. If his right hon. friend would give an assurance that

Question proposed, "That those words in framing regulations this danger would be there inserted."

be guarded against he should be very pleased to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. NORMAN said his hon. friend the Member for Kirkcaldy was quite right in his contention. If a man held up his hand the motor-car driver was compelled to stop, and then a person in charge of a mule could compel him to stop his engine. This would practically prevent motor-cars using the public roads at all.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DALZIEL said he should like to point out two of the weak points of the clause which would very much endanger the usefulness of this Bill. In the first place there was the liability which they were placing upon the driver of the car, and secondly there was the question of testing the speed. Upon this point a

Question proposed, "That those words cuted that he was required to stop; in be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG hoped his hon. Question proposed, "That the word friend would not press the Amendment. 'five' stand part of the clause." To introduce at this stage an Amendment so important, which had not appeared on the Paper, would be a dangerous step. He assured his hon. friend that he would consider the Amendment before Report.

MR. WALTER LONG accepted the Amendment, but a division was challenged by a number of hon. Members.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes, 22; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 244).