Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 41, to leave out the word 'ten, and insert the word 'fifty.""-(Mr. Brigg.)

MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR said this was exactly the class of case which most infuriated the people in the country against motor-cars. An accident occurred, and it was said that the trouble had arisen through the presence of the

MR. WALTER LONG said he thought it was hardly desirable to go on adding to these penalties. They had all been very carefully considered, and under Clause 1 they had created a series of offences and imposed very severe ties, including imprisonment.

draw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said that nothing could be more cowardly, or more mean than that, after an accident had occurred, a man, who had knowledge of the occurence, should take advantage of the speed of his motor to ride off in the endeavour to evade justice, and leave those who might be suffering as the result of his negligence unattended to. The newspapers proved that that was being done every day. If a man did this once or twice fine him by all means; but if he deliberately behaved in such a reprehensible manner a third time, then he deserved imprisonment, and at any rate it should be left to the option of the magistrate to send him to prison.

Amendment proposed

"In page 3, line 42, at end, to add the words and, in respect of any subsequent offence, shall be subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month.'"-(Mr. William Red mond.)

1:0 claim to speak for gentlemen who owned motors, but he knew some who did, and he did not believe that there was a sensible man who would object to this provision being inserted. He hoped Government would accept the

the

Amendment.

*MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU was understood to say that he rather agreed with what had just been said. He would not object to the proposal of imprisonment for repeated offences; nothing did so much harm to motoring as a man who drove away after an accident without disclosing his identity, but he hoped that when the penal clauses were reached his friendly attitude to this Amendment would be remembered.

MR. T. M. HEALY said this Bill would apply to two countries and possibly would be made to apply to Ireland. He wished to know, supposing a motorist had been convicted of an offence in Scotland and had come down and been convicted of an offence in England and had gone over to Ireland, carrying the

SIR ROBERT FINLAY said that everyone would agree with the remarks of the hon. Member with regard to motorists who passed on when an accident happened, but he thought they should be very careful not to push the penalties too far in respect of a new offence which converted into a crime what was now only a breach of good feeling.

victions, and committed an offence there, could they produce those convictions which had taken place in two other countries against him? He would like the Attorney-General of England, out of the vast store of his learning, to explain to him the petty sessions law upon that subject.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY said the case raised by the hon. Member was certainly

new, but looking at it, not from the point of view of his learning but from the point of view of common sense, he should say that if a man had committed an offence in Scotland he had committed one offence, that if he then committed a similar offence in Northumberland he would have committed a second offence, and that if then he went to Ireland and committed a similar offence he would have committed a third.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND suggested in view of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it should be left to the discretion of the magistrate to impose a fine of £30 or inflict a month's imprisonment.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY said that if the Committee was in favour of the Amendment, so far as the Government

was concerned there would be no difficulty.

MR. KENNETH BALFOUR said this clause stated that in any case when an accident occurred, either to horses or

people, the person driving a motor-car was to stop. In the case of a horse, which was standing unattended, running away down the road, was the motor-car to pursue and catch that horse or to stop?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY said a horse running away was not in itself an accident, but if its running away caused an accident then the motor-car must stop.

MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could not make the clause more clear by stating that a motor-car must stop where an accident was caused by an unattended horse running away and not by the motor

car.

MAJOR JAMESON objected to the hon. and learned Gentleman accepting this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman was utterly unable to answer the question which had been put to him, and therefore he (Major Jameson) should certainly divide the House against the Amendment.

*MR. MOSS hoped it would not be necessary to divide the House on this Amendment. No motorist, however enthusiastic he might be, would suggest

that a motorist should escape by a mere fine. He knew of a case where a motorist sent his driver to the clerk of the magistrates to offer him a cheque for £100 with instructions that when it had been all used in fines, if they would send round, they should have another cheque.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR CHARLES RENSHAW said before the clause was passed he would like to ask the Government to give the Committee some information as to what the case of a person driving a motor-car the position would be under the clause in meeting unattended horses and carts. That seemed to be unconsidered, in a He hoped it might yet be possible to measure, when this clause was drafted. alter the clause in such a manner before the Report stage as to make it perfectly clear that a liability would not accrue if a man did not stop where a horse or cart was unattended on the road.

MR. ARTHUR LEE said he had had experience of his cars, when standing perfectly still, being charged by a horse and damage being done to the car in

consequence.

MR. WALTER LONG agreed that the language of the clause was a little vague. It was a new clause which had been introduced in the other House and afterwards amended. It required reconstruction, and he would consider it before Report.

MAJOR JAMESON objected to this clause being hurried through in such a manner. It was admitted that its language was vague, and that being the case he opposed its passage and would move its omission. It was a perfect disgrace to civilisation that such a clause should be put into a Bill without anyone having the pluck to stand up and say that they disagreed with a motorist being penalised in

"In page 4, line 15, at end, to insert with respect to the size and power of the lights to be

MR. T. M. HEALY thought that this Amendment would have a most extraordinary effect. There was not a man on a County Council of Ireland who knew anything about a motor-car or who would know anything about issuing licences for motor cars. Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed

"In page 4, line 19, after the word licences,' to insert the words and for communicating particulars thereof to adjoining cr other County or County Borough Councils.""—(Mr. Brigg.)

Question proposed, "That those words

Stewart.)

*MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU asked if this

tion should be conveyed, for instance, from the County Council of Sussex to the County Council of Aberdeenshire.

MR. WALTER LONG explained that it was simply in order that one County Council could communicate with another if necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG said this Amendment was to provide for two things-one was the change of ownership of the car, which would entail, of course, the necessity of re-registration, and the other was to provide for the issue of a signed copy of the licence where the original licence had been lost. That was a matter he had promised to provide for in an earlier stage of the Bill. It would now be necessary to put in words to make re-registration consequential at a nominal fee, but that could be better done on Report. begged to move

Amendment proposed

He

"In page 4, line 24, at end of line, to insert the words and may if authorised by those regulations and in accordance therewith charge in respect of the entry of particulars of the ownership of a car on change of ownership such fee, not exceeding ten shillings, as may be prescribed by the regulations, and in respect of the issue of a new licence in the place of a licence lost or defaced, such fee not exceeding one shilling as may be prescribed by the regulations." (Mr. Walter Long.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."