*MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he had made, and he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR ROBERT FINLAY said it was done in consequence of a decision given in the Courts a fortnight ago. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU asked if the police would be subject to the pro visions of the Bill. If they were, how Several formal Amendments having could they pursue cars which were exbeen withdrawn, ceeding the speed limit. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. Clause 10. MR. WALTER LONG proposed to omit the clause. It had been intended to deal with the heavier motors, but he thought it would be the wisest plan to drop the clause, and to bring up words on Report to enable the Local Government Board to deal with the whole of the heavier motor traffic by regulation. Amendment proposed MR. T. M. HEALY again protested against the insertion of this provision. He held that the point was covered by the would be most dangerous to attempt to ordinary law of the land, and that it deal with it especially in this Bill. SIR ROBERT FINLAY said the result of the recent decision was such that motor legislation would not apply to persons in the service of the Crown-for instance, to persons in the employ of the Postmaster General driving motor - cars. Tested by that decision the Volunteers "In page 5, to leave out Clause 10."-(Mr. using motor-cars during manœuvres Walter Long.) would not be subject to the provision. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND certainly thought the provision should be left in the Bill, as the Postmaster-General was using motor-cars more and more every day. It would be no earthly consolation to a person knocked down by a motorcar that it was driven by a servant of the Crown. He for one objected to being killed by motorists-whether M.P.'s or servants of the Crown. MR. HERBERT SAMUEL thought it would be most absurd to make a constable liable for breaking the speed limit when he was chasing an offender under the Act. MR. T. M. HEALY repeated his protest that it was most dangerous and unconstitutional to insert such a provision. Simply to meet the curse of motorcycling they were inserting in the law of England a constitutional proposition, the like of which had never been heard of since the days of the Stuarts and the Tudors. SIR ROBERT FINLAY held that the hon. and learned Gentleman much exaggerated the importance of the clause. He could not see that it raised any constitutional question at all. A servant of the Crown certainly ought not to be Question proposed, "That those words exempt from regulations laid down by law for the safety of the public. He suggested be there inserted." that the matter could be met by deleting the clause. The hon. Member opposite was quite right in saying that it was absolutely necessary to declare that a criminal statute should apply to the Crown. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he did not care in what legal form the words were put into the Act, but something should be done, as the Bill at present stood. At the present time a decision had been given by which men were exempted from the penalties to which they had rendered themselves liable by an offence under the Motor Act, on the ground that they were officers of the Crown. If that decision was to stand, Ministers of the Crown would be able to defy the law with impunity. Not very long ago he saw a decision in the case of a motor-car which had been driven at a frightful speed by officers in uniform, where the drivers of the car were exempted from penalties, and he had heard comments made upon the fact that men in uniform should be allowed to set such a bad example. When it came to this, that officers of the Crown were to be exempted, something ought to be done to prevent them being exempted in the future. MR. DALZIEL said he hoped the Committee would not accept this Amendment. It meant that officers of State could ride off if they liked and be exempt from penalties. Question put, and negatived. Clause 14 agreed to. Clause 15 agreed to. Clause 16. Several drafting Amendments proposed by the Lord Advocate (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire), were agreed to. Amendment proposed— The words Such appeal shall lie to the sheriff "In page 6, line 29, at end, to insert the depute and shall be heard summarily, Such appeal may be taken either immediately after the judgment appealed against has been pronounced, or within seven days thereafter, and upon such appeal being taken the sentence of imprisonment shall be suspended until the appeal has been disposed of; provided that the appellant shall, at the time of taking such appeal, lodge in the hands of the clerk of Court a bond with sufficient cautioner or otherwise give security satisfactory to the Court for appearing before the sheriff depute. sheriff depute is hereby authorised and empowered on such appeal to hear evidence whether led at the original hearing or not, and to reconsider the merits of the case and reverse or confirm in whole or in part the judgment appealed against, or give such new or different judgment as he in his discretion shall think fit; and save as provided by the Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act, 1875, his judgment shall be final and not subject to review. (6) An appeal taken in terms of this Act by a person holding a licence against an order for suspension or disqualification shall be taken and disposed of as nearly as may be in the manner and subject to the conditions provided by the immediately preceding sub-section.'"(The Lord Advocate.) Amendment agreed to. THE MASTER OF ELIBANK (Edinthe hon. Member for Forfar, begged burgh, Midlothian), in the absence of leave to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member. MR. ATKINSON said in ordinary cases of summary jurisdiction the defendant could give evidence. recovery and application of penalties under *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY said the first part of the Amendment he would see put right, but the other part he could not agree to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. DALZIEL said he thought his Amendment was next on the Paper. His object in putting it down was to raise the question of the right of individuals to sue. *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY said as the Bill stood they did not prosecute except through the procurator fiscal. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. MAJOR JAMESON said he wished certain the hon. and learned AttorneyGeneral would accept this Amendment. He begged to move— Amendment proposed "In page 6, at the end of Clause 17, to add the words 'The Criminal Evidence Act of 1898 except Sections five and seven shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be in force. -(Major Jameson.) MR. T. M. HEALY said he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that was not so. Let him take the recent case that occurred in Sackville In this case the Street, Dublin. magistrate refused to hear the evidence of Sir Samuel Smart. Unless there was a special clause inserted a prisoner would not be allowed to give evidence in his own defence. He suggested that as under the law in England a man able to give evidence on his own behalf, it could not be wrong to allow him to do so in Ireland. was MR. WALTER LONG said this was the point to which he had referred as beinglikely to affect the Inland Revenue DeHe could not, therefore, partment. accept the Amendment without consulting that Department. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU asked was it not the fact that a motor-cycle with a trailer, under the present regulations, could only go five or six miles an hour. *THE CHAIRMAN said the Acts referred to were private Acts. This Bill was to amend the Locomotives on Highways Act, which did not include tramways. MR. WALTER LONG said he understood the object of the mover of the Amendment, but this proposal would go a great deal further and deal with the Inland Revenue question. He could not possibly accept the Amendment at this point, but he would undertake to give the matter full consideration. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU moved to as the date of the commencement of the MR. T. M. HEALY said it was just as bad to be knocked down by a tramcar insert "March 1st" for "Jannary 1st,” as by a motor-car. It was an extraordinary thing that tram companies operation of the Act. He pointed out that who made money out of the public it was a very complicated measure, and should be allowed to go at a more rapid rate than the motor-cars. The same rule ought to be applied all round, and if it was in order he would move accordingly. *THE CHAIRMAN said that such an Amendment would be beyond the scope of the Bill, which dealt only with motor cars. MR. T. M. HEALY said that an electric tramcar was essentially a motorcar, and the tram-driver was called the "motor-man.” *THE CHAIRMAN: But there is a class of legislation dealing with tram ways. *Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU pointed out that several private Acts had recently been passed, enabling motor-omnibuses or trams to run without rails on the roads. These were, to all intents and purposes, motor-cars. *THE CHAIRMAN: There has been no public legislation to that effect. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU said that several places had obtained Acts for the purpose. by the time it had been printed and circulated amongst the County Councils there would be barely three months in which the necessary arrangements for the administration of the Act would have to be made. He thought it was only reasonable that six months should be allowed. Brought up, and read the first time. MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose), on behalf of the hon. Member for Inverness, moved a new clause standing on the Paper which he understood the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept. Clause (Power to local authority to regulate use of roads). "In the case of a public road or part of a public road which is of a less width than twenty feet, the Council of any County or County Borough may with the consent of the Local Government Board make such regulations in regard to the use of such road or part of a road by motor-cars as they may consider desirable; and the Council of any County or County Borough may with such consent schedule certain roads as unsuitable for motor traffic, and may issue regulations prohibiting motor traffic on such roads.”—(Mr. Luke White.) Brought up, and read the first time. no legal objection to the clause it would be advisable to insert it. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time." MR. WALTER LONG said he had not agreed to accept this. What he had said was that he would consider words to be brought up on Report dealing with so much of the question as he thought ought to be dealt with. Question put, and negatived. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU, on behalf of the hon. member for Southport, moved a new clause-" Mode of Summons." He said it was simply to prevent persons frivolously taking out summonses. Clause (Mode of Summons). SIR ROBERT FINLAY said there was a strong legal objection to providing a special procedure for these cases. MR. MURRAY said it could hardly be held that these cases were not exceptional; the whole Bill was exceptional. MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR said that something ought to be done in the direction suggested, otherwise motorists would have people calling at their houses and threatening to take out summonses unless they were given money. MR. DALZIEL said that it was only reasonable that a man should bring his grievance into open Court, and bring it within a reasonable time. He was sur accept this Amendment. "No summons shall be issued against any person for an offence under this Act except upon an information in writing signed by the comprised that the Government would not plainant and countersigned by the clerk to the justices, and no summons shall be issued by a justice or justices except during the sessions of the petty sessional Court." (Mr. ScottMontagu.) Question put. |