the majority of cases at night, and he trusted that the House would impose the obligation on drivers to consider the safety of the public. This proposal constituted a very great danger to the public, and he hoped the House would not accept it. MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion) saw no reason why a limit should not be put in for driving at night. Even upon moonlight nights, under the most favourable circumstances, twelve miles an hour could not be exceeded. He thought twelve miles an hour was quite as reasonable for the night as for the day. It was most important that in the night the limit should be fixed. MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, St. Austell) thought that twelve miles an hour was too high a speed for night time. The main consideration for drivers should be the safety of the public rather than any adherence to a hard and fast limit. He sincerely hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend behind him. *MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Ports mouth) said he belonged to a class of people who still rode a bicycle, and he confessed that motor-cars interfered with his enjoyment by day. If a man saw his way, and the road and the night was clear, why should he not go as fast as he liked? There was less chance of destroying anybody else. If he was driving on an intricate and difficult road, he would not wish to drive at a reckless speed. If there was any occasion on which they could give licence to drivers and leave the matter of speed to their discretion, it was at night. A man would not wish to destroy himself, or his motor-car. He, therefore, would not limit the speed as proposed. If MR. DALZIEL moved an Amendment providing that no conviction should take place under the section unless the exact and measured rate of speed was produced. The President of the Local Government Board had thought it right to insert a speed limit in the Bill. He still thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and he ventured to say, if the question were properly discussed, the House would support that opinion. But they had now to recognise the fact that twenty miles an hour would be the speed limit, at all events for a time. they were to have a speed limit, it was only fair that a person, charged with going beyond it, should have the fact properly proved before being convicted. No policeman should be entitled to say that in h's opinion a car was going at a certain speed. The highest experts said it was absolutely impossible to tell, simply by looking on, whether a was going at twenty, twenty-five, or thirty miles an hour. It was surely reasonable to ask that exact evidence of speed should be produced. He begged to move. Amendment proposed to the Bill car "In page 4, line 38, at the end, to insert the words, Provided always that the exact and measured rate of speed is produced.'". (Mr. Dalziel.) Question proposed, "That those words. be there inserted in the Bill." *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said the different natural conditions of day and night dictated the speeds. Days were, for motor purposes, practically uniformly light, but the light at night varied from SIR ROBERT FINLAY said the speed almost daylight to pitch darkness, and would ordinarily be taken by police a night limit would be both useless constables, and he submitted that it and wrong, especially as there would be quite unreasonable to say that generally less traffic at night. The there should never be a conviction for proposed limit was absolutely un-going at a grossly excessive rate of speed, unless there had been such a speed necessary. was measure as was contemplated by the was a great deal to be said for the hon. Member. The Amendment which amendment. his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board was going to move, was the right one. He proposed to provide that a person shall not be convicted, under this provision, for exceeding the limit of speed of twenty miles merely on the opinion of one witness as to the rate of speed." That fairly met the circumstances. The effect of the Amendment now before the House would be that although there were numbers of witnesses to prove that a car was travel ling at a grossly excessive rate of speed, no conviction could be obtained unless the exact rate of speed was certified. LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich) said it was little short of absurd to expect a mere looker-on to give a really reliable statement as to the speed at which a motorcar was travelling. How could anyone tell whether a car was going at eighteen miles or twenty-four miles an hour? It was utterly beyond the capacity of the human eye. Unless they had a mechanical means of testing the speed, he did not believe they could enforce the speed limit at all. He believed the solution of the question would be not to have a speed limit. MAJOR JAMESON said that all they asked, now that there was a speed limit, was that there should be a legal test of the speed, but the right hon. Gentleman absolutely refused to allow that. He asked the Committee if there was ever anything so outrageous as the proposal that a motor driver should be liable to be sent to prison on the mere ipse dixit of an ordinary person, who gave an opinion on a matter of speed which was admittedly difficult to determine. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU said that anybody who had tried to test speed knew how difficult it was. A friend of his own had recently made some tests in Victoria Street in the middle of the day, and the following figures gave the result of his observations. He found that in some instances the speed per hour of omnibuses was 11 miles; covered vans 11 miles; private carriages and coster carts 12 miles; hansom cabs 123 miles; and bicycles 16 miles. He thought there Sir Robert Finlay. *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS said a constable would find it extremely difficult to ascertain the exact speed of a motor, unless he had a stop watch in his hand. A stop watch would enable him to tell fairly accurately a speed of say twenty-five miles an hour, but if he was taking the test over a short distance and the motor-car was going (as many did now) forty or fifty miles an hour, it would be a great question if he could To make a prosecution dependent on his take the rate of speed quite accurately. doing so would nullify the safeguard of the speed limit in the Bill. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said that if this Amendment were agreed to, they might rest satisfied there would be very few conviccions. In the eventuality of this Amendment being accepted, would the Automobile Club undertake to supply stop watches to everybody? He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.) thought they might trust the police to deal as effectively with motor traffic as they now dealt with ordinary traffic. seemed to him that this Amendment contained two assumptions, firstly, that the witnesses in motor cases would deliberately state what they knew to be untrue, and, secondly, that the magistrates would always accept the evidence of people unworthy of credence. He thought the House would do wrong not to trust the men who looked after the public interest in regard to ordinary traffic and other matters which related to the liberty of the subject, to look after the public interest in regard to motor car traffic. Why should they have some different method applied in regard to evidence on this particular class of offence from that applied to other offences? He hoped the House would not consent to this change in the ordinay law. SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley) said he hoped that his right hon. friend would stand to his position. He was certain that if the Amendment were adopted, the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the Act to restrain the speed of motor-cars on Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the highways would be considerably weakened. MR. PHILIP FOSTER (Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon) said he thought that if this proposed test of speed was adopted there would be endless traps set all over the country for motorists. Question put, and negatived. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU said that there were three classes of persons who had business on the highways to whom the speed limit should not be applied-first, firemen; second, bishops or priests who were going to minister to a dying soul; third, doctors who were hurrying to attend a patient. He begged to move. Amendment proposed to the Bill "In page 4, line 38, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided always that a medical man driving a motor-car or cycle for the purpose of attending a patient in urgent need of his assistance, or a member of a fire brigade attending a fire, shall not be liable for exceed ing the speed limits under this Act.'"-(Mr. Scott-Montagu.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." his MR.WALTER LONG said that he hoped that his hon. friend would not press Amendment, which really meant that a medical man should have a licence to risk the lives of various persons in order to save the life of another person. In that way he was likely to do more harm in one direction, than he was likely to do good by his professional skill in another. Then, if a medical man was to be allowed to go at a greater speed than twenty miles an hour, was he going to have a special mark on his car in the daytime, and a special light at night? SIR WALTER FOSTER said he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had really disposed of the Amendment. He knew that his hon. friend had been in communication with a large number of the medical profession who felt strongly on the point; but as most of them had been going for many years past at a much less speed than twenty miles an hour, he did not think they would be called upon to go at any greater speed in the future. *MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU said he Gentleman whether he could not find would like to suggest to the right hon. some words being made unduly cumulative. He to prevent the fines moved "In line 38, insert these words, 'That the fines under this Act shall not be accumulative within the space of twenty-four hours.'" Amendment proposed to the Bill "In page 4, line 38, at the end, to insert the words the fines under this Act shall not be accumulative within the space of twenty-four hours.'"-(Mr. Scott-Montagu.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." SIR ROBERT FINLAY said that what his hon. friend really proposed was that after being fined for his first offence, a motorist could go on breaking the law with impunity for the rest of the twenty-four hours. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. WALTER LONG said he had an Amendment to move in redemption of a promise made in Committee. Amendment proposed to the Bill "In page 4, line 38, at end, to add the words but a person shall not be convicted under this provision for exceeding the limit of speed of twenty miles merely on the opinion of one Walter Long.) witness as to the rate of speed.'"-(Mr. Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 4, line 38, at end, to insert the words under this section, he shall not be convicted '(2) Where a person is prosecuted for an offence unless he is warned of the intended prosecution at the time the offence is committed, or unless notice of the intended prosecution is entered on the register within such time after the offence is committed, not exceeding twentyone days, as the Court think reasonable.""-(Mr. Walter Long.) sent to him or to the owner of the car as Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed to the Bill. "In page 4, line 39, to leave out Subsection 2." Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed to the Bill- "In page 5, line 14, at beginning, to insert the words (1) Local authorities within the meaning of the last preceding section shall give public notice of any regulation of the Local Government Board made in pursuance of this Act prohibiting or restricting the use of motor-cars on any highway or part of a highway, or limiting the speed of motor-cars within any limits or place, and for the purpose of giving effect to any such regulation shall place notices in conspicuous places on or near the highway, part of a highway, limits, or place to which the regulation refers.'"-(Mr Walter Long.) were best chosen, therefore, to bear the expense of putting up these notices. Question put, and negatived. Proposed words there inserted in the Bill. Amendment proposed to the Bill — "In page 5, line 26, to leave out the words convicted of an offence under this Act and.'" —(Mr. Walter Long.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 5, line 27, to leave out the words 'ten pounds' and insert the words 'twenty Walter shillings under this Act.'”—(Mr. Long.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." MR. WALTER LONG said this was a compromise to meet the difficulties raised in various quarters on the question of appeal. But he MR. DALZIEL said he presumed it was useless to challenge the decision of the right hon. Gentleman. would point out that the right of the appeal would be of comparatively little value, for after all it would be an appeal from magistrates in Petty Sessions to magistrates in Quarter Sessions— practically the same men. They would be the same type of anti-motoring, unreasonable men. He therefore did not attach much importance to the appeal. Question put, and negatived. Proposed words there inserted in the Bill. Amendments proposed to the Bill— "In page 6, line 1, at beginning, to insert the words It is hereby declared that.'" Amendment agreed to. Amendments proposed to the Bill"In page 7, line 19, at end, to insert the words: (2.) Sub-sections 1 and 3 of Article 32 of The Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall be substituted for Sub-sections 1 and 5 of Section 87 of the The Local Government Act, 1888.' "In page 7, line 25, at end, to insert the words: (3) Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, of The Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, shall extend to Ireland in the case of a person charged with an offence under this Act.""-(Mr. Walter Long.) Amendments agreed to. MAJOR JAMESON moved an Amendment excluding motor-cycles. He said. it was clear that motor-cycles were not nearly so dangerous as motor-cars. Indeed the rider of a motor cycle, himself, ran by far the greatest risk, and was the first one to be hurt if an accident happened. It was generally the poor man who invested his £5 in a motor-cycle to enable him to travel to and from his work, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would as far as possible strike motor-cycles out of the Act. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 7, line 31, after the word 'car' to insert the words 'nor shall it include a motor-cycle.'"-(Major Jameson.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." MR. WILLIAM REDMOND hoped his hon. friend would enlighten the House as to where motor cycles could be got for £5. He opposed the Amendment and would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that only the other day a most lamentable and deplorable accident was caused by a motor cycle. MR. WALTER LONG trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed. The penalties were in the discretion of the magistrates, and the maximum and not the minimum was fixed. MAJOR JAMESON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. LORD HUGH CECIL pointed out that, under Standing Order 45, provision as to the duration of the Bill must be put in a clause by itself, whereas it was part of Clause 17. It had better be made Clause 18. *MR. SPEAKER: That will be done. MR. WALTER LONG appealed to the House to read the Bill a third time at once. Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments. HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL. As amended, considered. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.) moved various drafting Amendments, which were agreed to. SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston) thought the Bill a very reasonable one. But he desired to point out, though it went some way towards making it possible for local authorities, in town districts, to provide buildings for people who were driven to reside outside towns, there were a large number of other subjects to be dealt with before they could consider that adequate and sufficient powers were given to the local authorities to deal with the serious conditions that existed in our large towns and rural districts. The powers conmade much more stringent if they were ferred would, sooner or later, have to be to deal with a growing and crying evil. A scandalous state of things existed in rural districts especially, because of the scarcity of houses, and they wanted a much stronger Bill than the one for which they were now thanking the right hon. Gentleman. *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, as a member of the Committee which dealt with the question, also expressed his thanks to |