§ "The driver of a cab shall not be bound to go with any person desirous of hiring the cab, unless that person, on request by the driver, produces and shows sufficient money to pay the fare for the intended journey."
§ MR. D. CRILLY (Mayo, N.) rose to move that the clause be omitted. They were all in sympathy with the object of the Bill, but he thought those who promoted it should be satisfied with the clause 834 they had already got. He thought the first clause gave the cabmen of London all the protection they sought, but he thought the Bill went a little bit too far when it compelled those who wanted to use the cabs to produce their fare before the cabmen accepted them.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,) Birmingham, Bordesleysaid, he thought the hon. Member had rather misunderstood this clause. At present, under the law, a cabman was obliged, under heavy penalties, to take anyone. Occasionally a fare to whom some suspicion attached as to whether he had any money to pay presented himself, and the Bill gave the cabman the right in such a case to satisfy himself that the fare was able to pay. This was by no means a new principle, because under the present Act a cabman, when requested to wait, was not compelled to wait unless the hirer satisfied him that he was able to pay, and he could even compel him to give a deposit. They did not think that the power given in the Bill would be exercised except in extreme cases, because the cabman who used it vexatiously would offend the hirer, and put himself out of the chances of employment.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)thought that the clause would fail in its purpose. Those in charge of the Bill should not overlook the fact that there was such a thing as base coin.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.