HC Deb 14 May 1896 vol 40 cc1406-7

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. STUART-WORTLEY in the Chair.]

Progress, 11th May—Clause 3:— Section eighteen of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, is hereby repealed from 'and in case of any dispute' to the end of the section.

MR. D. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

was understood to say the Bill was intended to repeal the Hackney Carriage Act, 1853, which provided that, if a dispute arose between cabman and fare, the latter could compel the cabman to drive to the nearest police station. This might inflict hardship on the cabman, and if the compulsion the fare might exercise were done away with it would be well in the interest of the fare that something should be substituted for the necessity of going to the police station. He had suggested that the parties should take advantage of the first policeman on the beat to submit the dispute to him, so that the officer would be able to give evidence next day if the case came into court. He desired to know if any consideration had been given to this point, or if the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill was prepared with any proposal to give the "fares" some kind of protection?


replied, that those in charge of the Bill had given consideration to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and they could find no way out of the difficulty further than the protection which now existed. That protection, however, was ample, because the hirer had only to take the number of the cab and of the cabman, and he could summon The latter next day to the court in case of anything the cabman had done wrong. The suggestion that any dispute should be referred to the nearest policeman would simply complicate matters. The policeman would know no more about the case than he was told, and, instead of the plan affording any protection, it would simply lead to an extra waste of time.


was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to concede the reasonable request of the hon. Member for North Mayo. The hon. Member designed not to injure cabmen, but to give them even more protection than was afforded by the Bill, and at the same time protect the public. He himself had no sympathy with bilkers, whether they bilked the cabman, or bilked on the Exchange on race-course, or whether they were political bilkers. Those who had raised this question had no desire whatever to stand between the cabmen of London and their necessary protection, and he thought they had done service in eliminating from the Bill the second clause. He would appeal to the hon. Member for North Mayo, in the circumstances, to withdraw his objection.

MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.)

thought this was a Bill which required some consideration, and, as after midnight was not a proper time to bring it on, he moved to Report progress.

Committee Report progress; to sit again To-morrow.