COMMITTEE. REPORT. (Hansard, 5 December 1867)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
I have to submit to your Lordships' consideration a clause of which I have not given notice, but to which I hope, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no objection. Your Lordships are aware that the other evening the metropolis was deprived of a very important adjunct to the public convenience by the withdrawal of all cabs from the streets after four o'clock. That was done in consequence of the dissatisfaction of the cab-proprietors and cab-drivers, directed principally against one of the regulations in the Metropolitan Streets Act of last Session. I think it a matter of great regret that those persons should take the course they did, in order to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to what they consider a great 576 grievance; because it was a proceeding likely to throw great difficulties in the way of the Government in proposing an alteration of the Act. But I must say that a meeting was held the same evening, numerously attended by cab-proprietors and drivers, which was characterized by great moderation and great good temper; and the result of that meeting was that a deputation waited on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and laid before him their views and their complaints. The principal grievance of which the cab-proprietors complain, and which appeared to my right hon. Friend, as it does to me, to be a fair and legitimate ground, if not of actual complaint, at least one requiring further investigation and consideration, was that in addition to the very heavy duties which they now pay, amounting to £19 or £20 a year, upon each cab, an additional burden is now thrown upon them which is not inflicted upon other carriages—namely, the expenditure involved in carrying lamps. The provision to that effect is found in the Act of last Session, which contained a vast variety of details—it being a great object with both Houses of Parliament that some remedy should be applied to the serious obstructions existing in the streets of the metropolis—and it is possible that some of the details may have passed without that consideration to which they were fairly entitled. But, as far as I am aware, I believe there were not during the passing of the Bill, any complaints on the part of the cab-drivers and proprietors on this particular point. Nevertheless, there certainly is a fair ground of complaint in the additional charge thrown upon them without any alleviation on their burdens. They further complain that the power of enforcing this regulation is left, to a great extent, discretionary with the Police Commissioners, who are to fix the hours during which lamps are to be carried. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt that their statement involved matter which required further consideration, and therefore he proposes to introduce a clause—with which, I understand, the persons interested are perfectly satisfied—namely, to transfer the discretionary power now vested by the Act in the Commissioners of Police to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to provide that no regulations as to lamps under this Act shall be issued without the approval of the Secretary of State. 577 That will afford my right hon. Friend an opportunity of fully investigating the subject; and I may add that I believe it is the intention of my right hon. Friend, as soon as Parliament meets again, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole case of the cab-drivers and cab-proprietors of the metropolis. With this explanation, I hope your Lordships will have no objection to sanction the clause, which provides that no regulations shall be made with regard to the carriage of lamps by hackney carriages under the Act of last Session except with the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that when the Bill was before the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, no objection was made to the proposal with respect to lamps. If, however, the change proposed would effect a settlement of the question that was regarded as satisfactory by the parties interested, he should not interpose in any way. But the obligation imposed by the Act was one that in itself seemed not unreasonable, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of in any future arrangements on the subject.

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, the only satisfactory settlement of the cab question would be to allow the cab-drivers to charge whatever they pleased—subject only to this condition, that they should put outside their cabs a table of the fares they charged. The whole system of regulating the fares of hackney carriages was a remnant of barbarous times; for competition would apply equally to that case as to anything else in obtaining for the public a supply of the best article at reasonable rates. Omnibuses, for instance, might charge any price they pleased, but they found it to their own interest to keep down their charges. All great writers and political economists were unanimous in thinking that the fact of legislating as to the fares of hackney carriages was as great a mistake as could be committed. In illustration of his meaning he might state a little fact. At one time a society of great political economists, whose meetings were attended, among others, by Mr. Ricardo, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Mill, Mr. M'Culloch, and Mr. Malthus, met together to discuss nice questions of political economy; and it was said of them that the only question upon which they were ever unanimous was the impolicy of putting any limitations upon hackney carriages. He 578 hoped their Lordships, when the Committee was appointed, would remember that the regulations affected one class alone.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
The noble and learned Lord must be aware that the introduction of such provisions as he contemplates would be impossible now, and would simply have the effect of preventing the Bill being passed before the Recess.

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, he did not mean that the question should be dealt with now, but at a future time.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
The noble and learned Lord has undoubtedly raised a very fit subject for consideration. But as he has mentioned one little fact, there is another little fact that I will mention. At this moment the Corporation of Liverpool have introduced a by-law for carrying into effect the very proposal which he now makes—namely, that cab-proprietors shall be allowed to charge what they like, provided only that they put the fare outside their cabs; and the whole of the cab-proprietors of Liverpool are at this moment on strike against that by-law.

§ LORD LYVEDEN
regretted that the question of the lighting of cabs should have been taken out of the hands of the Commissioners of Police, who knew what was best for the public safety, and transferred to the Home Secretary, who was necessarily less conversant with the subject. The cabmen had undoubtedly cause for complaint; but the true cause was the high charges to which they were subjected, and the low fares they received. Lights would be a protection to the public, and of that protection, according to the noble Earl's statement, they would now be deprived.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
The public have not been deprived of anything. The effect of the clause now introduced can only be to postpone action, at the outside, for the next three months. Meanwhile, matters remain precisely in the same position as they were before.