The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-20 00:00:00

it more attention than a committee of the whole house.
(Hear, hear.) The bill could not come into operation
before October, and there was plenty of time, therefore, to
send it to a committee up stairs, and then to consider it in
the house. That course, if adopted, would give great
satisfaction out of doors, and would show their determina-
tion to give to the subject the best consideration in their
power. He cordially seconded the amendment.
Mr. FITZROY thought the house would agree with him
that no sufficient case had been made out for referring the
bill to a committee up stairs. The mover and seconder of
the amendment had only proved that they had certain
alterations to propose in the bill, which alterations he
should be perfectly willing to consider and adopt, as far
as the interests of the public would allow him to do so ; but
to propose to refer the bill to a select committee was in
effect to sweep away any chance it might have of receiving
the sanction of the house. (Hear.) The only evidence that
would be taken before a select committee would be that of
cab proprietors, and the public would be altogether shut
out, which would not be the case if the bill were submitted
to a committee of the whole house. The mover of the amend.
ment had erroneously stated that no measure affecting hack-
ney carriages in this metropolis had been framed within the
last 19 years, and that the last measure was referred to a
select committee. The act 6 and 7 Victoria, which was an
act for licensing and regulating this trade, had been passed
subsequently to the period referred to by the hon. baronet;
and although it granted powers similar to those conferred
upon the Commissioners of Police by the present measure,
it was not considered necessary to send it to a committee
nip stairs. A great deal had been said about the amount
of capital invested in hackney carriages ; but the house
should recollect, on the other hand, that 300,000,000 pas-
sengers were conveyed annually in these vehicles within
this metropolis. It was of great importance that the pub-
lic conveyances should not be allowed to remain in their
present state, deprived of light and air, and, believing that
the provisions of the bill were equally for the interests of
the public and of cab proprietors, he would resist the
amendment to refer it to a select committee.

Mr. B. DENISON supported the amendment. He
thought the house was not competent to deal with all parts
of the case, without hearing what' the cab proprietors had
to say. He admitted, at the same time, that the public
conveyances of the metropolis required improvement.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY thanked the honourable gentle.
man who had brought forward this bill. The proposed
reduction of fares would, in the long run, be found bene-
ficial to the cab proprietors themselves. The question of
appeal was one which fairly admitted of a difference of
opinion, but there could be no doubt that the house was as
competent to deal with it as a committee up stairs. He
should vote for the motion.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said that to reduce the fares, and
at the same time to enact stringent regulations, might be a
necessary, but it was certainly a cruel and arbitrary, pro-
ceeding:_
__
..
.. .
..
._ _ .
._ _ _

Mr. -MALINS said that the nailed-together boards
which were driven about on wheels through the streets,
and called cabs, were a disgrace to the metropolis. (Hear,
hear.) The drivers, too, were the most ignorant body of
men in the world ; if you told one of them to drive to the
east he brought you to the west ; and if you directed him
to the north, you soon found yourself going towards the
south of the city. He (Mr Malins) thought that there
ought to be an examination of drivers. (Hear, hear.) He
trusted that the honourable gentleman opposite would per-
severe in the general objects of this bill, and that the house
would not consent to refer the question to a committee
up stairs.
Mr. BRIGHT said that members of that house were
frequently obliged to employ cabs, and suffered a great deal
of inconvenience in consequence ; they ought, therefore, to
be careful not to legislate on this matter with a view to per-
sonal considerations. He believed that cab-drivers were
in general treated with great harshness, and that their un-
fortunate condition was, in a great degree, to be attributed
to the want of a sensible municipal government in this me-
tropolis. No act of Parliament would civilise a body of men
who were exposed day and night in this severe climate, but
if there was a proper municipal government in London,
some arrangement would have been by this time made by
which cabs on the stand would be placed under a glass
roof, and greater attention would be paid to the comforts
of the drivers. (Hear.) As the Government showed a
willingness to receive suggestions by which the bill might
be improved, he (Mr. Bright) should not vote for sending
it to a committee up stairs.
Mr. B. CARTER did not think that the bill would re-
ceive fair consideration from a committee of the whole
house, and he should, therefore, vote in favour of referring
it to a select committee.

Mr. LOCKE thought that it would not be right to legis-
late on a question which affected the interests of a large
body of men without giving them a healing, and an oppor-
tunity of stating their case before a select committee. He
could not approve of tho interference with fares which was
proposed by this bill.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—

For going into committee
Against it

. 107
23

Majority
The house then went into committee on the bill pro
forma.

Sir GEORGE PECHELL gave notice that on the house
going into committee on the bill on the next occasion he
would move that the cabmen be heard by counsel at the
bar of the house. (Laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again to-morrow.