The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-28 00:00:00

HAWKERS' AND PEDLARS' ACT.

Mr. HUME seeing' the lion. Se zretary of the Treasury in
• his place, said he' would. take that 'opportunity of moving for
-.certain returns connected ,with the Board of Hawkers and
Pedlars and Hackney Coach licenses, .to the production of
which he 'expected there would be no objection. He would
state very shortly what Was. the object of his motion. One
great purpose which he had in view by the production of
these papers was to spew to the public,' that even in this
very small establishment, the Board for managing their li-
censes, there was apparently the greatest neglect of economy
with regard to the collection of the revenue.. 'He referred
'the -House to the Report of the. Committee Of Finance of
• 1797, - ia. which it • was stated that the office of Hawkers and
Pedlars Licences was .one of great expense and little, utility,
and they recommended therefore, that it should be entirely
done away with,; and. its duties transferred •to the. Stamp
•Office,. to be executed by. distributors .appointed by them
with the same allowance of. poundage as. in other cases.—
The ;Report stated that this transfer could be safely made,
for that in •ten years only One contested; case came before
the Commissioners. Another Report was made in the same
year upon the Board of ,Hackney Coach licences, and it was
recommended•that the duties of that board should be also
'transferred on the Stamp Office, The concluding-words of
the. Report were..—‘ In • which .ever -way. Parliament would
reform this, the present expenditure would admit of the most
In/Aerial retrenchment."' If the suggestion of that Committee
had been attended to, a great saving would be made. Instead
of that, however,. the two offices were thrown into one. The
whole expense of the Hawkers and Pedlars' Office was 4,6001.
and of the two offices together nine or ten thousand pounds.
The Revenue which they collected was got in at 16 per cent.
The number of Inspectors in. the country, instead of being
' diminished since these Reports, had been increased from 10 to
,30, of whom 24 had 1001. a year- each. •There were still five
Commissioners with salaries of from. 3001. to 5001, a year. These
gentlemen were obliged to attend Only once a week, and some-
times for five or six weeks together they were not troubled.—
Colonel Thornton was never there ; Mr. Wilmot was constantly
engaged in Lord Liverpool's office, and Mr. Jesse hr..l a situa-
tion under the Board. of Works, where he was already .sufli-
eiently engaged. In addition to these officers, there were a re-
ceiver and three clerks.. From this statement the House would
see that there were persons receiving the public money who per-
formed no services to the public. The total revenue col-
ltcted by these offices amounted to 55,7341., which, if cal-
culated at an expense of 9,3461. for collecting it, would
.give a result..of .oixteen per cent. The duties 'on Stage-
' coaches, which was more difficult of collection, amounted
• to -256,5911., ',and the expense attending - their collection
amounted but to 6,7001. a-year. He asserted that if these
things Were permitted,. neither the Revenue nor the country
could prosper. The Honourable. Member then proceeded to
state that with regard to the thirty country Inspectors of Haw-
.:..keys and Pedlars, he had Ascertained ' that they had for the
greater part sinecures in the places 'where they were stationed.
One of these was said to be stationed at Coventry, but he lived
fact at Birmingham. In Hampshire the Situation was filled
by a ,Clergyman, who never was called upon to issue a license.
Another individual was said to be stationed at Plymouth, who
was the near relation of a Noble Lord, but he did not reside
there, and in fact there was no instalice. of an application to
.him. Another individual was in a state of insanity, -and had
been so when lie was appointed to the office. He -would not,
however, fatigue the House by going through snore details,
•but he-would state generally that all the appointments were
made by the Lords of the Treasury, and not, by the Commis-
sioners, who were the best judges left to fill the situations.. In
most cases the :situations were given to persons to whom the
Lords of the'r.Preasury were `friendly. But surely if it was im-
:.portant lolgive facilities to: thetaking out of licenses by placing
Ilistributors in various.partslof the country, it was fit that these
..distribtitois; should bestationed in all the large towns. This
bowel/AU', was not. the'. case. There was tot one in Sheffield
or nearer to it than Xork, which was fifty miles distant., There
was not tone at Manchester, whilst one was stationed at the
.Leek, in, Staffordshire. In Hampshire, when the. Distributor
should be stationed atSouthampton,he resided at Christ-church.

He could name several other places where the placing or these
Distributors was equally inconvenient. He contended that all
their duties could be performed by the agents of the Stamp Of-
fice. tie saw no difference between issuing licenses to sellers
of lace, and that of issuing licenses to pedlars and hawkers. If
the Commissioners could collect the Coat duties, he saw no rea-
son why they could not also collect those payable by the haw-.
kers and pedlars. He contended that the Hackney-coach Of-
fice could not be defended on the ground's of its being an Office
of Police as well as,revenue, for it rarely. happened that com-
plaints against hackney coachmen were brought there to be
heard. Perhaps this might be accounted for, by their sitting
only one day in the week. .He mentioned a-case-within his own
knowledge of a person making a complaint there, who was put
off to the next I riday, when he was told that the Board would
then be sitting, and they would give him redress., Under
such circumstances, he was warranted in complaining that
there. were five Commissioners. in these offices, whose situ-
ations were mere sinecures. He pressed upon the House
the necessity of attending to the Reports of the Committee in
1797, and of transferring to the Stamp Office all their duties.
It was most preposterous to be paying 18 per cent. upon the
net of the Hackney;coach Duties, and 21 per cent. upon the
Hawkers' and pedlers' Licences. .He was sure Ministers
were not aware of the expellee of these offices, and that when
the papers were presented they would be taken as much by
surprise as the House. Ile trusted, however, that they would
feel it their duty to adopt some steps upon this subject. If
they neglected to -do so, he wished to take this opportunity of
giving notice that lie would himself, when the papers were laid
upon the table, move for a Committee to inquire how far the
expences,of these offices might be diminished.. The Honour-
able NI ember concluded by moving for Accounts of the Esta-
blishment of the Offices for managing the hawkers' and Ped-
lars' Licences, and the Hackney Coach Duties, for the year
1822, together with the names, offices, and salaries of the dif-
ferent officers belonging to the same, with their allowances of
house, or house-rent, by whom appointed, and what was the
nature of the securities which they had given.
Mr. LUSH INGTON said, he had no Objection to produce
these papers. He agreed with the Hon. Member as to the ex-
pence of these offices; but the Hon. Member had understated
the amount of revenue which these duties produced. The net
produce of the duties on hawkers' licences and hackney coaches
was considerably more now than in 1797. The increase was
entirely attributable to the exertions of those insane inspectors
whom the Hon. Member had been representing as entirely
useless. . What proved this was, that the increase was wholly
in the department of the hawkers'i and pedlars' licences, and
not in the hackney-coach duties. The Hon. Member, by con-
fining himself. to the Report of the Committee of the year 1797,
had overlooked what was done in 1810 with regard to these
offices. At that time the subject was taken. up by Parliament,
but instead of abolishing the officers, an increase of salaries to
the inspectors in the country. was recommended. Since then,
additional powers had been given to the Commissioners' who
now possessed a beneficial controul over three thousand hack-
ney coachmen and watermen, which they exercised with the
best effect. Ile did not think it would be advisable to abolish
the Commissioners for that very reason. The judicial func-
tions which they exercised could not be transferred to the Stamp
Office—lt was, however, the wish of. Government to. submit
the whole matter to Parliament, and it was his intention to
move for a Committee of the (louse, with a view of inquiring
how far reductions could be carried. When the papers were
laid upon the table, he had no doubt he .should be. able to
show, that notwithstanding the rise in the salaries, the returns
of revenue from these offices had considerably increased, and
that the additional powers conferred on the Commissioners for
controlling the hackney coachmen had been exercised with the
best effects.

Mr. Alderman WOOD observed, that the increase of Haw-
kers' licenses arose .out of the distress of. the times, for many
of the shopkeepers were converted into pedlars. It was there-
fore not true that the increase was attributable to the activity
of the Inspectors. With regard to the Hackney Coach Office
being an office of police, he contended that all that class of
complaints which might be brought before them, would be as
well disposed of at any ,of the Police Offices in London, or
Westminster, and thus a great saving would be made. •
Sir WM. DE CRESPIGNY observed, that it would be con-
venient if the loard of Commissioners held their meetings
oftener than once a week.

The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. HUME then moved for returns of the persons employ-
ed in London as Inspectors of Hawkers' and Pedlars' Licences,
and Hackney Coach Duties, with their names, salaries, allow-
ances, and the nature of their duties.
Mr. _BENNETT in seconding this motion observed, that
he was a little surprised to hear. the Honourable Secretary
opposite state his intention of moving for a Committee of
that House to inquire into the Hackney Coach Office. Such
an inquiry was more particularly die duty of Ministers, and it
was not to be borne that they should cast the labours off'.
their shoulders, and saddle a Committee of this House with
it. It would seem that Ministers intended to do nothing but
take their salaries. Ministers ought in the first instance to
make the 'inquiries, and then state the result to the House.
Parliament was more properly a Court of Controul over N. i-
nisters than of inquiry in the first instance. There were, how-
ever, difficult cases, such as the question of Agriculture, when
the advide of the Council of the nation was asked very pro-
perly ;. but in a mere matter of arrangement as to. a tax, it
was a little too. much to ask twenty-one Gentlemen of that
House to ininnire themselves months and weeks together in
doing that which is -the bounden 'duty of his Majesty's Mi-
nisters. • • - -

Mr. LUSIIINGTON said, that this house had already ap-
pointed a Committee to inquire into the best means of reducing
the expence of collecting the revenue.
Mr. BENNETT said that the Committee alluded to was ap-
pointed for a particular purpose. It did, not follow, however,
as a matter of course that there should be a Committee to in-
quire into each particular department connected with the col-
lection of the revenue. _ _

Sir J. NEWPORT said that the labours of that Committee,
which was appointed under peculiar circumstances, were con-
fined to Ireland. .
Mr. LUSHINGTON observed, that he still continued to
think that this House was the most proper tribunal to refer the
consideration of any important question, and he thought any
question connected with the revenue was of that nature.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. HU3IE then moved for returns of the persons em-
ployed in the country as Inspectors of Hawkers and Pedlars'
Licences, and whether they performed their duties by them-
selves cirby deputies, together with the nature of the securities
which they had given, and the. number of licences issued for
the last five years, distinguishing those issued in each year.—
Ordered. .
Mr. "HUME also moved for a ieturn of the Penalties in-
flicted tmder the Hawkers' Act, and how these penalties had
been applied.. Also for similar returns under the Hackney
Coach Act.— Ordered.
Mr. HUMP.: also moved for returns of the number of days
on which Boards were actually held, distinguishing the nuipber
in each week, and the number of Commissioners present at each.
—Ordered.