Hackney Cabs and Chimneys
December 19th, 2006I have found the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 in Stones. For an Act of this age, it is remarkably well-preserved in that only a few of its sections have been repealed. As I reported some days ago, the author and journalist Ross Clark is urging its repeal. The link to his broadcast did not work on my computer, so why he wishes an end to it after nearly one hundred and sixty years remains unclear to me, I’m afraid.
Could it be something to do with Section 31, which makes the occupier of premises liable to pay a fine if his chimney accidentally catches or is on fire, unless he can satisfy the magistrates that the fire was not due to omission, neglect or carelessness on his or his servant’s part.
What about Section 35, which imposes a penalty on coffee shop keepers for harbouring disorderly persons? Section 36 makes it an offence for a person to keep a place for bear-baiting, cock fighting or the worrying of any animal. A welcome and important provision, no doubt. Looking back at Section 21, the local authority has the power to make an order preventing obstructions in the streets during public processions. Is any of this contentious, or has there been a poor example of the enforcement of these sections?
It may well be that Mr. Clark is concerned about the provisions relating to Hackney Carriages, contained in Sections 37 to 68. If he wishes to abolish these, I’m afraid that more than the 1847 Act will have to go. The footnote in Stones solemnly relates that this Act is to be construed as one with the 1889 Town Police Clauses Act, and that both acts are incorporated with the Public Health Act 1875, one of Richard Cross’s crowning achievements and a mark of the greatness of the Disraeli Government of 1874 to 1880. The Transport Act 1985 has applied the hackney carriage provisions of the 1847 Act throughout England and Wales and has enabled the police to prosecute for hackney carriage offences under this Act. Not an easy path for repealers to tread, it seems.
I shall keep trying to hear Ross Clark’s objection, and will report back if I achieve any success.
