June, 1654

[23 June, 1654.]

Number of hackney-coachmen in London, etc., from June 24, 1654, limited to 200.; Hackney-coaches to 300.; Hockney-horses to 600.; To be under control of Court of Aldermen.; Names of 13 of the first 200 hackney-coachmen.; Directions for making up number to 200.

Forasmuch as many Inconveniences do daily arise by reason of the late increase and great irregularity of Hackney Coaches and Hackney Coachmen in London, Westminster and the places thereabouts: For remedy thereof, Be it Ordained by his Highness the Lord Protector, with the consent of His Council, that from the four and twentieth day of June, One thousand six hundred fifty and four ensuing, the number of persons keeping Hackney-coaches and Hackney horses for Coaches, within the City of London, Westminster and six miles about the late lines of communication, do not exceed at one time two hundred; nor the Hackney-coaches to be used by them, three hundred; nor their Hackney Horses for Coaches do not exceed the number of six hundred. And for the better Ordering and Governing the said Hackney-coach-men, Be it Ordained that the Government and Ordering of them shall from time to time be in the Court of Aldermen, of the City of London, in such manner as is hereby Ordained. And that Benjamin Francis, Andrew Clark, John Saltmarsh, Arthur Willis, Thomas Stephens, Anthony Hart, William Hockley, Thomas Graham, William Deacon, William Norwell, John Bray, Richard Heyborn, and William Clark, be thirteen of the first two hundred persons who shall keep Hackney-coaches, and Hackney-Coach-horses as aforesaid; which said thirteen persons, or the greater number of them, meeting in some convenient place for that purpose, shall nominate and present to the said Court of Aldermen two hundred persons, out of which two hundred persons, nominated and presented as aforesaid, or such other persons as the said Court of Aldermen shall think fit, the said Court shall elect and chuse one hundred eighty and seven persons, to make up the Thirteen Master Hackney-Coachmen aforesaid, to the number of two hundred, who shall thereupon be admitted and entred to be Master Hackney-Coachmen within the Limits aforesaid; And that no other persons dwelling within the Limits aforesaid, not of the number, nor entred and admitted as aforesaid, shall keep to hire out any Coaches.

Directions for appointing new hackney-coachmen in case of death or other vacancy.

And it is further Ordained, That if any of the said two hundred Master Hackney-Coach-men shall dy, depart from the limits aforesaid, or be removed, that then the said Remaining MasterCoachmen shall nominate and present to the said Court of Aldermen, double the number of such persons as shall dy, depart the Limits, or be removed as aforesaid, out of whom, or such others as the said Court of Aldermen shall think fit, the same Court shall from time to time elect and choose so many as shall make up the number of two hundred persons as aforesaid.

Stage-coaches not affected.

Provided, That nothing herein contained, do extend to the prejudice or restraint of the Coaches commonly called Stage Coaches, coming to, or going from London into remote places.

Hackney-coachmen to pay admission fee of 40s.

And be it further Ordained, That all and every of the said two hundred persons to be first admitted, and all that shall hereafter be admitted to keep Hackney-Coaches, as aforesaid, shall at their first admittance pay for his and their admission the sum of fourty shillings a-piece, towards raising a Stock, and for defraying the common Charges of the said Company.

Court of Aldermen may make rules and bye-laws for hackney-coachmen, subject to approval of Lord Protector.

And lastly, For the better Ordering and Governing of the said Hackney-Coachmen, and those imployed under them, It is Ordained, That the said Court of Aldermen shall from time to time have power to make and ordain Rules, Directions, and Bye-laws, for and concerning the distribution of Coaches amongst the said Coach-men, their places of Standing, their Rates for Carriages, Penalties for disobedience by them, or others, to the provisions of this Ordinance, or to the said By-laws; Also for due Recovering of the same Penalties, and for removing of such as shall be offenders, and for any other thing tending to the well-ordering of the said Coachmen, and to the due execution of this Ordinance; Which Rules, Directions, and by-Lawes, being from time to time presented to and Allowed by His Highness the Lord Protector and his Council for the time being with such Alterations and Additions as shall by the said Lord Protector and his Council, be made thereunto, shall be binding to all parties, and accordingly be duly executed.

Hackney-coachmen to pay admission fee of 40s

So how much would 40 shillings in 1654 be worth now?

£3,170.00 using average earnings according to this website http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/result.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1654&pound71=2&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=2&year_source=1654&year_result=2011

A plate/license premium does act as an incentive to good behaviour by taxi drivers. The higher the premium the more likely the owner is not to risk losing his license. I have never seen that point made in the debate over derestriction.

This just might be a red herring... for why doesn't somebody making a comparison between the fisheries.... and the compensation that was paid out to the licence holders of fishing vessels.... that have to be scrapped... because there were too many....

A plate/license premium does act as an incentive to good behaviour by taxi drivers. The higher the premium the more likely the owner is not to risk losing his license. I have never seen that point made in the debate over derestriction.

You sound a bit fishy Cap'n Birdseye. I reckon you're from Sussex. Perhaps they didn't get compensated cos they weren't eligible under the Human Rights Act?

This just might be a red herring... for why doesn't somebody making a comparison between the fisheries.... and the compensation that was paid out to the licence holders of fishing vessels.... that have to be scrapped... because there were too many....

Presumably the difference is that no one is forcing or requesting the scrapping of taxi licences.

By the way: red herring, fisheries - like it

Probably because it's superficial nonsense.

I can't really see a council revoke a valuable licence because of a driving matter, although the driver's badge might be a different story.

In any case, where most drivers don't have a plate - Liverpool, for example - your proposition doesn't even reach the status of half-baked theory.

In 1623 there were Hackney-coach vehicles operating in London.
I'll take your "Cromwell" and raise you a "Charles I" for the earliest Mr MarkRGuildford. Thirty-one years earlier in fact.

Fair enough. Why not stick with the Cromwell idea and have restricted numbers of driver licences with premiums to ensure good behaviour?