It may be of some interest to compare the conditions of three different groups of men, all of whom are busied in the work of carrying London’s inhabitants to and fro; especially since their cases exemplify a transition which is in course of progress around us. All drivers and conductors are compelled to pay for leave to exercise their calling. It is considered that the security of the passenger requires to be safeguarded, and that no person should be allowed to officiate upon a public conveyance unless he has been licensed to do so. In London the ultimate licensing authority is the Home Secretary, to whom Section 8 of the Stage and Hackney Carriages (Metropolis) Act of 1869 has allowed a power little less than autocratic. These are the terms of it: “A licence to the driver or conductor of a hackney or stage carriage may be granted at such price, on such conditions, be in such form, be subject to revocation or suspension in such events and generally be dealt with in such manner as the said Secretary of State may by order prescribe, subject to this provision, that any licence shall, if not revoked or suspended, be in force for a year, and there shall be paid in respect thereof to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police Fund such sum not exceeding 5s. as the said Secretary of State may prescribe.” Successive Home Secretaries have seen fit to fix the maximum charge of 5s. for each year’s licence; and between the 1st of April, 1905 and the 31st of March, 1906, the Commissioners of Police received as many sums of 5s. as sufficed to make up a total of £7928, 10s.[30] Of the manner in which the police authorities exercise their power something will appear later on; but, apart from any question of administration, there is surely some injustice in taxing the men for a licence demanded not at all in their interest, but solely in that of their passengers. That the owners of public conveyances, who derive a profit from running them on the public roads, and who in doing so assist to wear out those roads, should pay for a licence may be not inequitable; but that the paid servants of such owners should be taxed, as a condition of entering that service, can hardly, when judicially considered, be pronounced defensible, and it is not surprising that the Select Committee should advise alteration. “The theory of the Home Office,” says the Report, “seems to be that, in view of the special benefits derived by the cab and omnibus trade from its connection with the police, it is only fair that the trade should be specially taxed for the maintenance of the police.... There seem, however, to be few other classes of the community who are charged in this way for their own police inspection, and in our opinion, the system requires modification.”[31]