REPORT.

To the RIGHT HONOURABLE EDWARD SHORTT, K.C., M.P.

(His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department.)

SIR,

We have the honour to present to you our Report on the inquiry you instructed us to make on April 18th, 1921.

I. We were appointed to consider the question of the regulation of trading by hawkers, costermongers, stallkeepers, and other vendors in streets and public places in the Metropolitan Police District, and to advise as to the desirability of amending the existing provisions on the subject.

II. We have held 33 meetings and have heard oral evidence from 52 witnesses including representatives of the Police, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee, Borough Councils and other Local Authorities, Carriers, Newspaper Proprietors, Shopkeepers, and Street Traders. (See Appendix II.)

We are much indebted to those who have attended to give evidence, and have supplied us with returns, maps, and other documents which have a bearing upon the subject of our inquiry. In addition to the evidence thus obtained from outside, valuable information in connection with the investigation has been furnished by members of the Committee. We have ourselves visited many of the most important Street Markets within the Metropolitan Police District and have endeavoured to investigate for ourselves the conditions under which street trading is at present carried on.

STATEMENT OF THE LAW.

III. Before stating the nature of the problem with which we have had to deal, it will be convenient to give a summary of those enactments and decided cases which appear to us to have a bearing on the question of street trading.

Section 65 of the Metropolitan Paving Act, 1817 (57 Geo. III, c. xxix-Michael Angelo Taylor's Act), provides, inter alia :—

If any person or persons shall set or place or cause or permit to be set or placed by any servant or person employed by him, her, or them or otherwise any stall board, chopping block, show board on hinges or (B 3/201)Q

A 2

otherwise, baskets, wares, merchandise, casks, or goods of any kind whatsoever, in or upon any part of the carriage or footways in any street or public place in any parochial or other district within the jurisdiction of this Act, and shall not immediately remove all or any such matters or things being thereunto required by any Surveyor or person employed or appointed by the persons having control of the pavements (now the Borough Councils) and whether the same shall have been so set or placed exposed or put out by himself, herself or themselves personally or by his, her or their servant or employé and shall not continue and keep the same so removed, or having removed such things shall replace them, shall be liable to a fine of 40s.

The penalty is not for placing such matters and things in the street or other place, but for not immediately removing them when required to do so by a properly authorised person. Under the latter part of the section the duly authorised representatives of the Borough Council have power to seize matters and things so deposited. If they are perishable they shall be immediately forfeited and applied to the relief of the poor. If they are not perishable they shall be kept until the penalty costs and expenses are paid, but may be sold after five days. Any balance after deducting penalty costs, etc., shall be returned to the owner. The power to seize is not dependent upon the existence of a conviction under the section but may be exercised although there has been no conviction (Brackley v. St. Mary's, Battersea, 23 Q.B.D. 486). The section at the present time is in force throughout the whole of the Metropolis (i.e., the London County Council area), but does not apply to costermongers, street hawkers and itinerant traders carrying on their business within a radius of six miles from Charing Cross in accordance with regulations made by the Commissioner of Police.

The Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, Section 6, which is limited in its application to places within a radius of six miles of Charing Cross, provides that no goods or other articles shall be allowed to rest on any footway or other part of the street or be otherwise allowed to cause obstruction or inconvenience to the passage of the public for a longer time than may be absolutely necessary for loading or unloading such goods or other articles, and enacts that any persons doing any act in contravention of this section shall be liable for each offence to a penalty not exceeding 40s.

The Metropolitan Streets Act Amendment Act, 1867, enacts that Section 6 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, shall not apply to costermongers, street hawkers, or itinerant traders so long as they carry on their business in accordance with the regulations from time to time made by the Commissioner of Police with the approval of the Secretary of State.

There is no statutory definition of Street Market, Costermonger, Street Hawker or Itinerant Trader.

In pursuance of the above-stated provision, the following regulations were made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and approved by the Secretary of State, for the carrying on of the business of costermongers, street hawkers, and itinerant traders within

such parts of the Metropolis as are enclosed in a circle of which the centre is Charing Cross and the radii are six miles in length :

(1) "No barrow, cart, or stall for the sale of articles in the street shall exceed 9 feet in length or 3 feet in width, and no part of any such barrow, cart, or stall as regards the width shall project beyond the wheels."

(2) "No barrow, cart, or stall shall be placed or stand in any street or public way alongside another, so as to lessen or obstruct the breadth of such street or public way by more than the width of one barrow, cart, or stall."

(3) "No barrow, cart, or stall shall be placed or stand in any street or public way within 4 feet (measured along the length of any such street or public way) of another barrow, cart, or stall, which space of 4 feet shall be kept so as to enable passengers to pass and repass between the road and the footway."

(4) "All costermongers, street hawkers, and itinerant traders shall, when requested to do so by any inhabitant, remove their barrows, carts, and stalls from before the house of such inhabitant, in order to enable him to load or unload any vehicle at his door."

(5) "No barrow, cart, or stall shall be placed or stand either wholly or in part on any street crossing."

(6) "Costermongers, street hawkers, and itinerant traders, and their barrows, carts, and stalls are hereby made liable to be removed from any street or public way in which they create an obstruction to the traffic, or where they are an annoyance to the inhabitants.”

The amending Act of 1867 only applies to costermongers, street hawkers and itinerant traders, and any person who does not fall within one or other of those categories is liable to be proceeded against for any breach of Section 6 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, whether he does, or does not comply with the Commissioner's Regulations. This was decided in the case of Baker v. Bradley (74 J.P. 341), the facts of which were as follows:-A stall consisted of a two-wheeled barrow, the legs of which were propped up on stone blocks. On this one end of a stall board rested, the other end resting on a pair of trestles apart from the barrow. This stall was stationary all day and was loaded with butcher's meat in the morning, the whole being removed at night. It was placed close to the kerb and complied with the Commissioner's Regulations and was managed by an employé of the owner who kept a coffee shop in an adjoining street. It was held on these facts that the Magistrate was justified in finding that the owner was not a costermonger, street hawker, or itinerant trader within the Amending Act.

Before passing from these Acts, we ought to draw attention to two cases, Summers v. The Holborn District Board of Works (1893, 1 Q.B. 612), and Keep v. The Vestry of St. Mary's, Newington (1894, 2 Q.B. 524). In the first of these cases it was held that the provisions contained in Section 65 of Michael Angelo Taylor's Act had been impliedly (B 3/201)Q

A 3

repealed by the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and the Metropolitan Streets Act Amendment Act, 1867. In the latter case the Court of Appeal held that Michael Angelo Taylor's Act was still in force, but that a costermonger, hawker, or itinerant trader could only be proceeded against under that Act if the prosecution could show that he was not carrying on his business in accordance with the Regulations. issued by the Commissioner of Police under the Metropolitan Streets. Act Amendment Act, 1867.

Regulation 6 provides that costermongers, street hawkers, and itinerant traders and their barrows, carts, and stalls are hereby madeliable to be removed from any street or public way in which they create an obstruction to the traffic or are an annoyance to the inhabitants. Under this regulation a costermonger, hawker, or itinerant trader is not within the protection given by the Metropolitan Streets Act Amendment Act, 1867, in any case where he causes an obstruction to the traffic or is an annoyance to the inhabitants.

Under Section 166 of the Public Health Act, 1875, Urban Authoritieshave power to provide a market place and construct other conveniences for the purposes of holding markets so long as they do not interfere with any rights, powers, or privileges enjoyed within the district by any person without his consent.

For this purpose the provisions of the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847, with respect to the holding of the market and the protection thereof, and with respect to the stallages, rents, and tolls are incorporated with the Public Health Act. All tolls leviable by an Urban Authority have to be approved by the Local Government Board (i.e., the Ministry of Health), and bye-laws may be made by the Urban Authority for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 42 of the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847.

So far as we have been able to ascertain, Woolwich is the only Metropolitan Borough which possesses markets which were originally acquired under the terms of this section.

Prior to the passing of the London Government Act, 1899, the Parish of Woolwich, which was an Urban District partly governed by the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, purchased privately owned Charter Market Rights in the parish, and established a market.

Soon after the formation of the present Borough these Market Rights were extended by the Woolwich Borough Council Act, 1903, to those parts of the Borough which were not included in the original parish of Woolwich, and markets have now been established in Plumstead and Eltham.

There are also a number of Markets which have been established within the Metropolitan Police District either by Charter or under Private Acts of Parliament, but we have not considered such markets. as coming within the scope of our inquiry.

Under Sections 50 and 52 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1903, a Borough Council has power to purchase or lease land, not being part of any highway or public place, at or near any roadway or footway in which it has previously been the custom for street traders to congregate for the purpose of a market, and may borrow money for that purpose.

These sections do not give any power to create new Street Markets, but are intended to make provision for establishing markets on private property in substitution for existing street markets.

Under Regulation 1 (b) of Part I of the Schedule to the Shops Early Closing Act, 1981, any person who carries on in any place, not being a shop, any retail trade or business (other than one which is specially excepted in the schedule) after 8 o'clock in the evenings on any day other than Saturday, or after nine o'clock in the evening on Saturday, shall be liable to a penalty.

In addition to the Statutes above referred to, there are various Acts of Parliament dealing with the question of obstruction on Highways. The first of these is the Highways Act, 1835, which is of general application throughout the country. Under that Act (Sections 72 and 78) it is an offence punishable by a fine of 40s. to wilfully obstruct the passage of any footway, or in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage of any highway. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to abridge, repeal, alter, amend, or interfere with the powers and provisions of the Metropolitan Paving Act, 1817.

The next Statute in order of date is the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, which applies throughout the whole of the Metropolitan Police Area. Section 54 of that Act provides :-

66

Every person who . . . by means of any cart carriage sledge truck or barrow or any horse or other animal shall wilfully interrupt any public crossing or wilfully cause any obobstruction in any thoroughfare shall be liable to a penalty of 40s."

and by Section 60 (7) :

"Every person who shall expose anything for sale . . . upon or so as to hang over any carriage way or footway or on the outside of any house or shop or who shall set up or continue any pole, blind, awning, line or any other projections from any window, parapet or other part of any house, shop or other building, so as to cause any annoyance or obstruction in any thoroughfare

shall be liable to a similar penalty.

In certain outlying portions of the Metropolitan Police District the provisions of the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847, which are very similar to those of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, apply.

While dealing with the legal position of street traders, we think it right to draw attention to the provisions of Section 9 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, in which the prohibition of the carriage or distribution of advertisements is not extended to the sale of newspapers. In the provisions of the City of London (Street Traffic) Act, 1909, vendors of newspapers are totally exempted from the provisions of the Regulations dealing with street trading.

PRESENT POSITION OF STREET TRADING.

IV. During the course of the evidence which has been laid before us we have examined the witnesses carefully with regard to their opinion