Every thing has History belonging to it, though perhaps it is seldom worth investigation; and what follows will, I suspect, be thought not unlike Gratiano's reasons; viz. "As two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search[336]." But, as the History of Coaches in general, and particularly of Hackney Coaches, has never been drawn together, I shall attempt to do it as an historical detail of that species of luxury. . The Nobleman, and the man of fortune, steps into his own carriage; and the humbler orders of men into their occasional coach, even with the gout upon them, when walking is out of the question; without ever thinking with the smallest gratitude of those who introduced or improved such a convenience; and all this because these Vehicles are now too common to attract our notice further than their immediate use suggests.

It is the business of Antiquaries to rescue subjects of this sort from oblivion, as to their origin, their improvements, &c. to the present hour; who of course must leave it to others of the same class, to shew their decline; for it is not improbable that even the present gay families, or their posterity, may be witnesses of such a revolution.

The first Wheel-Carriages of the Coach kind were in use with us in the Reign of King Richard II., and were called Whirlicotes; though we cannot but suppose they were such as, but for the name of riding, our ancestors might as well have walked on foot. Let us hear the account given either by Master John Stowe, or some of his Editors, on this matter, who tells us that "Coaches were not known in this Island; but Chariots, or Whirlicotes, then so called, and they only used of Princes, or men of great estates, such as had their footmen about them. And for example to note, I read[337] that Richard II. being threatened by the Rebels of Kent, rode from the Tower of London to the Miles-End, and with him his Mother, because she was sick and weak, in a Whirlicote.... But in the year next following, the said Richard took to wife Anne, daughter to the King of Bohemia, who first brought hither the riding upon side-saddles; and so was the riding in those Whirlicotes and Chariots forsaken, except at Coronations, and such like spectacles. But now of late," continues he, "the use of Coaches brought out of Germany, is taken up and made so common, as there is neither distinction of time, nor difference of persons, observed; for the world runs on wheels with many whose parents were glad to go on foot[338]."

We may hence suppose that the Whirlicote was not much more than a Litter upon Wheels, and adapted both to state and invalidity, among the higher orders of mankind; for we have seen that they gave place even to riding on Horseback, among the Ladies, as soon as proper Saddles were introduced.

The word Coach is evidently French, from their word Carrosse, and was formerly often written Carroche, as it appears in Stowe's Chronicle, where the two words appear almost in the same sentence. The French word, nevertheless, is not radically such, but formed from the Italian Carroccio, or Carrozza, for they have both; and that even the latter is a compound of Carro Rozzo, it being a red Carriage, whereon the Italians carried the Cross when they took the field. So says Mr. Menage[339]; and if so, this Vehicle passed from Italy to Germany, from thence to France, and at length to us. According to Mr. De Caseneuve, the Italian Carrocio had four wheels; and he adds to what Mr. Menage has said, that they carried their Standards upon it[340].

The French Charrette, from whence our Chariot[341], had but two wheels. But we may observe how our word is degraded, for it properly signifies a Cart, though it had four wheels[342]. The French, since Coaches came into use, have been ashamed of the term, and call it a Carrosse CoupÉ, or Half-Coach. . By the above account the Chariot seems to have been the elder Vehicle, or rather the Coach in its infancy; which will lead us towards the etymon of our word Coach, and to the original nature of our Chariot, though both of them have the same common parent.

We may, however, collect enough from these accounts, to satisfy ourselves that the introduction of Coaches took place in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and Stowe's Continuator adds a very natural consequence:—That, after the Royal example, "divers great ladies made them Coaches, and rode in them up and down the countries, to the great admiration of all the beholders." After this, he tells us, they grew common among the Nobility and opulent Gentry; that within twenty years Coach-making became a great trade, and that Coaches grew into more general use soon after the accession of King James.

What sort of Carriages they originally were with us, in point of elegance, is not easily said; but in Germany, about that period, we are told they were—"ugly Vehicles made of four boards, which were put together in a very clumsy manner[343]." Of these, however, my Author adds, that John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, when he went to Warsaw to do homage for the Dutchy of Prussia, A. D. 1618, had in his train thirty-six of these Coaches, each drawn by six horses.

Either the Chariots of that time were usually more elegant, or the Denmarkers had more taste than the Germans; for the same Author tells us, that, when the King of Denmark passed through Berlin, in the Reign of the Elector John George, who died 1598, the King made his entry "in a black-velvet Chariot, laced with gold; drawn by eight white coursers, with bits and caparisons all of silver[344]."

The Chariot I take to have been a much more ancient Vehicle, and an open Vehicle; for we read of them in the Reign of our Henry VII. and even of our Richard II.

Queen Elizabeth, when she went to St. Paul's, 1588, after the Spanish Armada, was in a Chariot supported by four pillars, and drawn by two white horses[345].

It is generally agreed, by those Writers who have touched upon the subject, that Coaches were introduced into this Kingdom in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; but they must have had an earlier appearance amongst us than Anderson, in his History of Commerce, vol. I. p. 421, allows, who affirms, that the first of them was brought hither by [Henry] Fitz-Alan, the last Earl of Arundel of that name, in the year 1580; which cannot be the truth; for his Lordship died 1579. This Earl, after having served Kings Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and Queen Mary, became likewise high in the favour of Queen Elizabeth, and was Lord Steward of her Household; but, finding himself supplanted by the Earl of Leicester, he went abroad A. D. 1566[346]. It is to be supposed that he travelled to the sea-coast in the accustomed manner on Horseback; but he is said to have returned in his Coach, which, Mr. Granger says, was the first Equipage of the kind ever seen in England[347]; but that Author has left us without the date; so that we are yet to seek for that point.

Another Writer robs his Lordship entirely of the honour of such introduction; for Stowe's Continuator expressly says, that "In the year 1564 (two years before the Earl of Arundel went abroad), Guilliam Boonen, a Dutchman, became the Queen's Coachman, and was the first that brought the use of Coaches into England[348]." This very Coachman is said also to have driven the Queen's Coach, when she visited Oxford, 1592. Which of these two stories be true, the Relaters, Granger and Stowe, must answer for: but Anderson is palpably wrong in his date.

I can form no better an idea of our first Coaches than that they were heavy and unwieldy, as they continued to be for nearly two centuries afterwards; and I can at best but take the standard from the present State Coaches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons[349].

It cannot be any matter of surprize, after so luxurious a conveyance had found its way into the Royal Establishment, that it should be adopted by others who could support the expence, when not curbed by sumptuary laws; and we have accordingly seen, that Coaches prevailed much, early in the Reign of King James; but Hackney Coaches, which are professedly the Subject of this Memoir, waited till luxury had made larger strides among us, and till private Coaches came to market at second hand.

Hackney Coach.

There having always been an imitative luxury in mankind, whereby the inferior orders might approximate the superior; so those that could not maintain a Coach de die in diem contrived a means of having the use of one de hor in horam. Hence arose our occasional Vehicles called Hackney Coaches.

The French word HaquenÉe[350] implies a common horse for all purposes of riding, whether for private use or for hire; generally an ambler, as distinguished from the horses of superior orders, such as the palfrey and the great horse. The former of these are often called pad-nags, and were likewise amblers; while horses for draught were called trotting-horses[351]: so that the HaquenÉe was in fact, and in his use, distinct from all the rest, and inferior in rank and quality. This term for an ambling-nag occurs in Chaucer[352]. Thus we obtained our HaquenÉe or Hackney Horses long before we had any Coaches to tack to them; and the term had likewise, at the same time, made its way into metaphor, to express any thing much and promiscuously used. Thus Shakspeare, who never lived to ride in a Hackney Coach, applies the word Hackney to a common woman of easy access[353]: and again, in the First Part of Henry IV. (Act iii. Sc. 4), the King says to the Prince of Wales,

Now Shakspeare died in the year 1616; whereas Hackney Coaches were not known, in the Streets at least, till about the year 1625[354].

Though the term HaquenÉe is French, it is not used in France for Coaches of a like kind; yet, after we had adopted the word as applied to horses of the common sort, it was easy to put them in harness, for the service of drawing, and the convenience of the Inhabitants of the Metropolis; whereby the word Hackney became transferred to the whole Equipage, then in want of a differential name; whereof the Coach, being the more striking part, obtained the name by pre-eminence.

Before I return to my subject, give me leave to add a word or two on the French Coaches of a similar nature, which are called Fiacres[355]. The term is thus accounted for, though I did not suspect I should have found the meaning in a Martyrology. Fiacre was the name of a Saint, whose Portrait, like those of many other famous men of their times both in Church and State, had the honour to adorn a Sign-Post; and the Inn in Paris, Rue St. Antoine, from which these Coaches were first let out to hire on temporary occasions, had the Sign of St. Fiacre, and from thence they took their name. M. Richelet, in his Dictionary[356], tells us, that a Fiacre is "Carosse de loÜage, auquel on a donnÉ ce nom À cause de l'Enseigne d'un logis de la Rue St. Antoine de Paris ou l'on a premierement lÖuÉ ces sortes de Carosse. Ce logis avoit pour Enseigne un Saint Fiacre." As to the Saint himself, he was no less a personage than the second Son, and at length Heir, of Eugenius IV. King of Scots, who lived in the Seventh Century. He went into France, took a religious habit, refusing the Crown of Scotland some years afterwards, on his Brother's death; and, when he died, was canonized. There is a Chapel dedicated to him at St. Omer's. His death is commemorated on the 30th of August[357].

As to the time when the French Fiacres first came into use, we are led pretty nearly to it by Mr. Menage, who, in his "Origines de la Langue FranÇoise," published in Quarto, 1650, speaks of them as of a late introduction. His words are, "On appelle ainsi [Fiacre] À Paris depuis quelques annÉes un Carosse de loÜage." He then gives the same reason as we find in Richelet: but the words "depuis quelques AnnÉes" shew, that those Coaches had not then been long in use, and are to be dated either a little before or a little after our own; insomuch that it is probable the one gave the example to the other, allowing Mr. Menage credit for twenty-five years, comprehended in his expression of quelques AnnÉes[358].

But to return to our Hackney Coaches, which took birth A. D. 1625 (the first year of King Charles I.); and either began to ply in the Streets, or stood ready at Inns to be called for if wanted: and at that time did not exceed twenty in number[359]. But, as luxury makes large shoots in any branch where it puts forth, so we find that, in no more than ten years, this new-planted scyon had grown so much as to require the pruning-knife; for that the Street Coaches had become in reality a national nuisance in various particulars: and accordingly a Proclamation issued A.D. 1635 in the following words:

"That the great numbers of Hackney Coaches of late time seen and kept in London, Westminster, and their Suburbs, and the general and promiscuous use of Coaches there, were not only a great disturbance to his Majesty, his dearest Consort the Queen, the Nobility, and others of place and degree, in their passage through the Streets; but the Streets themselves were so pestered, and the pavements so broken up, that the common passage is thereby hindered and made dangerous; and the prices of hay and provender, and other provisions of stable, thereby made exceeding dear: Wherefore we expressly command and forbid, That, from the Feast of St. John the Baptist next coming, no Hackney or Hired Coaches be used or suffered in London, Westminster, or the Suburbs or Liberties thereof, except they be to travel at least three miles out of London or Westminster, or the Suburbs thereof. And also, that no person shall go in a Coach in the said Streets, except the owner of the Coach shall constantly keep up Four able Horses for our Service, when required[360]. Dated January 19, 1635-6."

This Proclamation, so long as it was observed, must have put a considerable check to the use of these Carriages; nor can I think it could operate much in the King's favour, as it would hardly be worth a Coach-Master's while to be at so great a contingent charge as the keeping of Four Horses to be furnished at a moment's warning for his Majesty's occasional employment. We are to construe this, then, as amounting to a prohibition, on account of the certain expence which must follow an uncertain occupation. The nature of this penalty, as I may call it, was founded on the Statute of Purveyance, not then repealed.

But there was another co-operating cause that suspended the use of Coaches for a short time, which was the introduction of the Hackney Chairs, which took place a very little while before the Proclamation. They arose from the incommodities stated in the Royal Edict, and, no doubt, tended in some measure towards the suppression of the Hackney-Coaches; till by degrees being found incompetent to answer all their seemingly intended purposes, we shall see the Coaches, in about two years time, return into the streets, and resume their functions. But to proceed with the History of the Chairs. At the critical time, then, when Government was devising measures to prevent the increase of Coaches as much as possible, for the reasons alleged in the Proclamation, there stepped in a Knight, by name Sir Saunders Duncombe, a Gentleman-Pensioner, and a travelled man, who proposed the introduction of Chairs, after the model he had seen abroad[361]. This was in the year 1634; when Sir Saunders obtained an exclusive Patent for the setting them forth for hire, dated the first day of October, for the term of fourteen years. The number is not specified, but left perhaps indefinite, it being impossible to say what would be necessary in a new device of this sort, tending to be beneficial to the introductor, as well as convenient to the Publick. The tenor of the Grant, omitting the words of course, runs thus:

"Charles, &c.

"Whereas the several Streets and Passages within our Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs of the same, are of late time so much encumbered and pestered with the unnecessary multitude of Coaches therein used, that many of our good and loving Subjects are by that means oftentimes exposed to great danger; and the necessary use of Carts and Carriages for the necessary Provisions of the said Cities and Suburbs thereby also much hindered. And whereas, our servant, Sir Sanders Duncombe, Knight, hath lately preferred his humble Petition unto us; thereby shewing, that in many parts beyond the Seas, the people there are much carried in the Streets in Chairs that are covered; by which means very few Coaches are used amongst them: and thereof he hath humbly besought us to grant unto him the sole using and putting forth to hire of certain covered Chairs, which he will procure to be made at his own proper costs and charges, for carrying such of our loving Subjects as shall desire to use the same, in and about our said Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs thereof.

"Know ye, that we, of our princely care of the good and welfare of all our loving Subjects, desiring to use all good and lawful ways and means that may tend to the suppressing of the excessive and unnecessary number of Coaches now of late used in and about our said Cities, and the Suburbs thereof; and to the intent the said Sir Sanders Duncombe may reap some fruit and benefit of his industry, and may recompense himself of the costs, charges, and expences, which he shall be at in and about the directing, making, procuring, and putting in use of the said covered Chairs, of the purpose aforesaid; and for divers other good causes and considerations, us hereunto moving, of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have given and granted, and by these Presents, for Us, our Heirs and Successors, do give and grant, unto the said Sir Sanders Duncombe, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, and to his and their, and every of their, Deputy and Deputies, Servants, Workmen, Factors, and Agents, and to all and every such person and persons as shall have power and authority from him, them, or any of them, in that behalf, full and free Licence, Privilege, Power, and Authority, that they only, and none other, shall or may, from time to time, during the term of fourteen years hereafter granted, use, put forth, and lett to hire, within our said Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs and Precincts thereof, or in any part of them, or any of them, the said covered Chairs, to be carried and borne as aforesaid.

"Witness Ourself at Canbury, the First day of October[362]."

The place principally hinted at in the above Grant, or Patent, seems to have been the City of Sedan in Champagne; where, we are at liberty to suppose, these covered Chairs being most in use, they obtained with us the name of Sedan Chairs, like the local names of Berlin and Landau[363].

These new Vehicles, hitherto unseen in our orbit, had, doubtless, patrons among the beaus and fine gentlemen of the age; though, in their general utility, they manifestly could not be so commodious as Coaches, were it for no other reason than that they could carry but one person. They might prevail with persons of a certain rank and description; but the opulent Merchant, and others in a similar line of family life, still were in want of a conveyance of greater capacity; a circumstance which would depress the Chairs, and gradually hasten the re-introduction of the Coaches, and which, as has been observed, took place accordingly in little more than two years. The following special commission was therefore granted by the King, A. D. 1637, wherein the number of the Coaches seems rather to have enlarged, and the management of them was placed in the department of the Master of the Horse. It runs essentially in the following words:

"That we, finding it very requisite for our Nobility and Gentry, as well as for Foreign Ambassadors, Strangers, and others, that there should be a competent number of Hackney Coaches allowed for such uses, have, by the advice of our Privy Council, thought fit to allow Fifty Hackney Coachmen in and about London and Westminster; limiting them not to keep above Twelve Horses a-piece. We therefore grant to you [the Marquis] during your Life, the Power and Authority to license Fifty Hackney Coachmen, who shall keep no more than Twelve good Horses each, for their, or any of their, Coach and Coaches respectively. You also hereby have Power to license so many in other Cities and Towns of England as in your wisdom shall be thought necessary; with power to restrain and prohibit all others from keeping any Hackney Coach to let to hire, either in London or elsewhere. Also to prescribe Rules and Orders concerning the daily Prices of the said licensed Hackney Coachmen, to be by them, or any of them, taken for our own particular service, and in their employment for our Subjects; provided such orders be first allowed by us, under our Royal Hand."[364]

We may observe that the article of Purveyance is here very gently touched upon, and confined to a sign-manual. Mr. Anderson supposes that there must have been many more than fifty Coaches introduced by the above allowance of twelve horses; but it seems rather to imply that no Coach-Master should engross more than six Coaches to himself. This also might be a tacit mode of preserving a supply of horses to be purveyed for the King when necessary.

One may collect from hence that private Coaches were sparingly kept, by the mention of the Nobility and Gentry.

Hitherto we have found the Hackney Coaches under the regulation of the Crown, or its immediate Officers; but we are now to look for them at a time when the Monarchical Government was suspended, during the Protectorate. Whether the Master of the Horse received any emolument from granting the above Licences, is not apparent; but under the Commonwealth we find that the Coaches became subject to a tax towards the expence of their regulation; for by an Act of Oliver's Parliament, A. D. 1654, the number of such Coaches, within London and Westminster, was enlarged to two hundred[365]. The outlying distance was also augmented to six miles round the late lines of communication, as the Statute expresses it; by which I conceive that the greatest distance was extended to nine miles, including the three prescribed, or rather enjoined, by the regulating proclamation of King Charles I. in the year 1635. By this Act of Oliver's Parliament, the government of the Hackney Coaches, with respect to their stands, rates, &c. was placed in the Court of Aldermen of London; and as, of course, this new business would require Clerks, and other officers, to supervise it, the Coach-Masters were made subject to the payment of twenty shillings yearly for every such Coach.

Here we have brought the Coaches under a Police similar to that of our own time; but it did not long remain in the hands of the Corporation; for in the year after the Restoration, the establishment was new-modelled by an Act of the 13th and 14th of King Charles II. 1661, wherein it is specified that no Coaches were to be used without a Licence,—who may be entitled to such Licences,—that the number shall not exceed 400,—what shall be the rates,—with penalties for exacting more[366].

Each of these four hundred Coaches so licensed was obliged to pay annually five pounds for the privilege, to be applied towards the keeping in repair certain parts of the streets of London and Westminster[367]; a very rational appropriation of such fund, for who ought so much to contribute to the amendment of the streets, as those who lived by their demolition?

"Nex Lex Æquior ulla, quam," &c.

Within a few years after the Revolution (anno 5 Gul. et Mar. ch. xxii.) the number of Coaches arose to seven hundred, each of which paid to the Crown annually four pounds. This, prim facie, one would suppose was a relief to the Coach-Masters, and that the reduction in the impost accrued from the number; but that was not the case, for every Owner, for each Coach, was constrained to pay down fifty pounds for his first Licence for twenty-one years, or forego his employment; which seeming indulgence was, in fact, paying five pounds per annum for that term; whereas, probably, the Coach-Master would rather have continued at the former five pounds, and have run all risks, than have purchased an exclusive privilege, in the gross, at so high a price.

The finances, and even the resources, of Government, must have been very low at this moment, or Ministry could never have stooped to so paltry and oppressive an expedient, to raise so small a sum as would arise from these Licences. By the increase of the number of Coaches from four hundred at five pounds per annum, to seven hundred at four pounds per annum, the gain to the Treasury was £.800 annually:—and what did the licences at fifty pounds each Coach, for the term of twenty-one years, yield to the State?—£.3,500! Whereas, had such lease of the privilege of driving a Coach been kept at the rack rent of five pounds per annum, it had produced in that period £.14,700.

Thus, however the matter rested, till the ninth year of Queen Anne, 1710, when a Statute was made, which brought the business to its present standard, with a few variations, which will be observed in the order of time. By this Act every circumstance was new modelled; for thereby the Crown was impowered to appoint five Commissioners for regulating and licensing both Hackney Coaches and Chairs, from the time the late Statute of the fifth of William and Mary should expire, viz. at Midsummer A. D. 1715, authorizing such Commissioners to grant licences to eight hundred Hackney Coaches from that time for the term of thirty-two years, which should be allowed to be driven in the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs thereof, or any where within the Bills of Mortality; each Coach paying for such privilege the sum of five shillings per week[368]. It was at the same time enacted, that from the 24th of June, 1711, all horses to be used with an Hackney Coach shall be fourteen hands high, according to the standard; and further, that every Coach and Chair shall have a mark of distinction, "by figure or otherwise," as the Commissioners shall think fit; and "the said mark shall be placed on each side of every such Coach and Chair respectively, in the most convenient place to be taken notice of, to the end that they may be known if any complaints shall be made of them[369]."

This was all that could then be done respecting the Coaches, forasmuch as the old term of twenty-one years, granted in the fifth year of William and Mary, 1694, was subsisting, whereby seven hundred Coaches were allowed, and for which privilege the Owners had paid fifty pounds each, on whom Government shewed some tenderness. With regard, however, to regulation, &c. there was, no doubt, room sufficient for the exercise of the powers given to the Commissioners. There was, likewise, another object involved in this Statute; viz. the Chairs, which were not comprehended in the same agreement and contract with the Coaches, but were open immediately to new laws. Therefore under the same commissions was placed the management and licensing of the Hackney Chairs, to commence from the 24th of June in the following year, 1711, for the said term of thirty-two years; which were thereby limited to the number of two hundred, each paying for such licence the annual sum of ten shillings[370]. As the number of both Coaches and Chairs was enlarged, whereby many new persons would come forward, perhaps to the ousting of the old Coach-Masters and Chair-Masters, it is required by this Act that the Commissioners shall give a preference to such of the Lessees, as I may call them, whose terms had not then expired, whether the right remained in themselves or their widows, if they applied within a given time[371].

By this statute likewise the rates were limited to time and distance, at ten shillings by the Day.—One shilling and six pence for the first Hour, and one shilling for every succeeding Hour.—One shilling for the distance of a mile and a half.—One shilling and six pence for any distance more than a mile and a half, and not exceeding two miles; and so on, in the proportion of six pence for every succeeding half mile.

The Chairs are likewise at the same time rated at two-thirds of the distance prescribed to the Coaches, so that they were allowed to take one shilling for a mile, and six pence for every succeeding half mile.

Though the time of waiting is not specified in the Act with regard to the Chairs, yet it follows, by implication, to be intended the same as the Coaches. These have been altered by a very late Statute, 1785. It is well known that it is left in the option of either Coachmen or Chairmen, whether they will be paid by the distance or the time, which is but a reasonable privilege; but there is another circumstance, not generally known, of which the passengers are not perhaps aware, viz. that if the room which a Coach will occupy in turning about should exceed the distance allowed, the Coachman is entitled to a larger fare, that is, as much as if he had gone another half mile. The doctrine is the same respecting Chairs, and the room allowed is eight yards in the case of a Coach, and four yards in the case of a Chair. As the Statute gives all competent allowances to the Coachmen and Chairmen, so it was requisite, on the other hand, to make the contract obligatory, and that each of them should be compellable to perform their parts; and therefore, to do this, and at the same time to prevent extortion, it became necessary to add a severe penal clause, viz. "that if any Hackney-Coachman or Chairman shall refuse to go at, or shall exact more for his hire than, the several rates hereby limited, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of forty shillings." These penalties were, by this Act, to have gone in the proportion of two-thirds to the Queen, and one-third to the Plaintiff. [Since made half to the Crown and half to the Complainant.] The Coachmen and Chairmen are thereby likewise liable to be deprived of their Licences for misbehaviour, or by giving abusive language[372]. On the other hand, that the Coachmen and Chairmen might have a remedy in case of refusal to pay them their just fare, any Justice of the Peace is impowered, upon complaint, to issue a warrant to bring before him the Recusant, and to award reasonable satisfaction to the party aggrieved, or otherwise to bind him over to the next Quarter-Session, where the Bench is empowered to levy the said satisfaction by distress. The Act proceeds to other matters touching the Commissioners themselves, &c.; and then states, that whereas by a Statute of the 29th of Charles II. the use of all Hackney Coaches and Chairs had been prohibited on Sundays, it gives full power both to stand and to ply as on other days.[373]

This is the substance of the Act before us; but it may here be observed, that in the 10th year of the Queen, 1711, one hundred more Chairs were added by Statute, subject to the same regulations as the rest, being found not only convenient but necessary; as the number of Coaches, consistently with Public Faith, could not be enlarged till the year 1715, when the old term of twenty-one years should have expired.

Before all the provisions in the Act of the year 1710, referred to the future period of 1715, could take place, a demise of the Crown intervened, A. D. 1714, by which all such clauses, which extended to a future time, were of course become a nullity.

By Act 12 George I. chap. 12, the number of Chairs was raised to 400, on account of the increase of Buildings Westward.[374]

********

The Hammer Cloth.

To shew how trifling, though necessary conveniences, arise to great and expensive luxuries, let us remark the original insignificant appendage of what we call the Hammer Cloth. It was requisite that the Coachman should have a few implements in case of accidents, or a sudden and little repair was wanting to the Coach; for which purpose he carried a hammer with a few pins, nails, &c. with him, and placed them under his seat, made hollow to hold them, and which from thence was called the Coach Box; and, in a little time, in order to conceal this unsightly appearance, a cloth was thrown over the box and its contents, of which a hammer was the chief, and thence took the name of the Hammer-Cloth. This is my idea of the etymon of these two common terms. And here again it can but be observed that this little appendage is now become the most striking and conspicuous ornament of the equipage.