This vast extent of omnibus transit has been the growth of twenty
years, as it was not until the 4th July, 1829, that Mr. Shillibeer,
now the proprietor of the patent mourning coaches, started the
first omnibus. Some works of authority as books of reference, have
represented that Mr. Shillibeer’s first omnibus ran from Charing-cross
to Greenwich, and that the charge for outside and inside places was the
same. Such was not the case; the first omnibus, or rather, the first
pair of those vehicles (for Mr. Shillibeer started two), ran from the
Bank to the Yorkshire Stingo. Neither could the charge out and in be
the same, as there were no outside passengers. Mr. Shillibeer was a
naval officer, and in his youth stepped from a midshipman’s duties
into the business of a coach-builder, he learning that business from
the late Mr. Hatchett, of Long Acre. Mr. Shillibeer then established
himself in Paris as a builder of English carriages, a demand for which
had sprung up after the peace, when the current of English travel was
directed strongly to France. In this speculation Mr. Shillibeer was
eminently successful. He built carriages for Prince Polignac, and
others of the most influential men under the dynasty of the elder
branch of the Bourbons, and had a bazaar for the sale of his vehicles.
He was thus occupied in Paris in 1819, when M. Lafitte first started
the omnibuses which are now so common and so well managed in the French
capital. Lafitte was the banker (afterwards the minister) of Louis
Philippe, and the most active man in establishing the Messageries
Royales. Five or six years after the omnibuses had been successfully
introduced into Paris, Mr. Shillibeer was employed by M. Lafitte to
build two in a superior style. In executing this order, Mr. Shillibeer
thought that so comfortable and economical a mode of conveyance might
be advantageously introduced in London. He accordingly disposed of his
Parisian establishment, and came to London, and started his omnibus
as I have narrated. In order that the introduction might have every
chance of success, and have the full prestige of respectability, Mr.
Shillibeer brought over with him from Paris two youths, both the sons
of British naval officers; and these young gentlemen were for a few
weeks his “conductors.” They were smartly dressed in “blue cloth and
togs,” to use the words of my informant, after the fashion of Lafitte’s
conductors, each dress costing 5_l._ Their addressing any foreign
passenger in French, and the French style of the affair, gave rise to
an opinion that Mr. Shillibeer was a Frenchman, and that the English
were indebted to a foreigner for the improvement of their vehicular
transit, whereas Mr. Shillibeer had served in the British navy, and
was born in Tottenham-court-road. His speculation was particularly
and at once successful. His two vehicles carried each twenty-two, and
were filled every journey. The form was that of the present omnibus,
but larger and roomier, as the twenty-two were all accommodated inside,
nobody being outside but the driver. Three horses yoked abreast were
used to draw these carriages.
There were for many days, until the novelty wore off, crowds assembled
to see the omnibuses start, and many ladies and gentlemen took their
places in them to the Yorkshire Stingo, in order that they might have
the pleasure of riding back again. The fare was one shilling for
the whole and sixpence for half the distance, and each omnibus made
twelve journeys to and fro every day. Thus Mr. Shillibeer established
a diversity of fares, regulated by distance; a regulation which was
afterwards in a great measure abandoned by omnibus proprietors, and
then re-established on our present threepenny and sixpenny payments,
the “long uns” and the “short uns.” Mr. Shillibeer’s receipts were
100_l._ a-week. At first he provided a few books, chiefly magazines,
for the perusal of his customers; but this peripatetic library was
discontinued, for the customers (I give the words of my informant)
“boned the books.” When the young-gentlemen conductors retired from
their posts, they were succeeded by persons hired by Mr. Shillibeer,
and liberally paid, who were attired in a sort of velvet livery. Many
weeks had not elapsed before Mr. Shillibeer found a falling off in his
receipts, although he ascertained that there was no falling off in the
public support of his omnibuses. He obtained information, however,
that the persons in his employ robbed him of at least 20_l._ a-week,
retaining that sum out of the receipts of the two omnibuses, and that
they had boasted of their cleverness and their lucrative situations at
a champagne supper at the Yorkshire Stingo. This necessitated a change,
which Mr. Shillibeer effected, in his men, but without prosecuting the
offenders, and still it seemed that defalcations continued. That they
continued was soon shown, and in “a striking manner,” as I was told.
As an experiment, Mr. Shillibeer expended 300_l._ in the construction
of a machine fitted to the steps of an omnibus which should record the
number of passengers as they trod on a plate in entering and leaving
the vehicle, arranged on a similar principle to the tell-tales in use
on our toll-bridges. The inventor, Mr. ----, now of Woolwich, himself
worked the omnibus containing it for a fortnight, and it supplied a
correct index of the number of passengers: but at the fortnight’s
end, one evening after dark, the inventor was hustled aside while
waiting at the Yorkshire Stingo, and in a minute or two the machine
was smashed by some unknown men with sledge-hammers. Mr. Shillibeer
then had recourse to the use of such clocks as were used in the French
omnibuses as a check. It was publicly notified that it was the business
of the conductor to move the hand of the clock a given distance when
a passenger entered the vehicle, but this plan did not succeed. It
is common in France for a passenger to inform the proprietor of any
neglect on the part of his servant, but Mr. Shillibeer never received
any such intimation in London.
In the meantime Mr. Shillibeer’s success continued, for he insured
punctuality and civility; and the cheapness, cleanliness, and smartness
of his omnibuses, were in most advantageous contrast with the high
charges, dirt, dinginess, and rudeness of the drivers of many of
the “short stages.” The short-stage proprietors were loud in their
railings against what they were pleased to describe as a French
innovation. In the course of from six to nine months Mr. Shillibeer
had twelve omnibuses at work. The new omnibuses ran from the Bank to
Paddington, both by the route of Holborn and Oxford-street, as well
as by Finsbury and the New-road. Mr. Shillibeer feels convinced, that
had he started fifty omnibuses instead of two in the first instance,
a fortune might have been realised. In 1831-2, his omnibuses became
general in the great street thoroughfares; and as the short stages
were run off the road, the proprietors started omnibuses in opposition
to Mr. Shillibeer. The first omnibuses, however, started after Mr.
Shillibeer’s were not in opposition. They were the Caledonians, and
were the property of Mr. Shillibeer’s brother-in-law. The third
started, which were two-horse vehicles, were foolishly enough called
“Les Dames Blanches;” but as the name gave rise to much low wit in
_équivoques_ it was abandoned. The original omnibuses were called
“Shillibeers” on the panels, from the name of their originator; and the
name is still prevalent on those conveyances in New York, which affords
us another proof that not in his own country is a benefactor honoured,
until perhaps his death makes honour as little worth as an epitaph.
The opposition omnibuses, however, continued to increase as more and
more short stages were abandoned; and one oppositionist called his
omnibuses “Shillibeers,” so that the real and the sham Shillibeers were
known in the streets. The opposition became fiercer. The “busses,” as
they came to be called in a year or two, crossed each other and raced
or drove their poles recklessly into the back of one another; and
accidents and squabbles and loitering grew so frequent, and the time of
the police magistrates was so much occupied with “omnibus business,”
that in 1832 the matter was mentioned in Parliament as a nuisance
requiring a remedy, and in 1833 a Bill was brought in by the Government
and passed for the “Regulation of Omnibuses (as well as other
conveyances) in and near the metropolis.” Two sessions after, Mr.
Alderman Wood brought in a bill for the better regulation of omnibuses,
which was also passed, and one of the provisions of the bill was that
the drivers and conductors of omnibuses should be licensed. The office
of Registrar of Licenses was promised by a noble lord in office to Mr.
Shillibeer (as I am informed on good authority), but the appointment
was given to the present Commissioner of the City Police, and the
office next to the principal was offered to Mr. Shillibeer, which that
gentleman declined to accept. The reason assigned for not appointing
him to the registrarship was that he was connected with omnibuses. At
the beginning of 1834, Mr. Shillibeer abandoned his metropolitan trade,
and began running omnibuses from London to Greenwich and Woolwich,
employing 20 carriages and 120 horses; but the increase of steamers
and the opening of the Greenwich Railway in 1835 affected his trade so
materially, that Mr. Shillibeer fell into arrear with his payments to
the Stamp Office, and seizures of his property and re-seizures after
money was paid, entailed such heavy expenses, and such a hindrance to
Mr. Shillibeer’s business, that his failure ensued.
I have been thus somewhat full in my detail of Mr. Shillibeer’s career,
as his procedures are, in truth, the history of the transit of the
metropolis as regards omnibuses. I conclude this portion of the subject
with the following extracts from a parliamentary paper, “Supplement to
the Votes and Proceedings, Veneris, 7º die Julii, 1843,” containing the
petition of George Shillibeer.
“That in 1840, and after several years of incessant application,
the Lords of the Treasury caused Mr. Gordon, their then financial
secretary, to enquire into your petitioner’s case; and so fully
satisfied was that gentleman with the hardships and cruel wrongs which
the department of Stamps and Taxes had inflicted upon your petitioner,
that he (Mr. Gordon) promised, on behalf of the Lords of the Treasury,
early redress should be granted to your petitioner, either by a
Government appointment adequate to the loss he had sustained, or
pecuniary compensation for the injustice which, upon a thorough
investigation of the facts, Mr. Gordon assured your petitioner he had
fully established, to the satisfaction of the Lords of the Treasury.
“That in proof of the sincerity of Mr. Gordon, he, in his then
official capacity of secretary to the said Lords of her Majesty’s
Treasury, applied, in April 1841, to the then heads of two Government
departments, viz. the Marquess of Normanby and the Right Hon. Henry
Labouchere, to appoint your petitioner ‘Inspector General of Public
Carriages,’ or some appointment in the Railway department at the Board
of Trade; but these applications being unsuccessful, Mr. Gordon applied
and obtained for your petitioner the promise of one of the twenty-five
appointments of Receiver-General of County Courts (testimonials
of your petitioner’s fitness being at the Treasury), the bill for
establishing which was then in progress through Parliament.
“That shortly after your petitioner’s claims had been admitted, and
redress promised by the Lords of the Treasury, Mr. Gordon resigned his
situation of secretary, and on the 6th May, 1841, your petitioner again
saw Mr. Gordon, who assured your petitioner that but for the fact of
the miscellaneous estimates being made up and passed for that year,
your petitioner’s name should have been placed in them for a grant of
5000_l._, further observing that your petitioner’s was a case of very
great hardship and injustice, and assuring your petitioner that he (Mr.
Gordon) would not quit the Treasury without stating to his successor
that your petitioner’s case was one of peculiar severity, and deserved
immediate attention and redress.”
And so the matter remains virtually at an end.
I will now give the regulations and statistics of the French omnibuses,
which I am enabled to do through the kindness of a gentleman to whom I
am indebted for much valuable information.
As the regulations of the French public conveyances (_des voitures
faisant le transport en commun_) are generally considered to have
worked admirably well, I present a digest of them. The earlier
enactments provide for the numbering of the conveyances and for the
licensing of all connected with them.
The laws which provide the regulations are of the following dates: I
enumerate them to show how closely the French Government has attended
to the management of hired vehicles. Dec. 14, 1789; Aug. 14, 1790; 9
Vendemiaire, An VI. (Sep. 30, 1797); 11 Frimaire, An VII. (Dec. 1,
1798); 12 Messidor, An VIII. (July 1, 1800); 3 Brumaire, An IX. (Oct.
29, 1800); Dec. 30, 1818; July 22, 1829; Aug. 1, 1829; March 29, 1836;
Sep. 15, 1838, and Jan. 5, 1846. The 471st, 474th, 479th, and 484th
Articles of the Penal Code also relate to this subject.