Passengers Act Amendment Bill.

Back to Search View Transcript
Document ID 9502260
Date 04-06-1852
Document Type Official Documents
Archive Queen's University, Belfast
Citation Passengers Act Amendment Bill.;Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Series 3, Vol.CXXII, 4 June 1852.; CMSIED 9502260
21293
       PASSENGERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Mr. W. BROWN moved the following
Clause:-

  "Provided always, that whenever the owner,
charterer, captain, or consignee of the ship shall be
dissatisfied with the decision of the Emigration
Officer, in any matter in which such decision is
rendered authoritative by the provisions of this
Act, then, and in every such case, it shall be
lawful for the owner, charterer, captain, or
consignee to apply to two Justices of the Peace
having jurisdiction in the Port; and such Justices,
or one of them, shall, by order, under their or
his hand, appoint two disinterested persons, having
acquaintance with the subject matter in which such
decision may have been given, to hear the appeal
of the owner, charterer, captain, or consignee,
against such decision; and such two persons shall
return their determination upon such appeal in
answer to such order, and upon such determination
the Justices or Justice shall make such order
as to them or him shall in the premises seem
meet, and such order shall be final and
conclusive."

He said, he should have been the last man
in the world to propose such a proviso if it
interfered at all with the comfort or the
safety of passengers. He did not find
fault with the enactment that the emigration
officers should examine into the various
matters connected with the regulation
of passenger vessels; but if the owner
or the master found himself aggrieved by
their decision, on any point, he ought to
have the right of appeal; the loss of time
and consequent expense that would arise
from it, would be too serious a matter ever
to be resorted to, except in cases of great
hardship. Was it right to intrust any
individual, without appeal to some
competent tribunal, a power which might
be abused from caprice, ignorance, or
vindictiveness, and add to the burdens,
which the shipowner now laboured under?
He might be told that the shipowners may
bring their case before the Emigration
Commissioners in London, by whom, he must
say, he had always been treated with the
greatest courtesy when he had occasion to
call on them; but suppose a compliant be
made, the agent states his own case and
defends himself. Being an appointment of
the Commissioners, they are not likely, if
they can help it, to condemn their own
judgment in the selection of their servant,
when the shipowner may be unknown to
them, and his representations would, of
course, have less weight. An appeal to
London from the outports, considering
the loss of time and expense it would incur,
with the chance of missing wind and tide,
would make the remedy, in many cases,
worse than the dsease. The Emigration
Commissioners having great power, it was
natural that they were not willing to
relinquish it, and there was no doubt but
that the right hon. Baronet consulted them
on these matters. It was said much of the
present Bill was not a new enactment, and
that there had been no complaints against
it. The former was true, and equally true
that there had been many abuses of power
under it; but, as there was no proper court
of appeal, the parties had to submit, and
it was a reason for not re-enacting those
clauses. As he (Mr. W. Brown) considered
it right and due to the country, and
not ultimately injurious to the shipping
interest, to vote for the repeal of the
Navigation Laws, he considered he was equally
bound, as far as he could, to aid in
removing all unnecessary burdens from their
shoulders to enable them to compete with
their foreign rivals. It was extremely hard
on them that there were some clauses in
this Bill which you cannot enforce against
foreigners, but you always can against
British owners. He did expect these
Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House,
who had called out so lustily for protection
to the British shipping interest, would vote
for the proviso he had submitted to their
consideration. The agent must have a
universality of talent, which few men
possess; he must be a judge of the beams,
the decks, and of the berths, and the best
means of separating the sexes. He must
be a judge of the sufficiency of the
hospitals, and of the conveniencies
that are necessary to relieve nature,
and of lights and ventilation, which
men of science cannot efficiently accomplish.
He is to determine what boats, life-buoys,
fire-engines, and night-signals are
necessary. The manning of the ship
is subject to this dictum. The
quantity and quality of provisions
and water for passengers are to be
determined by him; he is to survey the
crew; he is to regulate the stowage
of the cargo and stores; he must have
the knowledge of a cooper, to judge
of the sufficiency of the water casks
or tanks; he is to see what stewards,
cooks, and cooking apparatus are
sufficient. When foreigners embark as
passengers, he must be a linguist, to
be able to judge whether the ships must
take interpreters. He is to be the judge
of the qualifications of medical men, and
he ought to have the knowledge of a chemist,
as he decides upon the quantity and quality
of medicines, of the surgical instruments
necessary, and the quantity of disinfecting
fluid that passenger ships must carry.
No man could possess all that knowledge,
however clever he might be: and it was only
in the event of capriciously abusing his
power, either from ignorance or vindictiveness,
that an appeal ever would be made. It did
so happen, that, as there would not be time
to appeal to London in all cases, when a
passenger from any cause thinks he is entitled
to the return of his passage money, he may
bring the case before the magistrates. And
to show how power can be abused, even by a
person who was represented to him as a
captain in the Royal Navy, Captain Brownrigg,
it appeared that a passenger of the
name of McKay claimed his passage money
back from an agent, Mr. Hunter, and to
sustain that claim, Captain Brownrigg was
his witness. The case came before the
sheriff at Greenock, and was dismissed
as frivolous and vexatious; but Captain
Brownrigg could not forget his defeat
by Mr. Hunter, and another opportunity
offered to show his vindictiveness. He
summoned Mr. Hunter before the magistrates,
at Glasgow, for some alleged irregularity.
There were three on the bench. They
considered Captain Brownrigg's conduct so
improper that they made him pay Mr. Hunter's
costs. Clothed with a little brief
authority, although this gentleman resides
at Greenock, if he gets angry with the
master or agent of a vessel, he will not
receive a notice at his office in Glasgow,
which causes unnecesssary delay, which he
(Mr. W. Brown) hoped would prove to the
House that the discretion of agents is not
always to be trusted. In addition to the
burdens which the shipping interest already
bear, which he would briefly state, they
were adding others; not only the foregoing,
but Lord Campbell's Act, as it is called,
which leaves the owners of steam or other
vessels liable for any losses that might
arise to passengers who have an action
for damage against them in the event of
the vessel on board of which they are being
run down by them at sea; and if a steamboat
be going more than five or six miles an
hour, it would be taken as an evidence of
carelessness when, in dark nights and fogs,
they can hardly see the stem from the stern
of the ship. Mr. McIver, Messrs. Cunard's
partner, told the right hon. Gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade, that he
had sold his interest out of forty steam
vessels, for an accident, which the owners
could not control, might ruin a rich
shipowner. He had an action brought
against him for an unavoidable accident
of this kind, and compromised it. This Act
was a new and recent burden. The old ones
were, excessive lighthouse dues; consul
fees abroad; the manning clause, which
was considered one of great hardship, as
other nations were under no such restrictions;
desertion from merchant vessels to ships
of war: although the sailors violated
their contract, the captain was obliged
to pay their wages up to the day, and
allow them to take their clothes. The
timber duties and other minor matters
were certainly great grievances, and no
less so were the heavy salvage charges
claimed and paid by British shipowners
to men-of-war for rendering them assistance
in distress, which ought to be rendered
by national vessels for a very moderate
charge. He (Mr. Brown) hoped he had made a
sufficient case to induce the House to
accept his proviso.
  Sir JOHN PARKINGTON said, this
Bill was to consolidate and amend laws
with regard to the conveyance of emigrants,
and was brought in at the recommendation
of a Committee which sat last year. In
the previous Acts there was no such appeal
as that proposed by the hon. Member at
the instance of the shipowners of Liverpool.
The Committee to which he alluded recommended
no such appeal, and, what was more, there
had never been any complaint as to the want
of this appeal. The present was not a moment,
when emigration was so much increased and
increasing, to do away with any of those
securities which existed for the preservation
of life among passengers by emigrant vessels.
He would rather abandon this Bill than consent
to the privso which would destroy the object
contemplated by the measure.
  Mr. W. BROWN said, it was impossible
than an emigration officer could be a
competent judge of all the miscellaneous
subjects which he was required to examine
into in the course of his inspection of a
ship; but if he were of a vindictive
disposition he had the power of harassing
the owner or the captain of a ship in a manner
against which they ought to be protected.
It was exceedingly hard that such a power
should be vested in any individual without
an appeal being allowed to some tribunal
unconnected with the accused; and it was,
therefore, to provide such a check that
he brought forward this Amendment.
  Mr. FORSTER said, he should support
the clause, and knew not on what ground
the power of appeal could be refused.
  Mr. HENLEY said, that this clause
had been brought forward for the most
extraordinary reason, because the hon. Member
for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown)
had not stated a single case of hardship
that had occurred under the existing law.
The Amendment, he believed, instead of
being advantageous to the shipping interest,
would be most detrimental to it. He was
satisfied that the only effect of this
clause would be that both Justices and
Shipmasters would be landed in the Queen's
Bench upon such a simple question as
whether a cask of biscuit was good or bad.
He was satisfied that the Government
officer was as likely to be as impartial
as any Justices.
  Mr. ALEXANDER HASTIE denied that only
one case of hardship had occurred under
the present system. He hoped the Bill would
not be allowed to pass without this clause.
  Clause brought up, and read 1 [once?].
  Motion made, and Question put, "That
the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
  The House divided: - Ayes 25, Noes 73:
Majority 48.
  Amendment made: Bill to be read 3 [third?]
on Monday next.