PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Commitee.
Clause 1.
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT said, that
hon. Members were doubtless aware that
this Bill was based upon the
recommendations of the Committee which sat last
Session to inquire into the operation of the
Passengers Act of 1849. It applied principally
to the passage of emigrants between Great Britain
and Ireland and the United States; but in order
that the law, of the Bill should become Law,
might be effectually carried out, it was necessary
that the action of the United States should
be the same as our own on the subject.
The existing Passengers Act of the United
States was somewhat more stringent than
the British Passengers Act, and therefore
no convenience would arise on that score.
But the present Bill proposed that certain
alterations should be made in the dietary
of the passengers. Instead of raw food
being issued twice a week to the passengers
for themselves to cook, which it was
often impossible for them to do, as they
suffered so much from sea sickness, and
were unable to get to the galley fire till
late, and sometimes not at all, so that they
were obliged to eat their food raw, and
suffered greatly from dysentery in
consequence instead of this, the Bill proposes
that cooked rations should be issued to
them daily. Now, we could enforce these
regulations in the port of Liverpol, but
there was no security whatever that in a
voyage between a British port and the
dominions of the United States, the law
would be carried out, unless we could
prevail upon the United States Government to
adopt the same system. What he wished
therefore, was to get our Government to
make an application to the United States
to alter their own law on the subject, so as
to meet the case provided for by the present
Bill. It would not be necessary to do
this simultaneously, nor was it essential
that the regulations should be precisely
the same; but he thought that the United
States would meet this plan, because they
had a greater interest than we had in the
safe passage of the emigrants, and in their
arrival in such a state of health as to be
capable of immediate self-support, instead
of becoming a burden to the port where
they landed. He had every reason, therefore,
to hope that the Government of the
United States would act upon the system
proposed by the present Bill, and he was
confirmed in that anticipation by the opinion
expressed by an American gentleman
whom he had consulted on the subject.
With regard to the whole Bill, he could
only say that he should be happy to give
it his warm support. It embraced the
recommendations of the Select Committee,
and he thought that a case of very great
hardship and suffering had ben made out,
which it became that House to remedy.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, he
should be very glad on the part of Her
Majesty's Government, to carry out, to the
extent stated by his right hon. Friend, the
wish which he had expressed for a communication
with the Government of the United
States. He (Sir J. Pakington) felt very
strongly that it was by no means desirable
to enter into any communications which
would delay the passing of the Bill; but
he agreed that it would be proper to negotiate
with the United States for the purpose of insuring
uniformity, so that the law
might be fairly carried out.
In reply to an observation from Mr.
DUNCAN,
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, that
the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman
was, that the sole authority should not be
given to the emigration officer, but that
the Collector of Customs at the port might
be apealed to if necessary. He hoped
that, upon reflection, the hon. Gentleman
would not press that suggestion. Practically
speaking, a sufficient Court of Appeal
existed already in the Emigration Commissioners,
and he was told that in point of
fact captains of ships had never had occasion
to complain of the emigration officers, who were
generally very competent persons.
Mr CARDWELL thought the question
was a very difficult one, and he had no desire to
press the objection invidiously, but
he begged to say that great jealously was
felt respecting powers so extensive being
vested in a single person, without the possibility
of appeal. The right hon. Baronet
the colonial Secretary said that an appeal
would lie to the Emigration Commissioners;
but such an appeal would be costly, and
would occasion delay-- one of the worst
evils that could happen to an intending
emigrant.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, the
emigration officers, who, under the clause
as it stood, would have the power of decision,
were very competent, and were
naval officers, acquainted with nautical
matters; and the appeal would probably
be to parties less competent to decide, and
having no nautical knowedge at all. However,
he would consider the question, and
endevour to see if any practical appeal
could be suggested.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses
up to 20, inclusive.
Clause 21, which relates to the accommodation
for sick passengers.
Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT said, he
hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary
would reconsider this clause,
because it proposed to allow the same
space to sick persons in hospital as was
allotted to person in health; but the cabin
for the sick was to be divided off by bulkheads, whereas
the general compartment
for the rest of the passengers was required
to be lighted and ventilated. He thought
a great amount of space ought to be allotted to the sick,
and that there should be
a stipulation in the clause to that effect.
In the case of the sick this clause did not
specify that their berths should be properly
lighted and ventilated. The Americans
gave a larger space than forty-eight superficial feet
for each person, which was
the English allowance of hospital-room.
That amount of space in a cabin that was
boarded off, would be insufficient even for
persons in health. He hoped, therefore,
that the clause would be amended, so as to
secure first, efficient light and ventilation
for the sick; and, next, a larger space for
them than was allotted by law.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, he
considered the general regulations as to
lighting and ventilation sufficient to provide
for the case of the sick as well as of
the healthy passengers, and he saw no necessity
for introducing any special provision of the
nature suggested.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said, that a
different arrangement with regard to lighting
and ventilation was necessary for the
sick, because they were to occupy an enclosed space,
while the general pasengers
were all to occupy one general compartment. The
amount of space allotted for
the sick, which was to be more than was
allotted for the healthy, would be taken as
a maximum.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, it
would be practically the maximum, for this
reason, that nobody would give a single
inch more space than they were necessitated to
do by law.
Clause agreed to: as were the remaining
clauses.
House resumed. Bill reported.
