PASSENGERS TO THE COLONIES. On the Clause being
read relative to the casks which shall be used to
contain water for the voyage,
A Member suggested that the owners should be
restricted from using any that had been previously
employed for any other purposes.
Mr. Hume could see no objection to the use of
wine or brandy casks. He thought it would be quite
sufficient to declare "that the officer shall
satisfy himself that the casks had not been filled
with any thing to render the water unhealthy or
impure."
Mr. W. Smith O'Brien reminded hon. Members that
if the officer were not allowed to use his
discretion, oil casks might be used, which would
render the water very unpleasant if not unhealthy.
He was aware that many vessels left Limerick last
season with emigrants, and all water on board of
them was contained in oil casks.
Mr. Goulburn admitted that it would be advisable
to specifically prohibit oil casks.
The Clause was agreed to.
Mr. Hume called attention to the fifth Clause,
empowering the inspecting officer to examine the
provisions, &c., immediately previous to sailing.
He thought this interference would be likely to
cause injurious delays to vessels on the point of
sailing, and suggested that the officer should be
required to complete his search a certain number of
days previous - say three; or, better still, that
the provisions should be examined and approved of
before shipment.
Mr. Warburton thought that the powers proposed to
be conferred on Custom House officers of absolutely
rejecting a stock of provisions already shipped,
might be rendered the source of great abuse in
outports, where it would be difficult to obtain a
fresh supply, except from a favourite of the
officer, and at a ruinous price.
Mr. Hume was much against the minute and
vexations legislation pursued in Bills of this
nature. He thought it would be quite as consistent
to order an inspection of the steam-boiler of a
packet preparatory to every trip, for it might
blow up and destroy the passengers if not kept in
a sound working condition, as had indeed frequently
happened.
Mr. Goulburn vindicated the principle of the
Bill, which only interfered to protect those whom
it was not the interest of the shipowners to take
care of. The latter would look to the sufficiency
of their boilers for the sake of their vessel,
while it was found by experience that in many
cases they allowed the poor passengers to starve.
Mr. Labouchere was anxious that no restrictions
should be imposed on shipowners which could be
avoided, but the general poverty of emigrants made
it necessary that the Legislature should protect
them. Such dreadful scenes had been heard of in
consequence of ships proceeding to sea imperfectly
equipped and provided, that the Legislature was
bound to prevent such scenes if possible.
Mr. W. Smith O'Brien knew that out of 2,500 poor
emigrants who left Limerick last year, 500 died on
the passage. Vessels had to set sail for America
in a state not fit to cross the channel to England,
the proof of which was that from the third day
after their departure the pumps were obliged to be
kept going all the voyage.
Mr. Roebuck believed that the loss of life was
caused rather by the ships being unseaworthy than
by the want of provisions on the voyage. He must
add that precautions were necessary, for last year
there were 30,000 emigrants (for the most part
quite destitute) sent out to Canada without any
supplies to keep them from starving during the five
or six months that the country was bound up in
frost and snow.
Mr. Clay submitted that the example of the East
India Company (with respect to the systematic
inspection to which their ships were subjected
previous to a voyage) was the best that could be
followed in the present case. The happy effects of
this course was that the Company's insurance did
not amount to one-sixth of the ordinary rates, for
no ship of theirs was allowed to sail unless first
approved sea-worthy. Their ship-stores never
spoiled or afforded subject of complaint; in fact,
no bad provisions were offered to their vessels,
for it was well known that they would previously be
inspected. If emigrant vessels were compelled to
adopt similar salutary arrangements, they would no
longer hear the just complaints of poor passengers
respecting the deficient quantity or deteriorated
quality of their provisions.
Mr. Barnard suggested the propriety of
prohibiting the employment of vessels in the
emigrant service that were twenty-two years old.
Mr. Warburton strongly objected to the
restriction. It would act as a premium on the
building of a bad class of vessels, designed not to
last even twenty years. It would be much safer to
trust to the character of each vessel on Lloyd's
list.
Mr. Hume recommended the adoption of the practice
of Government, which caused a strict inspection of
vessels that offered to take troops abroad, and
suggested that no vessel should be allowed to take
passengers on board unless similarly inspected and
approved. The age of vessels could never be a
satisfactory guide. He had sailed very safely in a
ship seventy-two years old.
Mr. Thorneley complained of the clause
restricting the export of spirits in emigrant
vessels. He thought a cargo in pipes or hogsheads
as safe as one in bales.
An Hon. Member stated, that he had known cases
where the captains had taken out a large stock of
spirits, apparently for exportation, but really to
sell to the passengers for his own profit. In cases
where the passengers mutinied, and took the control
of their own hands the presence of such a stock was
particularly dangerous.
Sir G. Grey thought that the only practicable way
to prevent these evils was to prohibit the export
of any spirits in vessels fitted out to take
passengers.
Mr. Hume had no objection to impose a penalty on
masters or mates who should sell any spirits to
emigrants on a voyage, but he did not think it just
to limit the owners' right to ship what cargo he
pleased.
The Bill went through Committee, and the House
resumed.
