PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 19 April 1852)

§ MR. SIDNEY 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, if 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 inconvenience 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 proposed that cooked rations should be issued to them daily. Now, we could enforce these regulations in the port of Liverpool, 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 870 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 been 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 in the regulations of the two countries, so that the law might be fairly carried out.

§ 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 appealed 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 jealousy 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 871 matters; and the appeal would probably be to parties less competent to decide, and having no nautical knowledge at all. However, he would consider the question, and endeavour to see if any practical appeal could be suggested.

§ MR. SIDNEY 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 persons 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 greater 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 passengers 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, the language of the clause was "no less than so many." How that could be called a "maximum," he could not understand. It was the minimum.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, it would be practically the maximum, for this 872 reason, that nobody would give a single inch more space than they were necessitated to do by law.