Hide Article Text (OCR)
At the early sitting of the Commons, Mr. F. PEEL moved the second reading of the Legislative Council (Canada) Bill. The object of the measure, he explained, was to enable the Canadian legislature to effect certain changes in the Legisla tive Council or Upper Chamber of the colony. There was no attempt to prescribe what those changes were to be, but the intention was to have the consti tution of the council altered by making it elective. Similar powers had been already granted by the im perial parliament to the Cape of Good Hope and other colonies, and the house, he submitted, should raise no difficulty in extending the privilege to Canada. Sir J. PakInGTON found two great objections to the bill. It sanctioned the creation in Canada of extremely democratic institutions, and it entered that house under a false semblance, assuming the title merely of an enabling bill, while it really authorised the Canadian legislature to remodel their form of government. The measure was too important to be discussed at so late a period of the session, and the accounts lately received from Canada as to the course which the colonial legislature were adopting with respect to the clergy reserves furnished an additional reason for giving the subject a more deliberate con sideration. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months. Mr. ADDERBLEY considered that the bill was neces sary to secure the loyalty and the freedom of Canada. Mr. Hume rejoiced to find that the Canadians were at length to be admitted to the full privilege of self- government. Bir G. Grey believed that the inhabitants of Canada had sufficiently advanced in wealth, intelli gence, and fitness for self-government to render the present bill at once just and safe. He apprehended none of the mischievous consequences which had, in some quarters, been prognosticated from its opera tion. The bill was also supported by Mr. V. Sarr. Lord J. Russi argued that the Canadians were entitled to have the opportunity of trying to frame their own constitution, even if it were not certain that they would make a wise use of it. For his own part, he expressed a sanguine anticipation of the result. Mr. Henney doubted the safety of the experiment. On the motion of Mr. Scott, the debate was adjoined until the evening, Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill was read a third time and passed. The Appropriation Bill was brought in by Mr. Wilson, and read a first time. The house adjourned at 4, and resumed at 6 o'clock, when the debate on the Legislative Council of Canada Bill was continued. Mr. Scott characterised the measure as republi can, dangerous, and imprudent. He denounced the attempt to pass it at so late a period of the year, and when so few members could be present at the discus sion. The bill encouraged the development of de mocracy in Canada, and violated the duty which was incumbent upon the legislature of a monarchical palicy to stimulate the growth of similar institutions in its dependencies. Mr. Bicks believed that the bill would strengthen the bond of union between Canada and the mother country. The amendment was not pressed to a division, and the bill passed the second reading. The motion for going into committee on the Usury Laws Repeal Bill was opposed by Mr. CAYLEY, who cited a variety of instances from the monetary history of the country to show the danger which would arise, under the system of arti ficial scarcity of money, from removing all restric tions upon the rate of interest. The bill had been brought in with no necessity to justify its introduction, and at a time when it could not be properly discussed. He moved that the bill be committed that day three months, Mr. Hume admitted the danger of commercial panics, but did not think that the repeal of the usury laws would tend to produce them. He wished for perfect freedom of dealing in every article, money among others. Mr. WILKINSON controverted the argument that restrictions upon the rate of interest rendered money easier or cheaper for the extension of commercial operations. Mr. Mains supported the bill, believing that it would prove beneficial to the landed interest. Mr. Spooner thought the bill ill-timed and impo litive, and pointed out many possibilities of incon venience and loss to individuals which it might occasion. Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill. After a few words from Mr. J. M'‘GReEgor, the opposition was withdrawn, and the bill went through committee. The Public Health Bill was also passed through immutes, after some considerable discussion on its clauses, . The consideration in committee of the Bills of Exchange (No. 2) Bill was resumed at clause 4, BRITER late than never. At last we have six gunboats afloat at Woolwich, intended for despatch to the Baltic. If the accounts given by our reporter yesterday should be entirely realised, these half-dozen vessels,form a very satisfactory instalment of what has long been required. They are to carry 10-inch guns—each of which is intended to act as a kind of gigantic Minié rifle. The bore of each cannon is stated to be formed after the fashion of a rifle of the best kind, and the shot intended to be thrown are to have the form which recent experiments have shown to be best adapted to long and accurate flight. It is confidently stated that these novel projectiles will have a range of more than four miles! Should the expectations thus excited be borne fully out, we may expect to hear that the gunboats in question will not only be able to float in shallow waters where a line-of-battle ship or an ordinary, man-of-war steamer could not venture, but that they will, in addition, be able to rest quietly far out of range of the guns of Cronstadt, and at their leisure throw an iron shower into that fortress,—the defenders of which will be unable to make a single shot tell in re furn. The only way in which the Russians could reply to such salutes as the new gunboats promise to give them would be by sending out a few of their akulk ing men-of-war from behind the stone walls where they now hide away. Such Russian manhood is just what our seamen want. The constant wish of Sir Cartes Napier and his sailors has long been to measure strength with the sea captains of the Czar; and, should the employment of the new gunboats compel the heavy ships of the Autocrat to venture out into the Gulf of Finland, they will indeed, have done miracles. We can scarcely, how ever, hope for such results. The game of NICHOLAS is to avoid fighting with the Allies. He who has been well beaten by the Turks does not wish to be still more thoroughly thrashed by the English and French. Even the exasperating punishment that may be inflicted by 10-inch guns with a four-mile range may, therefore, fail to push him into a naval engagement, unless it turns out that half-a-dozen of the new-fashioned assailants may, by careful and unremitting fire, gradually upset his pet fortress altogether. He may, then, like a wild boar at bay, turn on his assailants. Should a result even approaching this be secured by the gunboats, what a practical commentary it will be upon the conduct of a government who first sent a gigantic fleet to the Baltic without the special vessels most needed, and then, when such boats could no longer be withheld, prepared only half-a-dozen of them. A fleet just large enough to cope with the Russian fleet if they could be caught, and then twenty or thirty such gunboats as those yesterday described by our correspondent might, if they had gone out when the ice first broke up, have solved the Cron stadt problem long ago. A constant fire of hollow shot without fusees and fitted to explode the moment they struck the enemies’ position—each thrown from a gun as far out of reach from Cronstadt as a Minié rifleman is out of common musket range, must long ago have told its story on the Russian fortresses. Such assail ants must have been protected in their operations by line-of-battle ships in sufficient numbers, but there would have been no need for so large a fleet as we now have in the Baltic. Such an array of gunboats might have saved the sending of many large vessels now in commission there, and Sir Canutes Napier would, with a numerically smaller force under his command, have been more efficient for the special work in hand than he now is. It is only a repetition of the story of the earlier struggles of NELSON and WELLINGTON, to find the means needful for success delayed and delayed till both public and commanders were almost in despair. But both WELLINGTON and NELSON made such good use of what was given them when they really got possession of it, that victory, though delayed, was certain. Judging by the past, therefore, we may yet fairly expect great news from the Baltic, if the need for gunboats are given at last. Better late than never. Whilst our naval commander in the north is likely just before winter to secure what he ought to have had in the spring, the belligerents on the Danube are taking new positions. The Russians are falling back from the Danube towards the Pruth, and the Turks are advancing upon them. This is pleasant news in its way, but when we recollect the dashing courage of the army led by OMER Pacua, and remember that every step the Russian takes backward makes him stronger, there is need to repeat the caution we gave long since, that the Turks ought not to be encouraged or permitted to go too far in advance unsupported by the Allies. Weeks ago we called special attention to this point, and we would reiterate our caution. We said from the first—what all the world admits now,—that the Turks can beat an equal number of those “ invincible” Russians whom the Zimes was so fond of boasting about. But we pointed to the risk that would be run, if the Czar was permittedo re tire and concentrate his force to double or treble that of Omer Pacwa, and then to taunt the forces of the SULTAN to assail him single handed on some well-prepared position chosen by GortscHakorf. As the Russians fall back, the Allies should act against Odessa, and so cut off the Czar’s granary ; whilst the Austrians, if they are to take part at all, should threaten or attack GORTSCHAKOFF from the ride of Galicia. The Russians, endangered thus on both flank and rear, would present an easier front for a general onslaught of the Turks. Success would then be as certain as it is now doubtful when we see OMER Pacua advancing, without efficient sup port, upon the Muscovite hordes in Moldavia. The assistance he ought to receive is, however, only possible upon the assumption that the English Cabinet and the English commanders are in earnest, and that the Austrians think they may safely commit themselves to the side of the Allies. So far, however, are the English Ministry from having given proofs of any such earnestness in Turkey, that even Austria is openly expressing doubts of Lord ABERDEEN’s sin cerity in the war. Vienna is waiting for St. James's, Vienna cannot afford to quarrel with the Czar unless she is sure that England and France mean to go through with the quarrel—ill the West ern Powers shall have demonstrated by deeds that they ‘are seriously resolved to carry on the war against Russia in all its consequences.” Individually we object to the Austrian alli ance altogether, but to find her hesitating to join us because she disbelieves the Coalition is a new light let in upon things as they are. It goes to show that Ministerial lukewarmness long seen in England has not passed unnoticed abroad. Only by deeds, then, can the English Cabinet hope to retrieve the good opinions they have forfeited. Let one of the first signs of their repentance be the supply of enough new gunbsata to both fleets —let their next be the efficient support of our THE official returns show that the cholera is upon us again. The truth cannot be concealed, nor should it be, for those alive to danger are most likely to meet it like men and com bat it like intelligent beings. This is the third time the pestilence has walked mysteriously among us, and it becomes a serious question to deter mine whether we are better prepared to meet it than we were in 1832 or 1848. The first epidemic lasted from February, 1832, to September, 1833, and killed 16,437 of our fellow-countrymen, the greatest weekly mortality being 445. The second lasted from Septem ber, 1848, to December, 1849, and killed 72,180, the greatest weekly mortality being 2,298. The present epidemic commenced about a year since—August, 1853—increased in intensity up to the winter, has lain dormant for a time, like the two former attacks, and now appears to be making its second and most deadly harvest,—again follow ing in its former course. Intimations are not wanting that, as the second was more deadly than the first, the third will exceed either in its vavages. It behoves us, then, most seriously to endeavour to learn what science or experience can teach us as to the means,upon which we can rely for individual and general safety. In the first place, in all the three epidemics, the disease has chosen the same spots for its favou rite haunts—it took a course before which it is to be presumed it will take again. What are these spots, and how are we to avoid them or to purify them? In the first place, they are situations at a low level, and damp. Elevation has a far greater influence upon the comparative rate of mortality from cholera than either latitude or longitude. Every step we take up a hill takes us a step out of the range of the cholera poison. It originates in the low marshy banks of Indian rivers, and it progresses along the course of rivers and by the seaside, but seldom above a certain level. In England, as in all other countries, there has been a constant relation between mortality and elevation. In London, for instance, the districts have been divided according to elevation above the level of the Thames at terraces of 20 feet, commencing at 10 feet and progressing up wards. Mr. Farr has carefully compared the morta lity from cholera in these districts, and has discovered that at half the elevation the mortality is doubted. At levels of 100 feet it was 17 in 10,000, while at 60 feet it was 34, or exactly double; and at 30 feet 65 in 10,000, showing that the mortality is very nearly in strict inverse ratio of the heights of the soil above the level of the river. In districta below 20 feet 102 died in every 10,000; in those from 20 to 40 the deaths were 65; in the third group, from 40 to 60 feet, they sank to 34. When we arrive at an eleva tion of 80 to 100 feet the deaths sink to 22. ‘In dis tricts 100 feet high the mortality was 17, while at Hampstead, at a level of 350 feet, the deaths were only 8, and one of these was a case brought from Wandsworth. Thus there is one great lesson we have learned from the experience of the past ; and those who can choose their place of residence may live beyond the reach of cholera, if they go some four or five hundred feet above the level of the sea; and at far lower elevations run almost a nominal risk. Those whose circumstances oblige them to live at low levels must exert them selves to remove the causes which make these situations dangerous. They must remove their dampness by drainage, see that house drains are not choked, that sewers and cesspools are not open or clogged, and that no foul canals or ditches are stagnant. A little timely combined exertion may do incalculable good, and this without any interference of any irre sponsible despotic authority. Local self-government is quite adequate for all that is wanted, but men must be active and ready in their own districts for their own sakes and the safety of their wives and children. Next we observe a close relation between the ravages of cholera and the purity of the water supplied to any locality. The water supplied to London has dif ferent degrees of impurity in different districts. In the six districts which receive water from the Thames above Battersea there were in the epidemic of 1849 15 deaths in 10,000; while in those parts of the metropolis supplied with water from the Thames taken between Battersea and Waterloo bridges, the deaths were 123 in 10,000. In the one case 15, in the other 123, in 10,000! The supply from the New River, the Lea, and the Ravensbourne, gives ‘an in termediate mortality, or 48 in 10,000. Will any thing teach us, if this does not, that other out lets for our sewers must be found than the Thames and the Sea, and that the filth of a great city is not intended to pollute its water supply? This great evil, however, cannot be remedied in a day, but every man can take care that all organic impurities are re moved from the water he drinks by filtering it through charcoal—by filtering it before it is allowed to be used in the family for drink or cooking. This is a second lesson of safety. Thirdly, it has been proved beyond all dispute that intemperance has led to a vast number of attacks of cholera. Either an occasional excess, or a habit of drinking, lays the human system open to the disease. Be temperate, then, is a third golden rule. Another “ Cholera fact” and we have done. Crowded ill-ventilated dwellings are the hotbeds of this and every other pestilence. By the popu lation tables just published we learn that in the cities and seaport towns “few families have lived for two generations.” We shall not stop to ask now if this startling fact is to be ex plained by ScHéNBEIN’s recent discovery that no ozone is to be found in the air of large cities; but it is a singular fact that this pecu liar substance, or modification of oxygen, or singular combination of oxygen and hydrogen, whichever it may turn out to be, abounds in the air of the country, but cannot be traced where crowds of human beings are constantly evolving compounds which are as constantly absorbing oxygen. All this is of great interest to the philosopher, but we have not now to do with theory. Our business is with the fact that in time of cholera, crowding and danger are synonymous terms. Here then are the golden rules for safety,—pure air, pure water, temperance, and cleanliness. We do not want a Board of Health to force all these upon us—to insist upon cleansing us with their own especial scrubbing-brush, thought of their own favourite huckster; to obstruct all drainage that does not go through their own favourite tubing laid down by their own inspectors “by the job.” We see no danger, therefore, in the fall of the General Board of Health just as cholera is again advancing. On the contrary, the upset of the Board is a subject for con gratulation. But we must insist that the composition of a new board is such as to ensure for it the con fidence of the country. We must have medical men of high professional character upon it. No one who was on the old board ought to remain on the new. Let us begin afresh with men of high character, and we may predicate full success for the new bill.
Newspaper Details
London Daily News
London, Middlesex, GB
Sat, Aug 05, 1854
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Rebecca S.
USA 16 Feb 2026
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
