[Report 1906] / Medical Officer of Health, Manchester Port Health Authority.

  • Manchester (England). Port Health Authority.
Date:
1906
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1906] / Medical Officer of Health, Manchester Port Health Authority. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    68/102 (page 64)
    Order were defeated on a division by 202 to 116, the Confirmatory Bill was sent down to a Special Committee. The Manchester Corpora¬ tion and the Manchester Ship Canal Co separately petitioned against the Bill, but only the latter applied to be heard before the Committee. The Committee stage was taken on July loth and nth, 1906, with the result that the Bill was unanimously agreed to. The opposition had been based on the apparently plausible basis that Manchester being a new port the controlling Company had to fight .very hard to increase the trade, and, pari passu, increase the chances of placing the undertaking upon a paying basis, and that any¬ thing likely to hamper efforts put forth to these ends must necessarily be detrimental to the Canal’s prospects. It was contended that the inspec¬ tion of food imports by the Port Sanitary Authority would be taken by shippers as an undue interference and likely to cause delay in distribu¬ tion of goods, and, as powers to exercise this supervision were not possessed by the Liverpool Port Authority, trade was likely to be diverted to the latter port on this account. Inspection, per se, was not objected to, it being argued that the local authorities concerned in the port already possessed the powers to undertake such, thus doing away with the necessity for the joint Authority to have the powers. It was also laid down that if it should be thought desirable for Port Authorities to have these powers delegated to them, then Manchester should not be singled out by itself, but that a Bill should be brought into Parliament to apply powers of inspection to all Port Sanitary Authorities through¬ out the Kingdom. Considering the patriotic interest in the prosperity of the Ship Canal Co., which is so universally implanted in the hearts and minds of Manchester citizens, it is not to be wondered that the phase of the question just outlined should have presented some alarming features. The Authority was therefore faced with the problem of showing that the Company’s view was incorrect, or that, if correct, the corresponding advantages to the general public of this inspection would more than outweigh any presumed disadvantage to the trade of the Canal. It was proved in Committee, from experience in the Port of London, that trade was not injured by inspection of food imports, but