COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 June 1863)

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, that as the second reading of the Bill had been taken without discussion, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of its object and leading provisions. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords, where it had been introduced upon the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House, which had examined witnesses, and found that great injury was occasioned by the noxious vapours which arose not only from alkali works, but from certain other manufactures. They also found that in the neighbourhood of St. Helen's and other towns trees and vegetation were injured and occasionally destroyed, that residences were rendered uninhabitable, that cattle suffered so that the quality of their milk was affected, and they cast their young. One gentleman, who had himself been a manufacturer, stated that his own health had suffered from a residence 1163 near these works. The leading manufacturers had exerted themselves to neutralize the bad effects produced by the emission of noxious vapours. Some years ago means were discovered of condensing the gas from alkali works. Those means were adopted by the principal manufacturers, but not by all, because the process was rather expensive, and only one-third of the muriatic acid which was produced could be advantageously disposed of. The only check on the mischief done by these works had hitherto been either by an action for damages brought by persons on the ground of injury done to them, or else by indictment. In the case of an action for damages, it was necessary to prove that the injury done was by some particular work. In the infancy of the manufacture it was not difficult to furnish proof of this kind, because the works were not congregated in one neighbourhood, and the chimneys were lower than at present. In the course of time, however, the works increased in the same district, higher chimneys were constructed, and the smoke was dispersed over a wider area. It therefore became difficult to trace the injury to any particular establishment. The other legal remedy was by indictment, but those who resorted to this process were bound to show not only, as in the action for damages, the source from which the injury proceeded, but also that the injury was of so public a nature that it might be fairly considered a public nuisance. That also was a difficult, expensive, and uncertain remedy. Various clauses had been introduced into recent public Bills, in which ineffectual attempts had been made to carry out the object sought by the present Bill. The causes of these failures was fully explained in the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House, and that Commute consequently came to the conclusion that special legislation was necessary. Great numbers of the leading manufacturers acquiesced in the proposed legislation, and agreed that a special enactment was necessary, which should be applicable solely to the alkali trade. It was said with truth that other works did as much injury as alkali works, and it was asked why there should not be a general measure applicable to other trades. The reason was that in these particular works an undoubted remedy had been discovered, which could not be said with the same certainty of other works. The manufacturers themselves had first 1164 endeavoured to correct the evil, but they failed because they could not obtain the co-operation of every member of the trade. Under these circumstances the present measure had been introduced in the House of Lords. It proposed that inspectors should be appointed, and that all alkali works should be carried on to the satisfaction of these inspectors, but there was nothing to empower the inspector to direct any alteration in the process of the manufacture. The Bill provided for the registration of the works, and that the inspectors should have power to enter them at any time during the night or day, in order to examine into the efficiency of the apparatus for the condensing of the gas. It was also enacted, that all offences under the Act should be adjudicated upon by the Court of Quarter Sessions. It might be objected that that might not be an entirely impartial tribunal, and the Government were prepared to consider, when they came to the clause, a proposal to give a power of appeal. He would admit that the Bill was to a certain extent new, because it instituted for the first time an inspection for the protection of property, and not for the safely of workmen. The Government would therefore be willing to consider any suggestions for securing the manufacturers against improper interference.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, that the Bill proposed to institute a control over one of the largest and most important manufactures of the country, the statistics of which could not be expressed by hundreds or even by thousands, but only by millions. The alkali manufacture consumed 1,761,000 tons of raw material, and produced 280,000 tons of finished goods, of the yearly value of £2,500,000. The capital involved in the trade somewhat exceeded £2,000,000. The hands directly and indirectly employed in the trade were 19,000, and the question therefore involved the maintenance of nearly 100,000 souls. The wages paid were £871,750 per annum. The trade gave employment to a large quantity of shipping, for the estimated tonnage of the raw materials and finished goods was 2,500,000 tons. Some of the most important and most necessary articles of life were dependent for their cost on the production of alkali. Next to oil and tallow the most essential ingredient in the manufacture of soap was caustic alkali. It was also the raw material of the heaviest cost in the manufacture of glass, which consisted of alkali and sand fused 1165 together. Alkali was also an important element in the manufacture of paper from other material besides rags. The use of straw, for example, depended on a solution of silica by caustic soda, which was the chief means of using vegetable fibres. Alkali was also largely used as a cheap soap, and as bleaching powder in cotton bleaching. Petitions in favour of Amendments to the Bill had been agreed to by the Chambers of Commerce of various towns, and also by bodies and trades indirectly interested. He mentioned these facts in order to invite the assistance of the Committee in introducing such clauses as the manufacturers deemed necessary for their protection. The alkali manufacture was, in fact, a peculiar trade. The cheapness with which alkali could be manufactured depended on the locality. Four elements entered into the composition of alkali—salt, pyrites, coals, and limestone and chalk. There were very few localities in the kingdom in which these several products were found in close proximity. An additional tax of only 1s. per ton would impose a tax of £100,000 on the transport of the raw materials, and would increase the cost of production of all the necessaries of life into which alkali so largely entered. It was, therefore, desirable that the trade should continue to be carried on in the especial localities adapted for it. If, however. Parliament introduced clauses to drive the trade from the most suitable localities into other districts, the additional cost of transport would involve an increased cost of production. The manufacturers had met the Bill justly; they did not object to legislation, but there were some Amendments which they desired should be introduced, and he hoped that the Committee would give a fair consideration to them. The Amendments which he intended to propose for the protection of the manufacturers, had for their object the providing due notice of the ground on which the manufacturers had rendered themselves liable to penalties, and, further, that they should have the power of appealing from the local tribunal to a higher court.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he entertained great doubt as to the policy of the measure. It was an entire novelty in legislation. The Bill attempted to deal with one particular trade—and that a very extensive one—when still greater evils were produced by the noxious vapours created by other manufactures, which were left untouched. For that purpose it introduced 1166 something like a system of excise without the excuse of raising revenue. The nuisance which they proposed to suppress had of late years diminished, in consequence of the discoveries of science; and he did not see why parties complaining of any damage or inconvenience from alkali works should not be left to their present legal remedy. In deference, however, to what seemed to be the general feeling in favour of the Bill he would not move its complete rejection; but he would propose in Committee that its operation should be limited to a few years, so that Parliament might before long have an opportunity of again considering the question.

LORD STANLEY
said, he wished it to be understood that this was by no means an Act for the exclusive protection of the landed interest, as was sometimes asserted, but that it was one for the protection of the health and comfort of the inhabitants residing in the towns and neighbourhood where these works were carried on. It had been said that things were mending, but the facts were exactly contrary; for every year matters were getting worse and worse. In the neighbourhood of St. Helen's vegetation had disappeared, the farmers had been driven further and further from these works, and the actual destruction of agricultural property was increasing every year. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) asked why they should not rely in that case upon the old legal remedy? Now, the fact was, that that remedy had been effectual in former times, when those works were thinly scattered over certain districts; but in the present day, in consequence of the number of manufactories adjoining one another, it was hardly possible to prove that a nuisance proceeded from any one of them in particular, and the law thus became inoperative. He would only further remind the Committee, that a majority of the trade had given their assent to the remedy for the evil which the Bill would afford.

MR. HEADLAM
said, it was very much to the credit of the alkali manufacturers, that they were ready voluntarily to subject themselves to these inconveniences for the public good. The House would do well to go on with the Bill, but the clauses would require careful consideration, as the measure was certainly one of an exceptional character.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, that Parliament 1167 had given more stringent powers for the suppression of smoke than any which the present Bill would confer.

MR. HENLEY
said, that if he had entertained any doubt as to the necessity for the Bill, it had been removed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who had shown the extent of the alkali manufacture, and the tendency of these undertakings to congregate together, and thus cause a condensation of the mischief. A worse tribunal than the Court of Quarter Sessions, however, for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, could not be selected. It was a matter not connected with the peace of the country, and was a sort of thing entirely beyond their cognizance. At the same time, the nuisance complained of was of such a nature that Parliament ought to try to meet it by legislation.

LOUD STANLEY
said, it was open for the Committee to consider whether the County Court could not be substituted for the Court of Quarter Sessions. The judge of the County Court might, if necessary, have the assistance of the jury.

§ Mr. DOULTON
said, that the Clause provided that alkali wash should mean every wash in which muriatic gas was evolved. He would move, however, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "wash", and to insert the words "for the manufacture of alkali and the sulphates of soda and potash."

§ MR. PULLER
said, he would move to insert the word "reasonable" so as to require that the condensation of the gas should be effected to the reasonable satisfaction of the inspector.

MR. BRUCE
said, he thought the word would be surplusage.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, the Clause provided, that if any alkali work was not carried on in such a manner as to secure the condensation of not less than 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved, the owner of the work should be deemed to be guilty of an offence and be subject to penalties. He wished to move an Amendment in order 1168 more clearly to define the offence. The proportion of 95 per cent seemed enormous; but so perfect was the process that that amount of condensation would be secured. He would move to insert the words "on its being made to appear to the court before which any information or complaint in respect thereof shall be heard or determined, that 95 per centum at least of the muriatic gas evolved in such work has not been condensed."

§ MR. PULLER
said, he would then move to leave out the word "each," the effect of the Amendment being to render the manufacturers not liable, as the clause enacted, for "each" such offence.

§ MR. PULLER
said, he would then move to leave out the words "and in respect of a continuous offence, after notice from the inspector, to a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5, for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section," and to insert, "provided always that no such owner shall be convicted of more than one such offence in respect of any one day, nor of more than one such offence committed previous to any conviction."

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, he wished to move that a proviso be added that no penalty be imposed unless the Inspector should produce before the justice of the peace who was about to issue a summons a certificate in writing of the facts on which he founded his opinion that 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved in the alkali works is not condensed therein, and serve a copy with such summons.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that a curious Amendment. He should oppose it, on the ground that it was really furnishing the defendants with the whole of the evidence on which the case against them was founded.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, it was admitted that the proposed legislation was novel, and that the alkali manufacturers had met the wishes of noble Lords in another House with fairness and liberality. He would therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendments they suggested.

MR. HEADLAM
said, he trusted the Committee would agree to the Amendment, because it was desirable that full information should be given of the grounds on 1169 which the Inspector founded his opinion. It was also desirable that the Inspector should carry on his work with a feeling that he was responsible for his actions.

MR. HENLEY
said, he agreed that the manufacturer should know the charge he was called upon to meet, but he did not think that sticking it into the summons would do it.

§ MR. COX
said, he must submit that the Inspector who made a complaint ought to know exactly the facts on which he had founded his opinion.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, he had no objection to the introduction of the words proposed to be added, on the understanding that, in case he should hereafter think they would fetter the actions of the Inspector, he should be at liberty to introduce words to prevent such an effect.

§ MR. PULLER
said, he would then move the addition of a proviso to the effect, that if an owner of alkali works should prove that he had used due diligence to comply with the Act, and that the offence complained of had been occasioned by the fault or neglect of his agent, servant, or workman without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner. The object of the proviso, was to secure to the manufacturers that they should not be made the victims of their workmen; and that if the manufacturers really desired to carry the Act into execution, neither any designed act on the part of the workmen nor their negligence should subject the employer to penalties.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, it was an alternative proposition to one of which he had given notice, and the manufacturers preferred his.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that it was proposed that in every register there should be inserted the name in full of the owner, the name of the parish or township in which the works are situate, and the name or names of the articles intended to be produced at the works. It was necessary sometimes to make changes in chemical preparations, and if the words were retained, the manufacturer would be liable to a penalty for the introduction of every new article, however small, in accordance with the 1170 varying changes of trade. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words, "the name and names of the articles intended to be produced at the works."

§ MR. PULLER
said, no penalty was imposed for non-registration. He would therefore move the insertion of words imposing a penalty of not less than £5 nor more than £10 for every day during which the works should be carried on without registration.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he thought the penalty of £10 was excessive.

§ MR. JACKSON
moved, as an Amendment, that the penalty should not exceed £5.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, he would move the insertion of words directing that notice should be given to the owner of works carried on in contravention of the Act of the commission of the offence, as soon as conveniently might be after the commission of such offence.

MR. HENLEY
said, the whole cause required much consideration. The court was to be both judge and jury at once, and in his opinion the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would form a very undesirable tribunal to decide the questions which would arise under the Act. It was no part of their ordinary business to inflict penalties. In the county of Lancaster, in which the Act would mainly come into operation, there were not less than 600 magistrates. How many were to sit in judgment on these cases, and what would become of the Court if the case were to last a whole day, or more than a day? Would it not be supposed by the public that magistrates would take part in the judgment who had not heard the evidence?

LORD STANLEY
said, he was ready to admit that Quarter Sessions was not perhaps the best Court that could be devised for trying these cases. But he should state, that although there were 600 magistrates in Lancashire, there were not more 1171 than one hundred who practically took part in criminal business. The county was divided into five divisions for criminal business, and the number of magistrates who would hear those cases would vary from five or six to twelve or fifteen. They would be as competent to deal with these cases as any non-professional persons could be. As to magistrates passing in and out of court, he believed that they scrupulously abstained from interfering in criminal cases unless they had heard the whole of the evidence.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he doubted whether the manufacturers interested in it would be satisfied with the clause. If they were satisfied, they did not understand their own interests, because the complaints could not be referred to a more objectionable tribunal. The complaints would be more frequently brought by landed proprietors, than by any other classes, and they formed a large portion of the magistracy who presided at Quarter Sessions. He thought it was most likely that there would be a temptation in these cases for a larger number than usual to attend, and that the magistrates would feel not a judicial but a personal interest in the decisions under the Act. He would suggest that the County Court would be a better tribunal. He confessed, that if he were an alkali manufacturer, he would certainly prefer to have his case brought before the County Court, and let the judge have a jury, if necessary, to assist him, Nothing could be more monstrous than to place the interests of the manufacturers under the judicial management of the Quarter Sessions, and subject them to the confusion that must arise. Perhaps it would be well to postpone the determination of the question, and within a week the House might be able to adopt some more satisfactory proposal.

§ COLONEL WILSON PATTEN
said, it it might seem invidious that cases in which manufactures were specially interested should be tried before the magistrates at Quarter Sessions. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would find, however, that out of the 600 magistrates in Lancashire, 400 were connected with manufactures, and 200 only were connected exclusively with land.

§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY
said, that as a magistrate himself he was unwilling to be invested with such a jurisdiction. He thought there were grave objections to that mode of proceeding.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, he must avow that he was in favour of leaving the jurisdiction of the cases under the Act with the County Court. At the same time, he would recommend that the consideration of the clause be postponed.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, the transfer of the jurisdiction to the County Court would be acceptable to the manufacturers. At the same time, they desired that the decision on such important matters should not be left to one court, but that there should be a power of appeal.

§ MR. COX
said, he thought the best way would be to negative the clause when it was put, and then the Government might bring up a clause giving the jurisdiction to the County Court.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, it would be open to any hon. Member, on the Report being presented, to move the omission of the clause and the substitution of another, making the County Court the tribunal. It must be remembered, however, that such a proposal would give the County Courts a jurisdiction of a new kind. At present, the County Court had no power to impose penalties. It was impossible for the Government to substitute the County Court, without considering the question more fully than it was possible to do at the present moment.

§ MR. LIDDELL
remarked, that the County Court would be the better tribunal, as a considerable number of the magistrates belonged to the manufacturing classes.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he begged it should not be supposed that he brought any charge against magistrates; but they were likely to feel a strong personal interest in the subject; and if he were a landed proprietor, he would rather not have such matters brought before him. If they had another tribunal, the law would be more satisfactorily carried out. If the landed proprietors were in a minority, they might complain that the cases were brought before a tribunal where the majority were manufacturers.

LORD STANLEY
said, he did not think they were then in a position to decide upon the matter.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he would move that the Chairman be ordered to report progress, and they could then let the matter stand over for a week to give the Government an opportunity of considering the question. In the mean time they might have representations from the gentlemen 1173 immediately concerned in the Act, namely, the manufacturers, which would enable them to agree to a proposition that would be satisfactory.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he preferred that the proposal should come from a private Member. He doubted whether it would be expedient to take the jurisdiction from the Courts of Quarter Sessions.

§ MR. COBDEN
said, that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had told the Committee that what they were going to do was with the consent of the alkali manufacturers He (Mr. Cobden), however, was warranted in saying that the manufacturers would unanimously oppose the measure unless it were accompanied with the Amendments suggested by the trade. Considering how fairly, he might even say with how much docility, the trade had received the novel legislation comprised in the Bill, they ought to be treated with the greatest consideration. If the trade had resisted this special legislation, and if they had appealed to Parliament to strengthen its general legislation for abating nuisances, he believed that the House would have sided with the manufacturers. He remembered a large establishment near Newton, with a tall chimney 200 or 300 feet high. The proprietors of those alkali works were prosecuted successively and successfully by the landed proprietors, until they blew up their large chimney with gunpowder. That proved that the landowners were not altogether powerless under the present law. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the Committee placed the jurisdiction in Quarter Sessions without appeal, the Bill would be unsatisfactory to the trade, and would be resisted by them in every possible way. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government if they would consent to postpone the clause and bring in a proviso for giving the jurisdiction to the County Courts?

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he did not understand that the trade would accept a clause giving jurisdiction to the County Court Judges without appeal. The Government were in favour of Quarter Sessions, but they were prepared to give some appeal from Quarter Sessions.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman be would not press his Motion.

§ MR. COBDEN
said, he had no doubt that the very influential gentlemen representing the trade in London would in the 1174 course of a week be able to give an opinion on the subject that would assist them in coming to a decision. Probably they might wish to have an appeal to have the cases uniform, without, reference to the tribunal that had decided in the first instance, though in the case of the Quarter Sessions Court they might wish to have an appeal for other reasons which he (Mr. Cobden) would not go into. The complaints under the Act would not impose much business on any court, and they could not have many appeals.

MR. HENLEY
said, he did not wish to have two trials on the merits, but it was very necessary to have some uniformity of decision. The best, way to get at the facts was by a jury. He had a weakness for juries. The parties could then go to a court of law to see if any evidence had been improperly let in, and to set the law right. But the Court of Quarter Sessions was constituted the judge and jury, and, what was worse, the Bill gave the court an original jurisdiction.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he wished to ask why, instead of enacting pecuniary penalties, there should not be an indictment at Quarter Sessions. The evidence of the inspector could be made satisfactory proof that 95 per cent of muriatic gas had not been consumed, and that might betaken as conclusive evidence of a public-nuisance. The Quarter Sessions could then act in the regular manner.

§ SIR DAVID DUNDAS
said, that the matter to be heard would probably involve some scientific facts in chemistry which would be better tried by a single judge in the County Court than by several magistrates at Quarter Sessions.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, he would move a clause enabling the owner of any alkali work who might be charged with an offence under the Bill, to have the workman through whose negligence it may have occurred brought before the court; and on proof that the workman had committed the offence, the workman should be liable to be fined instead of the owner.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
objected to the clause. The Bill was framed with a view exclusively to the proceedings of the manufacturers.

§ MR. PULLER
said, he would move as an Amendment words to the effect, that if the master should show that the infraction of the Act was caused by the negligence of any workman or agent, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner.