HC Deb 05 July 1855 vol 139 cc449-51

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8. (Description of Nuisances Abateable.)

MR. WINN KNIGHT

said, he begged to move to include the following words— Any premises in such a filthy or unwholesome state as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any pool, ditch, gutter, watercourse, cesspool, and drains, or ash-pit so foul as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any animal, or any accumulation or deposit (within the limits of any town or street), so kept as to be a nuisance to or injurious to the health of any person.>

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he did not object, except to the words in parentheses.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it would be best to strike out of the clause the word "offensive," and confine it to such nuisances as were "injurious to health."

MR. WILKINSON

said, that those latter words were by no means unsusceptible of doubt; for many people whose trades were dreadfully offensive, maintained that they were perfectly healthful.

Mr. HENLEY

said, that, nevertheless, the issue of injuriousness to health was clear and intelligible.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, that one medical man maintained that them was no such thing as a nuisance injurious to health.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would cite a passage from the medical evidence to support the observation of the noble Lord. One medical man asserted that bone-boilers' yards or horse-knackers' yards were not prejudicial to health. He proposed to strike out the word "offensive," and retain the words "nuisance, or injurious to health."

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he would suggest that the words "nuisance" and "injury," were absolutely synonymous; the one being Latin, the other a French, version of the word "hurt" or "harm." Moreover it was rather unskilful in a clause defining the word "nuisance," to have the very same word to explain it.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, either the word "offensive," or the word "nuisance," must be introduced.

MR. HENLEY

said, the word "nuisance" was well enough if the Bill were to be confined to what concerned other people. It was true that where A complained of B for any "nuisance," the word "nuisance" had a legal meaning. But the Bill gave a power of inspection and prosecution on the ground that something was a supposed "nuisance," not to any one in particular, but to anybody; which might be to nobody at all. Take the case of thirty or forty great hogs; why, they would he charming to an agricultural eye or nose, associated with prospects of rich manure and visions of future corn. But an inspector of fastidious nostrils and high sanitary views might deem the pigs offensive, and insist upon their being summarily suppressed. Let the clause by all means be confined to what was injurious to health.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he doubted if the word "nuisance" would not be limited by the words "injurious to health." Surely anything injurious to health was now a nuisance; but a nuisance might be with out any injury to health.

VISCOUNT GODERICH

said, if the word "offensive" were left out, it would be necessary to bring medical evidence in every case to support a prosecution, in order to show that the nuisance was injurious to health.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought that there ought to be no prosecution without medical evidence.

MR. BARROW

said, he quite agreed that in a Bill giving summary powers, there ought to be no power of prosecution without medical proof that there was injury to health.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR

said, it was not so at common law.

MR. BARROW

said, at common law a party had the benefit of trial by jury.

The word "offensive" was then struck out, and Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive.

House resumed. Committee report progress.

Back to