HC Deb 17 April 1863 vol 170 cc332-54
MR. BRADY

rose to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the best mode of utilizing the sewage of towns, and apply it to beneficial and profitable uses; and to move a Resolution declaring the inexpediency of granting any farther public money for the use of the Commission. He said:—The question which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House is of vast importance to every gentleman in England possessing an acre of land, and to the people. I may be told, as I have been, that if we utilize the sewage of certain of our cities and towns, if even we utilize the sewage of all our cities and towns, yet there would be certain districts which would not be benefited, those districts being beyond the area that could be irrigated by the sewage of our towns. To all such objections my answer is, that if by the utilization of sewage we permanently increase the supplies of manure, we must necessarily lessen the price, thus leaving a larger margin of profit to the farmer, whilst, at the same time, we shall increase the produce of the soil, and thus not only benefit the owners and occupiers of the soil, but also the people. I shall not go into the past history of this great social question, as I presume hon. Members are familiar with it. I shall confine my observations to the proceedings of the Royal Commission, and the evidence taken before a Committee of this House last Session. In the year 1857 the Government, in its laudable anxiety to solve the question of sewage utilization, appointed a Royal Commission. The warrant, under which the Commissioners were empowered to act, clearly and distinctly defined the special duties to be performed by the Commission—namely, "to inquire into the best mode of distributing the sewage of towns, and apply it to beneficial and profitable uses." I think the House will agree with me that the duties of the Commission were hereby clearly and distinctly defined, and that the Government deserved the thanks of the country for appointing a Commission to inquire into this great question. The Commission is still in existence, and still continues its labours. It has issued two Reports, one in 1858 the other in 1862. I have carefully, and with much attention, examined those documents, and I find the subject which principally occupied the attention of the Commission was not so much how to apply the sewage of towns to beneficial and profitable uses as how to get quit of it. At page 13, Second Report, they say— But it must be borne in mind that we have also expressed a strong opinion that the agricultural question is of very secondary importance, the main and urgent problem being not so much how to turn the sewage of towns to any money-producing account as how least injuriously and with most economy to get quit of it. This, Sir, is plain language, and leaves no doubt as to the motives, objects, and intentions of the Commission in respect of sewage. The Commissioners, regarding sewage from this point of view as a tiling to be got quit of, naturally sought to do this in the least expensive manner; and I find, in speaking of Croydon, where the sewage of that town was cast on an area of only ninety-four acres, they say (page 22, Second Report)— This case may be regarded to some extent as an additional proof of how small a proportionate quantity of land will actually suffice for the daily disposal of the sewage of a town, regarded simply as a means of getting rid of it without a nuisance. Speaking of the Edinburgh meadows, they say— The Edinburgh meadows afford the largest instance in Great Britain of the application of sewage by gravitation. The operation has been carried on over some of the meadows for more than sixty years. They comprise in all about 325 imperial acres, and receive the sewage of about 80,000 people. I wish to do away with a delusion which exists in the public mind in respect of those meadows. It is generally believed that the application of the sewage over these meadows is a great success, yet there never was a greater mistake; it is a perfect waste of most valuable manure, and the only person benefited is the owner of the land, who receives from twenty to thirty pounds per acre for land which, prior to the use of sewage, was not worth half-a-crown per acre. A gentleman of high position gave evidence before the Committee of last year, and, in the disinterestedness of his nature, he wished for no change in the mode of application indeed, he said, or intimated as much, that no part of this enormously-increased rent ought to be diverted from its present channel, to be applied to the laying down works to distribute the thousands and thousands of tons of valuable manure that are passed over those meadows needlessly, and which stink and engender disease in the surrounding dikes, not to speak of the truly enormous quantities that pass into the sea. The ratepayers of Edinburgh are in no way benefited by the present mode of application, and I would respectfully beg leave to direct the hon. Member for Montrose's (Mr. Baxter) attention to this fact. Here is an opportunity open to him to do great service to his country, and save for Edinburgh alone more than would pay the interest of the Galway subsidy. Of the value of sewage-application in the case no doubt can be raised. The evidence taken before the Select Committee of last year shows that from 10,000 to 20,000 tons of sewage is put on each acre of these lands each year. The sewage of Edinburgh has been analysed by several chemists of eminence, and found to contain at least two-pennyworth of manure in each ton, taking guano sold at £11 per ton as the standard. From this we see that the value of the sewage put on each acre at Edinburgh would be from £83 6s. 8d. to £166 13s. 4d. From the Report, we find that from £20 to £30 per acre is realized from the sale of the grass. From this we see that there is a loss of valuable manure, oil each acre, of from £63 6s.8d to £136 13s. 4d. over and above what is realized by the crop. Is this a great agricultural triumph, or is it merely a great success, as showing what enormous quantities of valuable matter can be got rid of in a limited area? This question is answered by the Commission at page 16 of the Report. They say— It may be safely asserted that the method pursued at Edinburgh deals with sewage, considered as a thing to be got rid of, with great success. I shall now proceed to examine the experiments at Rugby, conducted by Mr. Lawes for the Commission. Fifteen acres of land, in the occupation of a Mr. Campbell, are set aside for those experiments; they are divided into four lots, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. On Lot 2, 3,000 tons of sewage per acre per annum is distributed; on Lot 3, 6,000; on Lot 4, 9,000. The sewage is put on the land by flooding from open gutters, and it is important that the House bear this fact in mind. The Commissioners laid down for their guidance three modes by which they could determine the value of sewage:—1st, the effects of sewaged grass on fattening cattle; 2nd, the results on cows, as to the produce of milk and butter; 3rd, the quantity of hay produced on every thousand tons of sewage on each acre of land per year. In respect of the fat-toning- properties of sewaged grass, the Report states (page 28)— It is quite obvious, from the results given in the tables, that grass of the description in question is not adapted to the fattening of oxen, without the addition of other food; indeed, one of the animals on the sewaged grass weighed 531lb. less at the conclusion than at the commencement of the experiment, With reference to the experiment with cows giving milk, I may briefly state that the milk was sold at 8d. per gallon, and that only from £5 19s 9d. to £5 0s. 11d. could be obtained in return for every thousand tons of sewage applied to the acre of land, and that return was obtained where the smaller quantity of sewage was applied. It is necessary that I should thus show to the House the results obtained by the Commission, by their experiments, that it may understand the line of argument I propose taking. It appears also with respect to hay, from the Report, that the Commission could only obtain, in return for every thousand tons of sewage, three-quarters of a ton of hay, and they thus comment on the fact— This indicates that the constituents of dilute sewage can by no means be valued at the same value as those in portable artificial manures, such as guano. This, Sir, is passing strange when contrasted with what Mr. Lawes stated before the Committee. He told the Committee that the sewage of Rugby was about the same strength as that of London, and the latter has been analysed by several chemists, who show that in 1,250 tons of it there is an amount of fertilizing matter, which, if extracted and dried, would exactly correspond with that found in a ton of Peruvian guano, taking that at £11 a ton.

Now, Sir, I happen to know something of chemistry, of agricultural chemistry; and although not a professor of agriculture, although not a professional writer on agriculture, I found it my interest as a landlord to make myself acquainted with what could be done with the soil, and of the best modes of treating it with manures, so as to obtain from the land the greatest amount of advantage; and I confess that I cannot understand why it is, that if having in a manure a definite and well ascertained quantity of fertilizing matter, as is shown to be the case in sewage, that we should be unable to extract from it in crop that amount of advantage which our common sense tells us we have a right to expect. Is it because that the manure in sewage is in a liquid state? That, for a certainty, cannot be the ease; as the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Essex, Dr. Angus Smith, Mr. James Black-bourn, Professor Way, and even Mr. Lawes, shows that manure applied to the land in a liquid state has at least double the effect on a crop that the same quantity applied in a solid state: consequently the application of 1,000 tons of the sewage at Rugby should have had the effect of nearly two tons of guano; yet the Commission was unable to obtain more than three-quarters of a ton of hay for every thousand of sewage applied. Does not this appear strange? Perhaps the water in sewage chills the ground; checks and retards vegetation? But no; the evidence taken before the Committee shows that in sewage there is always a large amount of heat, in consequence of which there is always in land dressed with it a much earlier and later vegetation than in the adjoining land not so dressed. This cannot be the reason that at Rugby the Commission were unable hay to obtain only three-quarters of a ton of for each thousand tons of sewage applied. Perhaps, sewage is not a suitable manure for land. But on turning to evidence taken before the Committee, I find Professor Way, at Question 795, say— Q. Do you consider it judicious to apply any one description of manure to land to the exclusion of all others?—A. I think I have stated in a paper that sewage contains everything that you can possibly want on land. I do not say that it contains them in the proper proportions, but undoubtedly, provided the water is not an objection, you might produce with the contents of sewage almost any crop in existence; that leaves the question still open, whether the application of the contents in combination with a large quantity of water would be applicable to some crops. Now, Sir, we have hoard already, by the evidence of the same gentleman, that the introduction of the water doubled at least the effect of the manure upon the crop; and although he throws some doubt upon its applicability to some crops, the result obtained by the Commission of only being able to got three-quarters of a ton of hay for every thousand tons of sewage is wholly unaccountable. I shall be told that the bad results obtained by the Rugby experiment are to be accounted for from the extreme dilution of the sewage. Now, this is a theory that is propagated most industriously; it is preached at every market dinner-table, it is taught on every Corn Exchange in the Kingdom; but by whom is it taught? Why, Sir, by the agents of artificial manure companies. But is this all? No; articles are written and published in all our agricultural journals to the same effect. By whom? Why, Sir, by gentlemen largely interested in the sale or otherwise of artificial manures. We have lectures also. I see, Sir, by a late number of the Royal Agricultural Journal, that Professor Volker, chemist to the Royal Agricultural Society, has been lecturing on the inutility of sewage as a manure; and though this gentleman never in his life used a ton of town sewage, yet he most dogmatically lays down the doctrine that the sewage of our towns is so diluted that it is of no use. In another part of the same journal I find the same gentleman eulogizing, to the highest point, the artificial manures; and after vaingloriously telling the public that he was one of the great lights in chemistry that discovered the vast utility of artificial manures, he goes on to say that the agricultural interest—meaning the farmers—owe a deep debt of gratitude to such men as himself; as by their analyses of manures of companies by whom they are employed—and, I presume, paid for their labours—they, the fanners, can secure the most perfect stuff. The learned Professor, had he stopped here, would have done well; but he lets the secret out; for I find the following passage:— Although the trade in manures is getting more and more into the hands of a limited number of intelligent and large manufacturers, there are still to be found here and there small and ignorant makers who have neither skill, capital, nor enterprise to compete with a firm which does a large trade. This, Sir, is the monopoly which is crushing all attempts to utilize sewage, backed by the Peruvian Government and its agents in this country. This, Sir, is the monopoly the public have to contend against; and this, Sir, is the rich and powerful monopoly that does not wish for a general application of the sewage of our towns.

Now, Sir, let us see what the dilution means. In the preliminary Report of the Royal Commission I find, at page 38, Appendix No. 1, the Report of the Deputation appointed to visit Milan. It proceeds to say that they were appointed to compare the effects produced on lands irrigated with the waters that contain the refuse of the inhabitants with the irrigation with plain water. They go on to say that almost all the solid fæcal matter is retained in cesspools and carted away, and that only a few houses drain into the canal. The Report says— The proportion of solid matter, however, which finds its way into the sewers must be unusually small, for, besides the fecal matter is retained, the streets of Milan are kept scrupulously clean. From this we see that very little manure enters the sewers of Milan. With what quantity of water is it diluted? The Report tells us, at page 40, the daily quantity of water flowing from the city equals 160 gallons per head. This sewage is, indeed, diluted; scarcely any of the excreta of the inhabitants escapes into it. We would not call this sewage at all. The Report further states that nowhere is it as muddy as the Thames between the bridges, and yet much of the land so irrigated becomes so rich that the surface is pared off every few years, not, as erroneously stated by some writers, in order to preserve the levels of the land, but to obtain the vegetable matter as manure for other land, for which it is highly prized. Now, Sir, that is the effect produced on land by sewage diluted to an extent that we know knowthing of in this country. But I may be told that this irrigation takes place in Italy, a climate warmer than ours, and therefore more suitable for irrigation; but the warmth of the climate has nothing to say to the amount of fertilizing matter extracted from this much-diluted sewage by the land. I may here remark that the Report itself sots that point at rest. It states, at page 42, "No manure whatever is used on this land. The manure of the cattle fed with its produce is used elsewhere." On all the land irrigated with plain water a large quantity of manure, to the value of £4 8s. per acre per annum is at all times used to obtain the same produce from such land as here obtained from irrigation with the waters of the Vittabia; consequently this £4 8s. represents the difference of value between an acre of land irrigated with plain water and one irrigated with this exceedingly diluted sewage. And I may here remark that the Report states that the excreta thus put on, averages that of only forty persons per acre. If, Sir, as has been proved, the dilution with water of a given quantity of manure doubles its effects on the crops to which it may be applied; if, Sir, as proved, sewage contains everything you can want in land; if, Sir, as shown by the evidence, the heat always found in it stimulates vegetation, giving an earlier and a later crop; if, Sir, the earth, as proved by Professor Way, has the power to extract from liquids the manure they contain when applied in moderation—how is it that at Rugby the Royal Commission could only obtain in crop three-quarters of a ton of hay for each thousand tons of sewage? It clearly is not the fault of the sewage; it then must be the fault of the system of application adopted. The system is bad. What is the system? Mr. Lawes, under whom these experiments are carried out—experiments which are to determine for the nation the agricultural, and therefore the commercial value of sewage, states— Q. 414. "You put the sewage on the land from March until October; will the cattle teed well after that stinking sewage is put on?—Yes, very well. Q. 415. "How long afterwards?—It is cut the same day. The sewage is always running. We have done exactly as is done at Edinburgh. On returning to the first Report, at page 16, the Commission says, speaking of those meadows, "It may be safely asserted that the method pursued at Edinburgh deals with sewage, considered as a thing to be got rid of with great success." Was that, Sir, the object for which this Royal Commission was appointed? Was it to show us how to deal with sewage with great success considered as a thing to be got rid of? Was it for this purpose this Commission was appointed? or was it not rather to show us how to use it to the best advantage for beneficial and profitable uses? This Commission has now been in existence, and prosecuting its unpaid labours, since 1857; and the results arrived at by them are, that sewage is not applicable for any crop but grass, that the grass produced by its use is inferior, it is quite unfit for fattening, it is not good for milk, and to produce any result at all you must use this sewage in enormous dressings upon limited areas; but it will not pay commercially to lay down works of distribution over extended areas, and that you must therefore necessarily treat it as a nuisance—as a thing to be got rid of—for, as the Commission stated, they could only obtain, by the experiments at Rugby three-fourths of a ton of hay for each thousand tons of sewage applied, which indicates that the constituents of dilute liquid sewage can by no means be valued at the same rates as those in portable artificial manures such as guano.

Now, Sir, I join issue with the Royal Commission on each and every one of those statements; and I think, Sir, I shall be able to show the House and the country that they are not only incorrect, but diametrically opposed to all practical experience; and if I succeed in doing so, I have little doubt but the Government, in its laudable anxiety to solve this great social question, will feel itself called upon to dissolve a body which has so ill-discharged the important duties intrusted to its care. It appears, Sir, that what I may term the lay element of the Commission abdicated in favour of Mr. Lawes and Mr. Way; for I find that the experiments at Rugby have been wholly conducted by Mr. Lawes, and that Mr. Way acted as analytical chemist. It will simplify matters for the House if, in examining the Reports of the Commission, I give at the same time a brief examination of the evidence of Mr. Lawes before the Commitee, and contrast it with the evidence of other witnesses who had had large experience of the use of sewage. Mr. Lawes, at Question, 327, was asked— Will you give the Committee the value perton of the sewage you put on that land?—That I must take in milk; it would not fatten oxen at all when used alone. And at Question 465, speaking of sewaged grass, he was asked— Is it good to fatten cattle in stall, as well as to feed cows?—No, I think not. You might fatten them with other food, but not with that alone. And now let me remark, those answers entirely agree with the Report of the Royal Commission. But what say the other witnesses on the fattening properties of sewaged grass? Among several who gave evidence on this point, I may mention Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission. At Question 4, giving an account of the crop to which he applied sewage, he states— With regard to Italian rye-grass, to which undoubtedly the sewage is more suitable than to anything else, as far as my experience goes, on seven acres of Italian rye-grass, during the whole summer, I have fattened thirteen bullocks, kept seven or eight horses or ponies, and an indefinite number of pigs to eat up the refuse. I sold five of the bullocks at, I think, the end of July; they not having had any artificial food whatever, and the butcher was so well pleased with them that he expressed himself most desirous of taking all the others. Here, Sir, we find Mr. Lawes' assertions, and the Report of the Commission, do not agree with the results of Lord Essex's experience. But what do other witnesses say? From many, I may give one or two. Mr. George M'Cann, of Malvern, was asked, at Question 4,023— Do you find that sheep fatten on this grass?—As well as you can possibly wish. They cannot do better. Philip W. S. Miles, of Bristol, and formerly a Member of this House, at Question 4,264, was asked— From that fact would you believe that sewaged grass was food for fattening cattle?—I believe it is exceedingly good for fattening cattle; because I invariably reserve it for my fat stock, to put on after the hay crop is taken off, as fattening them better than anything which I have got. Mr. William Westwood, the late farm bailiff of the schools at Anerly, at Question 4,462, was asked— Did you find that it had fattening qualities?—Yes, a cow which would be bought at £12 to £13 in the spring was found to be worth £20 to £21 or £22 at the end of October or November, and I have sold them at that price. Now, Sir, the Report of the Royal Commission most emphatically states that sewaged grass is not good for fattening purposes, and that Report is supported by the positive evidence of Mr. Lawes. Both are, however, positively contradicted by the evidence of Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission, and by other writers. Which will this House credit? Which will the country believer Now, Sir, with reference to sewaged grass being good for milk, Mr. Lawes was asked, at Question 460— Do you consider fresh grass from unirrigated land as good in every respect as grass from irrigated land?—I think it is for milk purposes. Question 461— For feeding cows?—Yes; unsewaged grass is bettor in quality for the production of milk than the sewaged grass. A fine, fattening pasture, would do what sewaged grass would not do in any quantity. Sir, from the Report of the Commission and the evidence of Mr. Lawes, we clearly learn that sewaged grass is much inferior to unsewaged for milk purposes. Now, let us see what the other witnesses have to say on this point. Amongst others, we have the evidence of Mr. Alderman Mechi. At Question 984 he was asked— Have you any experience as to the amount of milk produced from cows fed upon grass grown upon land treated with sewage, and from the same cows fed upon other grasses?—The result is unmistakable; not only is the condition of the cow greatly improved, but, concurrently with it, the quality of the milk and its power of giving cream and butter, is very largely increased; its quantity is also increased, but its quality is enormously increased. Mr. George M'Cann, of Malvern, at Question 4,021, was asked— Have you taken any notice as regards the quality of the milk and butter produced by the cows fed on this grass?—It is as good as it can be, it could not be better. Mr. John King, of Birmingham, at Question 1685, was asked— Have you any experience as to the result of the quality of milk and butter which it produces?—The milk is good, and the butter we have the credit of making, the best quality; I think that that guarantees it. Mr. Philip W. S. Miles, of Bristol, at Question 4,263, was asked— Have you observed what has been the result of the sewage?—I think I may say that the principal result is this—that with cows, when they are turned out, there is a very marked difference in the quantity and richness of the cream; it is quite observable even to an ignorant, person; the dairymaids would find out that there was more cream, and they have so stated; they could not account for it. And the farm bailiff of Mr. Miles, with reference to the effect of sewaged grass on the cattle at King's Weston, was asked, at Question 13— Is there any improvement in the richness of the milk when the cows are put in the field?—Yes, it increases the butter—from three to four ounces per quart of cream. Now, Sir, the Report of the Royal Commission, and the evidence of Mr. Lawes in support of his own experiments for the Commission, convey to us distinctly that sewaged grass is not good for milk or butter. The House has heard some of the evidence in my power to bring forward to contradict the Royal Commission and Mr. Lawes. Which will the House believe? Which will the country credit? With respect to the propriety of applying sewage to general fanning purposes, the first Report, at page 18, says that the sewage may be applied to all crops; but then it goes on to qualify this admission by saying that it cannot be applied to general farming. Now, Sir, what is the sage reason given by the Commission to support this proposition? Why, Sir, because we cannot keep pouring it on; as if any farmer in his senses would keep pouring that or any other manure on his land in season or out of season. But, Sir, what does Lord Essex the Chairman of the Commission say on this point? His Lordship, having applied sewage with most beneficial effect to all crops, turnips, and mangold, rye, grass, and wheat, says— I can speak to the decided improvement of all crops on the land treated with sewage. On the same point Mr. Way, in his evi- dence before the Committee, at Question 940— Can you apply sewage with advantage to a low land with a view to the growing a wheat crop afterwards?—I think you could so perfectly well in small quantities, not to deluge the land; you could do it almost as well as you could apply it to the young wheat, I believe. Q. 941. Do you think there would be a sensible effect on the land?—Yes, from the fact that it is not the plant, but the soil, that looks after the interests of the plant; the soil is engaged in abstracting from liquid manure the constituents which make it valuable. Q. 942. Could you in that way to any extent get over the difficulty by applying the liquid sewage to the land before it is planted?—Yes, but you cannot go beyond a certain point in that way, or the power ceases. Now, Sir, it is clear, that if sewage be applied rationally, it is applicable to all crops, and that large dressings destroy the power of the land to extract from liquid manure the constituents which make it valuable. In corroboration of this testimony of the general applicability of sewage to all crops, and the propriety of small dressings, we have the evidence of Mr. Philip Miles, of Bristol, Mr. West-wood, of Anerly Schools, and Lord Essex, and other witnesses. The first of these gentlemen, by the sewage of thirty persons over fourteen acres of land, increased its value from 55s. £5 an acre. The second gentleman produced as large a crop of hay from the application of 1,500 tons of sewage by the hose and jet, as he could get by the application of 8,000 tons by open gutters. My Lord Essex applied 600 tons per acre to his hay crop, and he states that— For the grass land I can only afford 600 tons per acre, and I get an extraordinary crop of grass, such as I never saw before using the sewage. Dr. Wiley, of Birmingham told the Committee that they all used too much sewage; they treated it as a drug; but that he considered that sewage should not pass deeper into land than four or five inches, as the roots of plants seldom went further into the earth. We have, Sir, a distinguished Member of the Royal Commission in the House, a Gentleman of high social standing, of great personal worth, and who is esteemed and deservedly respected by every Member of this House, who, no doubt, will speak on this question, and whose every word will command attention—he, Sir, will explain how it has so happened that this Commission, which was in the words of the warrant that appointed the Commission to inquire into the best mode of applying the sewage of our towns to beneficial and profitable uses, was converted into a Sanatory Commission, as is shown by the first Report, which treats of nothing but the sanatory state of our rivers, and a plan for the removal of our sewage to the sea. He, Sir, will tell us how the Commission came to the conclusion that the agricultural question was one of secondary importance, and that sewage was not to be turned into a money producing account, but was to be got quit of. He, Sir, will tell us by what process of reasoning, or by what experiments, the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the sewage of our towns was not to be compared in point of value to artificial manures, such as guano. He, Sir, will be able to inform the House why it happened that the land chosen for the experiments was the worst possible that could have been found, and why the same was not prepared for the reception of the sewage. He, Sir, must explain why grass alone, and that the most unfit, was experimented on, when at the same time the noble Chairman of the Commission was getting 50 per cent more of a crop by its application to a proper grass. Mr. Philip Miles, who made certain experiments at Rugby, when asked, at Question 4,299, if he could account for the bad results obtained by the Commission, says— From experience I cannot account for it at all, because I have imagined the result to have been much greater; the only way, may-be, which I can account for it is, that if the land was drained and of a very porous nature, I think that it is not impossible that a great quantity of the sewage may have run away through the drains. I have seen at certain times the sewage run from the drain-mouths quite visibly, and therefore it is possible that a great quantity of that sewage ran away as fast as it was put on. This is the true explanation of the failure of the so-called natural scientific experiments. But what does Mr. James Black-bourn say as to the experiments at Rugby, a gentleman of general experience in farming, and who closely examined all the improvements carried on in England and Scotland? At Question 1,833, speaking of the plan of open carriers as at Rugby, says— To produce a good crop each square yard of the land should be in such a state as to absorb what was due to it, so as to insure an equal growth. The correctness of the proposition no one can doubt.

Now, Sir, let us see if the land at Rugby was so prepared as to answer the purposes for which it was intended, namely, to determine the true value of sewage as an application as manure to land. Mr. Blackbourn, to Question 1,866, says of Rugby— There was unequal distribution in the first place, the sewage was conveyed over the land by open channels, and the growth presented a great want of uniformity; they had also made no endeavour to select that variety of grass which might be best suited to the altered circumstances in which the land was placed; they were making these experiments on land, which might have been, and doubtless were, specially suitable to its previously existing condition as pasture land, but I do not consider them at all fitted to yield an adequate return from large applications of sewage. I know from my own experience that a difference may be made in the variety of grass alone of 50 per cent; therefore, looking at a certain quantity of milk as representing the manufactured article from a given quantity of sewage, I think that attention to this would form an important item in the result. Mr. Blackbourn, in answer to Question 1,919, says, speaking of the land at Rugby- I thought it was very well suited to the grass in its previously existing state, a natural pasture; but when compared with other grasses that I have seen under irrigation, I did not consider that it was at all applicable to irrigation. As to the mode of application carried on at Rugby, Mr. Blackbourn, at Question 1,905, was asked— You have stated that one-third of sewage application by means of the hose and jet was of three times more value than by the ordinary surface, irrigation?—Yes, that is the result which I drew from the experience which I have had and seen. But now, Sir, let us see what Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission, says as to the experiments carried on under the direction of Mr. Lawes. At Question 76 his Lordship replies— There have been some very interesting experiments made, under the superintendence of Mr. Laws, at Rugby, in an agricultural point of view, but I do not think they have been carried out in a manner to prove the full value of sewage, inasmuch as they have been only carried out upon meadow grass, and as I suggested to Mr. Lawes at the last meeting of the Commission, that it is not a fair trial of sewage; because if a certain quantity of sewage will give a certain quantity of meadow grass, I am convinced that the same quantity of it will give a double return of artificial grass. And yet, Sir, in the face of this evidence Mr. Lawes perseveres in the same way; in the face of this evidence the Chancellor of the Exchequer is called upon to advance more money; in the face of this evidence Mr. Lawes came before the Committee, and declared that he could only get 1d. in return for every ton of sewage so misused, and that the value of the excreta of each person put on the land was only worth 1s. 6d. to 2s. a head. Was this fair, was it just, nay more, was it honest? His Lordship has put it on public record that he considers the experiments not fair, or likely to obtain the full value of sewage. If those experiments were not to obtain the full value of sewage, wherein consists their value as a reference? I shall be told, perhaps, that Mr. Lawes is a gentleman of high position and standing. This may be so, but he is also the greatest manure manufacturer in the world, and therefore the man of all England who must be most injured by a profitable and economic utilization of sewage. Is it not, therefore, a self-evident absurdity for this country to leave it to this gentleman and Mr. Way, another manufacturer, to determine what is the agricultural value of sewage—of a competing manure, which is, in effect, to fix the relative market value of sewage and those manures which they manufacture? Mr. Lawes has shown us, by his experiments, that he can only obtain in crop from 1s. to 2s. per head per annum for the sewage of each person applied. But, Sir, those results do not determine the value of sewage. They simply prove the impropriety of that mode of application which he so strongly recommends, and more especially so, when they are contradicted by other witnesses. As in the case of Mr. Miles, who shows us a return of £1 5s. per head per annum for the sewage of each person applied. I do not wish to bear with unnecessary severity upon Mr. Lawes, but it does appear to me that he is is about the most unfit person in England to have carried on these experiments for this Commission, and that a better proof could not be afforded to us of the great agricultural value of sewage than the deep anxiety manifested by this gentleman and his friends to prove that sewage cannot compete with their manures. I therefore trust that the Government will at once relieve this Commission from the burden of those labours which by delegating to Mr. Lawes they have openly proclaimed to be too heavy for them.

MR. KER SEYMER

said, that the hon. Member in his notice had not properly described the object of the Commission, as it was not to inquire into the best mode of utilizing sewage, but into the best mode of getting rid of it. The hon. Member had asked him how it came to be converted into a sanatory Commission, and he would tell him. When the municipal authorities of the different towns had introduced the new system of water supply and drainage works, they were placed in considerable difficulty as to getting rid of their sewage. The streams that ran through their towns having become polluted, the local authorities were threatened with actions at law in all directions; and under those circumstances they applied to the Board of Health to know what they were to do. That Board applied in turn to the Treasury, who thereupon issued a Commission to inquire:—First, into the most harmless manner of getting rid of the sewage of towns; and secondly, into the best mode of applying it, if possible, to agricultural purposes. The Commissioners began their labours with the first branch of their inquiry, and all the towns in which works for deodorizing the sewage existed were visited, and their operations examined, the results being reported to the Treasury, whose sanction was obtained to all the expenditure incurred for the purposes of the investigation. The Commissioners found that the common lime process was cheap, and, in ordinary cases, successful; but it was not entirely satisfactory, because, under certain circumstances, the matter would again ferment. They came to the conclusion that the metallic process was better, and that the best material to use was per-chloride of iron. All processes left a residuum, which at first wag believed to be valuable. He was not at all surprised at the false impression, which existed with regard to the value of sewage, because the public confounded sewage and night soil. Persons had heard of the great value of night soil in Belgium, China, and other countries; but they forgot that in England, which had adopted a new system, sewage, though containing the same ingredients, yet contained them in a different shape, and mixed with an enormous quantity of water. That led to a great deal of the fallacy which still existed in reference to the question. An idea had also prevailed that the solid residuum of the town sewage was valuable, and a great deal of money had been sunk by local authorities to obtain it; but the inquiries of the Royal Commission had set that point at rest, and shown that it was of very little value. The farmers of the immediate neighbourhood would, indeed, go and re- move it, and, perhaps, pay a small price for it; but it was quite in vain for the ratepayers to look for any considerable return from it towards the expense of their sanatory improvements. If, indeed, they were prepared to take a retrograde step, and do as they did in Belgium, no doubt there would be valuable produce to dispose of; but he did not believe that this country would ever take a step in that direction. In small towns and villages, perhaps, something might be done by adopting a practice described in the last number of the Agricultural Journal. The Commissioners further turned their attention to the "utilization" of liquid sewage in the sense in which the hon. Member used the word. Places were visited at which the liquid manure was used on farms, the object of the Commission being rather to ascertain the mode of distribution. It was found that liquid manure was far more valuable than sewage; the former had to be, but the latter already was, diluted. The hon. Member had spoken very strongly with reference to the inquiries prosecuted by the Commission; but he (Mr. Ker Seymer) answered the hon. Member by reference to the Report of his own Commission, which passed a Resolution that careful and exact experiments were necessary to elucidate the agricultural value of sewage and the best mode of applying it, that such experiments had been made by the Commission appointed to inquire into the best mode of distributing the sewage of towns and applying it to beneficial and profitable uses, and that it was desirable that these experiments should be continued during the present year. That Committee was a competent one, and the Members showed their good sense by adopting a sensible Report. How they came to adopt the analysis of evidence by the hon. Member was a question they would have to discuss on Tuesday next, and was one on which there was a good deal to be said. All he could then say was that the analysis had certainly been received with ridicule and contempt by the agricultural world. Then the hon. Gentleman asked, why was Mr. Lawes intrusted with the experiments? He could only say because there was not so good a man to conduct them in England. Mr. Lawes had discovered valuable manures, and dealt in them, but he was also an English gentleman and entirely incapable of being actuated by those motives which had been attributed to him by the Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Lawes made no manures to lay on land in the neighbourhood of large towns; and there must remain millions of acres in England for which the manures of Mr. Lawes, and persons of his stamp, would still lie in request. That, however, was too low a ground on which to take the matter: he would rather stand on Mr. Lawes' character. Mr. Lawes was well known. The fanners of England, never having been deceived by him, thoroughly trusted him; and he did not believe that his character would be at all affected by what the hon. Member had said of him. Mr. Way had also been spoken of as if he were an agricultural manure dealer; but he was no such thing, although he had once long ago allowed his name to appear in connection with a fish-burning company. He might as well say that the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Brady) was himself a dealer in manure because his name had appeared in the list of a blood manure company. He would next come to the evidence of Lord Essex. The noble Lord said that the experiment ought to be tried on Italian rye grass. Well, Mr. Lawes was trying the experiment on it, and the reason he had not done so before was because rye grass was a rotation crop, and the experiment would therefore be very expensive; but he thought that the first sentence of the noble Lord's evidence put the hon. Chairman of the Committee out of Court. He said that he used 6,000 tons per acre of the sewage of the town of Watford a year on rye grass, but he had none to spare for his wheat. He had once applied it to wheat, and certainly he got a most extraordinary result; for whilst other parts of his estate only produced forty-four bushels per acre, that on which he used the manure produced fifty-three bushels. That was a most extraordinary result, and one not likely to be again obtained. At Rugby alone they laid down pipes on 400 acres, and used sewage on only twenty. That was the result of experience, which showed that a large quantity of sewage only produced a small amount of fertilizing results. The whole object of the hon. Member, with his Committee, appeared to have been to find the witnesses who would say that town sewage was worth 2d. a ton, but in that he did not succeed. All they could be got to say was that the chymical ingredients in it amounted to that, taking guano as a standard; but it was impossible to get rid of the enormous dilution of water. Professor Way put the case very well thus:—He said the difference in the value of town sewage and other manure might thus be shown. If a man owed him £4 15s. and brought him an ounce of gold, that was payment; but if he brought him a block of quartz containing an ounce of gold, it was not; the value was depreciated by the difficulty of getting at the gold, and the value of the manure was lessened by the immense quantity of water that was with it Professor Way, notwithstanding what had been said about his being influenced by his interest against the use of sewage, had done more for it than any other man, because he was the first to show, that within five minutes after its application to the land it became entirely deodorized. But they could not be always throwing water on the land, they wanted at times to keep it dry. The question of price was considered important by Lord Essex. He said, under ordinary circumstances, at three farthings per ton it would do well; at a halfpenny it would do very well; but not at 2d. per ton. The Chairman had laid great stress on the high character and experience of Mr. Miles; but Mr. Miles bad expressed great dislike to be examined, because he had not accurate figures to lay before the Committee; and he had found the sewage rather a nuisance, having applied it rather near his house. He said he found the sewage stronger than the farm-yard manure; but then that sewage was quite a different thing from the sewage of towns; and therefore, although the application of it was very successful in this instance, it had no bearing on the case. The expenditure of public money in experiments had entirely taken place at Rugby; and although they had been most carefully conducted by Mr. Lawes, it was not impossible, that under certain circumstances, greater results would have been obtained. Mr. Westwood had said, that if they put 300 tons of sewage on a certain quantity of land, they would not get more by putting 5,000 tons over the same space; but Mr. Lawes' experience directly contradicted that. The truth of the matter was, that if the Royal Commission had reported that the sewage was worth 2d. a ton, and might be spread over a large area in small quantities, the House would have heard nothing about spending the public money on the Royal Commission. Various projects, in all directions, had been checked for the moment by the cold wind of the Report of the Royal Commission; but let any slur be cast on the proceedings of that Commission, and then all those projects will bask in the sunshine of the analysis of evidence referred to by the hon. Chairman of the Select Committee; they would come into flower, but he believed they would never produce any fruit. This was an important question, for in London the Board of Works were advertising for persons to deal with them in reference to sewage. Agriculturists were not deceived on the subject, but he believed that town councillors, and persons not conversant with agriculture, were likely to make great mistakes and involve ratepayers in large expenditure. He had had sent to him an amusing pamphlet, in which the author abused the Royal Commission roundly. It turned out that the writer had a scheme of his own for pumping up the sewage of London some hundred feet and spreading it over some thousands of acres. Mr. Mechi supported the scheme, and took a somewhat sentimental view of the matter. Mr. Mechi said that the population of London consumed the produce of many millions of acres, and that they ought to return that produce in the shape of manure over 300,000 or 400,000 acres. That was very sentimental, but it was not business. Would it pay? He had very great respect for Mr. Mechi, and admired his talents and hospitality; but he believed the establishment at Tiptree Hall was kept up by the establishment in Leadenhall Street. He was by no means thin-skinned; and if the House thought the time had come when they should put an end to public expenditure on that head, he should be happy to stop; but he should inform the House that the £2,000 it was asked to vote was nearly all spent, and that it would be sufficient to complete the experiments.

MR. COWPER

said, that the question of the application of sewage to land had hitherto been considered one of practical science, but the hon Member for Leitrim had made the subject one of passion and feeling. The hon. Member held, on the subject, opinions not shared by other persons. He maintained that sewage must, under all circumstances and in all places, be always worth 2d. a ton, although the value must really vary according to the cost of conveyance to the soil; and he preferred a wide and diluted application to a concentrated one. These opinions met with no support from the Royal Commission. Not having been able to answer the Reports of the Royal Commission, he now suggested that the Commission, should be altogether silenced. In that proposition he could not agree with the hon. Member, for he thought the more the subject was inquired into, the better chance there was of coming to a right conclusion. The experiments to which the hon. Member for Leitrim objected were experiments conducted by the very first authority in England or the world. There was no authority on questions of practical agricultural chymistry that could be compared with that of Mr. Lawes. The hon. Member thought that the experiments of Mr. Lawes were not to be attended to, because that gentleman was a maker of manure; but that circumstance constituted, in reality, a reason for attaching importance to the valuable experiments carried on now for two years. No one who knew anything of Mr. Lawes' high character would ever suspect him of being so base as to make false experiments with a view to his own interest.

MR. BRADY

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting what he had said. He merely said the experiments were made in a way that could not produce any result but that which had been produced. He did not say that Mr. Lawes acted from any motive or object, but only said that the experiments of Mr. Lawes were imperfect.

MR. COWPER

said, he was glad to hear the withdrawal of anything like imputation against Mr. Lawes. If, as the hon. Member said, the experiments were imperfect, that was a reason for allowing them to be continued. He thought that the Royal Commission had answered the purpose for which it was appointed, at a time when various towns were in great difficulty to know how to dispose of their sewage advantageously, and the Reports of the Commission contained valuable suggestions for municipal bodies. He trusted that the Commission would continue their labours and complete the experiments upon which they were engaged, for they could not do a more useful work at the present moment than by showing to those municipal bodies, who had to dispose of town sewage, how best they might do so. Even those who had to direct the municipal affairs of the great metropolis might very usefully study the question, for they were about to throw into the Thames, or into the sea, the whole sewage of London. Hitherto, people had despaired of being able to utilize it, because the proportion of gravel and water overwhelmed the fertilizing part of the manure. The problem had certainly yet to be solved, but he believed that it could be solved, mid it was to the labours of the Commission that he chiefly looked for such a result. He hoped that they would not feel disheartened by anything which had been said that evening, but would rest satisfied that their labours were appreciated by those whose good opinion they would most desire to secure; and if they only ended by showing how the sewage of London might be poured out upon the barren and sandy soil which lay within reach of the town, it might at last be hoped that what had been done with such extraordinary success in Edinburgh might be attempted with equal success in the South.

MR. PAGET

said, it was the want of knowledge of the hon. Member for Leitrim, and the want of a correct understanding of the evidence, which had led him to make the statements he had made. His object in rising was to state, that having given great attention to the proceedings of the Committee, attending every meeting, there was no evidence brought before them at all to be compared in value with that they received from the Royal Commission. He trusted, rather than diminish the grant, a more liberal sum would be devoted to the purpose of carrying out these valuable experiments.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would remind the House that the Committee had not been unanimous in their wish that the Commission should continue its labours, as the decision to which reference had been made was arrived at only by a majority of five to four. For himself he objected to the continuance of the Commission, because, unless the experiments which had been instituted were greatly extended, they would be of very little use. To carry on only one set of experiments upon one particular soil was calculated to mislead the public, by putting forward conclusions drawn from narrow and imperfect premisses. If the Commission were really to labour to any useful purpose, experiments should be conducted upon different soils, and on different conditions, with different sorts of agricultural produce, ordinary grass, Italian rye grass, and so forth. But the result of this would be an enormous farming establishment, costing an enormous sum of money; and therefore, without desiring to reflect in any way upon the Gentlemen who com- posed the Commission, he ventured to think that its experiments, as now conducted, might, in the end, instead of advancing, retard the object which everybody desired to secure—namely, the utilization of town sewage. It was impossible for a Commission sitting in London to conduct those experiments with care, caution, and economy. Certainly, the Rugby experiment was not carried on upon that footing. The system there was one which would ruin any farmer in this country. He desired to see the sewage of towns utilized, but he should like to see it dealt with practically, by persons for their own private advantage; and he was sure the result would be arrived at sooner and better that way than by any Royal Commission, conducting rigid experiments according to mathematical rules.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that there was a class of persons who invested their money in manure speculations, and from whom the agriculturists were often induced to buy spurious manures; but of all "manure doctors," none, in his opinion, were so dangerous as those who talked of utilizing the sewage of towns. To Royal Commissions in general he objected, but this was one of the few which were likely to do good, because it would check the operations of a parcel of speculators, who otherwise might induce the agriculturists to believe that town sewage would improve their land. It was his opinion that a large proportion of the metropolitan sewage was of no use whatever to agriculturists. With regard to Mr. Lawes, he must say, as a member of the Royal Agricultural Society, that there was no man, as an agricultural experimentalist, in whom, from the highest to the lowest, from the landowner to the tenant farmer, they had more confidence than that gentleman. He was sorry to say, that because he happened to sell a peculiar kind of manure, it should be imputed that he would give any other opinion than an honest one. There was, besides, this fact—that the kind of manure for which Mr. Lawes had taken out a patent did not come into competition with sewage, and therefore to cast any slur upon the evidence which Mr. Lawes had given was most unfair.