§ Order for Committee read.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he desired to make a few observations on going into Committee as the second reading had been taken at a time when no one expected the Bill to come on, and he did not hear the speech of his right hon. Friend, for although the measure was simply a consolidating one, it was very important. It was of such importance, indeed, that 875 he thought more time ought to have been allowed for the consideration of its principle before they were asked to consider its details in Committee. Ample justice had not been done to its provisions on the second reading, and that stage had been passed in too great a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) proposed that the whole country should be placed under the supervision of medical authorities in London. To that system of centralization he (Colonel Barttelot) was entirely opposed. He had no objection to there being a small body of medical men in London, to whom the local authorities could apply for advice or assistance; but he thought it would be a monstrous and a mischievous thing for a central body of medical authorities to over-ride local medical officers who were well qualified for their duties. On that point he concurred in what he understood to have been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) whether the Act passed two years ago had been working satisfactorily; whether he had any opportunity of seeing how the appointments of medical officers under that Act had been working; and if he proposed to make any alterations with regard to the election of those officers? The leading journal had discussed in a friendly spirit the proposition to which he had referred. He made no complaint of that, because he believed the leading journal was animated by a spirit of fairness to everybody, and always advocated the policy which seemed to it best calculated to serve the interests of the public. But he felt bound to dissent from its views in the present instance. He believed there would be no difficulty in finding eminent medical men in the provinces who could do everything that a Board in London could do; and those gentlemen might each, if necessary, have a district of considerable extent placed under his supervision, where he could devote his whole time to the carrying out of the Act. This Bill was of so important a character that it ought to be looked into with the utmost care. In several important points of detail he thought it was open to some amendment. For instance, when the sanitary condition of a 876 small town or village was improved, it would surely be more equitable to make the town or village defray the cost of the improvements itself than to lay it on the ratepayers of the whole parish. With respect to the water supply, again, he thought the Bill would not be sufficiently operative. There were many districts in the country which had an abundant supply of good fresh water, and other districts lying adjacent to them which had none. Well, the districts which had the supply would be willing to supply those which had none, provided they were enabled to do so under proper regulations, but he feared such provisions were not contained in the Bill. He trusted this point would be considered. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by saying that, notwithstanding the remarks he had made, he had no wish to prevent the Bill going into Committee.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKregarded the Bill as one of the most important measures of the Session. His complaint against it was, that whilst it gave immense powers over private property for local government purposes, it did not give the public any powers over the sanitary Boards that were to be armed with such high authority. Another objection he had to the Bill was, that it did not make adequate provision for the establishment of fever hospitals, and the consequent reduction of contagious diseases. He further regretted that the Bill, like so many of its predecessors, was so largely permissive in its character. He would have liked it to have armed the public with greater powers to compel the rural authorities to do their duty.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR, said, he had not, as was supposed by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Barttelot), proposed that the local medical authorities should be under the control of a central Board in London. "What he proposed was simply that the very qualified medical officers now attached to the Central Board should be more extensively used for disease prevention in the country. At present, when an epidemic raged in a district, they went down to inquire into the cause, locking the doors when the steed was stolen. But they possessed the knowledge and ability to prevent disease if the Local Government Board would 877 only use them efficiently for that purpose. They would thus co-operate with, but would not control, either the local Boards or the local medical officer of health. On the general question, he protested against the manner in which the Bill had been urged forward. It was only as hon. Members entered the House that they received copies of the amended Bill, together with copies of the explanatory paper.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that the paper referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was simply a reprint of a paper which had been before the House for the last two months.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRbegged pardon. He understood the paper to be an explanation of the new Amendments proposed to be made in the measure. While he admitted that, as a consolidating scheme, the Bill deserved praise and acceptance, he could not admit that it went far enough to be regarded as an efficient or a sufficient amending Bill.
§ MR. ABEL SMITHsaid, he hoped great care would be taken to render the Bill thoroughly efficient in so far as it dealt with the question of water supply.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it seemed to be supposed that a deficiency in the water supply was confined to agricultural districts. As a matter of fact, the mining districts were in quite as bad case as the agricultural districts in this respect. Where large towns were built, like Birmingham, upon elevated ground, there was the greatest difficulty in securing an adequate supply of water during the summer months, and the pollution of our rivers, which were spreading disease instead of health down their courses, was attributable to the inadequacy of the supply of water for the purpose of sewerage in the high-level towns. The use of water for purpose of sewerage had become essential to the health of these large towns, and the great difficulty in our legislation was that there was no comprehensive system by which any local authority might be empowered to apply to the Government of the day or some central authority for powers to collect water in sufficient quantity for the supply and purification of these towns. This question of diffusing water amongst the population during the summer months 878 lay at the root of all real sanitary reform.
§ MR. HENLEYregretted that the Government had thought fit to go on with this Bill so soon after it had been reprinted, because when it was read a second time the country was informed that the Government would make certain alterations in it. When that announcement was made every one suspended his hand, and since that time it had been quite impossible to have any communication with constituents upon the provisions of the Bill. An Amendment of which Notice had been given, he believed, by an hon. Gentleman opposite illustrated the hasty way in which the Bill had been drawn. The 16th clause gave power to take lands within the district of a local authority, and as far as he (Mr. Henley) saw, there was no compensation secured for a person over whose land power was given to make sewers. He might be very wrong in that; but he thought, looking at both limbs of the 307th clause, which was a long way from the 16th, it was very doubtful whether what was called the Compensation Clause—namely, the 307th—was certain to provide compensation in such a case. He did not suppose the House was inclined to give power to make sewers over people's land, open or close, without giving them proper compensation. He agreed in the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend as to the danger of allowing local authorities to shunt off their responsibility to a central authority. Local doctors would have no desire to take responsibility upon themselves if they could say when a question arose that a doctor would come down from London to settle it. Local authorities must be induced to take an interest in these matters if the Act was to be successful; for, if its provisions were to be carried out simply by edicts from a central office, the whole subject would soon stink in the nostrils of the localities. Great care ought to be taken to leave responsibility with the localities, because that would induce good men in the localities to apply their minds to the subject, and by that way, in his judgment, this measure would be fairly worked out. There was another point on which he wished to make a remark. He did not think that power should be given to drive a man and his children—whether they were six or 100 879 —out of their home on the ground that it was overcrowded and compel them to sleep under hedges. He (Mr. Henley) had been blessed with a large family, and he should be sorry to inflict on an humble man and his family that sort of treatment. He thought that subject would require consideration. This measure would form a nice exercise for the Select Committee inquiring into the drafting of Bills. They could not have a better illustration of the common practice of composing Bills by pitchforking other Bills into them without reference to the relatives, antecedents, and all those other matters by which alone sense could be made of them.
§ DR. LUSHcomplained of the chaotic state of the law with regard to the appointment of medical officers a state of things which arose from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) when President of the Local Government Board having chosen to make the Board of Guardians the rural Sanitary Authority. For the purpose of insuring that the medical officers appointed by local authorities were duly qualified, he thought their appointment should require approval on the part of the central authority.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that villages would not be adequately supplied with water until the area of supply was made coterminous with the area of taxation. In some villages where there had been a good deal of energy and local effort the inhabitants had formed themselves into small limited liability companies for the purpose of supplying themselves with water. He was strongly in favour of the granting to local authorities of compulsory powers to provide for the storage of water by the construction of reservoirs, so as to prevent the great waste which now occurred.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) had inquired whether there was any intention on the part of Government to extend into the country any system of medical inspection from London beyond that already prevailing. There was an admirable staff of medical officers attached to the Central Department, but they were not numerically strong enough to undertake the work referred to, and there was no intention of increasing 880 their number. The localities must be encouraged to bestir themselves in the matter, and to appoint skilled and competent Inspectors, who would be subject to the control and direction of the local authority. He had also been asked how the Public Health Act had worked, and speaking generally—for he could not then go into detail—he might say that he was very well satisfied with the progress made, considering the short time the compulsory system had been in operation and the nature of the business for the first time enforced upon the localities. He was more than satisfied, not only with the progress made, but with the readiness the local authorities had displayed in availing themselves of the encouragement which the Act gave, and even of the obligation which it imposed upon them. He was glad to say that a great deal of education on the subject was, so to say, growing up, even in remote parts of the country—much more than could have been reasonably expected three years ago. His hon. and gallant Friend had also asked whether he advocated the appointment of medical officers of health on a large scale; and he replied that he did, and in so doing followed the policy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He was not, however, prepared to render such appointments compulsory, or to commit himself to the opinion that, under certain circumstances, the appointment of the Poor Law medical officers would not be a sufficient appointment. This Bill would give the Local Government Board a useful power of compulsion in regard to the formation of districts; and upon this point he must remind the House of the impossibility of accompanying a Consolation Bill with root and branch Amendments of the kind which had been mentioned. The Amendments now in the hands of hon. Members were the same as those of which Notice was given two months ago, the only difference being in the lettering of the clauses in the course of reprinting. They were, with a few exceptions, corrections of technical and clerical errors, and matters of that character as to which no conflict of opinion could occur; and there was consequently no force in the objection to proceeding with the Bill at this time. A fear had been expressed that a portion of a district might be benefited by expenditure 881 under the sanitary Acts at the expense of another portion which would receive no benefit whatever; but there was under the existing law ample power to divide a rate and to charge upon the district benefited the special expenses of special improvements. There were cases, how-ever, in which the sanitary authority might reasonably spend a moderate amount of money in providing public fountains or other means of access to water for the poorer inhabitants. He was aware that the powers of getting water were deficient, especially in the mineral and the highland rural districts. The subject had been brought most painfully under his notice during the water famine of last Summer. He was fully alive to its importance, and should have been very glad if he had been able to deal with it effectually in the present Bill. But there were three great difficulties to be met in dealing with the question of compulsory water supply. The first was the rights of existing water companies; next, the rights of private owners, which were most jealously guarded; and next, the difficulty of forcing owners of private property to lay out money, or submit to be charged with expenses over which they had no control. He did not, however, say that those difficulties could not be overcome; but he did not think they could be in a Consolidation Bill. The attention of himself and the Government had been drawn to the subject by an important and influential deputation which had recently waited upon him. They urged the necessity of inquiry by Royal Commission, and he had been furnished with subjects of the proposed inquiry by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair). As soon as the attention of the Government could be directed to this and other subjects not immediately pressing for solution during the present Session this subject would be most seriously considered by them, and they would not hesitate to appoint such a Commission if they thought the question could in that way be more rapidly brought to a satisfactory conclusion. If they thought that they would be unable so to limit an inquiry by Commission as to receive an early and immediate Report upon which they could proceed by legislation or otherwise, they would undertake to deal with the matter upon their own responsibility. The hon.
882 Baronet behind him (Sir Lawrence Palk) complained that this Bill did not make provision for the compulsory establishment of hospitals. A Notice had been given to insert clauses with this object. At present he was not prepared to carry the compulsory provisions any further. It had been suggested that the public officer of the district should come between a private individual and his medical attendant. He did not think that public would approve of any such provision at present. He should not be justified in risking the whole Bill by the endeavour to introduce into it provisions which would be likely to excite strong opposition. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) said, that good might be done by greater watchfulness on the part of the Department of the death-rate of the country. His right hon. Friend wished, in fact, to see a Department of Preventive State Medicine. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the Returns of the Registrar General were most carefully watched by the medical officer of the Board, and the quarterly Returns were submitted to him as President of the Board, and selections were made of those cases where visitation and inquiry seemed necessary. He hoped that as time went on, more work would be accomplished by the Department in the way of visitation and inquiry into preventable diseases. With regard to the 16th clause, he could assure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) that ample powers were given for the protection of private owners if their property was interfered with in the construction of sewers. He would only add that although hon. Members might think that the Bill had come before the House rather quickly after being reprinted, yet the substantial Amendments proposed by the Government had been before the House and the country for three months, and no Bill had been more carefully scanned and watched by clerks to local Boards and other skilled and competent persons than the present measure. Every local sanitary authority seemed to have received a copy of the Bill for consideration, and there were few of them from whom he had not been favoured with suggestions. Many of them touched upon the same points. When he thought them feasible and desirable he should be ready to adopt them, and he must bear the respon- 883 sibility as well as he could where he could not give his assent to them. The number of Acts which were consolidated was very great, and whatever trouble there might be in passing the Bill through the House—and he must rely on the indulgence of the House to enable him to carry it through—he was satisfied that it was a faithful codification of the law. A similar plan might be followed in future in other branches of legislation. He looked forward to this Bill being subjected to many additions and revisions before receiving its final and complete shape, and hoped the House would be inclined to assist the Government in placing the law on as satisfactory a footing as possible.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he understood that the paper entitled a "Statement showing the principal amendments of the law" applied to the reprinted Bill, and that no substantial amendment had been made in the reprinted Bill which was not in the original measure. His right hon. Friend had, he thought, made out a case for the confidence of the House in regard to the treatment of this Bill in Committee. The Bill consisted of 341 clauses, and it would be quite impossible to effect a consolidation of the law in a Bill of these dimensions, unless the House received it in good faith. They must trust to the honour of the head of the Department. He thought his right hon. Friend was entirely justified in asking the House to accord their assistance in passing this measure. He trusted that the House would immediately go into Committee, taking the word of the President of the Board, and passing the Bill as quickly as possible into law. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) had complained of the chaotic state of the law with regard to the appointment of medical officers, and this unsatisfactory state of things he said arose from the fact that he (Mr. Stansfeld) had chosen to make the Boards of Guardians the rural sanitary authority. He did not choose the Boards of Guardians, because they were already the existing sanitary authorities, and he must say that, on the whole, they had performed their duties exceedingly well. The duties conferred upon them were, moreover, in accordance with the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission. He regarded this question as a branch of the great question of local government. He did not 884 believe that it would be possible to make this country healthy by Act of Parliament. It must be done, if at all, by the willing and intelligent supervision of the local authorities; and if he had increased the number, he should have added to the multiplicity of conflicting bodies of which the House had heard so much last night. The whole country was at present mapped out into either urban or rural districts, and there was no part either of town or country which was not under one of these authorities. And if hon. Members would carry their thoughts towards those good times when the financial County Board would be in existence they would see the reason why he had thought it unadvisable to create new bodies and new areas, and why he had taken those which already existed. The House could not do all that it wished to do if it attempted to train the country in the work of sanitary improvement merely by legislation. It was a question of administration, and great responsibility rested upon the Local Government Board so to administer the Public Health Act as not to discourage the growing interest felt in sanitary administration by the local authorities, but to make them willing co-operators with him in the administration of the law. The statement made by his right hon. Friend was satisfactory to him, and he hoped that the policy which he had foreshadowed would be abided by.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had great confidence in the good intentions of the President of the Local Government Board. He maintained, however, that something more should be done by the Central Board than had been accomplished. He thought that Board should furnish the local authorities with special information where it seemed to be needful, relative to the principles applicable to sewage, and other matters involved in sanitary questions. He considered, also, that the officers of the Board, whether they were medical men or engineers, should institute something more than perfunctory inquiries. Care should be taken that the burdens thrown on the parishes did not become intolerable, and that the intentions of Parliament should not be frustrated.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he had never intended to ask his right hon. Friend to make large areas compulsory.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Powers for making sewers. P. H., s. 45. L. G. Am., s. 4. S.U. 1865, s. 4.).
§ MR. MUNTZobjected to the clause as trenching on private property and rights. It would give power to the local authority to carry any sewer "into or under any lands in their district." It would give a surveyor power to enter a man's garden, to go through his yards, or even to enter his house. Such enormous powers had never been given before. He, therefore, moved, in page 9, line 40, after "street," to leave out to" district," inclusive, in page 10, line 3.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that what was set out in the clause was simply the existing law; it had been so for the last 10 years. If the Amendment were carried, it would paralyze many important works. There were ample powers of compensation under the 307th clause.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, he was quite aware of the 307th clause, if it were sufficiently worded; but that appeared to be doubtful. He would withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped an assurance would be given by his right hon. Friend that the clause giving proper compensation to owners would be distinctly expressed. That would be but fair; if any defect existed it should be cured.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould very readily give his right hon. Friend that assurance.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Sewage to be purified before being discharged into streams. S.U. 1865, s. 11. L.G. Am., s. 4).
§ MR. WALTERsaid, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to line 11 in this clause. The clause provided against the conveyance of sewage into "any natural stream or water-course," and he proposed to add these words—"or into any lake, pond, or canal." The reason he did so was that on one occasion he happened to be present at a meeting where it was proposed to carry a Bill of this kind into opera- 886 tion, and it was suggested that the sewage should be carried two miles off into a private lake.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that they might hope soon to have watercourses kept pure in another way. He should have no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. Friend.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, he quite agreed in principle with the Amendment, but a difficulty might arise from the want of some definition in the Bill of a lake, though perhaps "ornamental lake" or something of that kind might de.
§ MR. WALTERsaid, he would have no objection to add the words "except for the purpose of deodorization." His object was that "lakes, ponds, or canals" should not be used as receptacles for the sewage. He thought the words very material to protect private property of this character from any chance of invasion in this matter.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHengaged to bring up words on the Report which would carry out the object of his hon. Friend.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Map of system of sewerage. P. H, s. 41).
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKproposed to substitute "shall" for "may," so that every local authority should provide a map of their district.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment, as it might be the cause of adding greatly to the expense of districts.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
§ Clause 23 (Power of local authority to enforce drainage of houses. P. H., s. 49. San. 1866, s. 10).
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, that if the Bill were one of consolidation he would not object to this clause, but as it was one of amendment, as the clause stood it would, where new drains were made, make every person in the neighbourhood liable to the expense of their construction, although they might think them fraught with danger, and merely so many channels for the diffusion of 887 typhoid fever through the town, while no such danger attended the use of the dry system of sewage. He therefore proposed to amend the clause by striking out the whole of the proviso.
§ MR. WHALLEYwished to know what was the opinion of the Government medical authorities as to water sewerage?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that the Local Government Department did not pledge itself to any particular system of sewerage, dry or wet; and he himself believed that both systems might be usefully resorted to. The proviso would only apply where there was an existing system of sewerage, into which, by the existing law, people could be compelled to drain.
§ MR. CAWLEYremarked, that whether a water-closet system, or a dry-earth system, or any other system was best did not affect the question before the Committee, as sewers must be constructed to get rid of our slops.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 24 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Penalty on building houses without privy accommodation.)
§ MR. CAWLEYproposed to amend the clause by omitting the words which required every water-closet, earth-closet, privy, or ashpit should be furnished with proper doors and coverings. In some cases doors and coverings were most objectionable, as when the ashpit joined the privy and free ventilation was required. He would further amend the clause by providing that the conveniences referred to should be of such form and description and in such situation as should be satisfactory to the local authority.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment, as there was great reason to apprehend that the local authorities would make an arbitrary use of such power.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 35 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 59 (Power to supply water to authority of adjoining district.)
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, it would be a great advantage to have the water supplied by meter instead of by rates. He did not intend to propose any Amendment, but only made the suggestion.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would have a note made of it.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 60 (Local authority may require houses to be supplied with water in certain cases. P. H., s. 76. L. G., s. 51. San. 1866, s. 50.)
MR. BECKETT-DENISONconsidered that a most important clause, but he complained that there was no power to compel the builder or owner to supply their houses with water. The question was, whether speculative builders running up houses ought to be compelled to supply them with water or not? If they did not, the local authorities had to supply water at the expense of the ratepayers. He should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered that matter, and whether he would insert a proviso in the Bill to oblige the builders to supply water?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that was one of the difficult questions which surrounded the question of the water supply. He could not make any distinction between speculative builders and other builders, and the clause referred to houses which had been built for years, and with regard to which no responsibility as to water supply had attached to the builders or owners heretofore. At the present moment he was not disposed to accept any such suggestion.
§ MR. MACIVERsuggested that the word" owner "ought to be more strictly defined.
§ MR. A. BROWNpointed out that there were cases in which, while houses were wanted, builders could not supply water by boring, and a proper water supply could only be obtained by means of the local authorities. The only effectual remedy for the crying want of a proper water supply in many districts was to make it compulsory upon the local authorities to provide such supply, instead of leaving it to their option to do so.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 61 agreed to.
§ Clause 62 (Vesting of public cisterns, &c. in local authority. P. H., s. 78. L. G., s. 45. (5.) T. I., s. 121. N. E., 1860, s. 7.)
889§ MR. PELLmoved to leave out all the words after "convenient" to the end of the clause. The clause was old law, and one of its consequences was that while one end of a village had been supplied with water by the owners or landlords, the other part, the owners of which not being so careful, was left without water at all. The local authorities then came in and supplied water at the expense of the rates. That was a state of things which he thought ought not to be allowed to remain.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire had some case of apparent injustice in his mind; but he could give instances in which a supply of water by the local authorities had been very beneficial. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not strike out the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 63 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 68 (Power to close polluted wells, &c. P. H. 1874, s. 50.)
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved to insert after the words "used, or likely to be used for domestic purposes," "or in the manufacturing of drinks for the use of man." He moved that Amendment to prevent beer and soda water and other drinks being made with polluted water.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that was already covered by the Bill.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRconsidered the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was of great importance, inasmuch as polluted water might be used without detection in the brewing of beer or manufacture of soda water, though in the preparation of lemonade it betrayed itself, by the liquor becoming viscous and ropy.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTwas afraid that aerated waters were deleterious, and suggested that his right hon. Friend should accept the words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. BECKETT-DENISONmoved further to amend the clause by the insertion of words to compel owners of wells or cisterns to repair them in case they required it. If this was not done, it would be in the power of owners who chose to deprive their tenants of water 890 to close up wells which, from any cause, got out of repair.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would assent to the insertion of the words—of which, however, he had received no Notice—reserving the right at a later stage to move their omission in case it proved that they were unnecessary.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 69 to 88, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 89 (Definition of nuisances. N. E. 1855, s. 8. San. 1866, s. 19.)
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked for some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the definition of the word "nuisance" in the Bill. A thing might be an offensive nuisance without being injurious to health, but it had been ruled in the Court of Queen's Bench that a nuisance to be a nuisance must be injurious to health, and that merely being offensive was not enough.
§ MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, medical men were of opinion that all sorts of matter that might by some be considered nuisances were not injurious to health. He thought the word "offensive" might be added to the word "nuisance."
MR. GORSTsuggested that these clauses should be postponed in order that the case affecting the smoke nuisance might be more fully considered. He knew that in the North of England some portions of the law with regard to the nuisance of smoke were unsatisfactory, and he thought an opportunity should be given to place Amendments on the Paper.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would be sorry to see the definition of nuisance restricted to matters "injurious to health," and he would consider the matter before the Report. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he had to say that the clauses to which the hon. Member referred had not been altered in the slightest degree since the Bill was before the House. He had not received a single complaint with regard to the smoke nuisance; but he would be happy to put himself in communication with his hon. Friend on the point before the Report.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he thought the clause, as it stood, was a step in the right direction.
§ LORD ESLINGTONcomplained that smoke was an injurious nuisance, and did great damage to vegetation. There was a very strong feeling—a growing feeling—that something ought to be done to prevent injury to vegetation by smoke.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there were numerous descriptions of nuisances most difficult to define—for instance, a peacock, although a beautiful and proud bird, was a nuisance in some cases.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHgave assurance that the matter should receive his careful consideration.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 90 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 129 (Power of local authority to provide hospitals. San. 1866, s. 37.)
§ MR. PELLmoved the omission of the clause. He considered it a most mischievous clause. It was old law. For instance, hospitals were often erected and provided under the clause, when there was really no necessity for them.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would retain the clause. Hospitals were most valuable in cases of infectious diseases to send such people to.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, infectious diseases were not spread by hospital drainage, as he was informed, and the value of hospitals for infectious diseases, such as small-pox and other infectious diseases, to which people could be sent and treated, was very great. He therefore hoped the House would retain the clause.
§ MR. GOURLEYasked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) what he would do in case of a ship coming into port with cholera on board, if there were not an hospital to receive the affected patients? He was able to state a case wherein a ship came into harbour, and there not being an hospital in the neighbourhood to receive the patients, the ship was ordered to leave the harbour and anchor in an open roadstead. Thus not only endangering the lives of the crew but prolonging unnecessarily the sufferings of the poor fellows affected with the cholera.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, this was a most important question, and one deserving the serious consideration of the Committee. He remembered one in- 892 stance of typhoid fever breaking out, and that a certain class of the inhabitants called in a medical man. He consulted the Central Government Board, and they advised that an hospital should be built. Well, an hospital was built, at considerable expense, and for two years no one could be induced to go into it. That such would be the case had been foretold, and the hospital was entirely useless. That was the result of the action taken by the Central Government Board without consulting the local authorities. He hoped the hon. Member would go to a division, and he should certainly vote for his Amendment.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Leicestershire would not act upon the expressed wish of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHOut of the general expenses of the district.
§ MR. PELLsaid if, that was the case, he should divide the Committee, for the clause was a most unfair one to the ratepayers. It would make parishioners who did their duty as regarded sanitary government pay for some parishioners who, from ignorance or otherwise, had failed to do their duty and take proper precautions. He was not speaking without book, for he knew of a case where typhoid fever had broken out in his own parish. The medical men said, "build an hospital;" but, as there were no funds, that was not done. The sick people were to have been moved into a school; but that was prevented. While the doctors were trying to do that the people stopped up all the wells and brought water into the place in carts from a distance. They drained the village, and from that time there had never been another case of fever in the place. If a hospital had been built it would be standing there at that time perfectly useless.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that almost all workhouses were provided with fever wards, but there were many populous places where hospitals were required.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped the Committee would not be divided on such a question.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that unless they were very careful the benefit now given by cottage hospitals would be lost, and that the class that was bordering on the verge of pauperism would find themselves altogether deprived of relief.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 130 to 167, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 168 (Urban authority may provide place for public meetings, &c.)
§ MR. PELLopposed the clause, which, he observed, was new law and of very questionable advantage. Such places, built at the expense of the ratepayers, might be let, he presumed, to Messrs. Moody and Sankey, or for objects which did not warrant the expenditure of large sums of public money. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly serious in proposing such a clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think this clause was of any great importance, but it had been pressed upon him during the last 12 months from various quarters of the country. Places which were towns all but in name often did not possess a public building for meetings. If they were municipal boroughs they would have a town hall, and it seemed only right that such places should have similar accommodation. The power was strictly guarded, and could only be exercised with the consent of the ratepapers. He could see no objection to the clause himself, but would not press it if the feeling of the Committee were against it, but he would recommend them to pass it. It was not new law, but clauses of a very similar character had been passed which were not new law.
§ MR. WHITWELLopposed the clause, fearing that it would lead to great and unnecessary expenditure.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he thought the clause valuable, and the power one which ought to be given.
§ MR. WHALLEYalso supported the clause, believing that the facilities it would give for holding public meetings in certain localities were necessary; but while increasing these facilities, care should be taken to preserve the liberty of speech, which, by the doctrine of Contempt of Court and in other ways, had of late been seriously endangered.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKstrongly supported the Bill, urging that as the clause provided that those buildings were to be erected with the consent of the ratepayers he could see no reason why Parliament should interpose a difficulty in this way. They ought to help those who were inclined to help themselves.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the clause did not deal with sanitary questions, and was therefore out of place in a Public Health Bill.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought the clause objectionable, inasmuch as, though the buildings were to be provided with the consent of the ratepayers, the majority would bind the minority, who would have to pay for the buildings whether they liked them or not.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no intention, as he before stated, of pressing the clause against the wish of the Committee. He would, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the clause, and the discussion could be revived on the Report, if any hon. Member thought fit to do so.
§ Clause negatived.
§ Clauses 169 to 189, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 190 (As to medical officer of health, &c. P. H., s. 40. P. H. 1872, s. 10. P. H. 1874, s. 5.)
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved the addition of words enabling the medical officer to appoint a deputy in case of illness or incapacity.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 191 to 198, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
§ And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.