§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a decision of Mr. Justice Pearson, on February 14th, in a case, Ballard v. Tomlinson, heard at the High Court of Justice Chancery Division; and, whether, assuming his judgment to be correct, the Government would take steps to remedy an obvious defect in the Law, which permits the pollution of the water derived from wells in the chalk, from which many of the London Water Companies take their supply?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the law on this matter had been long established. There was a very clear difference between the water right in respect of water flowing in a defined and well-known water course and water flowing in subterranean channels. In the case of water flowing in an open, well-defined channel above ground, the adjoining owners had a right to resist by the law any diversion or pollution of the water. It was not so in the case of subterranean 1844 water, and for this obvious reason, that the manner in which such waters flow was not capable of being ascertained and estimated in the same way. That was the law upon which the case mentioned in the Question was decided, and it could not be altered by Act of Parliament, because it rested on reason and sound sense; but that only affected private rights as between individuals. If there were anything done upon the surface of the ground which led to a general public deterioration of the water-course below the ground, that was a matter which might stand on a different footing, and he would have the matter examined from that point of view.