[BILL 101.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1886)

§ SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK (Norfolk, E.)
Sir, in the absence of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), I have been called upon unexpectedly to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which is to secure the purification of our rivers by bringing about a better arrangement with reference to sewers, manufacturers' refuse, and other drainage works which are turned into them, and which in dry summers make those rivers 1050 a perfect nuisance, as well as injurious to the general community. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence laid before Parliament by the various Royal Commissions will be considered sufficient to show how desirable it is that legislation of the kind proposed should take place. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) made a speech last week at the Mansion House in support of an amendment of the present law; and, therefore, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not think it necessary to oppose the Motion which I now make.

§ SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)
Sir, I rise to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. And I do so with confidence, not because I am in any way opposed to the purification of our rivers. It seems to me that this is one of the most important questions which can claim the attention of this House. And I very much regret that at this late hour it is impossible to enter fully into its merits. The subject of the pollution of rivers is well known to Members of this House; but it seems to me that, however desirable it may be to arrive at a solution of that question, the measure before us is one which it would be dangerous to allow to pass. In the first place, the Bill makes no distinction between impurities caused by sewage operations and impurities caused by manufactures, as is the case in the Act of 1876; but, Sir, that distinction is one of the very greatest importance. I believe I may say, with some degree of certainty, that while the impurity due to sewage is a matter that can be satisfactorily dealt with, at a certain cost—because all sewage impurity is approximately of the same composition—the question of dealing with impurities which are the result of manufactures, is one which presents much difficulty, for it is well known to all Members of this House that the character of the impurity differs with the character of the manufacture—as, for example, alkali works, dye works, paper mills, and brewers. In this Bill, Sir, all the impurities arising from manufactures are treated in one and the same way; and, in consequence of this, the standards which have been fixed therein are either 1051 so stringent that they will act if they are passed into law, most prejudicially to the manufacturers in this country, or they are, in some cases, so insufficient that they would be of no avail. It is absolutely impossible, in most cases of this kind, to draw a hard-and-fast line; but the standards which are here set forth are unvarying, having regard neither to the character of the pollution nor the character of the stream into which they pass. If this question of the impurities arising from our varied manufacturing and mining processes is to be settled, it must be settled, to a great extent, upon a geographical basis. We may require one set of standards for one river, and even for different parts of one river, and these may be totally different from the standard which it is necessary to apply to other rivers. Then, Sir, I find among the provisions of the Bill a clause which provides that any person shall be guilty of an offence against the Act who puts into, or causes or permits to be put or carried into, any stream any solid or liquid matter calculated to interfere with the flow, alter the bed, or pollute its waters—that is, one single act is to constitute an offence under the Act. Again, action may be taken on the results of the analysis of one sample of water drawn for examination; but for the purpose of arriving at any fair conclusion as to the pollution of a river, it is hardly necessary to say that we ought to have a number of samples drawn of the water passing every 24 hours, in order that we may have an average sample of the water. Again, the Act of 1876 enables manufacturers to apply the best practical means in their power. We are unacquainted at the present moment with any scientific method by which rivers containing these various manufacturing pollutions can be rendered pure; but if such means can be established, there may be a chance of obtaining a satisfactory result: In this Bill, however, the application of such means are not permitted; and, therefore, I believe it will be unworkable. There is another clause in the Bill which is very striking and demands our attention. Clause 6 enables any occupier, or owner, or any representative of the Local Sanitary Authority, to institute proceedings in the County Court, and those proceedings may be taken by 1052 any individual, and without expense to him. Well, Sir, I say that this is opening the door, as it appears to me, to vexatious litigation of a very undesirable character. Again, in Clause 3 it would seem that the Judge, whose duty it is simply to enforce the law, is made responsible for the method of purification—that is to say, he is to dictate the way in which the purification is to be carried out. The distinction, as I have said, is not made in this Bill, as it ought to be made, between sewage and between the refuse or pollution caused by manufactures. Now, it seems to me that the time is come when we may satisfactorily deal with the sewage question; but we must proceed in this matter carefully, and by degrees; and before any attempt can be made to deal with the pollution by manufactures, I am of opinion that we ought to deal with the question of pollution by sewage. It is evidently extremely undesirable to interfere with the manufacturers of this country by any vexatious legislation; and I know it is generally felt by manufacturers that this Bill, if it becomes law, will most seriously interfere with the various enterprizes and manufactures carried on, especially in the North of England. I have had the pleasure of introducing a deputation to the President of the Local Government Board of a large number of gentlemen interested in the manufactures of the North, and they have unanimously declared that the Bill will have a disastrous effect upon their industries. Those gentlemen are perfectly willing to have the matter investigated; they are not at all interested in keeping the rivers in the present state, and they are fully aware that much may be done in the direction desired. And here I wish to call the attention of the House to the analogy and the difference between the Alkali Acts and the present Bill. The Alkali Acts for the purification of the atmosphere from noxious vapours have been most successful in their operation; they have been received by all chemical manufacturers with satisfaction, and the result has been most beneficial both to the public at large and the manufacturers in detail. I believe that legislation with regard to river purification may also, with due care, be rendered satisfactory both to the manufacturer and the public; but the distinction between air pollution and water pollution 1053 must be borne in mind, and the kind of legislation which is applicable to the one is evidently not applicable to the other as regards the uniformity of the standards of purity. I cannot support the standards which have been introduced into this Bill; some of them, indeed, are even of a monstrous character—thus I may state that one of the standards of purity for the waters running into streams which may be used for potable purposes permits an amount of acid to be present in the water which is one-fifth of the amount of acid which actually falls into the air of the City of Manchester—that is to say, that the rain water which falls in that city contains five times as much acid as is permitted to go into the river. This standard is, then, much too strict. But in another instance, which, with the permission of the House, I am about to give, the standards are not nearly strict enough. If we assent to the standard (f) for drinking water—namely, that the water should contain one part of sulphur in 100,000 parts of water. I can inform the House that the water which is supposed to be pure would smell very much like Harrogate water, and that it would be very improper to allow such a liquid to run into water to be used for drinking purposes. I could, if time permitted, refer to many similar inconsistencies in the Bill; but, Sir, I will not, at this late hour, intrude upon the attention of the House further than to recall to the notice of hon. Members the fact that the Bill does not attempt to do what is absolutely necessary—that is, draw a distinction between sewage impurity and manufacturing impurity; that it does not attempt to deal with the sewage question as it ought to be dealt with, and that it does attempt to deal with manufacturing pollution in a way that will be detrimental—I may say almost disastrous—to the trade of the country. I may also add that legislation of this importance for dealing properly with the great question of the pollution of our rivers, to be made efficient, must be a much simpler one than the present one, and that if it is introduced in the form of a Private Bill, such a Bill must receive Government support. For these reasons, Sir, I oppose this Bill, and move that it be read upon this day six months.

§ MR. HUTTON (Manchester, N.)
Sir, I think the importance of this Bill is hardly recognized by the hon. Member who made the Motion for the second reading, because there is no doubt that it will affect some of the largest manufacturing interests in the country; and I, on behalf of a number of manufacturers both of Manchester and of Salford, entirely agree with what has fallen on this subject from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe). Throughout Lancashire, Yorkshire, and in the manufacturing districts generally in the North of England, a number of large factories have arisen within the last 40 or 50 years, an enormous amount of capital has been spent in works there, and large populations created in the neighbourhood of rivers which flow through those districts; and I may say, that if this Bill is passed into law, those populations will be dispersed, and instead of prosperity there will be wide-spread poverty. We have in Lancashire about 90,000 persons applying to the Guardians for outdoor relief, which is something like 12,000 in excess of the number at this time last year; and I am satisfied that if the Bill becomes law that number will be enormously increased. Sir, it is impossible to estimate the damage which this Bill would do if it were sanctioned by Parliament. We have such a large population crying out for the protection of labour, that, rather than put other difficulties in the way of our industries, I ask the House most seriously to consider the injury that will be done by passing the Bill. We have all at heart the desire to secure greater purity of water in our towns; but I am convinced that not only would the Bill do a great injury amongst the populations in the manufacturing towns, but that the suggestions made by the hon. Member opposite could not be carried out. I do not hesitate to say that the Bill ought to be considered very seriously, and that the restrictions which it places upon labour ought to be struck out. Sir, I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe).

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN) (Birmingham, W.)
,: Sir, this Bill is certainly of a very extraordinary character, and it is to be regretted that it has been brought on so late at night, and in the absence of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), who is one of the promoters of the Bill. It appears to be a Bill which, if passed into law, would seriously interfere with, if not destroy, some of the most important manufactures of the country. The hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill stated that it was supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell). I have the authority of the Attorney General for saying that he has never given support to the Bill, although he is an advocate for the purification of rivers, and that he sees very much to object to in the measures by which the Bill proposes to carry this into effect. I think that a reference to one clause of the Bill will be sufficient to show that it is impossible for the House to accept it. The Bill is based on the idea that the provisions of the Act of 1876 are insufficient. That Act throws the duty of showing that the provisions of the law are observed upon the Sanitary Authorities of the districts. "Well, no doubt in some cases the Sanitary Authorities are the worst offenders, so that the law calls upon the criminals to prosecute themselves; but there is power of appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board can call upon the Sanitary Authorities to proceed. But, Sir, the alternative which is proposed by this Bill is contained in Clause 6, and I venture to say that nothing more extravagant than that clause has ever been submitted to the House of Commons. It proposes in Clause 6 that if the Sanitary Authority refuses to take proceedings, then the person aggrieved has the right to proceed himself and charge the cost to the Sanitary Authority. It is, therefore, actually proposed that a person alleging a grievance shall be entitled to call upon the ratepayers to prosecute his claim at their expense. That is much the same as introducing a Bill into this House to provide that any person alleging any pecuniary loss or damage shall 1056 be given a right to call upon the Public Prosecutor to carry on his case at the public expense. I think I have said enough to show that, if there is any deficiency in the existing law, the remedy proposed by this Bill is not the way to meet it. As a remedy for any deficiency which there may be in the actual existing Authorities, we should look to some scheme of local government, whereby the Sanitary Authorities might be compelled to perform their duty if anything illegal takes place. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly support the Motion of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Roscoe).

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)
There are two great questions which this Bill concerns. One is the manufacturers' interest, and the other is the public health. Those people who drink the waters of rivers have a very great interest in this matter, and it was on that ground that hon. Members were induced to back the Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe) suggests that it shall be referred to a Select Committee.[Cries of "No!"]

§ SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)
I moved that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
I beg pardon. I misunderstood the hon. Member; but in that case I will propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, because I consider it a matter of very great importance to the public health. I therefore propose that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The noble Lord is not entitled to make that Motion until the Amendment before the House has been disposed of.