Lords Sitting of 24 February 1865

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Oxenford, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Attorneys and Solicitors*(15); Civil Bill Courts Procedure (Ireland) Act (1864) Amendment* (16).

ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS BILL.

  [H.L.] PRESENTED, FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in presenting a Bill to amend the Law relating to Attorneys and Solicitors, said: My, Lords, the present principle of remunerating attorneys and solicitors is one which requiries amendment, and is one of the instances of the old and absurd practice of the law interfering to regulate the rights of labour and of determining the manner in which the person employed shall be remunerated. According to the present system, when an attorney is employed by a client his remuneration is governed by certain fixed rules, from which it is impossible for either party to depart. For instance, supposing a solicitor be employed to collect and distribute the assets of a debtor among his creditors on the terms of receiving one-sixth of the sums so distributed as his remuneration, such a contract would not be legal, and could not be enforced between the parties. Another objection to the present system is that the charges are based on a most mischievous scale. Take, for example, a deed. The remuneration for preparing a deed is regulated by the quantity of writing required; so that, instead of being remunerated according to the skill, care, time, and labour expended in drawing it, the solicitor is paid by the yard. In proportion to the number of words used so is the remuneration. The practice is most mischievous, as it leads to a great deal of that verbosity and tautology which characterizes legal documents. The consequence of the practice is to throw a great opprobrium on a numerous and honourable body of practitioners. The Bill proposes to deal with these defects by a very simple remedy—namely, by allowing the attorney and his client to enter into a contract specifying the remuneration to be given for the work to be performed. Of course the Bill is one which, requires to be looked at with care and attention, and I feel assured that I shall have the assistance of your Lordships, and more especially of my noble and

  635
  learned Friends, in my endeavour to accomplish this great object. It is singular that until I brought forward my Bill last Session no attempt should have been made to remedy the acknowledged and admitted defects I have referred to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Attorneys and Solicitors—presented, and read la.—(The Lord Chancellor) (No. 15.)

PATENT RIGHTS.

  SHEPARD'S PATENT BILL—WEIGHT'S PATENT BILL.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had postponed the second reading of the Shepard's Patent Bill and Wright's Patent Bill-both private measures—until Monday next, when he should draw their Lordships' attention to their terms. These Bills involved the serious question whether patentees who had allowed their patents to expire through not having paid the fee of £100 at the end of the first seven years, should be allowed to bring in Private Bills to remedy a neglect of which the patentees themselves had been guilty. If there should be any alteration of the law of patents it would be well to insert a clause in reference to this particular.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the House was very much indebted to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having brought the subject under their notice. At present the Lord Chancellor had a certain discretion of relaxing the law in cases where he might think it reasonable to do so. In the Bill which he hoped to be able to submit to the House for amending the law of patents this would be one of the matters included; and if the clause relating to it should be agreed to it would be in the power of the Commissioners of Patents in equitable cases to relax the rules of law.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the difficulty was to know where the line should be drawn in relaxing the law—whether it should be confined to cases of the lapse of a few days, or extended to cover the lapse of three months. He thought that if the patentees did not pay the £100 at the proper time there should be a further time allowed to them—say one month; and that they should be required to pay the penalty of £200 or £300.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDBRLEYinquired in what manner the necessity of these Bills had arisen?
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was called "inadvertence." In one case the cause
  636
  alleged was sickness in the patentee's family, and he was disposed to think it was an honest case of inadvertence.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked whether, if the money was not paid at the proper time, the patent did not lapse? In that case the Bill was not to continue the patent, but to revive it. And, what he asked, was to be the position of those who, in the interval, knowing the patent had lapsed, had appropriated the invention?
  LORD CRAN WORTHsuggested, that the Bill about to be introduced might contain a clause making the Bill retrospective, if the Lord Chancellor should think fit in the particular cases for which Private Bills were now before the House.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that a fixed rule ought to be laid down to meet all cases of lapsed patents, and that nothing ought to be left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of Committees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question for their Lordships to consider was, whether they would permit these privilegia to be brought in in particular cases to relieve men from the forfeiture which they had incurred by reason of their not observing a well known law. If they permitted it, then, of course, their Lordships must be satisfied by the same proofs of the fact as would be required by a Court of Equity, and that, of course, would have to be obtained by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The difficulty suggested by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Ellen-borough) was, no doubt, a very important one. The moment a patent ceased, the invention became public property, and if their Lordships interfered to set up a patent again, how were they to cover the interval between the lapse of the patent and the time when the Bill received the Royal Assent. No doubt great inconvenience would be produced, and he could hardly see how a court of justice could give a remedy in such a case.

METROPOLITAN SEWAGE—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons upon Metropolitan Sewage of last Session; and to ask if it is intended to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, said, that the inquiries of the

  637
  Select Committee appointed by the other House during the last Session of Parliament, were first directed to the general subject of the utilization of the sewage of London and other large towns. Their inquiries were directed afterwards to the general subject of the pollution of rivers. During late years the subject of the disposal of town refuse had seriously occupied the attention of the public generally, and especially of the local boards who had the charge of the interior police of cities. The old and imperfect system of scavenging and house drainage, had gradually been superseded by other systems, which, however, were not universally allowed to be improvements, inasmuch as some obstinate persons appeared to be of opinion that these changes had not always been in the right direction. The advantage, however, right or wrong, we have the present system to deal with, with its advantages, and with its defects, was the rapid removal of the refuse, which it was desirable to get rid of. Its defect was that the ultimate disposal of this refuse had never been satisfactorily provided for. The works constructed for drainage had had the effect of only partially remedying the one great evil, which required immediate treatment, at the expense of creating another, the consequences of which, though perhaps at some distant date, were nevertheless sure to ensue. No outlet for this large systematic sewerage had been considered, except into the nearest water, whether such water were the sea, a large river, a pond, or a canal with scarcely any flow of water through it. The result was that within a very few years after our improved sanitary arrangements have come into operation, it is found that the shores of watering places to which the public resorted for health and pleasure, were foul with every kind of abomination; and further, our water supply was tainted in many of its sources, fish were killed, and a large store of valuable manure was not only wasted, but converted into poison. The first matter which came before the Committee of last year, was the different plans suggested for dealing with the London sewage. The officials of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and many gentlemen scientifically and commercially interested in the question, were examined before the Committee, which collected a great amount of very valuable information on the subject; but, as might have been expected in a project so new and of such great extent, a great deal of this testimony was very con-
  638
  flicting. The question thus became complicated by references to some dealings entered into by the Board of Works with contracts and contractors, which were not the direct subjects of the inquiry. The Committee reported shortly as to that part of the inquiry, that more might have been done by the Board of Works towards the profitable disposal of the sewage of London; and they added the opinion that, even if a pecuniary benefit were not to be procured, such a consideration ought not to deter local authorities from taking all possible steps to utilize the sewage from towns and cities. He understood that the Board of Works was no longer open to the charge of being slow in taking means to abate this evil, inasmuch as they had provisionally accepted a tender for the disposal of the sewage upon a certain tract of land to be reclaimed from the sea, and the project was now before the Parliament for approval during the present Session. The plan had his best wishes as a great national experiment, the result of which may be a great national benefit. The Committee then inquired into the value of the sewage as an agricultural manure. On that subject, too, there was a variety of opinions. The result, however, was that in the opinion of some, the farmers would be safe in giving a halfpenny a ton for this matter. Other authorities, however, thought it was worth at least double that amount. The ratepayers naturally adopted the higher estimate, and were so well pleased to hear that the sewage of the metropolis was worth £2,000,000 a year that they were considering how they would expend that money. Experiments of all kinds had been made in different parts of the country to determine its agricultural value. He himself had made a small experiment, and though he had not tabulated the results in a sientific manner, he was well satisfied with them. The Committee were able to satisfy themselves as to the value of sewage, and to report that such undertakings as he had referred to might be made to result in a profit to those who embarked in them. If this can be realized the nation must gain by the increased productiveness of the soil; and it is to be hoped that a good percentage on his enlarged business will remain with the farmer. It had been supposed that landowners would object to the use of sewage upon their lands; but that apprehension had been removed by the public declaration of many proprietors that

  639
  they would not object to the improvement of their lands by the use of sewage. The Committee next proceeded to consider the important question of the pollution of rivers, upon which they took much evidence. Upon this point the witnesses were unanimous; residents, inspectors of fisheries, doctors, all concurred, in the opinion that the watercourses were exposed to the greatest possible injury. The Committee reported according to that evidence, that the pollution of the watercourses by the deposit of sewage was most detrimental to the health of the inhabitants of towns and cities, and that it was highly necessary that such a practice should be discontinued. The Committee then consulted the lawyers for an explanation of the state of the law under which such an abuse could continue, but got little comfort from those gentlemen. They were told that there were many laws, beginning in very ancient times, and coming down to the last Health of Towns Act; but although these Acts provided remedies for nuisances, yet they were inoperative, because of the difficulty of putting them in force. The Committee summed up their labour by the expression of this opinion—
  "That whereas it had been decided that it was a nuisance in common law to discharge any sewage into rivers, nevertheless the law was inoperative from the want of powers to enforce it."
  And they recommended the establishment of some authority with jurisdiction over the catchment basins of each river and its tributaries, with powers to make and to enforce regulations for the protection of the watercourses. The principle is already admitted in several Acts imposing penalties for injury to watercourses by manufacturing refuse or other noxious matters; but from defective machinery these Acts do not give the protection they promise. It was clear that the time had now arrived when Parliament should show itself disposed to legislate upon this subject, and to prove to those having the control over the construction of the sewage works that they could not be permitted to create a nuisance beyond their own boundaries. A great offender in this matter had recently been found at Windsor Castle, where a new and costly system of drainage had been constructed to pollute the Thames. It was to be regretted that the Office of Works had lost an excellent opportunity of setting a better example to the rest of the country by the construction of model works in this case, for imitation in other localities similarly situated. He hoped, however, that it was true,
  640
  as had been stated, that local authorities were now convinced of the importance of this subject; and that when such an authority as the Committee had recommended should be established, its duty would be rather to assist than to coerce local bodies to adopt the best means of disposing of the sewage and of purifying the watercourses. Although he had no special knowledge upon this subject, yet he felt it was so important to the whole country that he hoped their Lordships would excuse him for having brought it under their notice. The noble Earl concluded by asking, Whether it is intended to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons upon Metropolitan Sewage?
  THE EARL OF ESSEXsaid, that having had considerable experience on the subject of sewage as applicable to land for agricultural purposes, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without expressing his satisfaction at seeing this most important question occupying the serious attention of Parliament, as well as that of the country at large. Not only in the metropolis, but in all of the great towns, large sums of money were expended in disposing of the sewage, some of them with the simple sanitary object of removing it, others with the more enlarged views of utilizing it. Looking at the subject in a sanitary point of view, he thought that if anything could be done to prevent our rivers and streams, which should be sources of health and pleasure, from further pollution, it would be a great public benefit. But, beyond that, if what had been a nuisance could be converted into a source of profit to the ratepayers and to the agriculturists an advantage beyond all calculation could be conferred upon the whole country. It had been ascertained by men eminent in science who had closely analyzed the sewage of towns that it contained all the elements necessary for the fertilization of land. That being a settled point, it became a mere engineering question as to what were the best means by which this valuable substance could be brought to and distributed over the land. He believed that if any of their Lordships having land in the neighbourhood of large towns could procure the sewage of those towns to be brought upon their land at a cost of per ton, neither they nor their tenants would have any cause to regret the outlay. It cost him about 1½d. per ton to obtain sewage, and he was well

  641
  satisfied with the result of his operations during the last ten years. If the results were not so satisfactory as they ought to have been, it arose not from any inherent fault in the system, but because, like all pioneers, he had suffered from imperfect knowledge and want of experience. Those persons who would now adopt the system would have the benefit of all past experiments, and would avoid many of the disappointments which at first presented themselves. He had suffered at first because he had been under an erroneous impression as to the amount of sewage necessary to be applied to a given area of land. He had calculated that the amount of sewage at his disposal would be sufficient for 230 acres, but he had since found that the utmost he could obtain would only suffice for seventy-five acres. He would venture to say to all who might be disposed to enter upon this field of enterprise—avoid small dressings upon large areas—but on the contrary, hold to large dressings on small areas. The first system will entail, I think, heavy outlay and small returns, the latter a comparative small outlay with, I believe, abundant and satisfactory results. He was glad the subject had been brought under their Lordships' notice, and he was convinced the greatest benefits would accrue to the country from the general utilization of the sewage.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, that their Lordships must have derived much pleasure from the speeches which had been delivered by the two noble Lords, who had directed not only theoretical but practical attention to the subject. His answer to the question of the noble Earl opposite would be a very simple one, for he was happy to say that the noble Lord who had presided over the Committee with great industry and ability in the other House (Lord Robert Montagu), was himself prepared to introduce a Bill upon the subject into Parliament. He was afraid that the House of Commons would hardly consent to the measure in its present form; but the Home Office was at this moment in communication with that noble Lord, and the result would, he hoped, lead to the framing of a Bill which would commend itself to the adoption of Parliament.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.