BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 30 April 1875)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

, in rising to call attention to the state of the law on the Pollution of Rivers, said, the subject was one in which a large portion of the country took a deep interest, and which had occupied the attention of the country for a considerable time. It had been considered by more than one Royal Commission. One Commission was appointed in 1865, and another, of which the late Sir William Denison was the Chairman, and Professor Frankland was a member, was appointed in 1868. These Commissions went all over the country and examined very carefully into the subject which was intrusted to them, and the result of their labours had been embodied in four elaborate Reports before Parliament. It seemed to the Government that the time had now arrived when some legislation ought to follow so much inquiry. In 1848 an Act of Parliament was passed in the interest of the public health, enacting that all localities should carry out an efficient system of drainage. Drainage must be put somewhere. You could not put it in the air; you could not always put it on the land; and when you could not put it on the land, you necessarily put it into a river. Concurrently with this process there had been an enormous growth of manufactories of all kinds—of dye works, of paper works, and, above all, of distilleries—and the consequence of turning the refuse of these works into the rivers had been to produce in many of our most useful 1885 streams a fearful condition of pollution. The grievance was a very real one, as was well known to noble Lords who lived on the banks of polluted streams; but for the sake of others, he might read one or two passages from the Report of the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers to show what was the evil and the necessity of applying a remedy. Dr. James Brunton, Sept. 6, 1869.—Report to Commissioners— Dr. Macadam remarks with reference to water taken from the junction of the Gala and the Tweed, 'fish immersed in this liquid were deleteriously affected thereby, became sick and prostrate, and died within the day.' Of the deposit taken from the junction of the Gala and the Tweed, he remarks that, 'it was highly offensive, as it consisted in great part of organic matter in a state of putrefaction.' Certificate of James Weir, M.R.C.V.S., dated September, 1870— This is to certify that I have been called in very often by Mr. Thomas Shanks, farmer, Drumshanzie, Airdrie, to see his cattle. A great many of them have died through drinking the water of a stream which runs through his farm. This stream, in my opinion, is poisoned by liquid refuse from a paraffin oil refinery situated near to the farm. Mr. Shanks wishes very much the early attention of the Commissioners to be directed thereto. Statement by Bailie James Bain, Deputy Chairman of the Clyde Trustees, 25 July, 1870— The polluted state of the river Clyde is so generally known that I deem it unnecessary to attempt to prove it; but I take leave to enclose copy of a petition from owners and masters of steamboats, (see page 69 on the subject,) in which they refer to the loss they are sustaining thereby and pray for a speedy remedy. Also to the report of Dr. Anderson (see pp. 69–76) on the waste products from public works entering the Clyde, by the action of which, in combination with the ordinary sewage, it will be observed he considers the copper sheathing of ships is damaged and the public health impaired. I am aware it has been stated that the death rate on the river bank is not in excess of that in other parts of the city, but I believe there is much ill health. I have seen people so overcome with sickness from the stench of the river, as to require to be led ashore from the steamers. Surely it is not necessary to kill a man right off before it will be allowed that he has suffered injury, I consider the Police Board, the 'local authority' here, have been remiss, and that the Clyde Trust are aggrieved by their inaction. The Rev. F. G. Hopwood, Sankey Brook, Winwick, near Warrington— Not only does it beset us out of doors, but it penetrates into every room of the house, and the clothes in the laundry, with 'the window closed,' and also in the drying ground are discoloured and have frequently to be re-washed. On one 1886 occasion this winter (1869), in a few moments all the copper vessels in the kitchens were turned almost blue. It makes this place perfectly odious. The nuisance is constant, as the prevailing winds are from the west and northwest. James Nicholson, Esq., Warrington— I am lord of the manor of Thelwell, which lies upon the Cheshire side of the Mersey, about throe miles from Warrington. Formerly, the river at that point abounded with fish, and was a clear stream; now, unfortunately, it is a fearful nuisance—black as ink at most times, and most offensive in smell. Mr. T. B. Laycock, a wool comber, on the Worth, said— Opposite my works the bed of the river has silted up very considerably. 40 years ago the bed was five or six feet deeper than it is at present, and the silting up to this great depth has been caused by ashes and rubbish thrown in by manufacturers and others. Formerly, trout were very plentiful in the stream, but now no living thing can exist except rats, which feed on the dead carcases of animals thrown in. The river for more than half-a-mile above my works is very seriously polluted by town sewage and refuse from manufacturies and works, and in summer the stench is so bad that the smell is perceptible for more than half-a-mile off. Letter from Mr. Jepson, E. R. C. S., Durham, Sept. 1870— The River Wear at Durham is simply a gigantic cesspool receiving the sewage of the whole town, and in summer emitting a stench vile enough to generate a pestilence, especially when it is disturbed by boats. Letter from Mr. H. Reynard Cookson, Nov. 1, 1870— I am desirous of calling the attention of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners to the filthy state of the Bourne flowing from the Edmondsley Collieries through the town of Chester-le-Street, where it empties itself into the Wear. At times it is as yellow as ochre and as thick as glue, and a grave matter for the Commissioners report. It passes all through my grounds, and is an abominable nuisance. Extract from letter from E. Duncombe Shafto, Esq., Whitworth Park, Ferry Hill— The sewage matter from houses containing on the Spennymoor side nearly 5,000 inhabitants, is all poured into it by the present system of drainage, and in a very short time double the number of houses will be relieved of their filth by the same outlet, as all the Mount Pleasant and the houses near the Iron Works will be drained into it. The water now is as black as ink and so offensive, that a mile and a-quarter below Spennymoor, where it enters the Wear, it is an annoyance to have to cross the brook. No one in Spennymoor will say a word. They prefer being poisoned to the chance of having a rate to pay for the improvement of the drainage of the district; and I fear the medical men, who 1887 are painfully aware of the fatal character of the effluvium arising from this Stygian stream would probably be afraid of giving offence in certain quarters by giving evidence. He believed that nothing had so fearful an influence in the pollution of rivers as the product of distilleries. If their Lordships could imagine the stench of the River Thames in the outbreak in which it indulged of 1858 and multiplied that stench by 36, they would have a fair idea of what the stench was which was produced by refuse from the distilleries of the favourite beverage of the people. As to the river at Manchester, he could testify from his visit to that city last winter that it was in a bad condition, and he was told by a high municipal authority that an unfortunate man tumbled into that river, and, before he could be rescued, swallowed a dose of the water, of which he died as soon as he had been drawn on to the bank. This was a state of things which called for some action on the part of Parliament. There was no doubt that those who interfered with their neighbours' rights below stream violated the law. It might therefore be asked why not be satisfied with the existing law for the abatement of the nuisance? His answer was that there was great difficulty in putting the law in force. It only recognized damage actually done. But it was usually difficult to ascertain by whom the damage was done; and, as was frequently the case, where the pollution was caused by the combined operation of two or more factories there was no power of ascertaining who was the responsible party. Another difficulty which was experienced with reference to the prevention of the pollution of rivers was the objection which some people had to being rated to pay for the expense of an improved drainage of a district—people sometimes preferred being almost poisoned to the chance of being called upon to pay for the remedy. The drainage of a district was not a matter which could be intrusted to local authorities; in many cases their decision could not be relied on, and it was always open to suspicion. It was therefore essential that in any legislation Parliament might undertake on this subject there should be some other machinery provided for carrying out its provisions than that of the local authorities. That was a point on which the Bill that he intended to lay 1888 on their Lordships' Table differed from others which had been brought forward hitherto. He proposed not to carry a case before any local tribunal—that was to say, any tribunal dependent on the local authorities. He was afraid that, in attaining that object, they must appeal to that officer who from small beginnings had acquired an important position—he meant the County Court Judge. It was obvious that cases of this kind which required immediate decision could not be tried at the Assizes, which in many cases only occurred twice in each year. For this reason it was proposed that offences under the Bill should be taken to the County Courts. The next question was as to the offences so to be dealt with, and in this respect the present Bill would differ in a vital point from the measure introduced by Lord Shaftesbury in 1872, and afterwards taken up by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Northumberland). In the Bill of 1872, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, 10 standards were laid down in reference to the character of the ingredients of matter which might be thrown into streams, and it was made an offence to transgress any of these standards. The difficulty that was felt with regard to these tests was that they struck too far, and that on the one hand they would include water flowing from perfectly innocent sources, while on the other they were not sufficiently stringent to affect the very nuisances against which the legislation was directed. His view was that in dealing with nuisances it was better to trust to the common sense of the tribunal to which the cases were referred than to lay down a number of unwieldy chemical tests. The Bill, therefore, proposed to forbid the pouring of filthy, noxious, and polluting liquids into streams, and to leave it to the County Court Judges to decide upon evidence what liquids possessed the forbidden qualities. That was the most important change which this Bill proposed to make from the Bill recommended by the Government in 1872. He would next define the offences which were to be guarded against by the Bill. In the first place, it was absolutely forbidden to put solid matter into streams. With respect to sewage, it must either be freed from its polluting qualities or be 1889 kept out of the streams. With respect to liquids issuing from manufactories or mines, a distinction had been made between the various classes of offenders. Manufacturers or mine-owners who, at the passing of the Act, poured or permitted liquids to flow into streams, and who had not done so for more than 12 years—or had 12 years' prescription—would be bound to make it harmless within a space of two years, or be absolutely forbidden to pour or allow it to flow into streams. With regard to those who might be said to have a longer prescription, the Government had felt that they could not well do more than prescribe absolutely that the offending persons should use the best practicable and available means for making the liquids harmless. In the majority of cases he believed that this could be effectively done. The carrying of the Act into force would be intrusted to the rural sanitary authorities, with a power reserved to the Local Government Board to institute proceedings and enforce the law in ease the rural authorities failed in their duty. In addition to this the Bill proposed that the sanitary authorities in drainage districts should be grouped into Conservancy Boards, as a better means of carrying out the provisions of the law. These were the principal provisions of the Bill, and he hoped they would be sufficiently stringent to arrest the greater part of the existing mischief without at the same time being so stringent as to arouse an amount of resistance in the country which could not be overcome. At the same time, the Act would be administered by authorities not liable to be swayed by the passions or interests of their constituents, but anxious only to carry out the law, and to preserve to all persons the right—which was as sacred as usage and habit could make any right—of using the waters of our rivers for all ordinary purposes, domestic and otherwise, to which they could be legitimately applied.

Then a Bill for amending the Law relating to the Pollution of River presented by the Marquess of SALISBURY.