Lords Sitting of 1 July 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Glebe Lauds Corporate Bodies (Ireland)* (181); Royal Irish Constabulary* (182).
Committee—Pollution of Rivers* (169–183).
Committee—Report—Registration of Trade Marks* (167).
Report—Canada Copyright* (179); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.)* (151); Local Government Board's Poor Law Provisional Orders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.)* (150).
Third Reading—Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (168); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* (138); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) (No. 2)* (141); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (135); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (148), and passed.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

  (NOS. 81, 169.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved. "That the House do now go into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that though this important Bill was introduced at a reasonably early period, he thought there was just ground of complaint that their Lordships should not be asked to go into Committee until them Month of July. He believed the fact to be that the noble Marquess who had charge of the Bill had hardly estimated the difficulties which stood in the way of the legislation he proposed. He admitted that some of the Amendments which the noble Marquess proposed to make in the Bill would effect a considerable improvement in it, especially that which proposed to extend the measure to the whole of the United Kingdom. He had never been able to see why Ireland should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. But the Amendments had not removed the serious difficulties which surrounded the question. For instance, while requiring persons to remove pollutions, the Bill gave them no power to comply with the law. No amount of filtration would get rid of the deleterious matter in sewage; and, unless power were given to the authorities charged with the carrying out of the Bill to take land for the purpose of disposing of the sewage upon it, he did not see how the object in view could be effected by legislation. With the exception of the provisions relating to solid matter, he did not think it would be practicable to carry out the requirements of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Law as to Pollution of Rivers.
  Clause 2 (Prohibition as to putting solid matters into streams) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Prohibition as to drainage of sewage into streams).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHhaving proposed certain verbal Amendments, of which no printed copies had been delivered—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed an opinion that Amendments in so important a Bill ought to have been printed.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHexplained that there was no time for him to have had his Amendments printed, as the Bill, in its present shape, had only been in the hands of noble Lords since Monday.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLmust express his opinion that more time ought to be given for the consideration of the subject before their Lordships were asked to agree to a clause affecting such large interests as those which would be dealt with by Clause 3. If the noble Duke had only had the Bill since Monday, persons in the country greatly interested in the measure could not have had an opportunity of seeing it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that this clause in substance had been before the country since May last. Undoubtedly some slight alterations had been made; but it was a new doctrine that every time a slight alteration was introduced into a clause it was necessary to interpose a long period, in order to enable persons in the country to appreciate the Amendment. He feared that under such a rule in their Parliamentary proceedings their pace, which was not remarkably rapid, would be reduced to an absolute standstill.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, it was true that a Bill on the subject of the pollution of rivers was introduced by the noble Marquess in an able speech as far back as May; but since that the noble Marquess, in another speech, had informed their Lordships that the Government felt obliged to alter their plan, and had introduced clauses making necessary alterations: so that it was, in fact, a new Bill that their Lordships were asked to go into Committee upon at this late period of the Session.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDexpressed his concurrence with the noble Viscount. He would remind the noble Marquess that in his speech the other evening, when he announced the intention of the Government to abandon portions of the Bill, he stated distinctly what they were. But now Amendments were to be proposed of which they had heard nothing until Monday last, and it was impossible their Lordships could now discuss them in a proper manner, The
  772
  month of July was too late a period to commence dealing with a measure which affected such large interests throughout the country.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwished to point out that if their Lordships turned to Clause 14—the Interpretation Clause of the Bill—they would find that "stream" shall include—
  "Rivers, streams, canals, lakes, and watercourses of every description, and such tidal waters or portions of the sea as the special authority or the Local Government Board shall determine."
  From that definition their Lordships might judge how extensive would be the operation of Clause 3. He submitted that their Lordships ought to pause before giving their sanction to such a clause. He thought the clause should be struck out altogether—there was no other mode of amending it.
  EARL GREY, on the contrary, hoped that the clause would be retained, as it was really the only practical part of the measure. The evils of river pollution had become so serious that it was high time some check should be put to it. Many of our streams would have been comparatively pure to-day had a similar Bill to the one under discussion been introduced long ago. He hoped their Lordships would not reject any practicable mode of dealing with it.
  Moved. "To leave out Clause 1." (The Duke of Somerset.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Duke's objection to the clause would have been urged more appropriately on the second reading, as the 3rd clause really embodied the essence of the Bill. Their Lordships might as well reject the whole Bill as strike out Clause 3. When they came to the Interpretation Clause, they might modify the definition of the word "stream," if it was thought necessary to do so, though he did not say that it was.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that under certain local Acts there was an obligation in particular localities to drain tidal waters, but "stream" as used in this Bill would include such tidal waters as the Local Government Board might please to subject to the operation of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrecommended their Lordships not to put too much stress on the Proviso at the

  773
  end of the clause. The great object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to remedy the neglects of by-gone years, and to save our rivers from further pollution, so far as was practicable by legislation. The great error of former legislation was that it left private persons at liberty to pollute our streams, the purity of which was so essential to the public health: the object of the Government, and of this Bill, was to put a stop to that power in future. If their Lordships rejected this clause, pollution would go on as it had done before, and, perhaps, go on indefinitely.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the Proviso was the most important part of the clause. Without that Proviso, the only change made by the Bill was to substitute the County Courts for the Court of Chancery, as the tribunal for trying and adjudicating upon complaints arising out of pollution. As the clause at present stood, no new pollution was to be allowed; but the Proviso enacted that no one who before the Act had polluted a stream, should be deemed to commit an offence against the Act, though he might continue to pollute it, if he proved that he had used "the best practicable and available mean" to render the sewage harmless. It occurred to him that the question what were "the best practicable and available means" would be a very difficult one, and yet the County Court was to decide it. The case of the Birmingham Corporation, and some other cases which had been before the Court of Chancery, showed how difficult it was to decide such a question. Again, their might be evidence enough on that point to exonerate the party in the eyes of the County Court, and yet the river would continue to be polluted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply to the point raised by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie), said, that the objection might be very easily dealt with. It would be easy to declare that where there was a right or an obligation under a local Act to drain tidal waters, the Local Government Board should have no right to declare those tidal waters subject to this Bill. As to the Proviso to the clause under discussion, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) said that without it the Bill did nothing but substitute the County Courts for the Court of Chancery. His
  774
  noble and learned Friend forget that this Bill would throw upon a public body the obligation to do what was at present left to private individuals. The Bill provided an expeditious, a simple, and a cheap mode of proceeding, and it set out a category in which were stated what were to be regarded as offences against the Act and punished accordingly. As to the Proviso, all it provided was that where the pollution existed in January, 1875, and it was shown that "the best practicable and available means" had been taken to purify the matter conveyed into the stream, no offence was to be deemed to have been committed under this Act; but the existing law stated that there was a right to prevent pollution, and that right would not be taken away by this Bill. He admitted that it was difficult to decide what were "the best practicable and available means;" but the Government had not been able to devise anything better than this test. If his noble and learned Friend could suggest one, they would be delighted to receive it. As to submitting so difficult a question to a County Court, he would remind his noble and learned Friend that there was an appeal from that tribunal. The question which the Court of Chancery had to decide in the Birmingham case was not whether "the best practicable and available means" had been used to prevent pollution, but whether the liquid was absolutely harmless.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that noble Lords on his side did not dispute the principle of the clause, but only doubted the means by which it was to be carried out. Under the existing law, if anyone polluted a river he might be proceeded against in the Court of Chancery, and the noble and learned Lord (The Lord Chancellor) had explained that the right of proceeding in that way would not be taken away by this Bill. Technically that was true; but if Parliament passed a Bill like this, it would be compelled to take away all remedies against the pollution of rivers except that provided by the Bill. He feared the effect of the Proviso would be to give a kind of charter to corporations in the matter of sewage, so long as they were using "the best practicable and available means" to render their sewage harmless. Such a state of the law could not long be maintained.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he exonerated noble Lords opposite from any desire to oppose the general principle of this Bill. He must, however, remark that the course of this discussion had been not a little singular. It arose on Amendments proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) which were small in amount and purely verbal; and on others that had been introduced in consequence of suggestions from noble Lords opposite themselves. Then an objection was taken that the clause itself would interfere with very great interests; but his noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) pointed out that though alterations had been made in other parts of the Bill, this clause was now substantially the same what it was when the Bill was introduced in May last. Then objections were urged against the clause itself, which if effect were given to them would render the whole Bill worthless. The noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) had pointed out what the effect of these objections must be. It did not seem to be remembered by some noble Lords that though the provisions of the Bill were to be carried out by local bodies they would be carried out under the supervision of a great Department of the Government, and in the full blaze of public opinion. Then as to the Proviso, and the defence which it allowed, in cases in which the pollution had been going on and previously to January, 1875, their Lordships would do well to bear in mind that in all legislation what were called vested interests had to be to some extent regarded, and that a very great good would be achieved if the future pollution of rivers were prevented. He admitted that if the Bill in its original integrity could have been carried he would have preferred it; but he asked their Lordships not to reject on objections such as had been urged that evening legislation which had been so long called for, and which even in the shape in which it was then before their Lordships was calculated to do so much good.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) knew that it was very easy to get up opposition to any Bill dealing with the subject to which the one before their Lordships was directed; but the re was no desire on the part of noble Lords
  776
  on the Opposition side to oppose the principle of the Bill:—on the contrary, as was very well known, there was as great an anxiety on their parts to pass a good measure for the prevention of the pollution of our rivers as there could possibly be on the Government side. Objections were taken to details, and then they were told that these were of the very essence of the Bill—he was not so sure that the Government had yet made up their mind as to what was the essence of the measure. The noble Marquess when introducing the original Bill made a speech of great ability to show how practicable the Bill would be; but the next time he spoke on the subject he showed what insuperable objections there were to some parts of it. The measure was in three divisions—one relating to solid matter, one to sewage, and one to manufacturing impurities. With regard to the first, he believed there was little or no difference on the subject, and that had the Bill been confined to solid matter there would have been no difficulty in passing it; but the noble Marquess must see from what had passed in their Lordships' House that evening that on the other points there were wide differences of opinion. With regard to this Proviso, he feared that if it were passed it would be a great obstruction to future legislation, because it would give to the parties concerned a prescription of wrong doing. He put it to the noble Marquess whether there was any use in the Government passing clauses in their Lordships' House now which in all probability they would have to give up hereafter if they meant the Bill to pass through Parliament during the present Session.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he was convinced that they would effect nothing until they got beyond the stage of simply telling people what they ought not to do, and constituted some authority with power to decide clearly what ought to be done.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 85; Not-Contents 45: Majority 40.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Prohibition as to drainage into streams from manufactories).
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved the insertion of the word "discolouring" after "noxious," his object being to render the discolouring of a river or stream an offence.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he should have been very glad if it had been in his power to accede to the Amendment. It was a great evil that so many of our more beautiful rivers were discoloured by the processes of manufacture carried on upon their banks; but in dealing with this question the Government had gone upon the principle of preventing that only which was a real wrong, and in doing so not if possible to interfere with industries by which thousands of persons were supported. "Discolouration" of the water was an offence against taste rather than against health or purity. The dyes which produced the greatest discolouration were chiefly logwood, fustic, and vegetable dyes of that kind, but they did not make the water unwholesome. A gentleman had informed him that he discoloured 7,000,000 gallons of water per diem, and that the fish came about his works rather than other parts of the river, and the state of obesity which those fish attained was something striking. He had no evidence on the other side, and was, therefore, forced to admit the statement. No chemical process, however, was known by which these costly dyes could be prevented when used from dyeing the water also, and it rested with their Lordships to say whether the mere æsttetic objection ought in that case to prevail. He believed it was perfectly accurate to say that if words were introduced into the clause to prevent the discolouration of water, the result would be that ninetenths of the mills in Scotland would have to be closed. Having regard to the interests concerned, he could not accept the Amendment.
  LORD CARLINGFORDregretted the noble Marquess had not informed the Committee why it was he proposed the present clause at all. He had understood him to state on a former occasion that the proper complement of the Bill would be another measure to be introduced next year dealing with manufacturing processes; and he had fully understood him to say that the whole of that part of this Bill by which it was intended to interfere with those processes
  778
  was to be abandoned. He was astonished, therefore, to find Clause 4 in the Bill, and he wished, therefore, to ask the noble Marquess why it was he anticipated by such a clause that complement of legislation to which he had referred—although, indeed, the course proposed by the clause to be adopted was so cumbrous that it could, he thought, have hardly any operation even if passed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYbegged to remind the noble Lord that the Question before the Committee was whether the word "discolouring" should be inserted in the clause. He might, however, explain that the object of the clause was that where there was no existing interest it should be absolutely unlawful to introduce new mining or manufacturing pollution into rivers, and that the question of pollution by existing manufactories and mines should be left for consideration to another year. It was proposed by this Bill to take that point of departure which Parliament had hitherto neglected to take, and which, if it had been taken 20 years ago, would have removed many of the difficulties with which Parliament had now to contend in dealing with the subject.
  LORD ABERDAREregretted that the Government had not grappled with the question in a more comprehensive spirit, so as to give the largest possible powers to the general and local authorities to execute those works on a great scale of general sewage which alone would enable them to comply with the law.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDwas of opinion that the words of the clause as they stood would scarcely carry out the object which the noble Marquess stated he had in view. As to the legislation proposed being piecemeal, he did not at the present advanced period of the Session feel disposed to find fault with the Bill on that account. He thought that at this time it would be somewhat inconvenient to introduce a comprehensive measure. As it was now declared that existing interests were not to be interfered with, he thought the fact should be more clearly stated.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that there was this difficulty in the way of inserting a Proviso in the clause declaring that it should not apply to present mining and manufacturing pollution, that when Parliament

  779
  came to legislate on the subject next year the objection would be raised that it had already given its sanction to the proceedings of existing interests. He should, however, be glad to insert any words in the clause which would express exactly that which was the intention of the Government. He thought the matter must be dealt with very tenderly if it was proposed to make it subject of future legislation.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, the noble Marquess advocated the course which he asked the Committee to sanction on the ground that it would facilitate the progress of any comprehensive measure which might be introduced next year. But how, he should like to know, would it facilitate the passing of such a measure if all those who were now engaged in those trades should stand shoulder to shoulder for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and defending their monopoly? And might not the anticipation of future interference discourage the creation of new manufacturing establishments?
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHurged that by the exercise of skill and the use of proper means for the purpose the pollution of rivers by manufactories might be very considerably reduced. The only effect of the clause would be that those who started new manufactories would be obliged to adopt those remedies which many polluters of rivers were very disinclined even to think of. It was very necessary, indeed, by some measure to prevent new sources of pollution from springing up. Esparto grass, for instance, had been recently introduced for the manufacture of paper, and the refuse of this was of poisonous quality.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the words of the clause were clear enough. In regard to new manufactories the Bill did not change the law; it did not make anything illegal which was now legal. On the other hand, Clause 6 provided that every sanitary or other local authority having sewers under their control should give facilities, which were not given now, to enable manufacturers within their district to carry noxious liquids into the sewers upon terms to be settled by agreement or arbitration. That was a most material advantage to be afforded to those who set up new manufactories. Then,
  780
  as to their throwing protection by this Bill around existing manufacturers who polluted rivers and who might hereafter band themselves together against future legislation, he would remind their Lordships that the 12th clause of the Bill provided that—
  "All powers given by this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred by Act of Parliament, law, or custom, and such other powers may be exercised in the same manner as if this Act had not passed; and nothing in this Act shall legalize any act or default which would but for this Act be deemed to be a nuisance or otherwise contrary to law."
  Therefore, those who were at present polluting rivers would not in the slightest degree be in a better position than they were now. All that was proposed to be done was in creating an improved machinery to say that it should not be put in force in regard to de facto manufacturing operations until after a certain period. The real object was to point to future legislation of some kind or other which was to have the effect of putting in motion the powers of the Bill against those who were now polluting rivers.
  LORD SELBORNEthought there was no reason for so fettering proceedings under that Bill, the object being to legislate hereafter. It would be an additional motive to those now engaged in polluting rivers to use their endeavours to prevent future legislation if that Bill were made inapplicable to them until such future legislation was adopted. It would be better, he thought, to say, that proceedings should not be taken for a certain time—say two years—which would give Parliament full opportunity to legislate during the interval so allowed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not believe that the owners of dye-works would have so much Parliamentary influence to prevent the passing of a Bill introduced early in the Session as they might have in July.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLwas of opinion that, instead of being an equal law, the Bill would be easy of enforcement against those who might hereafter become manufacturers and difficult of enforcement against those who were at present polluters of streams.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Administration of Law.
  Clause 5 (Sanitary authority to afford facilities for manufactories to drain into sewers) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power of sanitary authority to enforce Act).
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEpointed out that in the original Bill the clause had been permissive and that it had now been made compulsory. He had been surprised by this change, for he had noticed it immediately after reading some remarks made elsewhere by the noble Marquess on the superior virtue of the word "may" as compared with the word "shall." He was glad that in this instance the noble Marquess had been guilty of a slight infidelity to his principle. The duty of enforcing this Bill would fall chiefly on the medical officers of the sanitary authorities, and it would be well to consider the position they occupied. Taking one or two cases at random, he found that one medical officer, in a population of 31,000, received £25 a-year; another, in a population of 45,000, had £200; and a third, in a population of 20,000, had £50. They were allowed, of course, private practice in addition. Before powers such as those given by this Bill were conferred upon the local sanitary authorities those bodies should be re-constituted, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of bringing in before long some measure to effect an alteration in the direction he indicated.
  LORD ABERDAREwished to know whether a local authority higher up the stream was to be liable to prosecution by a local authority lower down the stream?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYreplied that if a local authority fouled a stream they would be liable to be prosecuted by the local authority whose stream they fouled. It was rather too much to ask the country to wait for a moderate and necessary measure like the present until some vast re-construction in the constitution of our sanitary authorities had been achieved.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Power of Local Government Board to enforce Act) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Constitution and expenses of conservancy authority).
  LORD ABERDAREasked whether some protection should not be given to those local authorities who showed an intention of carrying out the provisions of the Bill against indiscriminate prosecution before their arrangements and works could be completed?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that the suggestion of the noble Lord was not unreasonable, and would consider the point with the view of amending the clause on the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed. as amended. (No. 183.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.