COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 June 1875)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that the Bill had been kept on the Order Book of the House for a period considerably longer than was originally intended. That was due partly to the fact that ever since the second reading an unfailing stream of deputations had occupied his attention, and had only now terminated. He had had no idea until very recently that the measure could have excited so deep and lively an interest amongst such various classes of persons. Another reason which had induced him to delay proceeding with the Bill in Committee was that he was 429 anxious to arrive at some greater degree of certainty at the limits of legislation which would be prescribed by the progress of Business elsewhere. If it had been necessary to consult only their Lordships' time and willingness to work, it would be easy, he had no doubt, to deal with the whole of the subject, complicated though it might be, during the present Session; but the consideration of the state of Business in "another place" had led him to the conviction that no measure of great complication could be submitted to the House of Commons at the present moment with any chance of passing into law this Session. It became, under those circumstances, necessary for the Government to consider whether they would reduce the Bill by mutilating its proportions, so as to bring it into a shape which presented a greater likelihood of its passing rapidly through the other House, or withdraw it altogether; and he had endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of numerous deputations on that point. He found there was a pretty strong feeling that some of its provisions ought to be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible, even although those of a more complicated character should have to be deferred to a more convenient season. Now, the Bill divided itself into three principal heads. The first subject with which it dealt was the question of keeping solid pollution out of rivers; and upon that point he found that very little difference of opinion existed, and that persons in all parts of the country were strongly in favour of having that portion of the measure proceeded with. He had deemed it desirable to make the Bill more stringent in one or two particulars. It appeared that a great part of the solids which found their way into rivers and blocked them up were not positively thrown into them, but, having been placed upon the banks, were swept into them by the floods. As the Bill had stood it would not remedy that evil, and it was proposed to make it an offence to cast solid pollution into a stream, though the amount cast by any one person at one time might not be sufficient to interfere with the natural flow. He hoped, even at this period of the Session, that that was a provision which would be placed on the Statute Book. The next question was that of sewage;—and it was not a question of much difficulty or 430 complication, though he could not say the same unanimity existed with respect to it. In permitting sewage to be cast into rivers, it became necessary to deal as a rule, not with individuals, but with corporations invested by law with special powers. The offence, he might add—which was one of recent date—arose from injudicious attempts to provide for the public health, and was in no way connected with private interests. There need be no risk of ruining any individual or any manufacturing interest, because the persons who might be required to purify their sewage were corporate bodies—generally of modern creation—who had the purses of the ratepayers at their command. He therefore proposed to enact that all persons should cease to cast their pollution into the rivers of the country after a limited period, or should take means to purify it. He did not think there would be any opposition to those clauses—in his own county the thing was already done, and he hoped Parliament would not find the provisions of the Bill under that head too complicated to prevent their becoming law this Session. But the third point and real crux of the question was how to deal with the mining and manufacturing pollution. The proposal first made with regard to it in the Bill had met, he was bound to admit, with universal condemnation, and he did not intend to press that proposal further. The real difficulty in the matter lay in the fact that all the factories from which pollution flowed were, as a rule, built in towns and were close together. In such cases the difficulty in the way of each individual destroying his own pollution was almost insurmountable, and, as the Bill stood, it imposed on the manufacturer an obligation of the great difficulties in connection with which he had not been aware. He was, indeed, almost afraid to mention some of the higher figures which he had heard quoted; but taking 2,000,000 gallons a-day, and assuming it to require 24 hours for any chemical to effect the necessary purification, it would be necessary to have a pit 25ft. deep and covering an acre of ground. It was obvious, therefore, that purification could in such cases be accomplished only by carrying the polluted water altogether away. Now, each individual could not himself construct a drain, and the sewage authorities protested most 431 loudly against any compulsory use of the sewers which belonged to them, because dangerous gases would, he was informed, be generated, which would force their way back into the houses. As the purification must be not individual but collective, it was obvious that the duty must be thrown on the locality as a whole. It was as a body that the manufacturers created the evil, and as a body they must correct it; and they could only correct it by means of special sewers, which would carry the pollution to some distant place where its ill-effects would not be felt. But that was not the only difficulty. In some places the dye-works obtained their water from waterworks or wells; and that was water to which the riparian owner had no right, and of which they might lawfully deprive him; they might take it and conduct it away and no harm would be done. But in many cases the water was obtained from the river itself; and if they took it away by artesial drainage the consequences would be that the riparian owners lower down who wanted the water for their steam engines, would be seriously injured. The result was that any effort to correct the terrible pollution of rivers in manufacturing towns could only be made effectual by means of a scheme for each river, to be carried out by some authority on which they should place an obligation like that imposed some years ago on the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was charged with the duty of providing for the general purification of the River Thames. What that authority should be—whether it should be a local Conservancy Board or some other body—was not a matter to be decided now, but might well be left for future discussion. Their Lordships, he thought, would unanimously agree in the proposition that the provisions required for vesting in any such authority the necessary powers for fulfilling that task would be so large and so complicated that the attempt to carry them through the House of Commons at the present time would be impracticable. He therefore proposed to defer that portion of this legislation until next year. He proposed, however, to provide that where the pollution from manufactories came by a channel by which it did not come at the beginning of this year, it should be unlawful; so that they might start from this year and declare that 432 there should be no further pollution of rivers. If so simple a provision had been passed 10 or 20 years ago, much of that evil would have been prevented. It was very desirable, therefore, that Parliament should arrest the further growth of that pollution of rivers until it could adopt some general scheme for each drainage area. They did not want by the present Bill to lay down, or even to hint, that those who were now polluting rivers were at liberty to go on doing so for ever. On the contrary, this was only a necessarily imperfect portion of a scheme, and they did not wish that any Minister who might in future take up that question should be told that it had been previously all settled, and that he must meet the claims of vested interests. As a matter of English he despaired of being able to define a "stream," and therefore he thought it better to say that no stream should be included in the Bill which was not eo nomine proclaimed for that purpose by the Local Government Board. That would afford a security that the measure would not be applied for frivolous ends or objects of annoyance. He thought the County Court was capable of dealing with questions as to sewage, and he proposed to insert a clause giving an appeal to the Superior Courts at Westminster. These were the chief points as to which it had been necessary to change the measure. He trusted that those provisions, or some of them at least, might be fortunate enough to obtain the assent of Parliament this year, for he felt certain that any diminution of the present evil, however small, would be beneficial to the public.

LORD ABERDAER
said, he saw no reason why they should not adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess, so far as dealing with solid matter was concerned; and he therefore heartily supported him on that part of the Bill. But when they came to the question of sewage, he saw not only difficulty, but formidable objection to what was now proposed. It must be remembered that it was not always possible to remove sewage except by the aid of steam. He did not think the subject was one with 433 which it was impossible for Government to deal, but he believed it to be necessary to secure the co-operation of the local authorities and the manufacturers. The ratepayers of a locality had a great interest in the question; and as the law now stood while you forbad the pollution of streams by pouring sewage into them, you allowed manufacturers to discharge their refuse into them. He was most anxious that something should be done, and thought that a comprehensive scheme which would be acceptable to all parties might be introduced next Session. As to the present Bill, he found it, even with the proposed Amendments, open to many objections.

§ LORD SELBORNE
disapproved the proposal to cast upon the County Courts the duty of adjudicating upon sewage cases; this did not come within the proper business of these Courts, and could not, in his opinion, be effectually dealt with by them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the objection of the noble and learned Lord was perfectly just, and was one of the causes that had led to the Amendment of the Bill; and that in its amended form it would probably be found satisfactory in the respect referred to.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
thought the noble Marquess had done right in giving up the attempt to pass the Bill in its present shape through both Houses of Parliament this Session. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare), that though it was only intended to give up one portion of the Bill, it was better to postpone the whole subject to next Session, especially considering the clause that the shortened was very liable to be cut short when it got to the other House. He would suggest that before the measure was reprinted the Amendments should be carefully reconsidered, in order that the passing of it by that House might not be followed—as was sometimes the case—by abandonment immediately afterwards in "another place."

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he certainly could not guarantee that the Bill would pass through the other House, even were it made much shorter. It was proposed that no sewage offence should arise under the Bill till after the end of 1876.