SECOND READING. (Hansard, 30 July 1885)

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL
My Lords, I rise to move the second reading of the Bill on Smoke Abatement. Let me first explain the interval which has elapsed since it was read a first time this Session. Down to the middle of June I was absorbed by questions far more urgent in their character. The course of Parliament was then long interrupted. When it was resumed on the 6th of July, there was little chance of getting such a measure through the House of Commons for the 477 present. If it is only read a second time and goes no further, yet the object of its friends will be promoted. Last Session the Bill was advocated fully on two stages. It was carried on the last by a majority of more than two to one against the strenuous efforts of the late Government, excepting always the noble Duke their Master of the Horse (the Duke of Westminster), who is as much concerned in it as I am. It is chiefly because a number of Peers on either side have lately joined us that I feel bound to give a hurried explanation of it. The Bill starts from the measures of Lord Palmerston, at the time when he was Home Secretary. It contemplates a gradual action on the smoke of private houses, as he directed his enactments against the smoke of large commercial factories in London. It is useless to efface the smoke of large commercial factories if the void is constantly filled up by the new houses which arise with wonderful rapidity. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston are baffled by a steady influx of the evil which they were framed to obviate. It is something like the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund is excellent when you have ceased to borrow. But it has been found that there is no good in reducing debt when you are steadily augmenting it. The aggregate of smoke in London must be greater than it was when Lord Palmerston began to operate against it. Beyond that, the Statutes of Lord Palmerston are not enforced with rigour, because it is seen that, even if they were, the evil which they have in view would not be seriously mitigated. Some action, therefore, is required in order to do justice to the legislation of Lord Palmerston. It can only be brought about by the mechanism of local bodies. The householders will not submit to interference except from local bodies which they have helped to form, which they know how to reach, which they are qualified to influence. The leading feature of the Bill is to enable Vestries, through their bye-laws under the direction of the Home Office, to make the evil which prevails illegal for the future. It may be said that, however just the power, it will not be exerted. Possibly it may not. It will turn much upon the pressure of opinion, discussion out-of-doors, the feeling of society. But even if all the local bodies are inactive, 478 by other clauses some good will arise of a subordinate description. The excessive and opaque smoke which at times proceeds from clubs when some unwonted dinner is preparing may be immediately prohibited. The Statutes of Lord Palmerston will operate over a wider area than hitherto they have done. The Metropolitan Board of Works will gain a further jurisdiction over the heating apparatus of new houses, which, as 25,000 are added every year, become a vast ingredient in a formidable problem. I contended last year, and I hold still, that the discretionary power of the local bodies will be exerted in the City, even if elsewhere it is latent. The Lord Mayor of the day may easily obtain its application, and there are many influences well known to the House by which a Lord Mayor may be urged into activity for any object which is just and irreproachable. Some few objections ought, perhaps, to be encountered. It has been urged that mechanical invention is not advanced sufficiently for restraining smoke in private houses. But this impression wholly overlooks the history of the subject. Last year I pointed to seven methods by which the object may be compassed. For 100 years the scientific world has been employed upon the subject. In 1785 the well-known author of the steam engine, James Watt, took out a patent with regard to it in furnaces. There is no more reason that London should be enveloped as it is than any other capital of Europe. The use of coke and wood, or coke and gas, or coke alone, with a little alteration of existing fire-places to increase the draught, would be sufficient for the object. The late Sir William Siemens is the master we should look to. The noble Duke the Chairman of the Institute on Smoke has also tried experiments by which the public may be guided. In some quarters it is feared that the liberty of the householder would be improperly encroached upon. On the contrary, he would enjoy a greater latitude and more authority than he does at present. He is now confined, not by law, but custom, which is infinitely stronger to the use of raw coal in ordinary fire-places. Whenever he departs from it—as there is no necessity to do so—his family and servants are nearly certain to oppose him. I knew a householder, some years ago, 479 conversant with the question, who introduced the Arnott stove throughout his mansion, except the kitchen, where, of course, it was most needed, but where the opposition was too serious to deal with. When this Bill is carried, and when his local body acts upon it, the householder will be armed by law; he will pull himself together; he will compare the different modes of heating which exist; he will form a sound and prudent choice between them, and insist on the necessity of quitting the old routine from which for years he has vainly struggled to release himself. But there was one objection mentioned by my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, that as some local bodies would apply the law, while others did not, smoke might be legal on one side of a street and illegal on the other. But even if it was the case the atmosphere would gain a little. Where it was not corrected no new hardship would arise. Can it be doubted that the action of the defaulting body would be hastened, that both sides of the street would soon be under the enactment on the old principle, Cum proximus ardet. But the objection of the late Government, which forced a division on the House last year, has vanished altogether. It was that the whole subject ought to be referred to a huge central body which the late Government proposed to organize. In vain it was demonstrated that such a jurisdiction could not act on smoke at all, because it would have no proper title to fix an area for the experiment, and would not venture to impose restraint upon the whole of the Metropolis together. Nothing would satisfy the Government of that day except leaving smoke to the repression of a colossal power which was not certain to arise, and could not venture to repress it. To encroach upon the privileges of that gigantic form was inconsistent with the tenderness which it inspired even before its parturition was effected. The late Government were haunted by it. We have heard of a celebrated novel called Frankenstein, by Mrs. Shelley. Frankenstein was overpowered and entangled by the monster he had too ambitiously created. He did not turn pale before the imagined dignity and hypothetical austerity of the monster he was never doomed to call into existence. It may be urged by some that Vestries are not final, and 480 that new municipal divisions will replace them. Whenever that occurs their powers as to smoke may be easily transferred to the new municipal divisions by which the capital is governed. Let me run over very briefly the positive advantages which the measure aims at. One is, of course, the greater purity of domiciles. Smoke is now destructive of furniture, of linen, of dresses, and many other thing which womanhood appreciates. Another is the sanitary benefit. You cannot leave with prudence, in constantly deteriorating air, the masses you are striving to transfer to better habitations. As to architecture, I will not now repeat what I have dwelt upon before; but wish to make this observation. Unless smoke is overcome you cannot have the colour you desire for edifices which are rising. The influence of smoke on architecture is too extensive and minute a topic to be handled at this moment. There is but one opinion among experts of its consequences. Of course, it may be argued that the Bill can never reach the Statute Book this Session. The object is, by the unanimous concurrence of the House, to facilitate the task of Governments in afterwards adopting it. It is not in all respects desirable that Bills should become Acts—even if they can—unless a Government proposes them. Governments are forced by a political necessity which grew up after the first Reform Act—whether they like or not—to offer legislation to the country. If the material of proper legislation is consumed—it cannot be unlimited —they are driven to schemes revolting to themselves and prejudicial to the country. It is sufficient for the framers of the present Bill to lay before them a path which is not either dangerous or unprofitable. I therefore ask your Lordships to repeat the step which a year ago you had the goodness to decide on. I will now move the second reading of the Bill.

§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)
said, that since the 19th of March this Bill has been slumbering peacefully on the Orders as a Bill that awaited the second reading, and it was not until Tuesday last that the second reading was put clown for this day. In these circumstances it could scarcely 481 have received adequate consideration from their Lordships. He supposed the noble Lord did not intend to proceed any further with it this Session; at any rate, if he did intend to do so, it would be his (Earl Beauchamp's) duty to point out the many grave defects which existed in the Bill. Everyone would sympathize with the object of the Bill, which was to limit waste and extravagance in the consumption of coal, because they were injurious to health, and property; but it was another question whether the machinery of the Bill was the best adapted for the purpose. That, however, was a point into which they need not now stop to inquire. He would recommend that it be read a second time, and that the Order for Committee should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

§ LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE
said, that their Lordships would be unanimous on the point that smoke was a nuisance in London, and it was a reflection on our civilization that so little had been done to diminish it. It was a mistake to suppose that the unconsumed coal which floated in the air we breathed and the dismal pall of smoke which hung over London was inevitable. Mechanical science had made such advance that there was now no difficulty in preventing the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke, and it was a wrong upon the public that individuals should have unlimited power to injure themselves and others by negligently contributing to the nuisance. Moreover, there was a great waste of carbon, which might be economized and utilized by mechanical science. This Bill provided amendments of the law worthy of the deliberate consideration of their Lordships in the next Session.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL
said, that in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench he would have willingly exposed the Bill to the ordeal of a Select Committee, to give it greater accuracy and precision, although it was not carelelssly drawn up, had there been time for such a process. As things stood he did not wish it to go beyond the second reading for the present, and he trusted that their Lordships would see no reason to depart from the conclusion they had previously arrived at.