Lords Sitting of 2 March 1891

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for codifying the law relating to the sale of goods—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; real 1a; and to be printed (No. 48).
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 22.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill for abating smoke in the Metropolis, and I shall not detain the House by any formal or extended statement on the subject. I happen to be myself a victim to the fogs, for the abatement of which the Bill proposes to operate; and, having been unable to attend the House at all last week, am still incapable of speaking for more than a few minutes. Let me mention here that I have to-day received a communication from the noble Duke who owns so much of London, and whose interest in and zeal on the subject are so well known, that he is unable to attend this evening to support the Bill on account of a similar impediment. In any case, it might not have been necessary, or even desirable, to enter into any train of reasoning to-night upon the question. In substance, this Bill has been read a second time on four occasions by your Lordships—the first time after a Debate and a Division; the second time without any opposition; the third time unanimously, with an intimation that it should be referred to a Select Committee; the fourth time unanimously also. Another ground for avoiding a lengthened explanation at this moment is that should the Bill be read a second time and passed through Committee, of which, at last, this year there is some prospect, its opponents—and it has one or two opponents—may, on the Third Reading, think it proper to come forward and resist it. At that time argument will be required which now would be superfluous and wasted. There
  1902
  is only one point which I am bound to mention to your Lordships. It is that this Bill differs so far from the former ones that the interference or action of the Home Office is not in any way entailed in it; and as it stands, the Vestries will at once be armed with the power to act against the evil now so generally recognised and so widely felt. By that slight alteration it meets an objection which was uttered by that noble and learned Lord who, in 1886, for a short time occupied the Woolsack. Its substance is unaltered; it is directed, as before, against the emission of smoke from private houses, which it is ascertained by experts forms four-fifths of all the smoke in the Metropolis. There is only one further point that I am particularly anxious to press upon the House—it is that every year the case, as one may term it, in favour of the Second Reading is spontaneously increasing. Every year adds to the number of mechanical inventions and facilities for grappling with the smoke nuisance. Many might he mentioned now which could not have been even suggested when I last brought forward the subject before the House two years ago. Each year more mechanical inventions are brought out, and every year it will he easier for householders to act upon the provisions of the Bill when it is carried. But again, every year the evil to be resisted or mitigated is in itself advancing in extent, because every year (to understate it) 20,000 houses are known to be added to the number in the Capital. I shall urge nothing more because I am particularly anxious that those two facts should be remembered by your Lordships, and I therefore simply move that the Bill he read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether any one else will call attention to this Bill, but I think your Lordships ought not to give it a Second Reading without well examining the nature of it. I suppose there will be no difference of opinion that the smoke of London is an intolerable nuisance—everybody agrees in that; and that when combined with fogs the nuisance is still more grievous; but it

  1903
  does not therefore follow that your Lordships should assent to the Second Reading of this Bill when, as I think, I can show your Lordships the effect of it would not be to establish a state of things which could be worked, and would not remove the grievance. First of all I wish to say in answer to what the noble Lord said about the Bill having passed—that is Bills for abating smoke nuisance—four times, a few words in regard to what took place last year. What took place was this: The noble Lord brought in a Bill on this subject, and it was referred to one of the Standing Committees of which I had the honour to be a member. The noble Lord, in spite of our having given him full notice of the time for the Bill being taken into consideration, did not do us the honour of attending the Committee. The Committee was then adjourned, thinking that possibly the noble Lord might not have known the hour of meeting; but, notwithstanding the opportunity thus given him, the noble Lord never appeared to explain to us the wording of his own Bill. The Committee, not with standing it was under the disadvantage of not having the advice and assistance of the noble Lord, went at considerable length into the subject, and produced a Bill which might or might not have been approved by the House, but which had, at all events, received very careful examination. Even then, however, the noble Lord did not take the necessary steps to prevent the whole matter falling through, the consequence being that the work of the Standing Committee was rendered entirely useless, and the Bill was abandoned. Now the noble Lord wishes to bring in a different Bill, and I will, with your Lordships' permission, briefly call attention to its provisions. The gist of it is contained in a few words. In future, if this Bill passes, there is to be a penalty imposed in the case of all dwelling-houses—I suppose hotels, clubs and eating-houses might be called dwelling-houses—from which opaque smoke is allowed to issue from chimneys. Of course the question arises immediately, "What is opaque smoke"? I suppose all smoke is more or less opaque. But we are not left entirely to conjecture. There is a definition given of "opaque smoke," and it states that that expression is to mean "Smoke of such volume or
  1904
  density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere." I am afraid I must confess I am not skilled in legal knowledge, but I should be exceedingly amused to see a court in this country engaged in the task of endeavouring to determine exactly what "volume of smoke" would "unnecessarily impair the atmosphere." Surely that is not a definition sufficiently accurate to enable a penalty to be imposed upon a man for allowing such smoke to issue from a chimney. Then there is a provision which apparently is intended to guard against unnecessary hardship. In the 6th clause, which provides for the infliction of penalties, there is this further proviso—
  "That where any person is summoned before any Court in respect of an offence against this Act the Court shall dismiss the complaint if it is satisfied that the person so summoned has adopted all reasonable measures, regard being had to his means and condition in life, and has used due diligence and care to prevent as far as possible the emission of opaque smoke."
  It seems to me that it would be very difficult to determine exactly the means and condition in life of every person who might be summoned under this Bill, and his power or use of due diligence in stopping smoke. Then there is a provision in the last clause which unfortunately seems to be rather premature. It says that—
  "The London County Council may from time to time make, and when made, alter and repeal bye-laws for requiring any fireplace or furnace intended to be used in any building to be constructed after the passing of this Act, to be so constructed as to consume, burn, or otherwise prevent as far as possible all smoke arising therefrom."
  Now, I apprehend the difficulty is that unfortunately hitherto no fireplace has been invented for a private house which will consume its own smoke; therefore, the London County Council is not in a position to make these contemplated bye-laws. I will only add that I have not made these remarks from a desire to discourage anyone in a laudable endeavour to prevent, if possible, this smoke nuisance which we all concur is grievous, but because I do not think it is of much use to pass legislation which has not been sufficiently considered. Whether your Lordships may think it desirable to give it a Second Reading or not I do not know, but if a Second Reading is given to it, I do hope that when the Bill goes into

  1905
  Committee, both, when it is before the Standing Committee and also before the Committee of the whole House, the noble Lord will attend and give us full explanations as to the working of the Bill, and that afterwards he will not abandon it but will carry it through the House.
  LORD NORTON: With reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, it seems to me all that is wanted is not new legislation, but the power to apply existing legislation to what may be called domestic fires. Statutes have been already enacted in respect of smoke from manufactories. In those Acts all the terms employed are well known, and have stood the brunt of legal discussion. I think the phrase there is not "opaque smoke" but "black smoke." At all events there is some phrase of that kind in the existing Acts which is intelligible and has stood legal criticism. I happen to know something of those Acts, because they emanated from the Report of a Royal Commission of which I was Chairman some years ago, and from which I may say all Acts connected with sanitary legislation have been taken since. I know the difficulties of the existing law from having tried to enforce it in a large town, Birmingham, in the neighbourhood of which I reside. The great difficulty is that the Magistrates are themselves the nuisance makers, and they will not enforce the Acts for suppressing it. What is wanted, I think, is more power in the Local Government Board to compel the Local Authorities to act, because so long as you entrust the smoke makers—that is to say the manufacturers, to inflict penalties upon themselves the law will be nugatory. What is wanted, in fact, is to comprise domestic smoke within the provisions as to factory smoke, and give central power to enforce local action, and there is no doubt that can be done, for it is done at this moment by a Local Act at Bradford, and there can be no reason why the same thing should not be done as regards London. I think the noble Earl is wrong in saying that there has been no invention to make it possible that domestic fires shall consume their own smoke. There is one invention of very great simplicity which would entail no great expense, and which would make an enormous saving in fuel, resulting in
  1906
  great economy to everybody using it, besides improving the state of the atmosphere for the rest of the public. I think the object which this Bill attempts to meet ought to be carried out by legislation for the use in future of some such inventions. I am almost afraid to say what many manufacturers have told me with regard to the economy which would be effected by ensuring the consumption of smoke, and the very small expense of carrying it out in comparison with the value of the immense quantity of fuel that is now wasted throughout the country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if we go upon the principle of passing the Second Reading of all Bills with the intention and object of which we sympathise, I think we shall give a Second Reading to this Bill, but my support of it cannot go much further than that. It is one of the most painfully drawn Bills I ever saw. It says that—
  "The expression 'opaque smoke' means smoke of such volume or density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere."
  This is an interpretation clause which, I think, would give infinite pleasure, amusement, and occupation to Her Majesty's Courts of Justice. The expression "means smoke of such volume or density as unnecessarily to impair the atmosphere." So that there may be smoke with no density at all; it may be absolutely translucent; but yet if there be sufficient "volume" to unnecessarily impair the atmosphere, it becomes opaque smoke. Then, what is meant by impairing the atmosphere, in the first instance, and what is meant by doing so unnecessarily? Does not that go to the whole policy of the Bill, leaving it entirely to the Judges to determine whether it is so or not, and whether Parliament had that in view in passing the Statute whether wisely or not? Then, the Court is to decide according to the "means and condition" of people in life. Does that mean that a Duke may make more smoke than a Baron? I think it is a most extraordinary position to adopt. The clause relating to penalties says that the Court is to dismiss a complaint if it is satisfied that the person summoned has adopted all reasonable measures, regard being had to

  1907
  his means and condition in life, and has used due diligence and care to prevent as far as possible the emission of opaque smoke. But my great objection to the Bill is that it attacks the small offenders and lets the great offenders pass. No doubt the private dwelling houses are great sinners in this respect, but they are not nearly so great sinners as the manufactories. The title of the Bill and the preamble refer to "furnaces and fireplaces within the Metropolis," but there is not a word about furnaces in the body of the Bill. It is quite true that during the last 30 years Parliament has been legislating against smoke from manufactories, and I imagine the result of the Parliamentary efforts made has been very much to leave matters as they were when Parliament began legislating, and that it has been found impossible to offer any serious check to the practice of producing smoke. At all events, if that is not so it is very difficult to explain the blackened and dirty condition of our manufacturing towns. Unless legislation of this kind can be enforced as against manufactories, I do not see how there is any hope of its being carried out as against private houses. Public opinion would support the sending of Inspectors to factories, because there is a general feeling that we are bound to carry out the requirements of the Local Authorities in matters affecting the public health; but if you take to sending Inspectors to private houses it is probable that before an Inspector could go through two streets he would have his head broken. There does not appear to be the least chance that in the present state of public opinion such a law could be carried out. I believe it is the intention of the Home Office to allow the Bill to be read a second time, but I hope the House will consider very carefully before it allows these extraordinary provisions to pass into law.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I would venture to submit one or two considerations to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. Everybody, of course, sympathises with the object in view, and everybody who has suffered from the fogs which have prevailed lately must feel a very special sympathy with it, indeed, under the circumstances. On the other hand never probably has a Bill been introduced into this House which so
  1908
  directly affects so many of Her Majesty's subjects, because this Bill will create an obligation upon every freeholder as soon as it passes. Unless, therefore, the householders sympathise with the object of the measure, it is calculated to arouse an enormous amount of opposition; and what I would submit for the consideration of the noble Lord is this: whether, seeing that it is a Bill which directly affects every householder, it would not be better to leave the initiation of such a measure to the other House in which those householders are directly represented rather than that such legislation should be initiated here. No doubt if in the other House where householders are directly represented any measure for dealing with this nuisance were carried and sent to your Lordships' House, it would receive most favourable consideration, and there would be every desire to pass it into law; but I would venture to ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is likely that any measure initiated here, and which has not obtained a strong backing from the householders of the country, would have a chance of passing in the other House? I would, therefore, suggest that he should allow a measure with this object to be brought forward in the other House where the people affected are directly represented, unless he can ascertain that it will receive a very large share of support from the general public.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I regret exceedingly that the turn which the discussion has taken should impose upon me the necessity of answering when, as I have stated to the House, I am not very well qualified to address your Lordships. But I will just say a word—indeed, I am bound to do so—in reference to what took place in the Standing Committee. I avoided that topic purely because in this House I wish as far as possible to avoid all acrimonious discussions as regards the Standing Committees. In that regard I am wholly irreproachable, and if I allude to it at all I should do so in the tone of an accuser. The noble Earl who first spoke is utterly inaccurate in his statement of what took place, and he would, I think, have shown greater wisdom if he had avoided the topic altogether. In the first place, it was not last year at all. That will give your

  1909
  Lordships a measure of the noble Earl's precision; it was the year before last.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So it was; the noble Lord is quite right.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I appeared in obedience to the summons, and a late Member of your Lordships' House who is much lamented, Lord Carnarvon, requested me to allow the consideration of the Bill to stand over for another week, and as the tribunal was then entirely new I was not disposed to face at once that new organisation, my friends and supporters being absent also. Then the next week no summons to attend reached me, with the accustomed irregularity of those most extraordinary bodies which your Lordships have now had the wisdom to put an end to. In my absence—a proceeding which I think was most unjustifiable—the opponents of the Bill were allowed to discuss and mutilate it; to withdraw the proposition which formed its essence and its principle; and to abrogate entirely the Second Reading which your Lordships had repeatedly acceded to. The principle of the Bill has always been to operate against smoke being emitted from private houses, and the course pursued by the Standing Committee was to withdraw everything by which private houses would be affected. Then, let me go on to state the reason for the apparent delay on the Third Reading, the only occasion on which I could appear. I did my utmost to defend the remnant and wreck of the Bill, and I was present when this statement from some one who represented the Opposition to the measure was made, that "the Bill could only be endorsed by the Standing Committee if" (the expression was utterly ridiculous) "every thing would be eliminated which related to the smoke from private houses." The conduct of the Standing Committee, therefore, ruined the measure, and I have always thought that if I were called upon to take part in the re-arrangement of the Orders as to Standing Committees I could not do better than simply report to your Lordships what took place on that occasion as a final condemnation of those bodies. The Standing Committee literally took upon itself to repeal the Second Reading; and as the Standing Committee, who were empowered and instructed merely to amend the clauses of a Bill of
  1910
  which your Lordships had thought proper to pass the Second Reading two weeks before, took upon itself to eliminate its essence and its principle, I was no longer concerned in the fate of the Bill. I cannot but say again that I think the noble Earl would have been wise in avoiding that topic altogether. Then what else fell from the noble Earl? He said that there are no mechanical inventions for consuming smoke in private houses. What does that establish? It only establishes the utter ignorance of the noble Earl upon the subject. He is, no doubt, well-versed in many topics, and is not bound to be conversant with the later inventions upon this subject, which has greatly occupied me. It is, therefore, no reproach for him to be unaware that mechanical inventions abound on the subject. At the different stages of these Bills during the last few years, I have enumerated before your Lordships no less than a dozen contrivances by which smoke might be restricted. The noble Marquess, able master as we know he is of gibes, witticisms, jocularities, and sarcasms, is, no doubt, competent to turn any definitions into ridicule; and it is no proof whatever that these definitions are ridiculous or imperfect that the noble Marquess should be able to draw a laugh at my expense. But he went on to speak about smoke in factories. Is he really unaware that for 20 years past we have had legislation on the subject? He alluded to the action of Parliament in this matter, as if he was unaware that Lord Palmerston in 1853 and 1856 introduced those Acts by which the smoke of factories may be restrained. It is quite true that the smoke from factories has not been restrained as it ought to have been. That shows merely that the law is not enforced. If the law had been enforced, and that had been the result, no doubt everybody would agree with the noble Marquess; but it is one of the many arguments which have been brought forward in favour of this measure which I bring before your Lordships, asking you to restrain the smoke from private houses—that to restrain the smoke from factories has been found impossible. Now I come to what was suggested by the noble and learned Lord who occupied the Woolsack for a short time in 1886.

  1911
  What was his main remark? It was that a Bill of this sort is not likely to reach the Statute Book unless it were supported by a great wave of popular opinion. I perfectly agree with him, and I say this measure is supported by a strong tide of popular opinion. I will merely mention one fact to justify that statement: during the last five years not one London journal has opposed this proposition, but, on the contrary, in great variety they have favoured it. Let me put this point to the House: suppose this Bill, which is altogether Metropolitan and urban, had reference to some other town, say Bristol—that it was to restrain smoke being emitted from buildings within the limits of that town, and that all the local public journals supported the measure, would not your Lordships think it a matter for very grave consideration before you would throw out a Bill upon Second Reading under those circumstances? But those are exactly the circumstances which confront us here. You can only learn what is the state of local or of the Metropolitan opinion to which the noble Earl alluded, through the journals of the given city, and though I am far from saying that all the journals of the Metropolis have thought it worth their while to utter an opinion upon this measure, all those who have done so have given an opinion in its favour. The noble and learned Lord went on to tell us that we had better wait until a Bill comes up from the other House of Parliament. Will the noble and learned Lord give us any guarantee that such a measure is likely to come to us from that House?—
  "Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis."
  We have at the present moment a Bill in our possession, we have a Bill here to send down to the other House. I am perfectly aware that it is open to the Select Committee to amend it, or to the Standing Committee, and that it is open on Third Reading for the House to amend it; but I do entreat, as the opinion of your Lordships is not, I think, antagonistic to it, at this stage to avoid a course which would bring considerable obloquy upon your House, at the same time that it would prolong the fogs and add to the smoke nuisance which now afflict this Metropolis.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I cannot be at all surprised that the question with which the Bill of the noble Lord deals, should have been brought by aim before your Lordships; indeed, I had expected that at an earlier period of the Session than this some Member of the Government would have risen in his place to announce that Her Majesty's Administration intended to take some steps to deal with this most important subject. We are still passing—or rather I trust have passed—through a winter not only of exceptional severity but of exceptional gloom and darkness, the full effect of which upon the public health and upon trade, we are not, perhaps, yet able entirely to realise. Nobody who has given any attention to this subject can have failed to remark the gradual increase of fog which has been going on for many years past, not only in the Metropolis but in our most important centres of industry. Some very interesting experiments have been made during the present year by the Meteorological branch of the Board of Trade who have stations in London for making observations, in the East in Bunhill Row and in the West somewhere in the neighbourhood of Victoria Street. The result of their investigations has been, I understand, to prove that the greater part of the darkness from which we have suffered during the last four months has been caused not by smoke emanating from the large manufactories but by the smoke emanating from house-fires. That of course, as far as the factories are concerned, is as it should be, because there is no doubt that the larger manufactories ought to, and many of them do, consume the greater portion of their own coal smoke; but it is impossible at the rate at which London is increasing that the enormous volume of coal smoke poured forth into the air from domestic fires should not produce the most dangerous effects. Now I happen to have acquired on this subject some little experience because I had the honour for two years to sit on a Royal Commission presided over by Lord Aberdare (Lord Percy and Lord Egerton were also members of it), to inquire into the presence of noxious acids and gases emitted into the atmosphere, and as to the best mode of preventing their emission. We were stopped by the

  1913
  terms of the reference from going directly into the effect of coal smoke and how it might be prevented from escaping into the atmosphere; but incidentally a very large amount of evidence came before us on that point also. One thing was perfectly clear throughout, and that was that the increase of works or the increase of population added enormously to the amount of smoke emitted into the air, and that in consequence such smoke or gases, as the case might be, were carried much farther afield than they had been in previous years. We had evidence with regard to districts in Lancashire, places in which five or six years before the effects of acids, gases, or coal smoke had not been felt at all, but which now suffer terribly. We had distinct evidence that so much had the volume of smoke increased, and so much had the volume of gases increased at the same time, that, whereas the effects of smoke were perceptible previously only five, six, or seven miles from the centres of population whence they emanated, they are now carried in certain, states of the wind 10, 11, or 12 miles. I find that the state of things as regards the Metropolis now stands on all fours with the evidence which was presented to us then. I may say that I am a constant traveller on the South Western Railway, and my own experience is that in coming up to town we now meet the fog four or five miles further from London than we did previously; and not only that, but I am in a position to state from a series of chemical analyses which have been entered upon by a neighbour of mine, residing 35 miles from London, that even at that distance and with a range of hills intervening between that district and the Metropolis you can, in certain states of the wind, trace coal smoke, acids, and gases distinctly from the mist which is scraped from the surface of a window. Not only so but every year it becomes more difficult to grow certain flowers and plants within any reasonable distance of the Metropolis. Taking Wimbledon, the centre of a district which I once had the honour to represent in another place 20 years ago, there were several plants and several kinds of flowers which there was no difficulty whatever in growing and bringing to perfection there, which now cannot be grown at all, or if they
  1914
  can be grown to some extent they are stunted in growth and deficient in colour. Those are palpable distinct facts; and now comes the question, if this is the state of things existing, what is the remedy? That, of course, is a much more difficult question to answer. But here, again, I was fortunate enough, 35 years ago, in company with a partner in one of the largest breweries established in the East End of London, to go over the premises, and he showed me at that time the furnace in actual work consuming the whole of its own smoke, and at the same time saving the firm considerable cost in fuel, long before legislation had interfered to compel them to adopt means for doing so. A sum of £2,000 a year was mentioned to me as the amount of the saving in the works, partly by the more perfect combustion afforded by the process adopted, and partly by the cheaper description of fuel which it was possible to use with the furnace which had been adopted. I asked one of the partners in that same concern a year ago whether he found the effect was still the same, and he said, as regards the process of consuming the smoke, decidedly so; but that, as regards the price of fuel, other people have found out how beneficial a process it is, and the consequence is that the demand for that particular kind of fuel has been to a considerable extent increased, and they are not able now to economise on that account as we were then; but there is still a substantial economy, in addition to the fact that they were now complying with the law, though they had carried out what the law now enjoins long before the law was passed. However, I do not mean to say for a moment that it is equally easy to apply to the domestic hearth a process which we can carry out with comparative ease and cheapness in a large factory; but this I do mean to say, that there are ways and means by which it is possible to diminish the amount of coal smoke poured into the air by an ordinary hearth, if not to prevent it altogether. I know there are ways and means by which this may be done without entailing any very serious expense. If this matter had been taken in hand 25 or 30 years ago, and some such obligatory measure as that now proposed by the noble Lord

  1915
  opposite had been passed prohibiting the construction of hearths in future in large centres of population and industry which would not consume their own smoke, the whole question would now be in a fair way of solution.; but as it is, matters are now going on from bad to worse, for the nuisance is one which has enormously increased, and is increasing, and one which I believe, in the opinion of your Lordships' House, ought to be avoided. But, my Lords, I am not very, sanguine as to the possibility of dealing with it by any Bill which may be introduced by a private Member. Still I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord opposite has made the attempt, and I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to tell the House that even if they do not feel themselves to be in a position at the present moment to propose any legislation on this difficult question, they are willing to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission which may, within a comparatively short period, make recommendations which will tend to check this growing evil. One thing did come out of the Commission to which I have already alluded, and that is that wherever legislation has been passed judiciously and in accordance with public opinion to stimulate better means of manufacture being employed, science has invariably responded to the call and a way has been found out of the difficulty, the existence of which had often been previously little anticipated. There is one special reason why I would press upon your Lordships the importance of legislation in this direction, and that is that it is the poorest class of the community who are principally affected by this terrible evil. The richer portion of the community have the opportunity of escape under the worst circumstances from the evil effects of coal smoke, and even where that is not the case they are not the persons to whom this particular evil comes home most closely. Many of the working classes are prevented from following their daily occupations when a dense fog comes on; many more of them have to carry on their work under circumstances which are not only difficult but absolutely dangerous to themselves; and many more, again, who have not the advantage of medical treatment and proper nourishment, suffer terribly
  1916
  from the after effects of being exposed for days and weeks together during such weather as we have had lately to a tainted atmosphere which undermines their health and prevents them altogether from earning their living. In appealing, therefore, for an early consideration of this subject, I am speaking not so much for those who are able to take care of themselves, but on behalf of those who have nobody but Parliament to look to—who, if Parliament does not take them under its wing, have no other quarter to look to for that protection which they so much need, and to which they are entitled.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I do not know that I should have troubled the House after the remarks of the noble Marquess, had it not been for an observation or two made by the noble Lord who has just spoken, in which he rather inferred that this matter has been lost sight of to some extent by the Departments whose duty it is to watch over the public health. But that is by no means the case. I would remind your Lordships that a Select Committee sat in 1887. There were only five witnesses called before that Committee, and there was no Report made by it; but since that time the matter has been considered again and again. Of course, there can be no doubt that, owing to the dense fogs which we have had this winter, public opinion has been very much exercised in this matter. The Government, as the noble Marquess has informed your Lordships, propose to refer the Bill now before us to a Select Committee, and although the noble Lord who has just spoken has talked about a Royal Commission, it is to be hoped that on consideration he will consider the proposal made by the noble Marquess more expedient than the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Government have had under their consideration the question of the administration of the existing Acts, and their proposals on this head will be known as soon as the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill which has been read a first time is printed. There are various defects in this Bill which the noble Lord has moved. I cannot conceive that it is at all likely that any Government would allow these inquisitorial powers in regard to private dwellings which he has rather suggested, to

  1917
  pass, but these are all matters which, if the House approves of the course proposed, will be dealt with by the Committee. I hope the noble Lord who spoke last will by no means think this most important subject has escaped attention, or that he has any monopoly in the wish for measures to be passed for the benefit of those whose interests he has advocated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the substance of what he is proposing, with the view of suggesting to him, if he has any plan in his mind by which the object in which we are all interested can be carried out, that he should give the Select Committee an opportunity of knowing what it is they are to deliberate upon. I cannot help thinking that the Bill is merely a skeleton measure as it stands. If it only involved provisions in reference to fog and smoke I believe he would have the unanimous consent of everybody, but he purports to do something new by legislation. I must say that I do appeal to your Lordships, as an act of common humanity to Her Majesty's Judges, not to pass a Bill—a document—of this sort into law. I do not know what the noble Lord means, and I listened with great attention to his reply, to see if he would throw any light upon what is the real difficulty in my mind. The language of the Bill is very general. I want to know what is the meaning in this connection of the words "necessary" or "unnecessary?" Necessity is a relative term. Necessary in respect to what? Is it necessary in respect to whether a man has a large or a small dinner to cook? If it is a large one, it may require more fire, and therefore more smoke will be produced. If it means a minimum of opaque smoke, to use the language which he has used himself in the Bill in regard to it, is it with reference to some scientific possibility of reducing it to a minimum? Is that what the noble Lord means? I do not know in the least. There is no guide whatever given by the noble Lord on the face of his Bill. I do not want to go into a scientific discussion as to what is "necessary" or "unnecessary" to impair the atmosphere. No one, I suppose, could say what is the
  1918
  standard of necessity. What is it as to which a Judge is to direct a jury or himself upon the question whether or not there has been an "unnecessary impairing of the atmosphere?" The impairing of the atmosphere is in itself a relative term. I suppose no atmosphere is absolutely pure. I will not discuss scientifically what gases the atmosphere contains, but, I would ask the noble Lord, is this "impairing" to be more than chemists would consider to be the normal proportion of the constituent element in the atmosphere, or, if a larger proportion than some chemists would fix, how much should it be? The whole of this is left at large in the Bill—the mode in which this is to be ascertained is left entirely at large. But assume that we have got over that initial difficulty, I confess I do not know what the noble Lord means by the London County Council making bye-laws for requiring any fireplace or furnace intended to be used in any building, to be constructed in future, "to be so constructed as to consume, burn, or otherwise prevent as far as possible, all smoke arising therefrom." There, again, is another term which requires exposition. I gather from what the noble Lord said that he thinks invention has so far proceeded at present that there are means by which it is quite possible to make fireplaces consume their own smoke; but if so, that is not what he enacts—it is only "as far as possible." And there, again, what guide is there to anybody? If it means as far as possible in a literal sense—that is, as far as a skilled chemist by his own processes is able to consume it—what reasonable prospect is there of that being ever attained in ordinary cases? What I object to is a skeleton Bill propounding questions of abstruse chemistry, which are left by it to be solved as they may be, leaving words which are so ambiguous and of application so uncertain that really no definite line or guide is to be found by anybody for the administration of the Act. The reason I have risen to make these few remarks was that I thought it advisable to suggest that the noble Lord, if he has any plan in his mind, might think it right to withdraw his Bill for the present, so that he may have the opportunity of putting

  1919
  into it such machinery as would be appropriate; in which case the Select Committee might be able to take evidence and consider whether the plan he proposes is one which is capable of being put into operation. But at present, if this Bill is referred to any Committee, I should like to know how they would begin to try to find out what the meaning of the noble Lord is, and whether they should begin by calling chemists, or witnesses of any other description, to point out the legal machinery which he desires to put into operation.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I have no right to again address the House, but I would ask permission to say a few words. I cannot answer the technical objections which have been put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but at the next stage of going into Committee I shall be quite prepared to do so. Perhaps, he will permit me to remind him that all he has said to-night might have been said on the four previous occasions when he assented to the measure. I may also be allowed to say, with regard to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord who has previously spoken, that the Bill does not provide for inquisitorial or domiciliary visits. There is no such power proposed to be given. If your Lordships will now read the Bill a second time, I will, before it goes into Committee, try to the best of my poor endeavour to meet the objections of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  On Question agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I understand that the proposal is to send the Bill to a Select Committee, but I would suggest that there should be a general reference of the matter to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred—not merely referring this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the proposal of the noble Lord is that we should have a general reference to the Select Committee of the whole subject—that it be referred to them for consideration.

FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government how it is that since the 9th February, when they stated, 'that the return ordered to be printed on the 5th August on Admiral Colomb's flashing signals, had been delayed owing to a letter of Admiral Colomb's not having been received before the 12th October, but was in the hands of the printers and would at once be distributed,' other letters have been written included in the return, one by the Treasury on the 13th February and one by the Admiralty on the 21st February, which traverse the whole question, and necessarily caused further delay of three weeks in the issue of the papers,"
  said: My Lords, since I gave notice of this question I find that the Return to which it relates has been distributed; it will, therefore, be necessary for me to somewhat alter the question, and I would ask how it is that certain letters have been included in this Return not withstanding the answer I received on the 9th February? This question, although it may seem a somewhat simple one, is, I apprehend, a serious matter, because it involves to a great extent the privileges of your Lordships' House. You will remember that on the 5th August last a Return was moved for and at the time, owing to certain causes to be alluded to, a letter which was expected from Admiral Colomb was asked to be included in the Return. Perhaps I may explain that the reason of that was simply this: that although the discussion on the question took place in May it was the 26th June before Lord Elphinstone stated in this House that the Admiralty proposed to offer Admiral Colomb £2,000. Unfortunately, there was a delay at the Admiralty, and that offer was not made until the 29th July. It was, therefore, mutually agreed between us that the Return moved for on the 5th August should include that letter. When the House met at the beginning of this Session, I made particular inquiries, and I was assured it would be issued at once. On the 9th February I asked the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, as representative of the Admiralty, whether he could tell me how soon it would be issued. He then informed me there had been some little difficulty owing to Admiral

  1921
  Colomb's letter not having been received at the Admiralty until the 12th October (but as of course there had been four months' interval that was no excuse), and he went on to say that the Papers should be issued forthwith. Now, a very serious thing has happened. I found out about a fortnight afterwards that this statement of my noble Friend was hardly the case. I do not wish to use unpleasant language, and I am sure my noble Friend had not the slightest idea that when he gave your Lordships that reason for the delay in making this Return, it was a statement which could hardly be said to be a true statement. What actually happened was this: I found that subsequent to that answer—four days afterwards—a letter was written by the Treasury traversing the whole question, and putting an entirely new aspect upon the whole matter, and not only was that done, but a further letter was written on the 21st February—afort-night afterwards—from the Admiralty. Therefore the real answer would have been that the Return was being kept back in order that certain further letters should be delivered, and that, therefore, there would be further delay. That answer of Lord Ephinstone's was given me three weeks ago, and the Return has only been issued today. But, my Lords, is there not here a question of the privileges of your Lordships' House? I understand that when a Return is moved for in this House, in order to be printed, it is stated definitely up to what date those letters or those papers should go. It is not only unusual and unprecedented, but it is absolutely wrong, that other letters of a far later date should be included. Many of your Lordships have been in this House a great deal longer than I have. So far as I remember, the proceedings in the other House, it certainly would never have been allowed—that seven months should have been permitted to elapse before such a simple Return as this should have been distributed to the House. This question of privilege is, I think, a somewhat serious matter, because it is quite evident that, however simple this particular case may be, if your Lordships pass it over on this occasion, how are you to be certain that other Returns which your Lordships may order to be printed will not be kept back for further impotant
  1922
  terms to be added to it? But, apart from the question of privilege, there is a personal aspect of the matter as regards myself which I should like to mention. When I moved for this Return I did so at the instigation of several Gentlemen in the other House, who explained that they were anxious to bring forward the question respecting the treatment which Admiral Colomb has received, and that if I would move for this Return that Motion in the other House should be made directly the House met this Session. When the House met there was no Return. My noble Friend Lord Elphinstone gave a certain answer which turned out to be most erroneous, and here we are, now close to Easter, and the Return is only just issued; so that practically the whole matter is put off until Easter. I would also say this—that I think the course taken by the Admiralty is somewhat uncourteous. It is now nearly two years since a Deputation of Members of this and the other House waited upon Lord George Hamilton. We went thoroughly into the question, and we were told to move, in July, 1889, that the Admiralty would at once deal with this question, which, I may say, had been delayed over and over again. But last Session, in May, 1890, finding that nothing had been done, the question was brought forward in your Lordships' House. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and every one of the Admirals who held commands in the Fleet, or nearly all, stated their view very strongly that it was a matter which ought at once to be dealt with, and that practically it was unfair to the Navy not to bring the matter to a settlement. Since that date the Treasury have offered the paltry sum of £2,000. I will not go now into the merits of the questioon, but what I wish to point out to your Lordships is this: that although I have endeavoured to meet the Admiralty in every possible way, I have been met by every possible effort to avoid the question being thoroughly dealt with. The whole matter has been treated in so paltry a manner, although it is one which in the interests of the Navy ought to have been dealt with in a large way, that it is very unfortunate it has not been so dealt with. There has been delay after delay, and now the question is being

  1923
  dealt with in a manner which is utterly without precedent. I am sorry the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) is unable to be in the House to-night, but as he has informed me that another noble Lord will answer the question, he will not think it discourteous of me that I have not further postponed it.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I regret very much that the noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) who I had hoped until this morning would be able to be present to-night to answer the question of the noble Lord, has been unable to leave his house, having been unwell for several days. I think, under the circumstances, that possibly the noble Lord, knowing that anybody else to whom the question might be put must be very imperfectly aware of the facts, would have done better in putting it not to have brought a charge of incorrectness as he has done against Lord Elphinstone, in his absence, and also to have made a rather vehement attack upon the Admiralty. All I am able to say now, not anticipating from the notice of the noble Lord's question that he intended to go into this matter, is that on the 1st December Admiral Colomb addressed a letter to the Admiralty to be forwarded to the Treasury. That letter was forwarded on the 5th December. On the 14th February the Treasury's reply was received, and forwarded to Admiral Colomb, that the Papers were complete, and were on the point of being circulated. There is no doubt that those letters have been included, in addition, in the Return which is now on your Lordships' Table. The noble Lord says it was a great irregularity to present those letters in addition to those which were moved for on the 1st July; but he will remember that he himself expressed a hope that the Return would, if necessary, be delayed for the purpose of including Admiral Colomb's reply. Well, Admiral Colomb's reply to the letter of the 29th July was not written until the 11th October last. The noble Lord complains of delay on the part of the Admiralty, but it appears to me there was a very considerable delay on Admiral Colomb's own part in not answering the letter of the 29th July until the 11th October; and, therefore, I do not think it can be said that all the delay has been on one side. All
  1924
  that I can say is that the Papers are now before your Lordships' House, and they include all the correspondence which has taken place up to the present date. It was no doubt, I imagine, considered that as the noble Lord had in one instance asked that the Return should be delayed for the purpose of including a letter of Admiral Colomb's, which was not received for more than two months after the date of the letter to which it was an answer, it would be desirable to make some further delay in order that the Return should be as complete as possible. I regret that it should have fallen to me, in the place of my noble Friend, to answer this question. I had not anticipated the statement which the noble Lord was going to make, and I have not been prepared with any official information regarding it. I am only sorry he has not been answered, on account of ill-health, by my noble Friend himself, who I am quite sure will, at the earliest opportunity, answer the statement the noble Lord has made—that on the 9th February he made a statement to this House which was incorrect.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I will say nothing as to Lord Elphinstone, except that I am very sorry he has not been able to be present; but with regard to the Return itself, it is certainly an inconvenient practice that after a Return has been moved for, its presentation to the House should not have been made for some months in order that further letters should be presented with it. It seems to me that it would have been far better if the Return had been presented at an earlier period and then the two other letters could have been presented afterwards whenever it was thought desirable. I do not in the least bring any accusation against the Admiralty in a matter which I am not acquainted with, but I thought it right to say this in reference to the statement that a Return has been delayed for the purpose of introducing a further correspondence, and I think that is not a desirable course.
  LORD SUDELEY: I hope your Lordships will allow me to explain one matter. The noble Lord stated just now inadvertently, no doubt, that I have been discourteous to Lord Elphinstone and

  1925
  himself in not giving notice of the statement I have made, and in not postponing the question; but I think he will not say so when I remind him of the facts. I put down this question last Friday, but I put it off owing to the fact that Lord Elphinstone was ill. I went to see Lord Elphinstone yesterday, and told him exactly how the matter stood, and he promised to write fully on the subject to Lord George Hamilton, so that no question might arise as to what I was going to bring forward. I told him that I was perfectly prepared to put the matter off as long as he desired, but he did not desire it, and I have since got a message from him: "Have written to Limerick to arrange reply." I can only make that answer to the noble Lord's statement.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.