The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-12 00:00:00

directly. This wu a mere question of pounds, shillings,
and piece. Taking into consideration the report of the
committee of the house, there could exist no doubt that it
wu reasonable, at • small expense, to put an end to the
smoke arising horn :hese furnaces.

Mr. LACY observed th.tt there was a local bill in Man-
chester, and he asked the hon. member whether nine-
tenths of the awoke had not been abated since the pulsing
of that bill ?

Mr. BRIGHT said that that was by no means the fact.
His principal objection to the bill was that a general rule
Gould not be applied in the same manner as municipal re-
gulations.
Mr. DUNCAN opposed the bill as calculated to impose a
fresh restriction on the manufacturing interest.
The house then divided—For the motion B3
Against it 6l-19
The house then went Into committee on the bill.
Clause 1. Di fining "opaque emoke."
Mr. BRIGHT was anxious to know what was meant by
"opaque smoke."
Mr. MACKINNON defined it to be "smoke tkat you
eeuld not Fee through." (Laughter.)

Mr. VILLIERS demanded a clearer definition. The
house had asked tar a definition, and the hon. member bad
given them a joke. (Rear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE objected that this was not the time to
take the objection.
Mr. BRIGHT thought it important that the meaning of
the words should be wiled at once; otherwise, they might
be laying a trap for thousands of persons.
Mr. kIACKINNON bad meant no disrespect to the hor.
member for Wolverhampton in tis former explanation.
What be really meant was that opaque smoke was neither
pellucid nor transparent.. (Laughter.)

- Mr. ROEBUCK mid that there was no such thing as
smoky that you could not me through. The clause involved
a point upon which no two magistrates would come to a
similar decision. (Hear, bear.)

Mr. MACKINNON said that the clause was precis ly
similar to the clauses in all local acts far the preventim of
smoke.

Mr. RICARDO was not satisfied with the explanation of
the hon. member far Lyosington._ 1

After an obeervation from Mr. ROERVCK,
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that more difficulty had
been raised about this point than in reality existed. Any
man of common sense would easily understand what was
opaque smoke ; if not, the bill would be a dead letter. The
better way, however, would be to defer the dissuasion on
this point until they came to the interpretation clause.
Mr. NE WDEGATE feared that there would be great
difficulty in deciding the question.
Mr. WYNN said the question could not red for decision
with the magistrate, but with the informer. (liter, hear.)
An informer might at stay time swear that he bad den
pique smoke issu'n; from a factory, and the proprietor
would be at his mercy. (liter, hear.)
Mr. DUNCAN felt that as a magistrate he would have
great difficulty in deciding upon eases prosecuted under this
clause. No doubt hundreds of informers would erring up
in the factory districts. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that it wan quite cleat the President
of the B lard of Trade looked upon this as an insurmount-
able difficulty. He (Mr. Bright) concurred with the right
, hon. member for Montgomery as to the risk likely to arise
1 from 'nforraers. Take a case. An informer passing through
a district, saw what he called opaque smoke, and brought
the case before a magistrate. The manufacturer could bring
na rebutting evidence, the subject-matter being of a most
transitory character, and, consequently, he would be at the
merry of the informer. The better way would be to leave
the matter to the ordinery law under which the offendiog
party might be prosecuted for a nuisance ; and the neigh-
bouring inhabitants could give evidence to the fact. lie
sheuld prop, se that the clause be postponed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause was
most inartificially drawn, and would leave the manufacturer
completely at the mercy of the informer. If his hon. fri nd
wished to mike the bill j ust and efficient, he must define rmoke
as amounting to a nuisance, or he must require the informer,
in the first instance, to give notice to the manufacturer, and
not to prosecute, except in the case of continued disobedience
to the law. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the chairman report progress.
He did so in ord. r to give his hon. friend time completely to
reconstruct his bill.

The CHAIRMAN suggested that a clause that had once
been amended iu committee, could not be postponed. The
hon. mother might move its rejectisn.
Mr. BRIGHT expressed his readiness to do to.
Mr. HEADLAM said there were many CAM in which
opaque smoke inflicted no injury or even inconvenience. In
such case it would ba hard to put the manufacturer to the ex •
penso of the new apparatus.
Mr. RICARDO warned the boa. member for Lyming-
ton, that the iemedy provided by his bill might be worse
than the disease. On a canal esith which ho was connected,
there was a tunnel in which the directors bad recently em-
ployed a steam-tug. The smoke became so inconvenient
that [no apparatus contemplated by this fill was adopted to
consume the smoke, but the vapour produced by the I rcerss
was so deleterious, that they were obliged, after sonic trill's,
to revert to the old method. The hon. member should take
care, lest in getting rid of the smoke he produced a wenn,
evil. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that if he had been present at the
committee up stairs, when the introduction of this bill was
the subject of a division, he should certainly have voted with
the minority. (Hear, hear.) The bill was moat carelessly
drawn. sod the present clause was manifestly absurd. lie
was of opinion that they could not epply a remedy to the
nuisance complained of without seriously interfering with
some most important branches of our manufactures. (Hear,
hear.) The only effectual remedy for smoke nuisance was
that at common law, when the parties offeteling might be
brought fairly before 'jury. He should vote for the motion
to report progress.
After a few words from Mr. E. DENISON against, awl Mr.
MACKINNON in WOW' of the bill,
Mr. WALPOLE opposed the motion for reporting progress.
Mr. BOUVERIE considered that to prevent all delete-
rious vapours from chimneys would be to prevent ewn-
bu•tion altogether.
Mr. BANKES supported the clause, believing that some-
thing was necessary to give effect to the common law in put-
' ting an end to the smoke nuisance.
Sir J. GRAHAM was the more convinced the more he
heard of the grave objections to the measure. It appeared
that those who used the improved machinery for pees-ening
epaqle smoke produced a vapour fatal to human life, and
would become liable to punishment under another construc-
tion of the law. He repeated, that when the smoke amounted
to a nuisance, a remedy now existed under the common law.
He looked upon the measure ne prejudicial to manufactures,
many of which could not be carried on without a great
emission of smoke, and should therefore decide in favour of
the motion for reporting progress.
Mr. LABOUCHERE did not concur in the opinion of the
right hon. baronet. Dr. Mayfair and Sir H. De la Beebe
had riven it se their opinion that It was practicable, by the
application of a simple and inexpensive means, to prevent
opaque smoke in menufacturieg towns, and had expressed
themselves favourable to such means being used. Placing
every confidence in that opinion, he (Mr. Labouchere) was
favourable to the principle of the bill. At the same time he
agreed with the Attorney-General that in its present shape
it would be impracticable, and, as the session was now too
far advanced to allow of due consideration being given to a
new bill on the subject, he hoped the hon. gentleman would
consent to withdraw the measure altogether.
Mr. C. VILLIERS observed that the right hon. gentle-
man appeared not to have read the report of the philosophers
he referred to to the end, for at the close of thew report Sir
H. De la B. the and Dr. Playtair stated that they found
there were very great difficulties in legislating—difficulties
which they had found to increase rather than diminish
daring their investigation. The report of the philosophers,
therefore, was against legislation on the subject. He sub-
mitted that ths re was only one practical way of carrying out
the object (and that would be a tyrannical one), viz., to com-
pel every manufacturer to build his furnace sem ding to the
plan which it was said did exist for preventing the nuisance
complained of.
Sir G. GREY urged upon the hon. member (Mr. Mac-
kinnon) not to divide, and, after some further conversation,
the hon. gentleman consented to the chairman reporting
progress, which was done ; the committee to be resumed
on Wednesday se'nnight.