The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-09 00:00:00

RIVERS WATER PROTECTION BILL.

Lord R. MONTAGU, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that the object of the measure was to pro-
vide a remedy for an evil that was admitted. The neces-
sity for legislation on this subject was shown by the peti-,
tions presented from such places as Leeds, Manchester,
Birmingham, Nottingham, Ceventi y, and other towns,
praying for the introduction of some measure calcu-
lated to meet the evil complained of, namely, the
pollution of rivers throughout the kingdom. The present
bill contained provisions that would meet the evil in question,
and it was the result of careful inquiry before different
committees, comprising members who were best qualified
to deal with the subject ; consequently there was a prima
facie cue made out in support of the bill. He brought
forward this bill in accordance with the wishes of
the committee, although he was aware that its provisions
required alteration, and that it could not pass this session.
He merely wanted the house to affirm the principle of the
bill, and to pledge itself to the formation of such a measure,
and not to its obstruction. The noble lord went in detail
through the evidence brought before committees on the
subject to show that the pollution which prevailed in
the streams and rivers of the country was the destruction
of fish to an extraordinary extent, leading to whole
families being deprived of a profitable source of living, and
that it was most injurious to public health. From the evi-
dence to which he adverted, it appeared that on the canal
at Bridgewater a scurf was formed on the surface so thick
that birds could walk across it ; and one instance
was adduced before the committee to the effect
that a party fell into one of the streams so pol-
luted
_and his trousers was dyed a- dark blue,
and the dye was so tenacious that no bleaching or washing
process could restore the injured garment to its original
colour. (Laughter.) That instance in itself was
sufficient to prove the fearful extent to which the
impurification of rivers went of late years. The noble
lord cited the testimony of Dr. Letheby, Mr. Rawlinson,
and other analytical chemists, in confirmation of his state-
ment as to the noxious state of the Metropolitan and other
rivers, and contended that the utilisation of the sewage was
the only effectual remedy for the admitted evil. It was well
known that water carriage was the cheapest of all modes
of conveyance, and a temptation was offered of disposing of
sewage by depositing it in the rivers and streams, which
should be counteracted. He referred to China, Japan, and
other countries whose standard of civilisation was much
lower than that of England, where the advantages of
utilising sewage was admitted and realised. The sewage
at Croydon had been disposed of on the most profitable
terms, and viewed in a mere pecuniary point the result
would be most valuable, for it was estimated by economists
in Flanders that human sewage was worth 255. or Ns. a
year per head. Some stated it at only 10s. a
head, and Messrs. Hope and Napier put it down
at merely six shillings a head, but it must be
remembered .that they dealt in the article, and even at
their estimate the value of sewage was shown. He accused
the Government of being open to great censure for not
having dealt with this subject before the grievance com-
plained of attained to its present magnitude, and with
which local boards of health declined to grapple. The
object of the bill was to apply the same principle that was
adopted in regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and
its provisions prevented injustice being done to individuals.
By extending powers to local boards to deal with this
question, the object which he had in view would be accom-
plished.

- Sir G. GREY said that the noble lord had expanded a
great deal of argument in proving what was not denied,
namely, the evils of polluted water, and the desirability of
utilising sewage, a subject on which a great difference of
opinion existed, so far as related to the value to be realised.
He did not think the bill would effect the object proposed,
and would vest the Home Secretary and local board with
an authority that was opposed to the Constitution of the
country, by conferring on them powers that would super-
sede the existing local government throughout the country.
(Hear, hear.) The borrowing powers proposed to be
given to local boards were of the most extensive character,
and the effect of the bill would be to overthrow every
local act now in operation, and he trusted the noble lord
would not press it to a second reading, or that the house
would not sanction its principle. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KENDALL objected to the bill as being most dan-
gerous to mining and other interests of the country.
Mr. JACKSONfollowed on the same side, and said that
if the bill were passed in its present form it would have
the effect of throwing hundreds of thousands out of em-
ployment. He moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months.

Mr. BRIGHT seconded the amendment, and said that as
a member'of the committee which sat on this subject, he
must deny that the provisions of this bill were justified by
a recommendation from that committee. The noble lord
(Lord R. Montagu) in the course of his remarks referred
to a particular mine in Wales, with which he (Mr. Bright)
was acquainted, and he could inform the noble lord that he
was quite misinformed in regard to the neighbourhood.
A few gentlemen interested in fishing made statements
upon which the noble lord founded his opinion; but the
fact was that the interests involved in the preservation of
fish were not for an instant to be placed in competition
with those connected with those branches of industry with
which the bill would deal most injuriously. He contended
that if a measure like the present were passed it would
lead to social revolution, which would place the noble lord
in a very unenviable position in the eyes of the country.
Mr. SELWYN said that he thought this subject should
be taken up by Government, having already been before
the house for the last ten years, and the evils complained
of having been fully admitted. (Hear, hear.) He consi-
dered that a bill produced by a private member was not
calculated to succeed.

Mr. HIBBERT said that although his name was on the
bill he did not, as a member of the committee, approve of
all its details. No doubt, when great manufacturing works
were carried on, the effect would be to impurify the rivers
to a great extent, but he believed the manufacturers were
disposed to do what was in their power to meet the
grievance, the existence of which was not denied.
He would vote for the second reading of the bill
on the understanding that it would be referred to a select
committee, but he thought the best course for the noble
lord would be to withdraw it, and throw the sole responsi-
bility of dealing with the question upon the Government,
by which it had been so long and so culpably neglected.

Mr. ADDERLEY said that the noble lord who had intro-
duced this bill was entitled to the thanks of the country ;
but, at the same, thought it would be more advisable if he
w.ithdrew it, and not press the house to a division. In his
opinion, the subject could be dealt with best by the intro-
duction of a bill enabling local boards to unite for the
purpose of preventing the pollution of the rivers. The
danger with which this bill proposed to deal was very
pressing, and called for prompt legislation. (hear, hear.)
Mr. LEVESON-GOWER agreed with hon. members as
to the imperative necessity that existed for immediate
legislation on the subject.

Colonel EDWARDS was of the same opinion, but
thought that the matter could be best dealt with by a mea-
sure emanating from Government.

Colonel SYKES said that the extent to which the evils
of pollution of the rivers went was proved by the fact that
the inha.bitatants of Cheltenham had promoted a bill to
obtain water from the Thames, because they were unable
to get pure water from the large river Severn.
Mr. FERRAND referred to different streams and rivers,
including the Ayr, which had been unpurified to so con-
siderable an extent, to show that the question should be
dealt with by Parliamentary action, in order in all proba-
bility to prevent some fearful epidemic breaking out.
Mr. LOCKE said that the house was much indebted
to the noble lord for having introduced this bill, and he be-
lieved that it would coerce the Government to take the
subject up without further delay. He would admit that
the Government had shown a disposition to deal with the
question by the proceedings adopted in reference to the
Thames Conservancy Bill, but at the same time he
thought the time had arrived when this subject should be
promptly considered. He did not think that the argu-
ments against the bill were conclusive, and he was by no
means convinced that mauufacturers would receive the
injury or injustice that the opponents of the bill alleged.
Sir F. GOLDSMID said that there was no doubt, from
what had been already developed, that legislation on this
subject was imminent. .

Sir G. BOWYER said that the difficulties inherent in
this subject were of a description that rendered it by no
means a matter of surprise that the noble lord (Lord R.
Montagu) should not in his billhave surmounted them, but
he believed that every hon. member would agree with
him as to the ability with which the noble lord had
brought the subject before Parliament. He thought the best
mode of dealing with this subject would be to extend the
powers that were already in existence, and to enable the
Attorney-General to take procedure against parties deposit-
ing sewage or any other offensive matter in rivers or
streams.

Mr. AYRTON contended that even if the present bill
were not adopted the recommendation of the committee
should be acted on, and another bill on the subject intro-
duced. (Hear, hear.)
After a few observations from Sir F. KRT.LY,

Mr. HENLEY said that the question arose as to whether
in in dealing with this matter, the house should adopt com-
pulsory legislation, to which, no doubt, some objections
existed. _

Lord R. MONTAGU said that ho was much pleased
with the discussion that had taken place on his bill, and
he vindicated the course he had adopted in, forcing the
house to deal with the subject. The Home secretary