THE SMOKE NUISANCE.

 HOUSE OF Commons, March 9.

 Sir R. Peel rose, pursuant to notice to call attention to this subject. He said: I trust this may be considered a question of sufficient importance to justify me in bringing it under the notice of the House. I shall endeavour to detail, as concisely as I can, some of the evils arising from smoke furnaces in the towns and country districts of England, with the view of inducing the Government, if possible, to legislate on the question during the present session. The question is one which affects the sanitary condition, the health, the comfort and the happiness of almost every class in the community, but more especially of the operative classes in the great centres of industry in the north. All the evils of which I have to complain arise from the nuisance created by the smoke of coal, a mineral our resources in which it is impossible to over-estimate. But the greater value of this article the more careful, I contend, ought we to be to observe due economy in the use of it. Coal is, I think, positively, more valuable than the precious metals of the mines of Mexico, because it is applicable to all the purposes of human labour. Considering the number of hands employed in this branch of industry, the capital invested, the tonnage of the vessels employed in carrying the coal, and the value of the article when extracted from the soil, I believe there is no gentleman who will not see with me that the subject I am bringing before the House is one of the deepest importance, and that if real be so valuable a material we ought in the same degree to be most careful in its economic use. (Hear. ) that the fact is that, instead of this most valuable mineral being economised, the most reckless waste of it prevails. In all the Midland Counties—Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Durham—as I have been informed by most eminent analytical chemist, 40 per cent. less heat is produced than might be obtained by proper combustion, and that gentleman believes that 10 per cent., and, perhaps, in some cases, 20 per cent. of the coal passed up through the chimney, and was also nearly lost as far as regards the purpose for which it was used. That was a most important statement. A reason of great eminence, Mr M'Culloch, said about twenty years ago that if the coal trade of England continued at the same rate as in 1845, there was a sufficient supply of coal in the coal fields and seams of this country to last for 2000 years. But what is the case in 1865? The consumption, including waste, in the United Kingdom, amounts to three times the quantity expended in 1845. In the year 1845 the consumption in Great Britain for domestic and all manufacturing purposes was 31,800,000 tons, and there were exported in the same year 1,800,000 tons. In 1865, however, the amount of coal raised in Great Britain was 96,000,000 tons of which there were consumed for domestic and all purposes of manufacture 87,000,000 tons, 9,000,000 tons being exported. This clearly shows the immense importance of this question. There are laid on the table of the House of every year most instructive returns as to the consumption of coal and cinders. I find that in 1850 there were exported from the several ports of the United Kingdom 3,350,000 tons of coal and cinders, the declared value of which was £1,282,000. In 1864 the quantity exported was 8,000 000 tons, and the declared value £4,160,000. I recollect being struck by an observation made by the hon. member for Glasgow in his able speech on seconding the Address at the opening of Parliament. The hon. member, in referring to the general condition of trade, and the rapid rate at which the manufactures of the country were progressing, warned the manufacturers not to forget that the supply of coal in England was not inexhaustible and told them that they should, by the closest economy in its use, do all in their power to prevent what would be a great national calamity— viz, an increased difficulty in obtaining coal, and a consequent increase of its price. Those observations are sufficient to induce the House to consider whether something may not be done on this subject, and I would ask the Home Secretary to give a pledge that, in the course of the present session, he will undertake to legislate on it. I know that he is occupied with many questions, but I believe that, if he should be able to lay on the table a bill with regard to this subject, it might before the close of the session become law. I would ask whether there is not in the Home Office an analysis of patents for smoke-burning made by Mr Holland some years ago; for if so, I think it would be desirable to have that paper produced ; and I also suggest to the right hon. baronet not to attempt to propose a committee or commission of inquiry, for we have had enough of them. Let us deal with the question in this House, must believe that if the right hon. baronet were to consult some gentleman in London or Manchester who had given attention to the matter, he might be able in a week to frame a bill which would be satisfactory and efficient. If he would only consult Dr. Joule, who has written on heat, Dr. Angus Smith, Mr. Hunt of the Museum of Practical Geology, Professer Tyndall, Professor Thomson, of Glasgow University ; Dr Roscoe, of Manchester; Dr Franklin, and Professors of the Royal Institution, he would in a short time inform himself of the importance of this question, and would be able to say what smoke really is. Perhaps some hon. gentlemen do not know what smoke is. (a laugh), though they feel it, and live in the pestilential atmosphere which surrounds them, and which is ruining the health of the labouring classes. Unless perfect combustion takes place when the furnace is lighted, smoke rises, and, without an adequate supply of air, the evil which so much distresses the country cannot be overcome. I have a letter from a well known gentleman in Manchester, addressed to a member of this House, which forcibly shows what can be done in this matter. The letter is dated March 1, 1866, and the writer states :—

" In regard to the practicability of smoke prevention there is no longer any question; and further, it has been proved by the most careful experiments, that its prevention increases the economic value of the fuel. (Hear, hear.) Two conditions only are requisite—admission of atmospheric air above the fuel to mix with the gases evolved in order to supply sufficient oxygen for their perfect combustion, and a high temperature in the furnace; and as neither of these conditions can be obtained where there is deficient draught, this deficiency may be said to be the chief cause of smoke. In Glasgow and Dundee measures have been taken of late years to abate the smoke nuisance, and several prosecutions have ensued, but although some good has undoubtedly been done, the results cannot be said to have been altogether successful."

I have been informed by the hon. member for North Durham that an agitation is getting up in his division of the country—for it is not the manufacturers who oppose measures of prevention—to put an end, if possible to a state of things which causes a gross destruction of property. Some ignorant people speak of the cost of smoke prevention, but there could not be a greater fallacy ; for it will cost nothing, but, on the contrary, insure a saving. With reference to legislation on this important subject in past years, it will be found in the journals of this House, that actually as far back as the year 1316, the question was agitated in Parliament, that on account of the intolerable nuisance of smoke the use of coal must be prohibited altogether. (A laugh. ) I don't want to to so far as that. ( A laugh. ) I believe I am justified in saying that the first person who agitated this question in Parliament was Lord Redesdale in the other House; but the first person who passed a bill on the subject was Lord Palmerston, when he was Home Secretary. His bill was called the Metropolis Smoke Nuisance Abatement Bill, and it is really interesting to refer to the remarks that fell from that lamented statesman in bringing forward that measure. No opposition was offered to it. The metropolitan members supported it. There was only one hon. member who thought it too late to proceed with it. The hon. member who has just entered the House (Sir M. Peto) has assured me in the most cordial manner that he will support such a measure as I have described. ( Hear, hear.) Lord Palmerston said,—and I should wish the House to be impressed with the words that fell from that lamented statesman—he said :—

" It was no argument to urge, because the nuisance had been borne so long, that therefore it could be come a little longer. Manufacturers might say they could not consume their own smoke, but if Parliament would only say, 'You must do so,' the smoke should be consumed, and the public would be relieved from this nuisance."

(Hear, hear. ) An hon. member before me (Mr. Dunlop) informs me that a bill for Scotland passed some years ago which was in operation only a few weeks, during which the whole smoke in Scotland had well nigh disappeared, but some flaw was discovered in the bill, and immediately the smoke nuisance recommenced, and was continued because the bill was considered valueless. (A laugh. ) Lord Palmerston went on to say :—

"If ever there was a case in which he would not say the interests, but the prejudices of the few were opposed to the interests of the many, this was such a case. Here were a few, perhaps 100, connected with the different furnaces of London who wished to make 2,000,000 of their fellow inhabitants swallow their smoke, and who thereby helped to deface all our architectural monuments and to impose the greatest inconvenience and injury upon the lower class. (Hear, hear. ) Here were the prejudices and the ignorance—the affected ignorance— of a small combination of men set up against the material interest, the physical enjoyment, the health, the comfort of upwards of 2,000,000 of their fellow men. (Hear, hear.) He would not believe that Parliament would back these smoke producing monopolists." (Hear, hear.) I want to see my right hon. friend the Home Secretary speak and act in that bold indecorous manner. (Hear, hear.) The bill passed a third reading unanimously. In the other House it was intrusted to Lord Lansdowne. The first and second reading having been passed without discussion in committee, Lord Lansdowne referred to it as affecting the comfort of every class of society, and said such was the gradual encroachment of the enemy that for years past they had been living not under the canopy of Heaven, but under one of their own creation. It was an evil that called for the distinct interference of the Legislature. His lordship continued that the experiment of the last seven years had abundantly proved that with perfect safety, without imposing any burdens upon individuals beyond home amount of attention and trouble, they might require the extinction and consumption of all smoke generated by manufacturing establishments. That bill passed in 1853. Glassworks and potteries were at first exempted by this bill, but subsequently included in the amended bill of 1856. There was no housekeeper who was not able to vouch for the increased difficulty in maintaining the commonest cleanliness in consequence of the nuisance which the bill would abate. The smoke so affected the clothing of the working classes that it was computed every mechanic paid at least five times the amount of the original cost of his shirt for the number of washings rendered necessary (" hear," and a laugh) : and in parts of Whitechapel, where the provisions of a local Act enforced the consumption of smoke, the persons who had been compelled to consume their own smoke had found themselves benefited in point of economy by the change. (Hear.) Lord Redesdale congratulated the country upon this bill, and expressed his obligations to the Government. Glassworks and potteries were exempted, which he regretted. A bill in 1853 was passed for improvement of Newcastle-on-Tyne, where more glass was made than in any other place in England at that time, and no exemption was required in that instance. And has not the effect been satisfactory as far as the metropolis is concerned? I have numberless letters—I will not trouble the House by reading them—from manufacturers in London, stating that although they were first opposed to that measure on its introduction, they now saw its valuable economic results. Only last year a bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, respecting alkali works. Lord Derby made a most effective speech on the occasion, and the measure became law Inspectors of alkali works were appointed throughout the country. I have lately seen the inspector of the alkali works in Manchester, who informed me this had been the result of that Act —whereas 40 per cent. of muriatic acid escaped before into the atmosphere of Manchester and the vicinity, at present little more than 1 per cent. escaped into the atmosphere, although the Act permitted 5 per cent. (Hear, hear. ) Can anything be more satisfactory than that fact? And it is equally applicable to the detestable nuisance of smoke, which is so prejudicial to the health of everybody. I have two letters upon this subject which are well worthy of being brought under the attention of the House. The first is from the town clerk of Blackburn, who says :—

"I have not the slightest doubt that so far as our park is concerned, the vegetation is much injured by the smoke, although it is situate on high ground and some distance from the factory chimneys. It is much to be regretted that there is not some compulsory law for the consumption of smoke. I attribute the present non-observance of the existing law to the fact that its enforcement rests with the local authorities, who are individually as a rule large manufacturers, and as such creators of the nuisance." (Hear, hear) The other letter is from a gentleman well known at Accrington. It is dated February 29th, 1856 He says :—"Your letter refers to a subject on which I have had some considerable experience of a very disagreeable nature. To begin with, our township of Oswaldtwistle, and within 300 yards of my house we have naphtha works, emitting a most offensive smell, and most destructive to vegetation. If they are contained, all the trees within their influence will die Then adjoining we have bone boiling works polluting the atmosphere in the most dreadful manner. Now, what is the general effect of these works upon the neighbourhood. Many a time my house is filled with nauseous effluvium, and my land as building land is ruined, for no one would choose to reside in such a locality. Mr. S. has suffered dreadfully in the health of his family, Mr. B.'s occupation of his house is destroyed, and Mr G. has experienced the same evils. It may be said what are the local Boards doing? I answer they are doing nothing, although the strongest representations have been made to them. But the fact is the Acts of Parliament constituting these local Boards are not sufficiently definite or stringent. I and my neighbours are joining together and preparing evidence for legal proceedings, but we think it very hard we should be put to a large expense for that which we think ought to be done by the local Board. If Sir R. Peel take up the matter I have no doubt he will accomplish his purpose and greatly benefit society." (Hear, hear. ) That is very true, but I am informed by many most influential manufacturers that they are quite prepared to second any effort on the part of the Government by statutory enactment to abate this nuisance. Many towns have attempted to legislate on this subject. In 1862 Salford came for a bill to effect the improvement that was required; but it failed. Since then Newcastle on Tyne, Glasgow, Dundee, and many other places have made similar efforts ; but what is required is that the Government should take the matter up and legislate for the whole country by one uniform statutory enactment for the whole country.

(Hear.) Having said so much, I should wish, if I have not already detained the House too long (Hear hear), to allude for a moment to the case of Manchester, where I have just been to inform myself as to the real condition of things there. What is the coal consumption of Manchester ? It is prodigious. At this moment the population of London, I believe is about 3,000,000, and the annual consumption of coal amounts to about 5,300,000 tons; but in Manchester with a population of certainly not more than 380,000 the coal consumption is estimated at 2,000,000 tons per annum, within a radius of three miles from the Exchange. There are many manufacturers in Manchester consuming more than 300 tons of coal a week. Now, just conceive what a saving would be effected if a proper system of combustion was introduced (hear hear), whereas it is scientifically ascertained that 40 per cent. less heat is produced now than would be by proper combustion. (Hear, hear.) I visited Stockport. I could hardly see it for smoke. ( A laugh.) Salford has been suffering from the smoke nuisance to a degree it is hardly possible to describe. And so with regard to Burnley, Bury, and Rochdale, without exception the three dirtiest towns of Lancashire. (A laugh. ) They have no public park, and the operatives who are labouring all day long in their industrious hives have no means of relaxation or opportunity of breathing a pure atmosphere. What is the sanitary condition of Manchester? The average annual mortality in England is 22 per 1000, and in some rural villages it falls to 17 per 1000; but a large coal burning towns like Manchester it rises to 34 per 1000. This vast increase in the death rate is entirely owing to the smoke and the noxious exhalations from the burning coal. ( "Oh," and laughter. ) I saw the other day a letter in the other from a gentleman at Birmingham, stating that smoke could not injuriously affect the health of the people because the cholera had not severely attacked that town when it last visited this country. The writer forgot that Birmingham is built upon sandstone, and was, therefore, not so liable to be attacked by that disease. As a proof that smoke does not keep away the cholera I may instance the case of Bilston, which, although the most smoky town in England, suffered greatly from the terrible scourge on its last visitation. (Hear ) I hold in my hand a report that was published in the quarterly returns of the Registrar-General of Health, which forms a most interesting account of the sanitary state of Manchester. The report is drawn up by Mr John Leigh, registrar of the Deansgate sub-district of Manchester, and it contains much that deserves attention now that there is a possibility of the cholera again visiting this country. It is the duty of Government to take time by the forelock in order to preserve us as far as possible from the attacks of this pestilence. Mr Leigh says in his report,—
"I very carefully traced nearly every case of cholera during the last two invasions of this disease in Manchester, and invariably I found there had been direct communication which infected persons or an infected atmosphere. I entertain no more doubt of the infectious nature of cholera than that of smallpox or scarlatina. Its course can be accounted for in no other way. Under the threatening prospect of a fresh invasion it is best to look the disease fairly in the face, and not, under the fear of being considered alarmists, to ignore its nature and neglect the means of breaking the force of the attack. It is doubtful, too, whether in our time typhus does not absolutely originate in the ill conditions of our crowded towns. Be that as it may, nothing is more certain than that the ordinary unfavourable conditions of large towns, with their festering graveyards, decomposing offal, noisome exhalations of tallow chandlers, and other manufactories of animal matters, stenches of sewers and drains, and stagnant atmosphere of courts and alleys, are the predisposing causes of diseases especially infectious diseases. If they do not actually produce disease, they so reduce the tone and strength of the population, so vitiate their blood and exalt their susceptibility of deleterious influences that a constant tendency exists to take on diseased action, whether in the form of typhus, scarlatina, smallpox, or cholera. A state of chronic disorganisation is always attracting the flying bands of the enemy. It is not a question of food and wages ; the day labourer in the country who earns his 10s. or 12s. a week, and it tastes animal food but once that week, is ruddy, strong, and healthy, compared with the highly paid and well fed artisan, who works in a crowd of fellow workmen, and sleeps in the narrow street or confined court where his house stands, and whose cadaverous looks tell the tale of his surroundings." How true that is any one must feel who has been in that town. (Hear, hear) The expressly states that their ill-looks are not to be traced to bad water, for he says,—" No town in England is better and more abundantly supplied with good and pure water than Manchester. " He says the town is well scavengered, and the streets are kept constantly clean. "What is it, then," he asks, "that makes Manchester so unhealthy a town?" He replies to his question thus,— "Close to my town house, on the west side, is a large graveyard, in which interments are yet made daily. On one side of the street, separated by a small interval, is a large tallow-melting work recently established; on the other side of the street an ancient and time-honoured tallow-chandlery, with its vested right of poisoning the neighbours. Add to the noxious products which load the atmosphere from these sources the black outpourings from innumerable chimneys, and a tolerable conception of the sanitary state of the neighbourhood will be obtained. The unhealthiness of Manchester is due to its vitiated atmosphere. " Again, he says that no plant will live in the town unless it be washed two or three times a week. (Laughter) He proceeds:— "Let anyone examine the lungs after death of a person who has been long resident in Manchester, and in the bronchial glands he will find a fluid substance, inhaled soot, as black and thick as ink. " I do think I have made out a case that should induce Government to take up the subject. (Loud cheers ). It is idle to attempt to establish public parks in such districts. You cannot get trees to grow or plants to flourish. I am informed that the trees in the park at Salford are dying. I have received a letter from the curator of the Salford Park, stating that the trees are all being destroyed because Parliament will not legislate upon the subject. That gentleman says :—

"In respect to your inquiry as to the injury which this park suffers from the smoke of Manchester and Salford, I may say that, in the opinion of the members of the Park Committee, who have served from the opening in 1846, and my own opinion from watching its effects from 1851, the smoke is gradually destroying the many fine trees, elms, horse chestnuts oak, ash, and ornamental shrubs. Year by year the damage gains in amount, and even the grass gets poorer, and requires to be renewed by sodding brought from a distance, for the seed will not grow in such a smoked and impure atmosphere." I think these are observations that require the attention of Government, coming as they do from different parts of the country. This morning I received a letter from a gentleman residing at a village near Birmingham, stating that the trees in that neighbourhood are dying in consequence of the smoky atmosphere. Any man who is fond of the country must feel pained at the sickly look of the little widow gardens of the poor man in the large towns of Manchester and Yorkshire.

 It was Bacon who said that he accounted a garden as the purest of human pleasures, and as the greatest refreshment to the spirit of man, and it is with the object of placing within the reach of the poor that refreshment of the spirit of man that philanthropic people have established the large parishes that are now springing up in the neighbourhood of all great towns. (Hear.) I am sorry that I have been compelled to detain the House so long in drawing attention to this subject, but my excuse must be the great desire I have to check the growing evils I have alluded to. (Hear, hear. ) There may be topics of a more exciting character in connexion with the rights and privileges of the working classes to exercise a greater power than they now do in the government of the State ; but in my humble judgment we can discuss no nobler question than how to abate the noxious vapours a great city. (Hear, hear.) The evil is one of our own creating, and we are told by men of science that we can prevent it if we please, and therefore it is the bounden duty of Government to deal with the question, by taking such steps as may tend to the comfort, convenience, and the happiness of the working-classes in large towns. (Hear.) I therefore ask the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department—than whom I am sure no men holding high office is more disposed to give a fair and careful consideration to all questions appertaining to public interest—to give us an assurance that Government will legislate upon this question during the present session of Parliament, as by so doing he will confer a benefit, nay a blessing, upon the people of this country. (Hear, hear. ) A measure of the kind I wish to see introduced would in a great degree affect the health, the comfort, and the happiness of millions of working men whose daily toil in a vitiated atmosphere is the main support of our manufacturing interests. I do not move any amendment.

Mr Henderson had given some attention to this subject, and thought it was very desirable that in all large manufactories the smoke should be consumed. It would be a great boon to the working classes if they were permitted to see a little daylight. An eminent example of what could be done in the way of controlling this smoke nuisance could be seen by any hon. member who might choose to note the different manufacturing establishments between Battersea and Blackwall from the deck of one of the river steamers. It was not, however, in places like the metropolis that nuisances of this kind prevailed to any extent. They were chiefly found in districts where coal was cheap. There were men who were always opposed to changes which offered any prospect of effecting any saving, and there were others who persisted in walking in the old beaten track, refusing to concur in any change as being nothing short of innovation, and whose opposition would be enhanced if the change were necessitated by anything which could be regarded in the light of compulsion. When, however, it could be shown that by their adherence to the present system these people were causing injury to the health and to the property of their neighbours the Legislature might, he thought, be very fairly called upon to interfere. (Hear, hear.) It could not be doubted that an atmosphere charged with smoke was prejudicial both to health and property. In some districts it was found impossible to open a window for the purpose of ventilation, without having the room and its contents covered with "blacks," The volumes of smoke that issued from these manufactories were left at the mercy of the wind and the atmosphere, and frequently caused great discomfort and annoyance to those who lived within several miles. In one garden particularly, situated at a distance of three miles from these offenders, it was impossible to touch a leaf or a flower without having the fingers soiled by these sooty deposits. He should be about the last person to place any impediment in the way of carrying on manufactures, but when it could be shown that this nuisance could not only be avoided, but absolutely abolished, and that, too, advantageously to the offenders, he thought it would require little further argument to induce the House to legislate upon the subject. (Hear, hear.) The employment of Juke's apparatus had been found exceedingly advantageous. Even in those cases in which it was at present found difficult to avoid the nuisance, hopes were entertained that some effectual remedy might be discovered, and he trusted that this result might be attained. At all events, he had such confidence in the scientific acquirements of the age, that he did not believe the difficulty would endure many years if the Government took the subject thoroughly in hand. The question was the more important, inasmuch as it was intimately connected with the rapid disappearance of our coal-beds, the duration of which would not, he believed, be so long as was generally anticipated.

Mr Hanbury could bear personal testimony to the almost complete success attending the use of Jukes's apparatus. In the early morning, it was true, some smoke was generated, but during the day the chimney sent forth but little smoke. The economical result in the employment of fuel had been extremely satisfactory during the previous year ; the saving effected to the firm with which he was connected had amounted to nearly £2000. (Hear, hear.) Their expenses had been much diminished because they had been able to employ small and dust coal instead of the large coal which was absolutely necessary for the former furnaces. Those living now in the neighbourhood of the silk weaving manufactories were enabled to open their windows and could enjoy the pure air without being subjected to any annoyance from their proximity to the factories.

Mr. A. F. Egerton thought that the thanks of the House were due to the right hon. baronet who had introduced this subject. (Hear, hear ) He believed, however, that the right hon. baronet had overstated the results of smoke upon the health.
Sir R. Peel —I quoted the mortality tables.
Mr A. F. Egerton was of opinion that because the rate of mortality at Manchester was high it did not follow that the increase was owing to the effects of the smoke. He believed that the high rate of mortality of that place might be otherwise explained, and might be attributed to a great extent to the overcrowding of the population. Undoubtedly the presence of smoke did not tend to purify the atmosphere of a locality. Living, however, as he himself did, at no great distance from Manchester, he had yet to learn that the working men in the neighbourhood were less healthy than those living in the rural district. In all other respects he perfectly coincided in the remarks which had fallen from the right hon baronet. The steamers both on the Mersey and Thames consumed their own smoke, and there could be no doubt that if a similar plan were generally adopted a great saving of fuel would result. (Hear.) They had endeavoured in Lancashire to employ smoke-consuming apparatus, and although those attempts had been attended with great success, unless attention was paid to the matter by the stokers, smoke would, at certain times, escape and blacken the atmosphere. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that the attention of the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be given to the subject, and that instead of local Acts one Act would be framed applying to the whole of the country.

Sir M. Peto would not have troubled the House with any remarks upon the subject under discussion had it not been for the fact that Lord Palmerston had asked him, when the subject was before dealt with, to make a series of experiments with a view to ascertain whether the evil complained of could be met in a practical manner. When the late Premier was assured that the consumption of smoke would result in a great saving to the manufacturer, he took action in the matter; and the result had shown that many instances could be cited similar to that mentioned by the hon. member for Middlesex, who had mentioned the fact that his firm had saved upwards of £2000 a year by the adoption of a process which had always before been looked on as objectionable. He saw no reason for believing that the same result would not attend the general adoption of the London plan throughout the country. If an example was wanted, he would point to Leicester, which had as many manufactories in and around it as any town in the kingdom, yet in the very centre of Leicester flowers would be found blooming as fresh as in a country village. This had been done by the manufacturers, who had voluntarily made themselves subject to a law of their own. (Hear, hear. ) The right hon. baronet had not overstated the case. It must be remembered, however, that manufactories often gave off vapours far more deleterious to the public health than the smoke itself, and unless some means were taken of stopping all exhalations the mischief would not be put an end to. He remembered that soon after the last Smoke Act was passed several hon. gentlemen found, as they walked on the terrace skirting the river, that they were greeted with the odours of certain bone-boiling establishments, and other objectionable works of Lambeth, they were accordingly not long in extending the operation of the Smoke Act to works of that description. He trusted the Act which had done so much good to the metropolis would be extended by the Government to the country, he was sure the result would be equally satisfactory.

Sir G. Grey : I am sure I only give utterance to the general sentiment of the House when I say the right hon. member for Tamworth has done good service in bringing this matter before us. The time of the House, I am sure, cannot be employed to more advantage than in endeavouring to devise some practical means whereby we may contribute to the health and enjoyment of the great majority of the people.

But, Sir, I would, with the permission of the right hon. gentleman, observe that he seems scarcely to have informed himself as to how far the laws at present in existence give him power to do what he desires—namely, to enforce the consumption of smoke in furnaces and manufacturers' fireplaces. Indeed, it is not generally known that the evil complained of would be very much decreased if the means at present in our hands were made full use of; and, although it may be desirable that some such Act as that suggested by the right hon. gentleman should pass, it is far more desirable that we should endeavour to discover some means to insure that the law when passed should be strictly carried out. (Hear, hear. ) As regards London, I may mention that the exceptions made to the first Act were so made because it was thought it would be unfair to force certain manufacturers to go to expense unnecessarily ; but it was not long before it was found that the change would be an economical rather than an expensive change, after the first outlay had been made for the purpose of providing the machinery necessary to secure the proper consumption of the smoke. The exceptions were, therefore, swept away, and the proprietors of those manufactories before excepted found themselves garners instead of losers by coming under the operation of the Act. It desirable that the owners and managers of works should bear in mind that their outlay in the first instance, though, perhaps, considerable in amount, will be repaid in the long run. The right hon. gentleman has alluded to the probable exhaustion of the coal fields. Great doubt exists in the minds of scientific men upon that subject, and I will not now enter into it further than today that, as we cannot look upon our coal fields as in-exhaustible, we should use our fuel with great care, and take every precaution against waste in order that the supply may last as long as possible. But what Sir, is the state of the law at present? A clause was inserted in the Towns Improvement Act of 1847, absolutely requiring that every fireplace or furnace used in working engines by steam, or in any manufactory, should be so constructed as to consume the smoke arising from it; and the penalties attached to the Act are ordered to be enforced if these regulations are broken. This was a general Act, and it was required that its provisions should be incorporated in a special Act, in order to apply it to any large towns or districts. This has been done to a very large extent; and I may remark that the provisions of the general Act are equally as stern as the law relating to the metropolis. So that the evil complained of exists to its present extent only because the local authorities do not, from some reason or other, enforce the provisions of the law. (Hear, hear. ) Really, Sir, I am afraid that local government is permitting itself to be placed upon its trial. Our proceedings here to night almost amount to preferring an indictment against the local authorities throughout the country, because, having the law in their hands, they refrain from enforcing it. (Hear, hear. ) I wish the right hon. gentleman would induce some of his correspondents such as the gentleman who wrote from Blackburn and other populous places, to enforce the laws they have before they come to the Government for more stringent enactments. What is the difference between the practice in London and in the country in reference to these Acts ? The metropolis is subject to the local directions of the police, who act under the Chief Commissioner of Police, and he in his turn is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, who authorises prosecutions when cases of infringement of the law have been reported to him. Prosecutions are not frequent now because the nuisance his greatly abated, owing, I believe, to the judicious manner in which the law has been enforced by the magistrates, who have refrained from dealing harshly with offenders, and have always offered to postpone judgment in the hope that during the time allowed proper means would be provided by the persons charged for complying with the Act. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me that in cases, where the police have neglected their duty in the way I have described, the local authorities should be requested to refund the contributions made by the Government to the local police fund. (Laughter.) I believe, Sir, we shall have no difficulty in passing a general law. It is desirable that it should be done, but I would again remind the House that we must endeavour at the same time to find some means by which we can insure that the law will be enforced. We all know how very zealous local authorities are of the Government, and how objectionable it is to have an inspector going through the country trying to find cause for summoning manufacturers. We must see it we cannot induce the local bodies, and those whom they represent, to feel it to be to their interest to have such a law, and we may hope that interest or higher considerations will induce them to enforce it. I have directed inquiry to be made in many of our principal towns as to the means taken to enforce the law in them, and the result will, I hope, throw some light upon the matter and enable us more surely to find a remedy for the evil we have under consideration (Cheers.)

Mr. Henley remarked upon the desirability of setting inspectors to work. He was of opinion that if informers were pitted against the smoke, the one nuisance would soon destroy the other. (Laughter.)

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Monday 11 June 1866, page 3