wanton mischief has been done by the public when visiting gentlemen's grounds. Where it is possible to provide for the due regulation of the public and their amusements it is most desirable that they should have legal security for the perpetual enjoyment of these privileges without favour from any landlord or fear of his caprice. But where this due regulation cannot be obtained so easily, the true interest of the "toiling millions" may be best secured by not conferring a legal right to trespass on the "ordinary person." 67. Turning from this attempt at regulating the management of land to schemes for preventing the waste of agricultural resources, we may notice the attempt made by the Act of 18742 which extended the provisions of the Alkali Act of 1863. In the interval between the passing of these two Acts the number of Alkali works had increased very largely, both on the Mersey and the Tyne, and as the destruction of vegetation, crops, and trees in the neighbourhood of the works was becoming very serious, some new restrictions were necessary, if the districts were not to become uninhabitable. Cattle were "affected by the deposit of poisonous acids on the food they ate," though little complaint was made at that time of injury to human health from the state of the atmosphere. The chief change which the new Act introduced was in regard to the method of testing the quantity of noxious acids which escaped uncondensed. Under the new system it is provided that every alkali work shall be so carried on as to secure the condensation of 1 Compare in regard to the use of an open space in Lambeth the deputation from the Vestry and the reply of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Times, 5th April 1883. 237 and 38 Vict. c. 43. 3 Lord Walsingham, 3 Hans., ccxx. 387. the muriatic acid evolved to such an extent that in each cubic foot of smoke escaping "there is not contained more than one fifth part of a grain of muriatic acid." No opposition appears to have been brought against this bill by the alkali manufacturers; indeed it was argued that muriatic acid and sulphuric acid at any rate, were such valuable products that there would be a real gain to the manufacturers in conducting their business in accordance with these regulations and condensing these acids for sale, and that as a matter of fact many of them did so already. The chief importance then of this instance from our point of view is that it seems to show that even in cases where the interests of the manufacturers and the public really coincide it may yet be expedient for the Government to move in the matter, rather than trust to the removal of a public mischief by the manfacturers themselves. In a case where so far as their own business was concerned the manufacturers were indifferent which course was pursued, it would be necessary for the Government to promote a change which would be no injury to the manufacturers when once it was effected. It may be necessary too for Government to interfere to "bring up the manufacturers who did not do their duty to the level of the best-managed works," 1 these last being in most cases it would appear the larger undertakings. The subsequent history of these measures is also of considerable interest; they have been so far successful that constant pressure has been put on the Government of the country to bring a larger and larger number of trades within the sphere of their operation. A Commission appointed to inquire into the subject reported in 13 Hansard, cclviii. 870. 1878 that a very considerable number of new industries should be included. The last Act on the subject, that of 1881,1 left something like a dozen of these industries untouched; it consolidated the old clauses about alkali works, but dealt also with the disposal of alkali waste, and extended inspection to salt works as well as sulphuric acid works. The chief criticism which the proposals received was that they did not go far enough, and failed e.g. to regulate coke-ovens. But it was answered with considerable effect that our scientific knowledge did not serve to enable us to prescribe regulations for all noxious manufactures. In some cases the process could only be rendered innocuous by very expensive means, which might so far cripple the manufacturers as to react injuriously on the interests of those employed. Earl Kimberley argued "that while it was of vital importance to secure the health of the people who lived in the neighbourhood of those manufactories, they must also take care that they were not depriving them of the means of living by interfering in such a manner as to drive manufactures to a distance."2 Since this is the delicate practical problem which Parliament has had to face, there can be little doubt that wisdom has been shown in proceeding," step by step, building up a system by means of experience, and not by experimental legislation causing a reaction against their measures which would have been difficult to face." The distinction which Earl Kimberley thus drew between experience and experimental legislation is a most important one, as was pointed out above (pp. 156, 158),—in whatever terms we may prefer to express it. In the case before us Parliament has moved slowly, insisting on the more 1 44 and 45 Vict. c. 37. 2 3 Hansard, celviii. 874. and more general adoption of regulations that worked well in a limited sphere, instead of attempting the large experiment of dealing simultaneously with all cases of noxious gases however diverse the industries which gave rise to them might be. It is not often, however, that the mischiefs with which legislation has to deal, lend themselves so readily to classification and therefore to treatment in detail, as they did in this case. 68. The attempts1 to remedy the pollution of rivers are somewhat parallel to the efforts that have been made to prevent the emission of noxious gases: but the question is in some ways a much more difficult one: the noxious gases do dissipate themselves as they leave the district where they are generated, but the polluting substances in streams are carried on in increasing quantities as the river runs towards the sea: and the health of the inhabitants at great distances may be affected, as well as the wealth of proprietors who are entirely unconnected with the districts where the industry is carried on. Besides, the question is complicated by the fact that pollution arises not merely from manufacturing refuse, but also from sewage; and it has been found extremely difficult to draft a bill which should apply to both cases. The destruction of fish was the chief point which seemed to render legislation necessary, as this was a serious loss to the owners of the waters, and also indicated a state of unwholesomeness that was probably injurious to the neighbouring inhabitants, and certainly interfered with their recreation. Both sides of the House appear to have been agreed as to the necessity of legislation, though the Duke of Somerset thought the case so hopeless 139 and 40 Vict. c. 70. as to be past remedy, and deprecated futile action which might be prejudicial to the manufacturing interests.1 Though the principle of the Bill of 1875 was thus generally admitted, the difficulty of drafting a satisfactory measure was very great. Lord Shaftesbury had brought forward a bill in 1872, which relied on chemical tests for determining the amount of pollution which should be prohibited:2 but the Marquis of Salisbury proved by experiment that this scheme was too complicated to work satisfactorily, and left the decision to the common sense of County Court judges. This is obviously a most insufficient arrangement as it introduces a great element of uncertainty, as one judge may take a different view from another as to whether a river is "polluted" or not, and as to whether a manufacturer has taken the best possible means of purifying waste or not. At the same time it must be remembered that this was admittedly a "tentative "4 measure, that the want of sufficient scientific knowledge was the real hindrance to the introduction of quantitative tests, like those which are applied to noxious gases,-and that only by experience could better and more definite restrictions be devised. The result of the prosecutions under the Bill, and of the opinion of experts given as witnesses, may well have been the accumulation of so much additional knowledge on the subject, as to render a more satisfactory, because more definite measure, possible before long. The Bill thus discussed was withdrawn for a year; but the delay did not serve to throw much additional light on the subject, and there are few points worth attention in the discussions of 1876. 13 Hansard, ccxxiv. 556. 3 Ibid. ccxxiv. 544. 2 Ibid. ccxxiii. 1888. |