to vary the amount of the contribution | instituted at the instance of such local according to the Standard in which the committee. child passed; and, that being so, it was undesirable to draw a hard-and-fast line.

oppose the third reading. He therefore moved the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."-(Mr. Dillwyn.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. ANDERSON supported the Bill. He was surprised at the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Swansea in protesting against what he called Lobby legislation, and then stating that he had himself privately endeavoured to make arrangements with a Member of the Government as to the form of the Bill. The measure was not such a dreadful one after all, for the clause to which his hon. Friend referred only enabled a manufacturer who had procured a certificate from the Local Government Board to carry on his works for three years free from injunction and interdict, but still as much as ever exposed to an action for damages. In other words, the clause only took away the extreme remedy of stopping the works and driving the people out of employment. The idea was that, much as they desired the purity of the river, they considered that the welfare of the great manufacturing interests, by which the people lived, ought not to be lost sight of, and was of greater national importance than even the purifying of the streams.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, the Bill certainly had not been prominently before the House, but it was discussed on the second reading and in Committee. As soon as it passed through Committee it was reprinted for the information of those hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper. He denied that the clause had been inserted in the Bill without adequate Notice. On the contrary, full Notice had been given of it, and it had been accepted by the House. The House was tolerably full when this clause was added to the Bill, and it had the support of several hon. Gentlemen of authority and eminence in the House. It was to the effect that procedure by way of injunction should not be had recourse to during the existence of one of these certificates, but they were not to be granted for more than three years, and only where works of purification were actually in operation; while any person aggrieved might

appeal to the governing authorities to
cancel the certificate. He looked upon
that as a reasonable proposal, and if it
were desirable that the language of it
should be reviewed, there could scarcely,
he contended, be a better tribunal for
the purpose
than the House of Lords.
The clause had been carefully drawn,
and did not seem to him to be likely to
produce any mischief.

SIR HENRY JAMES, adverting to the fact that the Bill had been on a former occasion, by a slip of the tongue, described by right hon. Gentleman as a measure for the better pollution of rivers, suggested that the description was prophetic of its real character as it now stood, for yielding had gone so far that in order to secure the passing of the measure, the Government had conceded so much that it had become the manufacturers' Bill instead of the Bill originally introduced by the Government. If the design was to carry the Bill now, and to follow it up with another next year, the better way would be to throw the Bill out at once. The opposition to the Bill chiefly arose from manufacturers, who set their own private interests up in opposition to those of the general public. Their interests should not stand in the way of the purity of rivers. The streams were poisoned by the refuse of the manufacturing ingredients discharged into them. By the absence of proper means of prevention, the pollution of rivers that ought for sanitary purposes to be pure, was allowed to go on, and he held that it was a dangerous principle to give an Inspector power to prevent the local authorities from putting a stop to a nuisance. The purity of their water must be an object of great anxiety to every hon. Member of that House.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the House had listened to the very able speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which might have been more appropriately made in Committee. He was inclined to think from his speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the Bill, or, at all events, that he had not understood it. If he had, he would scarcely have spoken of it in the terms which he had used. There were three great questions in connection with river pollution. First, there was the question of the introduction into rivers of solid matter. Secondly, the pollution of rivers not only by solid

matter, but by sewage; and, thirdly, The House could not now pass a Bill there was a pollution by manufactories, such as they would wish to pass, and an and on this last point especially they imperfect measure like the present one had to consider existing interests. For would not really facilitate the further dealing with these evils various Bills work of legislation which would have to had at different times been introduced. be done on that subject. He would not All of them had failed, because they recommend the House to divide, but he attempted too much; and his right hon. would remind the Government that they Friend, in view of that fact, had wisely could not claim to have done all that confined his measure within certain was necessary for the prevention of the limits. The hon. and learned Gentle- pollution of rivers. The Bill was a man's description of it, however, was paltry and hesitating one, and was not quite accurate, as he himself would passed at the end of the Session as a see if he condescended to study its pro- shift to enable the Government to say visions. No one who visited the North that they had carried a measure on the of England could fail to notice that the subject. rivers there were gradually becoming choked up with the solid refuse thrown into them, and the injury thus caused to the people living on their banks was incalculable. In the neighbourhood of some of the large towns in his own county the expense incurred in dredging these rivers was enormous. Now, if the hon. and learned Member had made himself acquainted with the clauses relating to that part of the subject, he would have seen that they embodied most important provisions, and that the remedy was absolute and complete. The Bill also dealt completely with that great source of the pollution of rivers arising from sewage; and if there were nothing else in the measure but the means of preventing that great cause of injury to the public health, and also to the cattle feeding on the banks of rivers, it would be well worth the House's while to pass it. With regard to the pollution produced through manufactories, it was a great step to stop, as the Bill would do, the further pollution of rivers by manufactories to be hereafter established. With respect to that part of the evil created by existing manufactories, and as to which they had to deal with vested interests, they must proceed in these matters by degrees, and he believed that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had gone as far as the late Government or any other Government could, or as the public would allow him to go.

MR. GOSCHEN said, it might be true that the Bill went as far as public opinion would sanction at that period of the Session; but it should be remembered that they had as yet had no discussion on that important measure except at the small hours of the morning, and that if it became law it would have been settled by arrangements made in the Lobby.

MR. LOCKE said, the speech they had just heard was a difficult one to understand. They had now a Bill which, it was admitted, would do a great deal of good, and yet the argument seemed to be this, that if they could not now deal with the whole matter it would be better not to touch it. That, however, was not the ordinary rule that human beings adopted. The Bill was founded upon this proposition that we should go as far as we could in the right direction. The Bill would have ample field for action in Wales, which, though a very beautiful country, had no fish in its polluted streams. He thought the Bill, as far as it went, was one which should be passed, and that they ought not to wait until more could be done. Well, then, his right hon. and excellent Friend (Mr. Goschen) said it was too late in the Session to pass this Bill. If that was a reason for not passing the Bill, he was afraid they would have very few Bills passed. There was an opportunity now of setting things right and of giving the people pure water to drink, which he hoped would not be lost.

MR. CLARE READ said, that during the summer and autumn of last year he was engaged in investigating the sewage question. He then found that the rivers of the North of England were polluted to an enormous extent by solid matter put into them and by sewage. This Bill would effectually meet those two points. The pollution of rivers by manufactories with dye was not one quarter so bad as the pollution by sewage. This was by far the most practical, the most simple, and most straightforward measure that had been proposed on the subject. If anything remained to be done further in that direction this Bill would have laid a good foundation for further progress.

(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir and the effect of that was that great

of the Bill were generally approved of
in Scotland, and he hoped the second
reading would be taken pro formá. He
had consulted with the Lord Advocate,
and he would undertake that the right
hon. and learned Lord should bring in
a Bill next Session dealing with this
question of jurisdiction, and pass it
through if possible.

the present Session. They might have | sideration. He was therefore in favour
the Lord Advocate's pledge that he of the postponement. The other parts
would embody the provisions with re-
gard to jurisdiction in a Bill next Session,
but they could not depend on the Lord
Advocate's pledges. They had had two
years' experience of them, and they had
found that they were not to be relied
upon. He did not for a moment mean
that the learned Lord was unwilling to
redeem his pledges, or made them with-
out the fullest intention of redeeming
them; but he seemed to have no weight
with the Government. The Government
did not allow him any weight or say at
all, and it seemed as if Scotland would
not get any legislation unless Scotch
Members adopted the principle which
had been so successfully adopted by the
Irish Members-form a Home Rule
party, and begin to agitate and unite,
and give the Government all sorts of
trouble and factious opposition. When
the Scotch Members did that, no doubt
they would be a little better attended to.
He was willing to withdraw his opposi-
tion to the second reading of the Bill if
the Home Secretary would give Scotch
Members a pledge to see that the Lord
Advocate next Session brought in a Bill
to extend the jurisdiction of the Sheriff
Courts with a Government pledge to do
their best to pass it. If he did not re-
ceive that pledge, he should divide the
House, although he was sure to be de-
feated, and he should continue his oppo-
sition to all the future stages of the

measure.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to legislate on this matter without extending the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts," (Mr. Anderson,) -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, it was no fault of the Lord Advocate that he had been obliged to drop the question of jurisdiction. It was only from extreme pressure that the Bill had been curtailed, but that portion had been retained which was the most important, and which was very much needed. As to the extension of jurisdiction he admitted that time was required for con

MR. FARLEY LEITH said, there was a general concurrence of opinion in favour of the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Courts being extended, and he would refer in proof to the Petitions which had been presented from Scotland in favour of it. They amounted to 46 in number, and among the Petitioners were the principal Chambers of Commerce, and only three Petitions were presented against it. These were by solicitors and writers of the signet. But the general community were in favour of that principle. He complained of the manner in which Scotch Business had been treated during the whole of the Session, because it had created general displeasure both amongst the Members of that House and in Scotland.

He

MR. M'LAREN said, there was no one
he knew of in Scotland who would object
to the Sheriff Courts having the same
power respecting real property as the
County Courts had in England.
should like to see a discreet Bill brought
in next Session to extend the jurisdiction
of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland to the
same extent as the County Courts in
England.

MR. RAMSAY rejoiced that there
was a prospect of the improvement in the
administration of the law in the Sheriff
Courts, Scotland.

MR. ANDERSON said, he was satisfied with the pledges given by the Government, and would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. FARLEY LEITH said, he had
a Motion on the paper to the effect that
the Bill be read a second time on that
day three months, but he would not
bring it forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed
for Monday next.