will feel himself grievously wronged when, his trees being killed, he is offered money in place of them.

This might be said, however, in all cases where the sanctity of private property is invaded. When a railroad is planned, which is to carry a nation's traffic, it will disturb many an ancient hall and many a cottage home. The money equivalent is paid the owner, but in his eyes this is often no sufficient compensation. He must, however, bow to his fate and give way before the greater good of the many. So in the case where a man sees every year the noble trees vanish from his land, from the ancient domain that has been held in quiet enjoyment by his family through many generations, and feels himself driven from it by the advancing tide of manufacturers. He is much to be pitied; for, let him be paid ever so liberally for the damage actually done to the estate, he is not compensated. Yet he must submit and suffer personal loss for the public benefit.

Fortunately, however, these cases are exceptional; generally those interested in the land can be fully compensated in money for all they lose. A farmer, who should get 1007. for the produce of his wheat-field, is content if it brings him in only 507. in the market, provided he can get the remaining 501. by way of damages from the neighbouring chemical manufactory. A question here at once arises, Will he have much difficulty in obtaining from the manufactory the 507., the proved amount of his loss? If the manufactory is standing by itself, he probably will have no great difficulty. If the demand is resisted, his course at law is plain. He proves that on a certain day, or on many days, the smoke of the offending chimney was seen to fall upon his land, that soon afterwards the crops were visibly injured, in such a way as is known to be caused by chemical smoke; he also further proves, by the assistance of agricultural valuers, that the amount of the damage done is an equivalent of the sum of money he now claims. This chain of evidence is usually so conclusive that the farmer wins the day.

Suppose, however, that in place of one chemical work being near the farm, there are several in a group, from all of which the smoke approaches simultaneously. These works may be of different kinds; there may be alkali-works and copper-smelting works; glass-works and potteries, with chemical works whose various processes and products defy enumeration, how shall the farmer discriminate, or rather how shall he criminate? how shall he fix on the culprit among such a motley crowd of evil doers? Let us suppose him calling on the first in order, and making his complaint against him, as the one he thinks most likely to have been the offender; the manufacturer explains to him in the clearest manner that from the nature of the processes he carries on, and the care with which all injurious vapours are avoided or condensed, he

cannot have injured the land; perhaps it was his friend of the neighbouring works, whose processes are different from his own. Doubtless this gentleman would be equally clear and conclusive in his explanations, and would pass our farmer on once more, to be sent in turn from one to the other, but to get redress from none.

The farmer soon learns that the only way in which he can obtain compensation from any of the chemical manufacturers is to fix on one of the works, perhaps the one nearest his land, or the one with the highest chimney, and to watch till he thinks he can distinguish the smoke from it come upon his farm. On that he fixes, and, shutting his eyes to the other works and forgetting the injury they probably do him, charges the proprietor with the whole of the damage he has sustained. The judges and juries before whom such cases come for trial are in great difficulty, they know that the manufacturer in question has not done all the damage alleged, yet they have no power of apportioning it between him and other offenders, therefore, as some of the damage has been proved to come from the defendant's works they give a verdict for the plaintiff.

Among chemical works, the largest, and those capable of doing most harm to vegetation, are the alkali-works. In these works soda, in its various forms of ash, carbonate, bicarbonate, crystal or caustic, is extracted from common salt. Common salt consists of soda in combination with muriatic acid. When it is mixed with sulphuric acid and heated, muriatic acid is driven off as a gas. In the earlier days of the soda manufacture this acid was considered as a waste product to be got rid of as speedily as possible. The easiest way was to let it pass into the chimney and thence into the surrounding atmosphere. Complaints were soon made that trees in the neighbourhood were injured. The manufacturer therefore raised his chimney, building it so high that the acid might be carried away to a great distance by the wind and its effects lost sight of. The result of this effort was not successful; on wet days the rain passing through the smoke would wash down the acid and fall in burning drops even at the foot of the chimney; while on fine days the smoke would travel farther and though much spread out, still powerful for evil, would carry on its destruction over a larger area. A wiser plan was next adopted; by the use of the now famous Gossage condensing towers the acid vapours were washed out of the smoke and kept from contaminating the air altogether. Those alkali manufacturers who carried out this method well sent out scarcely any acid vapour to damage the farmers' crops. Some of the manufacturers, however, were behindhand in the movement, and either from want of skill or of enterprise, did not condense their acid vapours. Of the efficiency of this condensation in individual cases the farmer could not judge; he found that his crops

were still damaged, and therefore brought his action as before, possibly to recover from an innocent party. At this point the Legislature stepped in, and in the Alkali Act of 1863, passed a measure which has worked well in the interests of both the manufacturers and the agriculturists. The Act announces it to be the duty of the manufacturer to condense 95 per cent. of the muriatic acid he produces, and fixes a penalty of 507. for each omission, raising the penalty to 1007. after the first conviction. Inspectors are appointed, whose duty it is to visit the works from time to time and ascertain that the provisions of the Act are carried out. It should be noticed that the Legislature in passing this Act stepped out of its accustomed course. The common law maxim is that for every injury a man may receive he has his remedy against some one. He must, however, receive the injury before he can seek his remedy; but in this case, as it already has been shown, much injury may be done which has no remedy. Who can replace an oak tree of 100 years' growth and restore the waving woods which adorned the hill side? The law therefore here steps in beforehand, and no sooner does the Inspector find that 95 per cent. of the acid is not condensed, than he stops the process under the penalties mentioned. The new law has been found to work very well, it has enforced the condensation of muriatic acid to the benefit both of the manufacturer himself and of the public. It has protected the agriculturist against the manufacturer, and the manufacturer against the agriculturist. The Inspector is received as a friend by both sides; he protects the farmer's interests by enforcing care on the part of the manufacturer, and he protects the manufacturer's interest by proclaiming the extent to which he carries the suppression of noxious vapours. The Act has had the effect of bringing up the

Before

hindermost manufacturer to the rank of the most skilful. this legislation took place many manufacturers condensed a portion of their muriatic acid; now they all condense not a small portion only, but fully 95 per cent., some indeed habitually condense 99 per cent. The manufacturer finds the visits of the Inspector an assistance to him in keeping his condensing apparatus in efficient order; and an amount of acid escaping which would pass unnoticed by the master or his workpeople is detected by the Inspector. It should be understood that to point out leakage of muriatic acid is to point out waste, for this acid is needed in the manufacture of bleaching powder, and other products. The amount of acid thus saved by the operation of the Act is very large. One manufacturer sells muriatic acid annually to the amount of 15007.-acid which previous to the passing of the Act was sent up the main chimneys of the works to the destruction of all surrounding vegetation.

It may now be asked in general terms, has the Alkali Act, this somewhat experimental law, succeeded; does it accomplish the work

it was intended to do? The reply is that it has done all and more than its promoters or those who understood its provisions expected; but probably the public generally are not satisfied; they fail to understand that a law which professes to shield them from muriatic acid cannot also defend them from chlorine, sulphurous acid, sulphide of hydrogen, and the host of nameless gases by which their noses and their gardens are assailed; still less can they understand that an Act which should prevent the emission of muriatic acid from the chimney of an alkali works, cannot also prevent the escape of the same acid from copper-extracting works, a bottle factory, or a pottery.

The Act must, however, not be blamed for omitting to do that which it was never framed to accomplish; let us be glad that a step has been gained, that one noxious gas has been measured and suppressed.

Some instances have occurred where manufacturers who are not alkali makers have desired to place their factories under the Inspector appointed under the Alkali Act. Their object being first to know if, in his opinion, they were sending out an injurious amount of noxious vapour, then, having diminished it so as to meet with his approval, to gain his advocacy and defence when harassed by their natural enemies the farmers. This has brought a certain amount of volunteer work on the Inspectors, which they have cheerfully borne on account of the obvious good they could accomplish, by diminishing on the one hand the escape of noxious acids, and preventing litigation on the other.

In districts such as that around St. Helens, in Lancashire, where alkali-works and copper-smelting works are found together, the copper smelters look somewhat enviously at the alkali makers.

Before the passing of the Alkali Act, the farmers who thought they had suffered loss through the injury of their crops by acid vapours, charged the damage sometimes against the alkali-works and sometimes against the copper-works. Now, however, owing to the improvements which have been made in the alkali-works under the stimulus of the Act, and supposing the manufacturers to be somewhat protected by it, the landholders direct their attacks exclusively against the copper smelters. The amounts claimed by each farmer are not always large, but the aggregate has reached 30007. a year against the six copper-works.

Besides these smaller claims an important action was lately brought by the proprietor of an estate three miles from St. Helens against a copper smelter, for damage done to his trees and crops by the smoke from the works. The course the action took, so well shows the present working of the law, and indicates perhaps the direction in which it could be amended, that it might be well to give some account of it here.

The plaintiff proved he had received damage from smoke coming from the direction of the defendant's works, and alleged that the damage he had sustained was wholly done by them, intimating that if he gained a verdict in the present suit he should apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the carrying on of the works altogether, as he believed he would then be free from all damage. In defence it was pointed out that the defendant's works lay in a straight line between the plaintiff's land and St. Helens, so that the same wind which brought defendant's smoke would also convey the smoke from a large portion of St. Helens, and that in general, as the plaintiff's park was subject to injury from all the factories in the neighbourhood, it was unjust to charge the whole damage upon the defendant.

It will be seen that the following question would at once present itself:-Is it possible to determine the amount of damage which each factory in a district contributes towards the damage done by

all?

In other words, if a farmer sustains a loss of 1007. through his crops being injured by the accumulated smoke of a manufacturing district, is it possible to set down to each manufacturer the amount which he ought to contribute towards this 100%. ?

Turning to the fifth of Dr. R. Angus Smith's very able reports under the Alkali Act, we find this question anticipated and an answer given. Referring to the amount of acid vapours thrown up with the smoke of factory chimneys, he says at page 25:-"Now it is easy to estimate this amount, and it is easy to put down to every one in the district the exact share of guilt so far as the acid is concerned. Perhaps we may also bring in the element of distance."

In consequence of this Mr. Alfred E. Fletcher, the Inspector under the Alkali Act for the district which includes West Lancashire, was asked to apply himself to the question. He had to consider: 1st. The distance of each factory from the injured land.

2nd. The rate at which the increase of distance diminishes the power of the smoke to do damage.

3rd. The number of days throughout the year on which the wind blows from each point of the compass.

4th. The amount of acid vapour discharged from each factory in a given time.

First, the distances; these are easily measured on the map.

Information on the second point was obtained in the following manner. At a time when the ground was covered with snow for a week, lines were drawn, in a direction following the wind, from St. Helens and from other groups of works, to a distance of two or three miles. At each half-mile a sample of the surface snow was collected and brought home for analysis. Also during a period of rain, collecting vessels were set at regulated distances from a group