MR. ROEBUCK said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that it would seriously interfere with the manufactures of this country. His objection to the measure was this, that the science of combustion was not in that state that they could legislate in the belief that in those manufactories, the subject now of complaint, they could dispose of their own smoke. The mere statement of the facts connected with the case was sufficient to show that they were utterly unable to do so.
...
MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND said, the manufactory with which he was connected must be entirely shut up in case the Bill were allowed to pass. He opposed it from no desire to foil its object,
...
SIR G. STRICKLAND was well convinced that the smoke of manufactories in crowded towns was a great nuisance, which the manufacturers themselves were desirous of remedying, but had hitherto failed in doing. He recommended, however, as experiments were making for the purpose, that his hon. Friend should withdraw the Bill for the present Session, and bring it in next year, when the results of those experiments might be in a more satisfactory state.
...
MR. BANKES said, he should vote for going into committee on the Bill, if his hon. Friend persevered. The object was one requiring their attention;
...
The evil grew every year, and whether from manufactories near the House or across the water, he could show from the dead or dying state of a noble avenue of lime trees attached to Westminster school, that the atmosphere was most unhealthy. He hoped the House would not reject the Bill.

MR. FOSTER hoped the House would not consent to go into Committee on the Bill. Some of the healthiest trees possible were to be found in St. Paul's Churchyard—a locality one would suppose extremely likely to be visited by smoke. The measure would tend to drive manufactures out of the country. Much had been done towards effecting that object already. There were the inspectors of factories, with their spies and informers, and there was the Ten Hours Bill¹, one of the most mischievous measures ever passed into a law. He regarded the noble Lord at the head of the Government as deeply responsible for that measure, inasmuch as it was entirely contrary to the commercial principles which he had ever professed. There was no end to such kind of legislation, and, if persevered in, there might, in time, be a Bill to prevent expectoration in the streets.
...

MR. BRIGHT said, that there were two or three reasons why he objected to this Bill. In the first place, the first clause was one which was worded in a manner which would prevent the Bill being of any use except to annoy those with whom it would interfere;
...
If it were true that smoke could be prevented at a moderate expense, and that it would be an actual saving to the proprietors of these furnaces, he was quite sure that such was the competition amongst the manufacturers of this country—such the anxiety to save money, and such the anxiety also to purify the atmosphere and benefit the public, that these projects, if feasible, would have spread throughout the whole of the trade; but when there were fifty different methods of doing this, and not one of these had been found applicable to the great variety of furnaces that existed, he thought it might be fairly taken that hitherto science had not discovered a mode of putting an end to the smoke nuisance, except such as made it almost impossible for manufacturers to submit to it;
...
If he Would leave this question to the good feeling of the manufacturers, who would not willingly put the public to any trouble or nuisance, it would be found that, whenever science should offer them a mode by which it could be done at a moderate expense, without endangering the durability of the boilers, the manufacturers would adopt such plans as were offered.
...

MR. CUBITT, having been referred to in this debate, thought it right to make a short explanation. His brother had the object of consuming smoke much at heart; he had laboured greatly at it, and certainly with some success, but at a very great expense. Recently he had spent £400. or £500. upon it. He (Mr. Cubitt) also had steam-engines in his works, and he would give a great deal to purify the atmosphere of London; for that was certainly a much more important object than economy; but he could not consume the smoke which his engines produced. The subject, however, occupied the attention of many active minds; science was making rapid strides, and he hoped the day was not far distant when the object would be accomplished. He should be glad to assist in promoting such a purpose; but under these circumstances the present measure appeared to him immature.
...
MR. LABOUCHERE said, that though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for
Sheffield had proposed that this Bill should be postponed, at all events to a future Session, and though he was willing to admit that any opinion of his own on a matter of this scientific description was of very little weight, he had come to the conclusion,
...
it would be practicable, without any great difficulty or very great expense, to oblige parties in a great degree to abate the nuisance of the production of smoke in such large quantities as was in many instances the case. At the same time he would say, that if he thought that by attempting to do this they would be incurring the slightest risk of diminishing employment, it would be an act of insanity to try to effect anything of the sort.
...
MR. THORNELY said, all regulations for the consumption of smoke ought to be left to the municipal authorities of each locality. The hon. Member for Lymington had, upon his recommendation, agreed to exempt iron works from the operation of the Bill; and it appeared he had also consented to exempt potteries. These exemptions, and the necessity for them, showed that the whole subject could only be safely left to local supervision. By that means the smoke would be consumed where it could be; and where it could not, the parties would be left free.
...
MR. SPOONER concurred in the suggestions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. In many instances it was utterly impossible to consume the smoke, and any attempt to enforce such a Bill as the present would most certainly stop a great number of manufactories.
...

MR. PARKER thought his hon. Friend would save them a great deal of trouble if, after all that had been said against the Bill, he would consent to take another year to consider the objections that had been raised.
...
Nobody liked smoke if it could be avoided; but it was absolutely necessary that they should carry on their manufactures. If any one could come forward and show that he had discovered a cheap and economic method of preventing smoke, the House would not be justified in refusing to adopt that method; but nobody could say that such a discovery had as yet been made. The gentlemen appointed on the commission were no doubt able scientific men, but they did not understand the manufacture of cloth, or the processes of working in metals.
...

MR. DUNCAN said, that the measure was one which would overwhelm the manufacturers with ruin. The House had already hurt them severely by shortening the hours¹ of labour; now they were about again to interfere with their liberty of action in a manner that would be hurtful to the master, hurtful to the poor, and consequently hurtful to the nation at large.