The Pendleton Nuisance Correspondence

Manchester Guardian April-May 1856

Monday 21st April 1856

NUISANCE IN PENDLETON ______To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-A short time ago you were addressed by A Hater of Stinks. Now, sir, I too am a “hater of stinks”, and I also have a nuisance to complain of. It is a perambulating one, and therefore more difficult to deal with. I reside, as you will perceive, in Broad-Street, Pendleton, and two or three times every day a sort of trough, drawn by two strong horses, passes my house, which leaves an intolerable smell for half an hour afterwards. I am informed that this is some sort of refuse from the gasworks being carted to an alum manufacturer. Now, Mr. Editor, is there no means of putting down this nuisance? I am one of those who think we Pendletonians pay rather dear for the somewhat questionable honour of forming part of the municipal borough of Salford; and I do hope our nuisance committee will see to this matter, and not allow our gas committee to create the greatest perambulating nuisance in Salford, which cannot, at the best of times, be said to be the sweetest town in England.-Hoping this may call the attention of the authorities to the matter, I am yours respectfully PRESTON SALTS Broad-street, Pendleton, April 17, 1856

Wednesday 23rd April 1856 NUISANCES IN PENDLETON ______To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-In reference to the letter in your to-day’s paper signed Preston Salts, allow me to add a word on the subject, and should his letter and any that may follow draw the serious attention of the Salford corporation to the nuisance he speaks of, that body and the ratepayers whom they represent will owe a debt of gratitude to those who called their attention to the subject so as to cause the suppression of such nuisance and thus save an immense quantity of valuable rateable property from the ruin which must necessarily fall upon all “residence property” in the neighbourhood of these nuisances, and of the works which uses them in their manufacture.

1 And now as to the nuisance itself. Preston Salts says that the “trough”, or more properly tank, on wheels, which carries the nuisance through the streets “leaves an intolerable smell” for half an hour after passing his house. This is indeed a nuisance; but what must the nuisance be to those living near the works where these tanks are emptied and the contents manufactured? Only let any person go within half a mile, or even a mile, from the Alum Works referred to by Preston Salts, so as to catch the breeze after it has passed over these works, and he will find an answer to the question. During the night, when people are asleep and resting from their daily toil, living a few miles out of town in the belief that they are enjoying the fresh air of Broughton, Kersal Moor, Pendleton, Irlams-o`-th-Height, Pendlebury, &c is the time taken advantage of by the owners of these works to emit the most disgusting and unwholesome “stinks”; and in justification of these remarks I may state that silver-plate is blackened, bright machinery is turned bronze colour, and plants are killed, and even the paint on the outside of windows has been destroyed by it. About a year ago the matter was brought before the Salford corporation by the Sanitary Association; and the reply was that the nuisance was not sufficient to cause their interference. Surely the sale, by the gas committee of Salford, and I believe also of Manchester, of the ammonia water from the gasworks, does not weigh in the minds of so influential a body against the interests, the health, the comfort, or the pleasure of the ratepayers whom they represent. Trusting that the present mayor and corporation of Salford may look into the matter themselves, and trust to their own senses and judgement in the matter, rather than leave their opinions to be formed by the report of an inspector, or of some chemist who may find himself so delighted with the chemical process carried on at these works that he can find no nuisance, I remain, your obedient servant, A SUFFERER BY THE NUISANCE

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-In your columns this morning, I see a letter signed Preston Salts, in which the writer complains of what he terms a “perambulatory” nuisance; and which, he says, leaves a smell behind it for half an hour afterwards. This is simply inaccurate, the smell has passed away before the cause is out of sight. I too reside in Broad Street and have my nasal organs offended as often as your correspondent, but in making it out that the nuisance last so long, he takes (for the purpose I suppose of giving effect) more licence than he is entitled to. The offensive smell is caused by the transit of ammonia from the gas works to Messrs Spence and Dixon`s alum works. I may inform Preston Salts that those gentlemen have taken steps to remove the nuisance as early as possible, and that a boat is now building at the Windsor Bridge Iron Works to convey it by canal and thus avoid the public road. My card which I enclose will show you that I am not in the interest of Messrs Spence and Dixon, and that my only motive for writing is that the truth may be known.-I am, sir, yours respectfully, Pendleton, April 21, 1856 JUSTITIA

2 Friday 25th April 1856

NUISANCES IN PENDLETON

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN Sir,-In several of your impressions this week, remarks have been made by Preston Salts and others respecting a nuisance, which, they say, perambulates the streets of Pendleton, leaving a very disagreeable smell for half an hour after it has passed. This is a great mis-statement of the matter. I, too, live in a street through which this vehicle passes, and cannot perceive the smell in my house. I can only smell it when passing the vehicle in the street, and then, at the utmost, it does not last a minute. Another correspondent complains of the alum works of Messrs Spence & Dixon, to which this ammonia from the gasworks is conveyed, as being very detrimental to vegetation. This, I believe, was to some extent true, two or three years ago; but the proprietors above-named have spared no expense that the offence might be removed, and they have almost overcome it. I, too, live near the alum works, and, therefore, can judge respecting the matter. Examination of the premises has been made by some of the best chemists, who, by their report, show that there is very little room for complaint. Respecting this perambulating substance, Preston Salts will not have his strong nasal sensibility offended long, as a boat is now ready to convey the ammonia to the works along the canal. Respecting the smell from the works, I believe that, though, as I have said, it is now small, it will shortly be removed, as the proprietors are about to construct a large chimney for the purpose. I have not the slightest interest in making these remarks. We have so many complainers at Pendleton, that persons at a distance would be led to think that it was one of the filthiest places in the Kingdom, arising from its manufacturies. One of your correspondents complains about a paper manufactory near Seedley. A short time ago it was the foundry of Messrs Barningham. I suppose soon it will be something else. All manufactories are a nuisance, in a smaller or greater degree; and if we must begin to put down some, we must put down all; and then we shall again be on the Highway to barbarism. It would be well if gentlemen who are so fond of complaining, could at once be accommodated with mansions in the Elysian Fields, where, we are informed, there would be nothing to offend their sight and smell-Yours truly, VERITAS Pendleton, April 24, 1856

Saturday, April 26th 1856

Sir,-I was much pleased to see in your paper of Monday and Wednesday last letters referring to the abominable nuisance in Pendleton, arising at the alum works specially alluded to by Preston Salts. I can most fully confirm the statement made by your correspondent, A sufferer by the Nuisance, as to the disgusting and unwholesome stinks which are emitted from these works, and especially during the night time. Having my

3 residence on Kersal Moor, in the hope of inhaling fresh and pure air, it is no small annoyance to be regaled, whenever the wind blows south-west, with a disgusting, and unwholesome rotten-egg smell. If the corporation of Salford have no power to suppress what is on all sides acknowledged to be a monstrous nuisance, and which must inevitably deteriorate considerably the property in the neighbourhood, the sooner they acquire such power the better. The abominable smell, however is not the worst part of the matter,-an atmosphere laden with such noxious particles must be decidedly injurious to both animal and vegetable life, and demands, therefore, interference in a sanitary point of view,-I remain, yours obediently, KERSAL MOOR April 24th, 1856

Tuesday 29th April 1856

THE PENDLETON ALUM WORKS

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-I am very glad to see several letters in the Guardian on the subject of the nuisance arising from the alum works at Pendleton. I have communicated several times with Messrs. Spence and Dixon on the subject, and have been received, I am bound to say, with the greatest courtesy by them, but the nuisance is not abated., and I do not think that anything but the removal of the cause will free the neighbourhood of Pendleton from an evil which will be found, when too late, to have done irreparable injury to vegetables. At my residence, Buile Hill, the smell has been sometimes so strong, that the house was quite filled with offensive gas, which must, I am sure, be injurious to the health of all who inhaled it; and it was impossible to let doors or windows be open in the direction of the works, to the north-east. As the season advances, we may expect westerly winds to prevail, and then the neighbourhood of Higher Broughton will, I doubt not,, experience a similar nuisance. I trust the notice that has been taken of the subject in your columns will lead all the neighbourhood to unite either in a pressure on the corporation of Salford, to take up the question, or in an effort, through a number of private individuals, to enforce the removal of the works to some less populous district. I for one shall be glad to subscribe to such an object, and, are, sir, your obedient servant, THOS. B. POTTER Torquay, April 27

Sir,-Several letters have appeared lately in the Guardian on the subject of offensive smells and nuisance connected with the Alum Works at Pendleton. I am not surprised that the attention of the residents in the immediate neighbourhood has been at last aroused. Although my house is situated at a distance of two miles from the works in question, I have long been annoyed by most offensive and suffocating smells which unquestionably proceeds from those works, not constantly, but when the wind proceeds from that direction, and particularly during the night, as if that season was chosen for the dispersion of noxious

4 gases. Having occasion to pass along the turnpike road to Manchester almost daily, I can easily judge how much greater must be the nuisance to those who reside within half a mile of the works, for when the wind is easterly it is sometimes excessively painful to breathe the foul air which prevails on that part of the road immediately opposite. I am satisfied that the emissions of this noxious gas is injurious both to animals and vegetable life, and ought not to be tolerated in so populous a district. I presume that the corporation of Salford are the proper authorities to whom we should look for active proceedings in this matter, and the inhabitants who suffer have a right to expect that immediate steps will be taken to remove the nuisance.-I am, sir, yours respectively, J. ASPINALL TURNER Pendlebury House, 25th April, 1856

Thursday 1st May 1865

THE ALLEGED NUISANCE IN PENDLETON ______

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-We have hitherto been silent under the storm of abuse poured upon us through your columns during the last few days; and had the infliction still remained in the hands of the anonymous slanderers with whom it originated, we should have preferred to remain so still. It however becomes a different matter when men of the character and position of Mr. Turner and Mr. Potter enter the lists and give open expressions to the convictions they honestly held and state their intention of acting on these convictions; and therefore, from the moment we saw Mr. Turners letter, we felt it was our duty to meet the matter fully and at once. We feel glad that Mr. Potter, in his very gentlemanly letter (the compliments in which we most heartily reciprocate), has placed the issue chiefly on the deleterious influence of our works on vegetation; because on this point can be a simple appeal to fact, and not a statement of opinion. We then at once challenge Mr. Potter to find any spot equally near to Manchester and to works of any description, which is as flourishing and luxuriant in its vegetation as the area from Brindle Heath to the Agecroft Printworks, and radiating from our works, being half or three quarters of a mile beyond, this being the land nearest to them and furthest from the other works in the neighbourhood. We are sure, had Mr. Potter accepted our invitation, and visited either last summer or now, the works and neighbourhood, the candour, which he is so well known to possess, would have prevented his stating that we injure vegetation. As to the other point embraced in both Mr. Turner’s and Mr. Potter’s letters, namely, the alleged nuisance from our works, which may be defined as something that may be prejudicial to health, and is decidedly disagreeable to the senses, we have certainly no intention to contravert the fact that the atmosphere of Pendleton and its neighbourhood is to

5 a great extent in this condition is a permanent, an increasing, and apparently an incurable one. We shall be amply borne out in this by a merely historic statement. About nine years ago, when we erected these works, not more than four or five manufacturing chimneys were active in this neighbourhood; there are now, within not many hundred yards of each other, 25 chimneys, daily and hourly active, and each doing its quota of atmospheric contamination. Among these are mills and weaving shops, dyeing and sizing works, bleach works, a soap works, and a tannery or leather manufactory just commencing operations. These works, in the aggregate, consume at least 600 tons of coal weekly; and when we state as an unquestionable fact that these 600 tons of coal contain from 12 to 15 tons of sulphur, all the products of the combustion of which are poured into the atmosphere in one shape or another, we think it must be perfectly evident that a pure atmosphere in Pendleton is an unattainable blessing. But while we thus agree with Messrs. Turner and Potter as to the disagreeable condition of the atmosphere at Pendleton, and, with them, deplore the fact and the hardship they thereby incur, and while we do not deny that, as coal consumers, we contribute our part to the general contamination of the atmosphere, we most emphatically deny that we are the sole or the chief cause of the state of things complained of, or that any effluvia or smell arises from our operations which can justly cause them to be charged as a nuisance, or the nuisance of the neighbourhood. And for the establishment of this assertion we challenge the most rigid scrutiny by any competent unbiased man or men of talent by whomsoever appointed for the purpose. To this ordeal we have appealed before, and we do so now, confident of the result if honestly applied. Our request for such an investigation has never in form been responded to; but in fact such an investigation did take place, though under circumstances unfavourable to us. About the end of 1854 a similar agitation to the present was got up. Mr. Fitzgerald, urged by some of his tenants, gave orders for an action against us; his solicitors appointed two scientific men to get up evidence for the action; they came to the neighbourhood at a time unknown to us, and, having chosen a day when the wind was blowing right to Buile Hill, they placed themselves on the land adjoining the Bolton Road, and by the aid of **** which Mr. Potter cannot take advantage of at the ******* ******* they kept themselves in contact for several hours with the smoke from our works and the various other works in the valley; and their subsequent report was that no peculiar gaseous smells were distinguishable in our smoke to mark it out from the others, ***** smell from the neighbourhood they did feel, but its most distinctive character was such as they knew did not proceed from our works being of a kind essentially different. Further investigation in the interior of the works failed to afford ground for an action; and when their report was given in it was abandoned. Now, in opposition to this evidence of scientific men of the first character in Manchester, what is the proof now adduced? On the one hand the assertions of anonymous parties that we choose the night for processes by which noxious smells are produced. These statements are simply not ***; examination of any one or more of about 40 men employed by us will at once prove that in no one case did we ever conduct by night any process which was not conducted regularly by day. Indeed our processes are so necessarily continuous, that we could not so act if we would. On the other hand, we have Mr. Turner’s statement that, at the distance of two miles, he can distinguish the smell from our chimney. We are far from

6 impugning Mr. Turner’s conviction; but we strongly question the evidence on which he founds it. Before reaching the point to which he refers, our smoke will necessarily be blended with that of nearly 20 chimneys by day, and with at least five or six , which, with ours, are active by night. At the distance of 400 to 500 yards, the scientific men could distinguish no peculiar gaseous smell during several hours observation to our smoke compared with others. Mr. Turner believes he can tell it at two miles distance, and when it must be blended with other smoke. We ask Mr. Turner whether his acute mind would be satisfied with a decision so founded, in any commercial case. But, sir, although this agitation, so far as we are concerned, may be a matter of little public moment-though it may little concern the community that we, having such men as Mr. Turner and Mr. Potter determined to stop our operations, must, unaided, of necessity go to the wall, and suffer an immense pecuniary loss; yet there is a large principle involved in the case, on which the community should maturely consider; and that is, whether in our enormous manufacturing expansion, our works of various kinds are to give themselves room and verge enough, by locating themselves in the most convenient vicinities, at the risk of driving the region for agreeable villas further out into the country, or whether they are to “be cabined, cribbed, confined,” to the densely populated portions of the interior of the towns, in order that those who have had agreeable suburban residences may continue to enjoy them still. We allow that this is a choice of evils, but the great interests of the community must decide the choice. We are the salient point of attacks at present. Mr. Barningham was in the same position sometime ago; the community rallied around him, and that position was gained, and added to the manufacturing territory. The venue is now changed, but the case to be decided is similar. But we are prepared to let our case stand on its own merits; we are convinced that we are most grievously defamed, and the sins of the neighbourhood are all laid to our charge. If we are, by competent and unbiased referees, proved to be the offenders we are described to be, we should not resist a verdict so given; and we put it to Mr. Potter and Mr. Turner whether it is not due to the high position and character they hold in the mercantile community of Manchester, to pause before they engage in a matter where prejudice and not evidence is at present in the ascendant, and where success, if gained, might damage us, but would certainly not benefit them, and might leave behind a reflection that they had not done as they would be done by.-We are, sir, yours very respectfully, SPENCE AND DIXON Pendleton Alum Works, Manchester, April 30, 1856

Friday 2nd May 1865

THE NUISANCE IN PENDLETON ______To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

7 Sir,-Messrs, Spence and Dixon, in their letter inserted to-day, say that the vegetation of the neighbourhood is uninjured by the vapour from their works. As they would without doubt advance nothing in which they did not believe, I can but suppose them to be in ignorance. I shall be supported by everyone who lives in the neighbourhood of their works in stating, that this vapour is most clearly perceived and easily distinguished by its peculiar smell; that, during the prevalence of the east winds, when it is blown over in the direction of the houses on the hill, the bloom on the fruit trees in spring, and in summer the flowers, turn brown and fall off; the leaves, at all seasons, curl up and drop off; and large numbers of trees have died, causing serious expense in the renewal. Messrs. Spence and Dixon dexterously try to shift the complaint of this vapour being injurious to health in their lament on the unwholesomeness of the smoke from the factory chimneys built around. They do not, and cannot, deny that the vapour they discharge into the atmosphere is most unhealthy. Everyone knows that the products of combustion in an ordinary furnace, being lighter than air, rise easily up the chimney and are then dissipated in the atmosphere; but their vapour, being considerably heavier than air, is carried by the wind, and gradually falls on the surrounding fields and gardens, producing the effects above described. Messrs. Spence and Dixon then call attention to a pretended investigation, made some time ago by intimate friends of theirs; but there are few people who have not had too much experience to be taken in by a ***** sham like that. They stated that it is a question whether they shall be driven into populous (?) towns and thus cleverly try to raise a prejudice in the adjoining borough against the complainants. All that is necessary for them to do is, to go further into the country, where they would do quite as well as in their present situation. They point to the complaints against Mr. Barningham, which were of mere smoke and noise; but there is no comparison between the two cases; the noise is partially stopped by the erection of walls, and the smoke by hign chimneys. This is no new matter; ever since the erection of Messrs. Spence and Dixon’s works, complaints, which have been evaded, out-talked and pecuniarily (sic) settled in some cases, have been incessant; and it is now quite time that the population of the **************, to the number of about 5000, should unite to expel this nuisance. They are unanimous in their opinions, and only require the opportunity to give them expression.- I am, your obedient servant Y Pendleton, May 1, 1856

Saturday 3rd May 1856

The Alleged Nuisance at Pendleton-We have received a number of anonymous letters, offering opinions, and stating what are alleged to be facts, in reference to the alleged nuisance arising from the alum works at Pendleton. We wonder that it does not occur to our correspondents that the opinions or assertions of A B C or D on such subjects are utterly worthless, especially when gentlemen who are known have addressed the public on the subject with real signatures.

8 Tuesday May 6th 1865

THE NUISANCE IN PENDLETON

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-Having read with considerable interest the recent correspondence on the subject of the objectionable character of this nuisance, I, as an old resident in Pendleton, and a sufferer in common with my neighbours, think it right to state my full concurrence in the opinion expressed by Mr. Turner and Mr. Potter, and also by those other remonstrants who are unceremoniously designated anonymous slanderers; though the letters which I have read in your columns merely call attention to facts well known to scores of most respectable people and which cannot be controverted. From the tenor of Messrs. Spence and Dixon’s letter, of the 30th ult. it might be inferred that their works are now conducted as they have been for the last nine years. Such, however, is not the case. The evil complained of has been, and is, an increasing one; and unless annihilated or moderated, cannot fail to depreciate all the neighbouring property to the serious injury of the owners, and the annoyance and suffering of multitudes of residents. The offensive transit of ammoniacal liquor through the streets to these works, is of comparatively recent date, and no doubt would have been persisted in, had not full expression been given to public opinion on that subject. It certainly might have been abated earlier; and the alienation now proposed will only be the carrying by another route (by no means thinly inhabited) a liquid, emitting along its whole course, a most disgusting odour, repugnant to the smell, and deleterious to health. It is true, the parties now to be sickened may not be as influential as those who have raised their voices against this unwelcome intrusion; but they ought not, and I trust will not, be less the subject of attention and protection on the part of our authorities, ******** the necessary steps should be taken to combat the nuisance in question. Making every allowance for the assertion of Messrs. Spence and Dixon, respecting the effects produced by the increasing volumes of smoke from the additional manufactories in the Pendleton district, the grounds of complaint of your numerous correspondents, and of the multitudes of residents whom I have heard comment on this nuisance, remain untouched. The smoke from the works produced by coal is comparatively innoxious; at all events, it is less offensive than that emitted from the several other neighbourhood chimneys; but Messrs. Spence and Dixon altogether pass by, and no doubt wish the public to overlook, the fact that they are both producers and consumers of sulphuric acid; and that no other works in the district are open to the like objections. No can pass within any moderate distance of their place when the wind blows towards the road, without perceiving the sharp and suffocating odour, which cannot be inhaled by old or young with impunity. I have frequently experienced it on both sides of the works, as far off as the Bolton turnpike road, and I know from undoubted authority it is carried to Kersal and Broughton, so as to be most offensive and objectionable. The foot path through Brindle Heath, for years so agreeable an outlet from the smoke and noise of the main road, is now quite altered in its character; and I have for the last year and upwards felt compelled to prohibit my family from ever passing along it when the wind is in the north or

9 east; believing, from personal experience, that no female or child can harmlessly inhale the noxious vapour which occasionally proceeds from these works. The ordeal to which Messrs. Spence and Dixon appeal ought to be at once resorted to, not, like the instance mentioned in their letter, by a single experiment (which may have been made when the production of vitriol was not proceeding), but by a series of experiments and investigations both at the works and in their neighbourhood, as was done in the case of Messrs. Barningham`s works, which resulted in a material moderation of that nuisance. Let competent persons be selected with full facilities afforded them, as offered by Messrs, Spence and Dixon; and if, after careful and contained tests the works be found innoxious, the fears of the complainants will be allayed, and their present vexation, consequent on their apprehensions, diminished. The argument of Messrs. Spence and Dixon, based on the supposed necessities and rights of trade, is founded in selfishness; and, if admitted, would justify the destruction of property and health to any extent. There are many districts of large area where works of this kind might have been constructed without injury to persons, or even to property of any value; and I understand that Messrs. Spence and Dixon are themselves owners of, or interested in, similar works in the eastern part of Yorkshire; where they might probably concentrate their productive power to the advantage and relief of our township, which hitherto has justly been regarded as the most wholesome region within miles of Manchester. They have, however, intruded into a locality, and originated works of a description previously unknown in the township, not for the benefit of the public, but hoping, by the advantageous arising from the immediate vicinity of coal and water carriage, to increase their own private gains, utterly regardless of the irreparable injury inflicted upon owners and occupiers of property of enormous value, and which, if affected as anticipated, can never be reinstated. Should the splendid timber and beautiful plantations and shrubs within reach of the noxious vapour be once attacked, it will require time and money to replace them beyond the means and expectations of life of many of the present owners and occupiers; are they to await such a catastrophe or now to bestir themselves to prevent its consummation? Notwithstanding the assertion of Messrs. Spence and Dixon, respecting the vegetation in the vicinity of their works, any person wishful to satisfy himself on this point need only wait until the leaves are fully out, and by a short examination, he will soon convince himself that the fences in the neighbourhood of the Brindle Heath footpath have suffered from the blight occasioned by the acid used. The effects were visible enough last summer and autumn, and will, no doubt again present themselves this year. Every succeeding year of existence allowed to the evil will lessen the chance of ultimate success to the efforts about to be made for its extinction. Reference having been made by Messrs. Spence and Dixon to the Barningham case, with which, I believe, they had some connection, they might have given a more correct and candid account of it. The attempt made, was not to destroy the works, but to compel an abatement of an evil like their own, which, from a small origin, had become intolerable. If the community rallied round that firm, they were nevertheless signally defeated, as Messrs. Barningham, under the advice of their solicitors, pleaded guilty to the whole indictment, and undertook, at considerable expense, to carry out the suggestions of the scientific men who investigated and gave evidence on the subject before the grand jury.

10 Many of those suggestions have been acted on, and their effect is an undoubted diminution of the previously existing nuisance, both as regards the offensive vapour and the noise; and, when the whole are completed, the neighbouring residents will have comparatively little to complain of. At its worst, the vapour was always a much less objectionable than that omitted from the works to which attention is now called. Let similar steps be taken with reference to the latter, and I have no doubt the result will prove eminently beneficial. Messrs. Spence and Dixon court inquiry and investigation; and it will save time and expense to have the matter dealt with in a conciliatory spirit. Were a respectable and independent committee appointed to direct the proffered ordeal, and their suggestions adopted, the public would have no further cause of complaint, so long as the modus operandi continues on its present principle and extent. Unless, however, something of the kind be resorted to, there cannot fail to be a continuance of uneasy and hostile feelings, which, before long, will find vent in the prosecution of a multitude of separate actions, or one formidable indictment; costly to all parties, and tending to perpetuate an angry and un-neighbourly spirit-I am, sir, yours respectfully, THOS. P. CUNLIFFE. Pendleton, 5th May, 1856

Friday 9th May 1856

THE ALLEGED NUISANCE IN PENDLETON

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN Sir,-In again addressing the public through your columns, we shall be fully credited when we state that that the notoriety thus thrust upon us is exceedingly distasteful; and we are sure that your readers will soon come to the conclusion that no greater nuisance exists than this constant bandying of accusation and defence on a subject which is only interesting to the parties concerned. We are not, however, responsible for the question being again opened. Mr. T. P. Cunliffe has entered the lists so thoroughly prepared for the contest, that it is evident he feels it a matter of interest; and, in accordance with our constant deference to those who have in an open and honourable manner expressed their sentiments, we feel bound to acknowledge his letter. Besides had we determined not again to appear in your columns, Mr. Cunliffe`s letter contains so many definite assertions, to every one of which we can so amply prove that he is in error, that we should have been strongly tempted to take advantage of so favourable a mode of defence thus opened for us. Mr. Cunliffe`s first accusation is, that we do not conduct our business as we did in its earlier years. Like all Manchester men of business, we have done our utmost to improve our business, and have certainly so improved it that no unbiased man will find it a nuisance; but Mr. Cunliffe`s accusation is definite; we have more recently introduced the transit of the ammoniacal liquor of the gas works, and so created a nuisance. On referring to our books, we find that

11 we introduced the use of ammoniacal gas liquor for the manufacture of alum in the end of 1847, and in January, 1848, we were carting it from Manchester through Pendleton to our works; and that we have never ceased to do so from that period till the present time; that, in 1851, we added to this the Salford liquor and have had it also since that date. Thus the nuisance, if such, has existed for nearly 8½ years. Mr. Cunliffe`s statement, that it is recent, only proves that he never felt it a nuisance till public mention was called to the fact of its existence. Mr. Cunliffe says we might have removed it sooner; and that the present agitation has caused us to do so. We shall allow Mr. Cunliffe to entertain this conviction, if he thinks it of importance, and shall merely give the facts of the case. More than twelve months ago we determined, if possible, to convey it in a different manner. We planned the laying of pipes, at an expense of £1600, to bring it direct from the gas works to our works. The only possible route was by the Bolton Railway; we petitioned the company, and were referred to their engineers, who thought it would be objectionable. We then, at an actual expense of nearly £40, got a survey and plans and sections of the route made by a competent railway engineer. These we presented to the railway committee, and were again referred to their engineers. We met them, and they agreed to its being done, so far as they were concerned. We even agreed to pay an annual rent of £50 for the privilege of the pipes lying alongside the line. We were then kept in suspense from one committee meeting to another, till from our first application at least nine months had elapsed; and at last, without reason assigned, our request was refused. We were thus thrown on our own resources, and planned another mode; this was to bring the liquor in pipes from the gas works to the river, and thence, to boat it to our works, a boat of peculiar construction was required; we ordered from Messrs. Dunn and Hattersley such a boat in the beginning of last December, expecting it to be finished in little more than a month, but circumstances over which we had no control interfered, and we only got it into our possession a few days ago. To-day it is at work, and Mr. Cunliffe will never, we expect, see the liquor waggon (sic) again; but this does not satisfy Mr. Cunliffe, and we think he shows himself unreasonable. The existence of the liquor is a fact he cannot ignore. We took some little credit to ourselves for being the first directly to convert such an apparently detestable commodity into a substance both beautiful and useful, and contributing for its purchase a sum of nearly £2000 to the rates of Manchester and Salford annually. What will Mr. Cunliffe do with it? There it is, “a great fact,”-one million of gallons of it annually in the middle of Manchester and Salford. If Mr. Cunliffe will not allow us to convey it in a close boat making two journeys per week along an unfrequented route, the onus rests on him to dispose of it. Mr. Cunliffe`s next error is in regard to our manufacture of sulphuric acid. Had he read the pamphlet we published, with Messrs. Smith and Calvert’s report, which was sent him, he would not have charged us with a desire to conceal the fact of our doing so. Mr. Cunliffe, if he means anything by his remarks on this subject, conveys the impression that this is a new or greatly increasing part of our operations. We again appeal to facts. We have largely manufactured vitriol since 1847. In 1851, or five years ago, we had one vitriol chamber, 200 feet long, and another 80 feet. At present we have three vitriol chambers, 80 feet long each, the other dimensions being the same in both cases. In 1851 all these were in

12 active operation; they are all so now. Since 1851 we have so improved on our vitriol manufacture and increased its productiveness, that we can demonstrate to any man with sufficient scientific knowledge that a nuisance from it is a chemical impossibility. Mr. Cunliffe here proves our case exactly. In 1851 we were conducting our vitriol manufacture on a larger scale, as to apparatus, than at present, and certainly with less knowledge and circumspection; but no works existed in the valley except our own. All the others were silent, or just coming into existence then. Mr. Cunliffe could send his family to enjoy the delightful promenade through the fields, without their being annoyed; and for some after he did not forbid it; but for the last year and a half he has done so. What are the altered circumstances? We simply state the facts,-in 1851 we were alone or nearly so; during the period mentioned by Mr. Cunliffe six works within a radius of 400 yards of ours have been in constant activity. We leave Mr. Cunliffe to draw the inference. But, after all, Mr. Cunliffe is the most reasonable opponent we have yet met with in this controversy; and this we should have expected, as his professional knowledge must have opened his eyes to the hopelessness of getting up a successful case against us on the complete negation of evidence now existing. Mr. Cunliffe`s proposition for the organisation of a committee of unbiased persons to make a thorough investigation, as in Mr. Barningham`s case, is just our request put into a definite business-like shape; and as such we most willingly adopt it. Still Mr. Cunliffe must allow us to say that it is accompanied with a most ungenerous insinuation; and as that affects not only our character, but that of two gentlemen whose unquestioned integrity is their most valuable property, we feel no hesitation in saying that, if not to us at least to them, Mr. Cunliffe is bound to make an apology or prove his assertion. Messrs Smith and Calvert most distinctly stated that, in their repeated visits to our works and neighbourhood, they chose the time of their visits so that we should not be aware of them. Mr. Cunliffe`s insinuation is, that we were made aware of these visits, and stopped the most offensive part of our operations in anticipation of them. We tell Mr. Cunliffe plainly that our feelings would recoil from such a contemptible trick, and we are sure that the gentlemen named will claim credit for at least an equal share of common honesty. But it seems after all, the splendid timber and beautiful plantations in our vicinity are not at present attacked by our eight or nine years manufacture of vitriol and alum, and use of the ammoniacal liquor of the gas works, they are only in danger of being so, and we are to be offered up as a sacrifice to the ***** of a possible catastrophe. We tell Mr. Cunliffe that the catastrophe he dreads is only a matter of time; and that our continuance or removal will not, in the slightest degree, accelerate or retard it. We again appeal to facts. Who has attacked the once beautiful trees in the Peel Park, one half of which showed, last summer, decided symptoms of decay, indicated by blighted and withering tops? Mr. Cunliffe is evidently well read in chemical manufacture; is he aware of the constitution of the coal used in our various works? Does he know that every one hundred tons of that coal contains at least two and a half tons of sulphur; and that two and a half tons of sulphur produce, when burned, five tons of sulphurous acid gas; and that, although the gas is not decidedly ****** to human life, as is proved by the fact that Swansea is

13 comparatively free from epidemic disease, while its atmosphere is constantly loaded with this gas, yet its effect on vegetation is such that for miles around Swansea the earth is nearly as barren as a board? Mr. Cunliffe has referred to our work at Goole. There we commenced erecting early in 1853, and had them at work in July last. Ever since that time they have been in full operation. The process is exactly the same as at Pendleton, they are situated in the suburbs of the town, not 400 yards from its streets, and on the other side are rich ***** farms. Before we commenced operations we were dreaded. Since we have been at work we have not heard one single complaint in any shape. One ***** of this is that there are no works but our own, and, as we produce no nuisance there is no ground for complaint. We have always received with respect the suggestions of parties who, in a friendly spirit, offered advice, and shall be quite willing to do so again; not that we may thereby abate an acknowledged nuisance, but to exhibit our anxiety to ******* and allay apprehensions, however unfounded we may judge them to be; and we therefore receive Mr. Cunliffe`s closing remarks in the spirit in which we believe they are offered. Trusting this will be the last time we shall feel it necessary to obtrude in your columns, we are, yours very respectfully, SPENCE & DIXON Pendleton Alum Works, May 7, 1865

Saturday 10th May 1856

THE NUISANCE IN PENDLETON

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir,-The reply of Messrs. Spence and Dixon, in your paper of to-day, to my letter of the 5th instant; calls for some notice; but as, since I wrote that letter, I understand that a movement has been made which is likely to result in a complete settlement of the question whether or not the inhabitants of Pendleton have or have not a cause of complaint, or just grounds for apprehension of mischief from the above nuisance , I will not trespass to any extent on your valuable space. The most important point has reference to the report mentioned by Messrs. Spence and Dixon and their pamphlet accompanying it. The latter document I never received or saw, and the former I never perused or heard of, before reading their letter of this day, except as referred to in their first letter; from which I inferred the gentlemen in question had based such report on the vapour emitted from the works, on the single experiment upon the smoke so prominently stated. Never having seen the report, and knowing nothing of its origin and contents beyond the short mention of it be Messrs. Spence and Dixon, I may be excused having doubted its conclusiveness upon the important questions at issue. Messrs. Spence and Dixon are in error in supposing that I have only perceived the offensiveness of their ammoniacal liquor, since expression was given to public opinion on this point. It has been a subject of strong complaint by myself and others for a long time past; and it was after repeatedly commenting upon it that I was told by a gentleman to whom the matter had been before named, of the intended change in the mode

14 of conveyance. It appears from Messrs. Spence and Dixon’s admission that they have considerably increased their consumption of this liquor, and that must result in an extension of their products at their works, as they also acknowledge, from which I infer an addition to the materials creating the annoyance and mischief. When the liquor was conveyed in tubs, though very offensive, it was perceptibly less so than it has proved since the adoption of the iron tank, supposed to be hermetically sealed. Whether the carriage in tubs was conducted more especially in the night time or not, I cannot tell; but I did not so frequently encounter the latter in the streets. Both before and since the change in transit we have often been under the necessity of closing all the windows of my late residence until the stink had evaporated. The gaseous effect so noticeable upon the Brindle Heath footpath, and which has comparatively destroyed that pleasant outlet, has probably been more perceptible there latterly, owing to the long prevalence of easterly winds. Formerly the smell was carried to the other side of the valley, and, as I am told, was often an unwelcome visitant so far as the hill at Broughton. The residents there can, no doubt, when the fitting time arrives, make good their assertions and establish their grievance. With respect to the alleged purity of the works, and the impossibility that any nuisance can be occasioned by the vitriol manufactory, this is a matter for future investigation. The sharp acid vapour and disgusting odour emanating from the works are well known to the resident community; and even if it be established that they are not injurious to health, it can never be denied they are highly offensive, and very much interfere with that enjoyment of life and property, which are as much to be regarded as the rights and profits of commercial enterprise. If the deleterious effect be proved, the works should be at once removed to another district; and should, the offensiveness only be established, the inhabitants of the township claim from Messrs. Spence and Dixon the immediate adoption of such remediable measures as the courted investigation may elicit.-I am sir, yours respectively, Manchester, May 9, 1856 THOS. P. CUNLIFFE

THE ALUM WORKS NUISANCE

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN Sir,- In a letter from Messrs. Spence and Dixon, published last week in your paper, my own name and the proceedings which I felt it right to adopt in order to put down what I thought to be the serious nuisances of their alum works, are mentioned in a way which appears to me calculated to lead your readers into erroneous views of the whole case. About four years ago I received a requisition from several respectable inhabitants of Pendleton, calling upon me to put down the grievous nuisance of the effluvium coming from these alum works. The health of certain persons, whose houses caught the effluvium, was distinctly injured thereby; gardens were said to be also greatly injured. From personal observation I had seen a succession of pine trees, upon my own land, gradually dying off within a few years past. Supposing the wind to blow from a S. W. quarter, the sulphuric acid effluvium from these alum works would directly affect those trees.

15 At first, I supposed that I had power to put an end to Spence and Dixon’s lease; they had, by setting up a nuisance, broken the covenants of that lease. But by a strange omission made in that lease, no power of re-entry was reserved by the landlord. Thus, however great or proved the nuisance, my hands, as a landlord, were tied. Two years later (the nuisance becoming greater), I was again applied to by several gentlemen to do what I could. Upon public, therefore, as well as upon private grounds (the value of private property was much lowered by the alum works), I sent notice to Messrs Spence and Dixon of an action by indictment. After some correspondence between us, I received from Messrs Spence and Dixon a polite offer to subject their works to the inspection of two eminent professional chemists. The latter were to go over the works at any time chosen by themselves, and were to decide whether the amount of sulphuric acid escaping from the chambers or the chimneys was really harmful to vegetation or to human health even. Through an eminent solicitor of Manchester, whom I employed, I received in due time a copy of the report which these professional gentlemen had sent in. It was long and elaborate, but its general drift was to persuade us that the nuisance complained of might be easily remedied; that Messrs Spence and Dixon might, by a little alteration, greatly diminish the escape of sulphuric acid: that the examiners themselves could see no real proofs of injury to adjoining vegetation: and that, in short, it would be impossible to say what proportion of injury could be ascribed to these alum works, because they were really surrounded by other works,-such as dye and brewing works emitting no wholesome smells or smoke. At the outset, I felt no amount of confidence in this professional report. To ********* opinion ******************. People and vegetation were suffering; the effect was ******* ****** might argue about the cause. Then, it did not appear that these chemists had visited any persons in that ****** most seriously affected by the effluvia. How could they ***** estimate its effects? But I forbear saying more of this “report”. It was evident that if an indictment had been preferred against Spence and Dixon, this most negative admission of the nuisance by witnesses competent to judge would have gone far to ****** the jury, and, unless counterbalanced by opposite technical testimony, which could not in this case be procured, a prosecutor of the nuisance would have probably been defeated, and the nuisance gone on triumphantly. As a private individual, and against professional advice, I could not ******* such a ******. Few persons would ********. The amendment by which Spence and Dixon promise to lessen the nauseous effluvium I waited three months of last year to test by observation. I found not only that there was no lessening of the evil, but that it is more than ever felt and complained of, a fact which is proved by the many letters printed in your paper. In consequence of the growing evil and injury to all surrounding property, I informed Messrs Spence and Dixon during last September, that I considered their promised amendment of nuisance as not fulfilled, and that I was ready to join others in a legal action against them. The Salford sanitary board and board of nuisances was and is the proper prosecutor but during the last autumn, I was told that the board would take no steps in the matter, that as they had failed in a previous action brought against a nuisance, so they feared to risk another failure. I am truly thankful to see that influential gentlemen, such as

16 have lately written to you on the subject, will be likely to carry weight with the sanitary board: and I shall be happy to add my name to any memorial which may be sent to that board, urging it to come forward and stop the evil. Let them hear the evidence of persons who live near, and suffer from the pestilent exhalation. It is, I believe, almost unprecedented that alum works should be allowed to remain in the midst of such a population and neighbourhood such as ours.-I remain, very sincerely yours, JOHN FITZ-GERALD Irwell Park, Pendleton, May 8, 1856

Monday May 12th 1856

THE PENDLETON ALUM WORKS

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN Sir,-

VERY POOR COPY

Mr. Fitzgerald correctly details the movements made by parties to induce him to enter a prosecution against us. His assertion that we made an offer to submit to an investigation is, to say the least of it, not an over statement, our ****** ******* is being that we made repeated offers of this, and VERY POOR COPY Mr. Fitzgerald ******** (we are sure inadvertently) the design of these gentlemen’s *******. It was simply to get up evidence in aid of a prosecution then fully determined upon. These scientific men, when they found that they could not obtain evidence that would warrant a prosecution, may have stated so, and Mr. Fitzgerald`s solicitor, being previously versed in the law of the case, may at once have seen the damaging character of their report to the hope of a successful prosecution, and may have at once, wisely we think, advised Mr. Fitzgerald to give it up; but all that does not affect the truth of our original statement; that these men were not appointed to examine our works merely to ascertain the truth of certain complaints, but were appointed simply to obtain evidence in support of a trial then determined on, and that they most signally failed in doing so. If further proof of this were necessary, we might advert to the fact , known we should think to Mr. Fitzgerald, that we did not obtain a copy of the report of Messrs. Smith and Calvert, or even know anything of its purport, for six months or nearly so, after its date. We doubt not that Mr. Fitzgerald is quite conscientious in believing that our works produce a nuisance; but we also know the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald has expressed himself as more amazed by the smell he feels from other works in the valley than by anything which he supposes comes from ours. Since fasts such as these, and hundreds of similar kind, would be elicited by us in a court of law, of what value would evidence be, by Mr. Fitzgerald or any other party, however high his character might be, that he is annoyed by smells? We ourselves have been annoyed, times without number, by disagreeable smells from other works, and we know whence they

17 come; but we have never complained, and do not now; but do our opponents for once imagine that we shall be equally silent if driven into a court of law? We may appear to be weak, as opposed to the combination that is rising against us; but he is “twice armed who hath his quarrel just.” We know that prejudice is the moving power in the matter; and that, although powerful, it is not omnipotent. To any honest investigation we have professed our willingness to submit: to the loss of our property by clamour, we shall certainly not yield. If the law says we have forfeited it, we shall then resin it; but, till then we hold it by as firm a tenure as we have ever done; and we deny the right of any man, or number of men, to assume that we have forfeited our right to the peaceable and safe enjoyment of our property, until he has proved against us the offence by which we have forfeited that claim. In concluding our remarks on Mr. Fitzgerald’s letter, we beg to correct his statement that the scientific men did not visit any persons in the locality. They, themselves, in the report, state “from all we ourselves have seen and from all inquiries made of the inhabitants &c” showing that Mr. Fitzgerald must have overlooked this fact when he wrote. Mr. Cunliffe, in the opening paragraph of his letter, states that a movement is in operation which is likely to result in the settlement of the question. Does he know the nature of the movement, and how dishonourably it is conducted? We beg to enlighten him. Two young men were, so lately as yesterday evening, the 9th inst. Handing about in various quarters of Pendleton a memorial addressed to the council or nuisance committee, and urging parties to sign it, on the pretence that it was for removing the gas liquor cart from the streets, and this after the publication of our letter of the 7th, in which we state that it was then removed and would not again be used. On being informed of this, they shifted their ground to another pretence. Another means of success in obtaining signatures is to misrepresent our remarks here. Our reference to Messrs. Smith and Calvert’s report is met by the statement by these young men “that the report was got up for them (Spence and Dixon), and they paid for it.” This has just so much truth as to constitute a most disingenuous misrepresentation. Nearly six months ago the fact we urged Mr. Fitzgerald’s solicitors to give us a copy of it. This at first they refused point blank; but on further *******, agreed to our having it, on condition of our paying the expenses incurred, and agreeing to carry out some suggestions made by Messrs. Smith and Calvert. We agreed to paying the expenses and also to carrying out these suggestions, if, when known, they appeared to be practicable. We then obtained the report, and carried out all its provisions; by doing which we had the promise of Mr. Fitzgerald’s solicitors that they would not advise him to engage in any future prosecution against us. We state ******** for the guidance of the council, as to the value of signatures ****** memorial obtained, and shall be ready to substantiate ***** here asserted. In confirmation of our remarks ********* paying for the report, we quote an extract from our agreement with Messrs. Sale, Worthington, and Co, for the sum ******* 1855, “This we do not, because of your having any ****** under the circumstances in which the inspection was *********** view to your commencing an action against us ************ we are anxious to remove any existing unfounded ************ and all supposed causes of complaint,” &c.-We close ************* and are, sir, yours very respectfully, SPENCE AND DIXON May 10, 1856

18 Tuesday May 13th 1856

THE NUISANCE AT PENDLETON _____

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN

Sir, As a resident of Pendleton for upwards of 30 years, and great sufferer by this nuisance, I must beg a space in your paper to offer a few remarks and to state some facts. In the pamphlet issued by Messrs. Spence and Dixon, they observe “that as to human health the men who are daily engaged in the operations would present a satisfactory test, and the time list of the workmen can be compared with that of any other works. I will say nothing as to the sickly appearance of the men, nor stop to enquire whether the report is true about the clothes of the men employed at the works becoming rotten after a very short wear, but merely remark that many men may be found to work for good wages at employments which are known to be very deleterious to health, and tend greatly to shorten life. One instance among several, will suffice, viz. the grinders of Sheffield, whose average duration of life is only 40 years. Now as to facts. At the time Messrs. Spence and Dixon erected their works I had a large orchard of fine fruit trees in the greatest state of health and luxuriance, bearing fruit fruit of the finest and best description; but since the works have been in operation, a great many of them have gradually decayed and died off, and I shall be within compass when I state that, within the last five years, have been obliged to root up more than 50 of those trees; and invite the inspection of those who have any doubt upon their minds, come and look at those which are not quite destroyed but which are in a state of decay, and they will be able to see and judge for themselves of the pernicious and blasting effect of the pestilential nuisance. Messrs. Spence and Dixon urge their outlay as one reason why they should not be disturbed; but they have been long since warned and told in plain terms that the nuisance would not be tolerated, and yet, in the face of repeated remonstrances, they have persisted in increasing their works, for the purpose of accumulating wealth, regardless of the health and comfort of the inhabitants, and they have only themselves to blame. The works are carried on night and day, including Sunday; on which day, if a farmer, to save his crop of hay, was to set men to work, not only himself, but every man in his employ, would be fined in a penalty and heavy costs. Yesterday morning, after breakfast, I walked into my hill **** which is nearly opposite to the works; the morning was beautiful and though the wind was blowing the smoke up the valley and away from the direction of my field, the effluvium was so strong that it affected my breathing, and I was obliged to retire. Messrs. Spence and Dixon have distributed their pamphlet amongst the shopkeepers and ratepayers of Pendleton, with the evident intent of influencing the latter to an opposition against the corporation of Salford instituting proceedings to put down the

19 nuisance, as in the case of Mr. Barningham; but they will not succeed. There is one general complaqint against the works which are found to be intolerable; and it is the bounded duty of the corporation to take action upon it. Messrs. Spence and Dixon may brave an indictment, an attempt to stave off proceedings by defending actions; but they will find that such a body of witnesses, evidencing facts and circumstances, will be brought to bear against them so strong as to outweigh the theoretical opinions of paid scientific gentlemen.- I am, sir, your very obedient servant, GEO. SMITH Ivy House, Pendleton, 12th May, 1856

______

To the EDITOR of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN Sir,-So many allusions have been made to the report of Professor Calvert and myself on these works, that I may be allowed now to say a word, especially as in a late controversy, in which both our opinions were mistaken. I maintained complete silence. I shall feel glad if, when anyone quotes my opinion, he shall **** take the trouble of learning it; and if anything I may have written be worth alluding to, it is at least worth previously reading and understanding. I do not see that any of the writers on the alum works has been read and fully seen the true meaning and necessary limits of the reports of Mr. Calvert and myself. We have not relied solely on our organs of smell, although these have been infucated(??) by daily controlling influences of the rigid results of the balance. Our report gave the result of careful number, weight and measure and by a similar method of inquiry can it alone be answered. We cannot allow ourselves to be uterly (sic) led by the nose; at the same time we know its value well. Of course we cannot speak of what happens every day, we spoke only of the days on which we were there, and both of us can assert that the works can be carried on in full vigour, without being a nuisance, further than was stated in our report, and were so carried on when we examined them. I speak for Mr. Calvert, who, not being at home, cannot see the letter. But I would certainly advise those who are disposed to go into the matter to examine again. It must be remembered that nuisances are according to their position; what is to be tolerated in one neighbourhood is intolerable in another. The law requires that the best means be used when complaints are made, that the law may be appealed to. I had never examined Messrs. Spence and Dixon`s works before and never have seen them since; and if they have gone backward in their management, and if they have not carried out the improvements we introduced or advised, ***** be proved. Talking will do no good. But if a true report, based on weights and measures, is to be objected to, after a couple of years, then let two chemists of character be found , well known not to keep a balance, but to obtain weights by a mental process only, and let their instructions be definite. I shall be happy to draw them up. They shall be thus: “Curse ye, curse ye, Spence and Dixon; curse ye, ***** the alum works at Pendleton,” and so on. Such instructions Mr. Calvert and I

20 cannot receive. I may add, also, that those given us by Mr. Sale, the legal adviser of Mr. Fitzgerald, were ***** honourable men give. Is it possible that our report could give all that is demanded of it? It was neither retrospective nor prophetic; it showed the possible and the actual only. I believe also that the proprietors are anxious to do all that is right. The honourable and open manner in which Messrs. Spence and Dixon met us, assures me ***** anyone will tell them distinctly where the nuisance exists, this will remedy it without any public demonstration being made against them. There is no man better persuaded than myself of the importance of of attending to such subjects, and of the great number of nuisances that cry for redress in Manchester, **** the investigations ought to be both methodical and periodical; and the conclusions only be made with sound judgement, when drawn up by men who are aware on the one side of the importance of the public ****** and on the other of of the importance of the manufactures on whose our prosperity depends. If the care of the public health is to be left to a committee of untried men, or to a nuisance inspector untried; and if there is no controlling power possessed of suitable education and ****** an occasional nuisance may be put down in a troublesome or expensive manner by some violent public clamour or legal process but the city, and some of its suburbs, will ever be, as now, ****** which no man who can avid it , remains for twelve hours **** time. I have no reason to suppose that any of your correspondents on this subject are not acting according to conviction as to the alum works, but all such controversies show an insufficient organisation in the government of the town, in respect of sanitary matters. I am, sir, your obedient servant, ROBT. ANGUS SMITH May 12 1856

21