1885.] 
Analyses oj Books. 
173 
into consideration. A factory, if not the freehold of its occupier, 
i° 8 ener ally held on a long lease. Hence he can fairly be called 
upon to undertake improvements, and he may, with some show 
o ieason, be told that the reduced consumption of fuel will com- 
pe A n ^V e J im i before the expiry of his lease, for the outlay incurred. 
With dwelling-houses all this is different. In a vast majority 
of cases they are occupied by monthly, quarterly, or yearly 
tenants who have no permanent interest in them, and whose 
term of occupancy will not— -except where they are combined 
with shops or warehouses— exceed three years. Now to call 
upon such persons to expend a considerable sum of money in 
structural alterations when they may, perhaps, at the next rent- 
day give or receive notice to quit, might surely be called a harsh 
proceeding J 
Any one who knows the British workman of the present day 
wi not, we are sure, consider £2 as too high an estimate for the 
alteration of a simple fire-grate so as to be smoke-consuming, 
lo subject a man to incessant prosecutions and fines because he 
Has not the means for making these alterations would be de- 
servedly unpopular. Perhaps smoke’ abaters may say, let the 
landlord undertake the change required. If so he would certainly 
charge a most usurious interest on his outlay. Where, a^ain, is 
the guarantee that the new stoves introduced would be efficient 
and if they failed to give satisfaction who would be held respon- 
Further, smoke consumption or smoke prevention will always 
lemain unsatisfactory without we can largely diminish the 
quantity of coal consumed. For the injury to vegetation, and to 
objects of stone or metal exposed to the air, depends mainly on 
the sulphur present in the coal, and which, during burning j s 
converted into sulphurous acid. Now this sulphurous acid is not 
in the least diminished by getting rid of all the visible portions 
of smoke. 
Fiom these considerations, and also because we know somethin 0- 
about Royal Commissions, we are not sorry that the present 
Government is “not disposed to grant the application for a 
Royal Commission ” to investigate the smoke nuisance. 
It must not be inferred from what we have just said that we 
are indifferent to the evils of smoke. Although we consider it a 
mere molehill in comparison with certain other faffiors which pro- 
mote national debility, we heartily wish its abolition, though we 
hold that this “ reform,” like many others, may be purchased too 
dearly. 
We fully agree with the proposals brought forward at the end 
of this report, viz., that the boundaries within which the Metro- 
politan Smoke ACt of 1853 holds good should be extended, and 
that its provisions should be more fully and firmly applied' “ to 
steam-boats, locomotives, &c.” We should also urge the total 
prohibition # of ballast-burning within the boundaiies above- 
