§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 2 (Import duties on tea).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that when the Chairman reported Progress on Friday, he (Mr. Macfarlane) was calling the attention of the Prime Minister to the question of the duties on tea in reference to a matter which he considered to be a hardship inflicted especially upon the Indian tea importers. The Indian Government—that was to say, the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—within the last few years had compelled the Government of India to give up£1,000,000 which was previously received in the shape of import duties charged upon English goods. It formed a very valuable and important source of revenue in India, and it had been conceded in favour of the English manufacturers by India with no consideration whatever for the loss sustained in consequence. The Government, represented by the right hon. Gentleman, gave up£500,000which was derived from the same source, so that the concession made to the Manchester manufacturers amounted to£1,500,000.That sum was swept away from the Exchequer without a single farthing being conceded to India by the Custom House in return. He wished to put to the 219 right hon. Gentleman this question—If the Government of India had been an independent Government, and not under the control of the Secretary for India in this country, and Her Majesty's Government proposed to abolish these Customs duties in favour of English manufacturers, what would have been the answer? The Indian Government would probably have said that they were quite willing to take the matter into consideration; but the first question they would naturally ask was, what India was to get in return? That would have been a very fair and reasonable question to ask; and, no doubt, if the Indian Government had been an independent Power, it would have been able to come to Her Majesty's Government and offer to make a concession to the manufacturers of Lancashire in return for the concession they required for themselves, and, no doubt, they would have obtained it. But it so happened that the Indian Government was not an independent Government, and, therefore, was not able to make a bargain with Her Majesty's Government. The people of India were not represented either in the Indian Government or in the House of Commons. Consequently, they had no voice in the matter; and taking, as he did, a deep interest in the people of that country, and feeling that an injustice had been done to them, he thought it his duty to raise his voice on their behalf in that House. He was perfectly satisfied that if the Chinese had approached Her Majesty's Government with an offer similar to that which had been made by the Indian Government—being an independent nation—their offer to admit Lancashire goods into China free, would have obtained for them a similar concession with regard to the admission of their tea into this country. Independently of the mere money injury done to India by this arrangement, he would venture to appeal to Her Majesty's Government on the ground of policy. He would state a simple fact in order to show the extraordinary development which had taken place of late years in the Indian tea trade. In the year 1860, the quantity of Indian tea imported into this country was below 1,000,000 lbs., while last year it amounted to 46,000,000 lbs. What he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was, whether he would practice 220 a Free Trade policy which should be real and substantial Free Trade, and not such a proceeding as had been carried out in the case of India? The Government of this country had forced India into Free Trade; but they declined to reciprocate it on their own part. He maintained the proposition to be undeniable that if the Indian ports admitted all English goods free of duty, then, subject to the necessities of the Revenue, English ports should be free to Indian goods. He would say, further, that if the right hon. Gentleman's Revenue necessities did not permit him to make this concession to India, then he should have postponed the demand for the concession which had been made by India to English goods. Hon. Members who represented Lancashire constituencies in that House understood one precept, and that was the principle of "asking and you shall receive." They had asked for this concession. He did not blame them for the course they had taken; but it was quite evident they had placed Her Majesty's Government in a false position. No doubt, the false position was originally brought about by the Government which preceded them in Office, who commenced this system of confiscating the Indian Revenues. He did not propose to take up the time of the House further than to make a protest on behalf of the Indian people against the principle, that the Indian Revenue should be played with for the advantage of this country.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he fully admitted the importance of the question raised by the hon. Member; but it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the Quixotic view of the case which was taken by the hon. Member. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, with his present obligations, dare to establish Free Trade by taking off the Custom duties on Indian produce.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the free import of manufactured cotton into India, and of Indian tea into this country, had really no connection with each other. The hon. Member had taken advantage of this clause for the purpose of raising the question. He did not say that the hon. Member had in the slightest degree gone beyond his right. What the hon. Member contended was that the Government had no right to enforce upon India 221 the abolition of Customs duties upon English manufactured goods unless they also abolished the import duties in this country upon Indian tea. Now, as far as the tea duties were concerned and the tea trade of India, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was one of the most astonishing developments of modern times. He had not the figures precisely in his mind, but probably the best mode of referring to the wonderful development of the trade which had taken place, was to say that we now imported from India a greater weight of tea than was imported from China 40 or 45 years ago. These were remarkable commercial facts, and still more remarkable when it was borne in mind that the export of tea from India was more valuable now than that from China, and had been so enormously increasing, notwithstanding the enforcement of tea duties. So much in regard to the abolition of the Customs duties of India which had taken place during the existence of the present Administration. The hon. Member was correct in stating that the abolition took place under no pressure whatever. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not cognizant of any pressure or effort being made by the Government at home; and he was convinced that if any had been made in the Indian Department, he would have become aware of it. The abolition of these duties took place in consequence of the free and spontaneous action of the Indian Government itself. Although he believed there had been some pressure in other times from the Lancashire cotton districts, he thought the Indian Government was sufficiently enlightened to know that, by abolishing the duties, they were conferring great advantages upon themselves, and that it was a proper and legitimate object to attain, apart from the abolition of any duties upon Indian commodities in this country. He would be very glad, when the proper time arrived, to give further facilities for the introduction into this country of any articles manufactured in India.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Repeal of customs duties on vegetable matter other than chicory) agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Prohibition of imitations called by names of or mixed with chi- 222 cory or coffee, 39 & 40 Vic. c. 36), agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Repeal of excise duty on vegetable matter other than chicory, 35 & 36 Vic. c. 20).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, leave out "called by any name of coffee or chicory."—(Mr. Magniac.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he should like to have some explanation from the Government of the extraordinary position in which the coffee question had got. From the words of the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, it appeared that he proposed to do one thing, and now in the Bill before the Committee he proposed to do something totally different. No explanation had yet been given from the Treasury Bench of the reason why this great alteration was proposed; and he confessed that the idea of introducing every horrible mixture under the name of coffee was so obnoxious that he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman if the Ministry were responsible for this alteration, and if he would give the reason why, when his mind had been made up, he now considered it necessary to alter it. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was one of those who had always opposed this arrangement, not because he was connected with the coffee trade, but because he was strongly opposed to adulteration in every shape and form. He remembered some years ago hearing the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), when President of the Board of Trade, make a very strong speech in favour of adulteration, and he believed that was the only thing the right hon. Gentleman ever did while he was at the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, Birmingham was still connected with the Board of Trade, and he always looked upon everything that came from the right hon. Member for Birmingham with very great suspicion, especially in this matter of adulteration. There was always in the Birmingham policy in this matter a ring of the buttons they had heard so much about in former times, and which produced so bad an effect upon the industry of the country. It was under 223 the right hon. Gentleman who was now President of the Board of Trade, and who also represented Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that we had the extraordinary change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government now proposed. As one of the public, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was most desirous that the poorer classes, instead of obtaining the horrible and abominable mixtures now sold under the name of coffee in the coffee palaces, should have an opportunity of obtaining pure coffee; and he was anxious to learn if the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give any explanation on the subject.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had somewhat misconceived the position taken by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the statement be had made. Really no change whatever had taken place in the policy of the Government, which was the same in the original statement of his right hon. Friend and now; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), if he referred to the Budget Speech of the Prime Minister, would find that the policy now pursued was exactly the same laid down in that speech. It was found that the revenue from coffee did not produce what it ought to produce; and it was believed that this was largely owing to the fact that some untaxed beverage resembling coffee was substituted for coffee itself; and, by way of protecting the Revenue, his right hon. Friend in his Budget Speech proposed to prohibit the introduction of the untaxed substitutes. This prohibition was conceived in the interest of the Revenue; but on re-consideration it was found that it would be a better way of benefiting the Revenue to admit these substitutes, and at the same time to tax them. That would enable the Government to recover the revenue they were now losing. The present proposition was really identical in spirit with that contained in the Budget Speech. The Government were anxious to obtain the money which ought to be obtained upon these beverages. They proposed to get it by taxing the articles used as substitutes for coffee equally with coffee itself. At the same time, it was proposed to make the purchaser fully acquainted 224 with the nature of the article he was buying. In that way they would protect the purchaser against any deceit in the nature of adulteration, and, at the same time, would secure the full amount of money which ought to go into the Exchequer; and he thought this explanation fully met the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was desirous of entering into a crusade against the coffee taverns; but, if so, he (Mr. Courtney) was afraid he could not assist him, because, upon the whole, he was desirous of promoting the operations of the coffee taverns, which he considered to have had a very beneficial effect upon the community at large.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, he thought it might save the time of the Committee if he were to mention that he had been in communication with the Government in regard to the Amendments which stood upon the Paper in his name; and he had had to pass through the ordeal of three Public Offices—the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board. The result of those transactions was the Amendments now upon the Paper, with the exception of one slight alteration to protect the public against adulteration. He believed these Amendments would be found to meet the case, when he came to move the second Amendment, which provided that each packet containing, or purporting to contain, coffee should have a label upon it denoting the substances of which the mixture was composed, and the percentage of coffee contained in it.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken in supposing that he desired to enter into a crusade against the coffee taverns. On the contrary, he wished to protect the coffee taverns. He wished that the customers of the coffee taverns were 10,000 times as many as they were; but, at the same time, he was desirous that, as far as possible, they should be supplied with a pure article. It had once been his misfortune to be behind the scenes, and to have witnessed the preparation of what was called coffee for the coffee taverns. He had been so horrified and astonished at what he saw, that he thought it was necessary to do all he 225 could to secure that a pure article should be supplied to every customer.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he confessed that he did not understand the attitude taken by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He had expected the hon. Gentleman to repeat the arguments he had used on a previous occasion against adulteration; but he found that the hon. Gentleman regarded the whole question as one of money, and all that he put before the Committee was money and mere money. Everything the hon. Gentleman talked about was the loss to the Revenue, and the best means of making it up. He seemed to care nothing whatever about the morality of the transaction, or the health of the people. He cared nothing whether what they drank was good or bad for them, provided the money was obtained for the Imperial Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had quoted one of the aphorisms of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in connection with Free Trade. That aphorism expressed a Free Trade principle that the people were to drink bad coffee so long as something was to be got out of it. He (Mr. Warton) certainly did not understand the morality of that kind of teaching.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that there was a substitute for coffee which was very much used in some parts of the country. It was a beverage called dandelion coffee, and he believed that it was not only extremely wholesome, but that some people liked it very much. He, therefore, desired to move an Amendment if he were in Order. The clause provided that these mixtures should only be sold by weight from half-a-pound upwards, and the Amendment he desired to move was that a quarter of a pound should be the limit.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member was too late. The Committee had already passed the words "half-a-pound."
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, they had only disposed of the clause down to line 14, 226 and the Amendment he desired to move would apply to line 18.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that as the words "half-a-pound" occurred in line 13, the Amendment of the hon. Member was too late.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped he would be allowed to move the Amendment on the Report. He thought he should be able to show the Government that it was one of some importance; and perhaps he might be allowed to state his object now. He believed in many parts of the country large quantities of dandelion coffee were sold; but they were sold in very small packets, generally containing less than half-a-pound. This description of coffee was bought by the poorer classes of the population out of their weekly wages, which left but a very small sum at their disposal for the purchase of coffee. Indeed, many of them were so poor that they were not able to buy as large a quantity of this dandelion coffee as half-a-pound at a time. He had been communicated with by some very respectable people at Swansea, who said that the adoption of the limit of half-a-pound in weight would, to a very great extent, shut out practically the use of this article among the poorest classes of the community, who were not able to buy as large a quantity as half-a-pound. The object of his Amendment was to reduce the quantity authorized to be sold from half-a-pound to a quarter of a pound; and the words to which his Amendment applied occurred both in the 5th and 6th clauses. His object was to provide that a quarter-of-a-pound packet might be sold with a halfpenny stamp attached to it. This would place dandelion coffee within the reach of the poorest classes; whereas the Bill, as it stood, would exclude a good many of them from any chance of obtaining it.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that before the Committee proceeded further in this matter, he wished to take an objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), which he believed would be fatal to it. It was this—that what was called dandelion coffee was not coffee at all. He held in his hand the results of the analysis of various descriptions of so-called coffee purchased in different shops.
THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the point now being discussed had better be 227 raised on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the remarks he desired to make would come in very well at the present point. He held in his hand the result of the analysis of various kinds of coffee purchased at different shops. There were altogether 37 samples of different descriptions of coffee submitted to the analysts in order to ascertain how much real coffee was contained in each, and among them was a sample of dandelion coffee. Dandelion coffee stood No. 37 on the list, and the report of the analyst was as follows:—"Dandelion coffee, No. 37, estimated percentage of coffee, none at all." There was this further remark attached to the report, "that it was composed of dandelion root, and probably of some other substances;" but it was not stated what those other substances were. It might be that the substances were of a most deleterious character. Instead of enacting a law to facilitate the sale of this and other compounds to the poorest classes of the population, he should like to see the Government propose a law to prohibit their sale altogether. If the Prime Minister would do that, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), for one, would give him his best support.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not see the force of the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). Many representations had been made to him, showing that there was a wide difference between many of the decoctions sold as coffee, and dandelion coffee, which was thoroughly understood not to be coffee at all; but which was, nevertheless, found to be an agreeable, a cheap, and a nutritious beverage. Under these circumstances, he should object to see the sale of it prohibited.
§ Mr. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had brought before the Committee a very strong argument in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), because he had proved that dandelion coffee was entirely free from the objection of assuming a false name. In point of fact, dandelion coffee was what it was represented to be. It was composed of dandelions only. As far as he was able to 228 go back into his earlier life, he believed it was always understood that dandelion root was wholesome. In the South of Europe it was very largely made use of among the poorer classes of the people. It was said to be highly nutritious, and to have an agreeable taste. He saw no reason whatever for excluding dandelion coffee from the breakfast preparations which were to be introduced in the new Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He was, therefore, in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea, which he thought altogether reasonable, especially in regard to reducing, in the interests of the smaller class of purchasers, the quantity they would be able to buy.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea had raised the question of reducing the quantity to a quarter of a pound upon this clause, he wished to say a few words upon it. His hon. Friend would be aware that this new scheme for the sale of these substances under the name of coffee was introduced to meet the wishes of persons engaged in the preparation and sale of them, and half-a-pound was fixed as the lowest weight to be sold, because it was represented to the Government that the persons engaged in the trade would be perfectly satisfied with the fixing of such a limit. And, although the proposition had been before the public for some time, he had not heard of any serious objection being raised to half-a-pound being the limit. At the same time, he admitted there had been applications asking that the limit should be fixed at a quarter of a pound. With respect to the proposition to substitute a quarter of a pound for half-a-pound, there were some technical difficulties to overcome in regard to the Rules of the House. The Resolutions had already been passed authorizing the duty to be levied upon half-a-pound packets; and he was not quite satisfied that it would be in the power of the Committee to alter that Resolution without introducing another Resolution authorizing the duty to be levied upon packets of a quarter of a pound. He would therefore request his hon. Friend to leave the matter in his (Mr. Courtney's) hands, and between the present time and the Report he would consider whether it might not be right to allow the sale of quarter-of-a-pound packets 229 of the mixture in question, instead of half-a-pound packets. If consumers desired that they should be so sold, the Government would do right to fall in with their wishes. It would, of course, give a little extra trouble; but the Government were desirous of meeting not only the convenience of the trade, but the wishes of the consumers.
§ MR. SLAGGsaid, he thought that very strong reasons indeed had been given why packets of a quarter of a pound should be sold. He believed that grocers sold mixtures of coffee and chicory to ten times greater extent than pure coffee.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the clause would not apply to coffee and chicory, which would still continue to be sold under the same conditions as at present.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. Member for "Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had talked sound common sense. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to be supporting the interests of the grocers rather than that of the inhabitants of Swansea. As far as he was able to understand his hon. Friend, there was an article called dandelion coffee which was sold very extensively by the grocers of Swansea to the inhabitants of that town; but it appeared that that dandelion coffee contained no coffee at all, and the grocers might sell it by the ounce if they chose so long as they did not endeavour to persuade their unfortunate fellow-townsmen that it was coffee. There was nothing whatever to prevent them, continuing to sell it in what quantities they chose as dandelion coffee.
§ MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the hon. Member was mistaken, and that there was a prohibition.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman assured the Committee that there was a restriction the circumstances of the case were entirely altered.
§ MR. COLMANsaid, he thought that in regard to articles of this sort the consumers should have the power of buying the smallest possible quantity. There was, however, one other matter upon which he wished to make a suggestion. As the Bill now stood, it provided that the provisions in regard to the imposition of this duty should come into operation on the 1st of August. As to-morrow was the 1st of August, it was 230 absolutely impossible that the labels could be prepared or the necessary steps taken to carry out the provisions relating to the imposition of the. duty; and he would, therefore, suggest that the 1st of August should be altered to some future date, so as to give sufficient time for arrangements to be made in connection with the preparation of stamps.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He would be glad to see his hon. Friend before the Report, and he thought he could make a case out that would satisfy the Government in regard to the necessity of making this alteration.
§ MR. MACLIVERwas able to confirm what the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had stated, that the article of dandelion coffee was in great demand among the poorest class of the population, and that it was very extensively consumed.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Provision against sale of imitations of coffee, cocoa, or chicory).
THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) intended to propose the Amendment to leave out "half-a-pound," and insert "a quarter of a pound," of which he had given Notice in reference to this clause?
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not. He presumed his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the question in connection with this clause, as well as with the previous clause.
§ MR. COURTNEYreplied in the affirmative.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, the Amendment he was about to propose had been placed upon the Paper by an arrangement with the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Local Government Board, and the President of the Board of Trade; but he had slightly altered the terms of it as it stood upon the Paper. The Amendment would now read—
Provided that each such packet containing or purporting to contain coffee, with any other article or substance mixed therewith, shall have affixed thereto a label in manner hereinbefore provided denoting in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture is composed.231 The alteration consisted in inserting, after the word "coffee," the words, "with any other articles or substance," and in striking out the words, "requiring to be specified in the case of coffee the percentage contained in the packet." He believed he had described the other night, to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, the necessity for an Amendment of this kind, and the cases which it would probably meet. It was not necessary to repeat the same details over again, as the facts of the case were thoroughly well known. He trusted that the Amendment, having been accepted by the Government, would be accepted by the Committee. In support of the view he took, he might mention that there was a general feeling throughout the country that people ought to know what it was they were buying. The Agricultural Commission, in their recently-presented Report, stated—We also recommend that steps should he taken to insure that all agricultural products, whether manufactured at home or abroad, for consumption by the public or for use by the farmer in his business, should be sold under such designations as will accurately indicate their true composition.That applied to all articles of trade, and he quite agreed with the Commission that all persons ought to know what it was they were buying, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of the Government to secure that result.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 10, after "visible," insert— "Provided that each such packet containing or purporting to contain coffee, with any other article or substance mixed therewith, shall have affixed thereto a label hereinbefore provided denoting in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture is composed."—[Mr. Magniac.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the passage which had been read from the Report of the Agricultural Commission contained a very valuable recommendation; but he was afraid that at the present moment, owing to past legislation, persons were not able, in any case, to distinguish between coffee, and coffee and chicory, and in some cases they might be purchasing, under the impression that it was coffee, an article that contained no coffee at all. Of course, 232 as this legislation took place some years ago, the present Parliament was not responsible for it. He would, however, propose to amend the Amendment by adding the words which originally appeared, upon it, requiring the packet to specify the percentage of coffee contained in it.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwished to put a question to the Government, and said that a great deal would depend on the answer he received. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury told him just now that if there was no coffee whatever in the mixture, that mixture, nevertheless, would have to pay duty, because it was a substitute for coffee. Now, supposing, for example, that he took the substance termed dandelion coffee, did his hon. Friend mean to say that if a person who had to sell the powdered root of dandelion, or dandelion beer, it would be charged as coffee, because it was a substitute for coffee?
§ Mr. COURTNEYYes.
§ Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend assured him that that was so. Then, what was meant by the words "a substitute for coffee?" Was beer a substitute for coffee? They all believed at present that coffee was a substitute for beer. Where did the hon. Gentleman draw the line? What beverage might be sold without being liable to pay the duty? He had hitherto thought that the distinction was where the word "coffee" was used; and he thought the public ought to know what the distinction was between the article itself and the substitute for it.
§ Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), in striking out the last part of his Amendment, had run away from the best part of his proposition. He was told that a substance called "French coffee" was very largely sold, and particularly among his own constituents. Now, this French coffee frequently contained as much as 90 per cent of chicory, and perhaps only 5 per cent of real coffee. It was, therefore, very desirable that persons who bought French coffee should be aware of the amount of chicory it contained, because the relative prices of chicory and coffee made a difference of considerable importance, the highest price of chicory being 10d. a-pound, whereas good coffee was worth 2s. a-pound. 233 Consequently, it was the very essence of any legislation upon the matter that every packet purporting to contain a mixture of coffee with any other article should state the exact percentage of coffee contained in it. It, therefore, seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had left out the most important part of his Amendment, and that the only security the public would have as to the honesty of the dealer depended on the relative proportions of the various substances contained in the packet being specified on the label.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
To insert at the end of the foregoing Amendment, the words "and in the ease of coffee the per-centage thereof therein contained."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he had had, as representing one of the Departments concerned, occasion to consider the Amendments; and he had come to an agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) as to what was desirable and what the Government ought to accept in fairness to the dealer on the one side and the public on the other. It appeared to him that the words now proposed to be added, and which had been struck out of the original Amendment, carried the matter beyond what they were entitled to require. He did not think it fair to require the seller to guarantee the percentage of coffee contained in a packet, when the packet itself professed to be only a mixture; because if the dealer said there was 10 per cent of coffee, and it should subsequently appear that there was only 9½ or 9¾per cent. he would be liable to a penalty, although he might have acted perfectly honestly in declaring it to contain 10 per cent. Especially might this happen in the case of a retail dealer. It appeared clearly to him that everything that could be reasonably demanded for the protection of the public against adulteration was secured by the words of the Amendment already passed. It declared that any packet containing or purporting to contain coffee with any other article or substance mixed therewith should have affixed thereto a label 234 in manner before provided denoting, in letters of not less size than the largest letters affixed to or imprinted on such label, the proper name of the several articles or substances of which such mixture was composed. The effect of the present Amendment would be to require that in addition each packet should specify the percentage of coffee contained in it. It might not always be so simple a matter to determine this accurately, as to preclude some differences of opinion and obviate disputes. Moreover, the Amendment was so vague that it did not say whether the percentage was to be measured by bulk or by weight. On the other hand, the ingredients of such a mixture—certainly the fact of its being a mixture—admitted of being demonstrated beyond doubt. By the Amendment already agreed to, when a person purchased a packet which did not contain pure coffee, but simply a mixture, he would see at once the nature of the compound, whether it was coffee and chicory, or coffee and malt, or coffee and acorns, or whatever the mixture might be. He would have the fact clearly before his eyes that it was not coffee, but a mixture of two, three, or four different substances. That would be quite sufficient to put him on his guard. He would receive notice of the nature of the compound he was buying, and that was all the Legislature ought to require. The addition proposed would simply lead to a good many prosecutions, and the result would be not so much to protect the public or to do good to the dealer as to bring grist to the mill of the attorney.
MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, his right hon. Friend only required that the bulk or weight of coffee should be stated on the label, and he thought it would be very easy to carry out such a stipulation.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was afraid that, in altering the Amendment from the form in which it was originally placed upon the Paper, his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had rendered the matter somewhat involved, and that some further explanation was required. The proposition, as it originally stood, was plain enough —namely, that each packet was to declare conspicuously on the label what the contents were; but his hon. Friend now struck out a portion of the proposal, and 235 in so doing he rendered the declaration of the contents of the packet simply illusory. They might say—"This is a mixture of dandelion and coffee;" but what advantage would that be to the purchaser unless the proportion of each was clearly stated? Surely, the purchaser was entitled to know whether the coffee contained in the packet was 1 per cent in 100 or 1 per cent in 10.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, the matter had been very carefully considered by those who were interested in it; and it was felt that if this system of labels were honestly carried out, and sufficient prominence given to the nature of the compounds, nothing further was required. It was distinctly understood that a specification on each packet of the nature of the substance of which it was composed would be quite sufficient to warn the public that they were not buying a pure article. The sufferer, if anything further was demanded, would be the unfortunate retail dealer. The same thing occurred every day in the case of milk. The unfortunate milk seller, who bought the milk to sell again, had no means of ascertaining whether the milk was pure or not, and he was fined if the slightest adulteration could be traced. In the same way, the grocers had no means of ascertaining the precise composition of the goods they sold; and, under those circumstances, it would be sufficient for the packet to say what it was the purchaser was paying for. The Amendment already adopted carried that requirement out, and the Government were of opinion that it contained all that was necessary for the protection of the public.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that hon. Members cared very little for any bargain between the Government and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac). They only cared for the interests of the public, and their only desire was to secure the health of the public. He could not understand upon what principle the hon. Member for Bedford was running away from his original proposal. He (Mr. Warton) would certainly support the addition of his right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). What was the position in which they found themselves? They had struck out from the 5th clause all the words applying to a mixture of chicory and coffee. The hon. Member for Bedford did that as part of the bar- 236 gain; and yet the hon. Member, in the Amendment just passed, used the words "each packet containing, or purporting to contain, coffee," after having struck out the words "coffee and chicory." Then, what was the result of the bargain as it came down to the Committee? It was that they were to have something put before the public purporting to contain coffee which might not have more than 1 per cent of coffee in it, and that fact was to be concealed from the public on account of the bargain between the hon. Member and the Government. He thought that was a very wrong bargain indeed. His right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) proposed that, in the case of coffee, the percentage contained in the packet should be specified; but, as the public bought by weight, he would propose to add to the Amendment the words "in weight." The public who bought this coffee, or mixture of coffee and other substances, whether it was contained in a half-pound packet or in a quarter-pound packet, bought it by weight, and they would like to know whether it contained an ounce of coffee or not. They knew nothing about any metaphysical questions of bulk or weight, but they bought so many pounds of something called coffee, and they would like to know whether in the purchase they made they got an ounce of coffee, or a quarter of a pound, or how much. He thought it would relieve the matter of some difficulty if after the word "percentage" in the Amendment his right hon. Friend would consent to add the words "in weight."
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "percentage," to insert the words "by weight."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'by weight' be there inserted."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEapprehended that the object of the Government in submitting the Bill was to add to the Revenue of the country, because the Bill proposed to tax articles which had never been taxed before. Therefore, it became the duty of the Government to take extra care to protect the consumers. They bad to look to the consumer more than to the dealer or the manufacturer, because, as had been stated by his hon. Friend behind him 237 (Mr. Magniac), when goods were sold by the wholesale dealer to the retail dealer, the retail dealer had no means of testing the purity of the goods he bought, but had to trust to the honesty of the wholesale dealer from whom he bought them. Then how could the purchaser tell what he was buying, when he had to depend entirely on the label, or the statement made to him by the retail dealer? A man bought a packet purporting to contain a mixture of coffee and other substances—perhaps coffee and dates, or coffee and acorns, or coffee and horse beans, which was at one time a famous mixture. He did not see how the purchaser would be in the slightest degree protected by the Bill as it stood, although he did not dispute that the Revenue would be protected. At the same time, he thought that it was of far greater consequence to protect the consumer even than the State. The Government could always find out the means of protecting themselves; and he, for one, thought that no packet ought to be labelled as coffee which did not at least contain 50 per cent. or a third per cent of pure coffee. If they passed the Bill as it now stood, and allowed the dealers to include in a mixture of coffee and other substances any small amount of coffee they chose, they would soon find the wholesale dealers underselling one another, and reducing the quantity of the genuine article. The retail dealers would have no means of testing the nature of the compound, and the purchaser would certainly have no means of testing it, unless the percentage of coffee was clearly stated on the label. He thought it unfair to leave the public to get over the difficulty themselves. His own impression was that the Government ought to prohibit the use of the word "coffee" upon every mixture whatever, unless it contained 50 per cent. or at least 30 per cent. of coffee.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who frequently discoursed eloquently in that House upon the evils of grandmotherly legislation appeared to have turned round, and to have insisted upon advocating great-grandmotherly legislation in supporting the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member complained of the unfairness of the Government when they were dealing with liquors calculated to produce in- 238 toxication; and yet he seemed in this ease to consider that the people of this country ought to be treated as if they were so absolutely deficient in the power of self-management as not to know, or be able to test, what they were buying. He advised the Committee to consider what had been the nature of the arguments addressed to the Committee by several hon. Members. He was surprised that Gentlemen sitting upon the Liberal Benches, who had accepted Mr. Cobden's doctrines, should be found supporting the Amendment, and treating the people of this country as if they were totally deficient in all the powers of self-management and self-control. They were asked to provide that a person, on going into a shop to purchase a mixture, should be told not only of what articles the mixture consisted, but the proportion of every article contained in the mixture.
§ MR. COLMANsaid, he wished to point out what he considered to be a fallacy in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it was necessary to state the proportions of every article contained in the mixture. Now, it would be all very well to state the proportions if, at the same time, they could state the quality as well. The proportion of gold in a sovereign could be very easily stated; but when they came to deal with raw material it must be borne in mind that it differed very extensively in quality. They could not, therefore, state the proportions or value without stating the quality. He might give this illustration. Suppose an hon. Member went into the Lobby and asked for a cup of tea, and suppose it took an ounce of tea to make a cup, the tea might be worth 1s. a-pound, or 4s. a-pound, so that the proportion of tea contained in the cup would give no indication of the value.
§ MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that coffee was the article the purchaser expected to buy, and coffee was the article every grocer was to sell. It was not, therefore, too much to ask how much coffee was being sold in a particular packet. It might be great-grandmotherly legislation; but it was legislation for the benefit of the public, whose interests it was their duty to protect.
§ Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid, he strongly objected to hon. Members putting down 239 Amendments upon the Paper, and having made private arrangements with the Government to emasculate them, then asking the Committee to pass them in an emasculated form. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury asserted that if they differed from the proposals of the Government they differed from the principles of Mr. Cobden. He was as thorough a Free-trader as any man; but if Mr. Cobden's principles were against the Amendment, then he did not agree with Mr. Cobden. What would be the real and practical effect of the Amendment? Their object could not be to protect the grocer against the public, but to protect the poor against the grocer. What the grocer did was this —and he happened to know something of the matter practically. The grocer wanted to make as much as he possibly could out of what he sold. If he sold coffee, he made, perhaps, 1d. or 2d. a-pound; but if he sold one of these mixtures, in which there might be a fractional part of the best article, and a large proportion of fig-dust, or beans, or chicory, he gained 4d., 5d., or 6d. a-pound. Thus the way in which it worked out was that, whereas the grocer gained a small profit by selling a genuine article, he got a much larger profit by gelling a mixture containing 75 per cent of chicory and 25 only of coffee.
§ MR. COURTNEYwished to remind the hon. Gentleman that a mixture of coffee and chicory was dealt with in a different manner.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the principle was just the same; but to satisfy his hon. Friend he would take a mixture of coffee and dandelion, or of coffee and dates, or of coffee and acorns, which would be worth about the same as a mixture of chicory or coffee, or, perhaps, even less—that was to say, 3½d. a-pound. Seventy-five per cent of dates, or fig-dust, or acorns, or dandelions would, therefore, cost about 2¼d., and 25 per cent of coffee 5d., so that the mixture would cost 7¼d. a-pound, and by selling it at 1s. a-pound the grocer would obtain a profit of 4¾d. a-pound, whereas if he sold the genuine article he would not get more than 1d. a-pound. It was, therefore, to the interest of the grocer to pass off a mixture whenever he could. His hon. Friend asked why, with the views they entertained of great-grandmotherly legisla- 240 tion, they had assented to the clause at all? The clause told them that the articles sold were adulterated, and what the Government now declined to tell the purchaser was the extent of the adulteration. He could understand the Secretary to the Treasury standing up and saying that if a man liked to purchase dandelion coffee he must take the consequences; but when he consented to state what the mixture contained, he (Mr. Labouchere) certainly could not understand why his hon. Friend should refuse to say what the amount was. He hoped that the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would stick to his Amendment; and, so far as the proposal to add the weight to it was concerned, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would accept it. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was acting entirely in the interests of the public and the poorer classes of the population, and he would therefore support him.
MR. MACFAELANEasked the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) whether, if a man purchased a mixture of these substances, as described in the Bill, and had reason to suspect the existence of excessive adulteration, it was not essential, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, that he should take a sample to the public analyst and pay a fee of 10s. as a preliminary to the analyzation? If that was the case, it was a sufficient barrier against any poor person availing himself of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. He thought the poor ought to be protected, and he supported the Amendment, because he was of opinion that it was required for the protection of the poor. Hon. Members of that House were not likely to be poisoned by coffee of this description; but he stated, without the smallest hesitation, that the poor would be continually cheated by adulteration, and poisoned, by it as well. He did not see how the adoption of this Amendment would affect the Government or the Revenue in the slightest degree. He should like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) to confirm the statement he made, that a poor person, suspecting adulteration, was obliged, as a first step, to pay the prohibitive fee of 10s. to the public analyst.
§ Mr. DODSONsaid, there was no doubt, if a person bought an adulterated article and suspected the article to be adulterated, that, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, if he took it to the public analyst, in order to have it analyzed, he would have to pay the fee mentioned; but he wished to point out that the clause as it now stood, instead of tending to facilitate adulteration, as some hon. Members seemed to think, was really an extension, with respect to this one article, of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, because it required that wherever a mixture was sold the substances of which the mixture was compounded should be distinctly specified. Every substance with which coffee was mixed in any particular packet must be mentioned on the label affixed to the packet in letters as large as the word coffee itself. Now, that was an advance upon the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in regard to this particular commodity. Did hon. Members, not satisfied with this extension of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, want to have the exact percentage of adulteration specified on the label? He had listened very attentively to the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the proposition; and he must say that the more he had listened to them the more he was of opinion that it would be unwise to attempt to adopt so subtle and so refined a distinction. Surely it was for the consumer to judge whether he had got a good or bad mixture. If he found he had got a bad mixture, he must go where he could get a better one. All that could reasonably be required to be done the Government proposed to do. The tradesman had to notify to the consumer that it was a mixture, and what were the ingredients of the mixture he was selling.
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he could not help thinking that the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) was absolutely imaginary. How could the ingredients of the mixture be described except by way of percentage? He thought that this was not a question of bulk, but of weight.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he pointed out that under the Amendment it was not stated whether the percentage was intended to be one of bulk or weight.
§ MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he could not understand why the Government, having 242 made up their minds to take a very good step in the right direction, should not make that step positively effectual, and that could be done by the adoption of the Amendment.
MR. BUXTONsaid, that last winter 21 samples of coffee, or samples of what was sold for coffee, were obtained from the same number of shops in London. One sample was found to be pure coffee, 18 were more or less adulterated, and two contained no coffee at all. Under such circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the consumption of coffee had very much diminished. He trusted the Government would take every possible means to protect the public against such a state of things.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had asked how they could expect the retail dealer to guarantee a certain percentage of coffee. He did not see why he could not declare that that which he sold was made up of certain materials. He was dependent upon the wholesale dealer just in the same manner as he would be for the percentage.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was not in favour of grandmotherly legislation; but it seemed to him that if they sought to protect the poor man the protection must not be a sham.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said—"Let the consumers be their own protectors." But the hon. Gentleman did not follow up his own proposition. The Government had in this matter interfered in a very remarkable manner; they charged a very heavy tax upon an article which might be absolutely valueless, and all that was asked of them was that the public should know what they bought. It was obvious that the test could not be by price, but that it must be by weight; and weight, he believed, was mentioned in the clause. When percentage was spoken of, what was meant was that in every pound of mixture there should be so many ounces of this material and so many ounces of the other. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would discharge a public duty, and would relieve themselves of the charge of throwing a false character over some of the trades of the country. Personally, he should prefer to see no mixture at all.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was glad this subject had cropped up, because it had been a common remark of the poorer classes that for years past it had been impossible for them to get good coffee. The complaint was not altogether confined to the poorer classes. Hon. Gentlemen who had households must know how difficult it was to get good coffee, so that, in this matter, both the rich and the poor required protection. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman), who had addressed the Committee, sold a compound which was most delightful to the palate; but he did not tell them the exact proportions of the ingredients. They all knew that mustard pure and simple could not be eaten. It had been argued that it would be unfair to come down upon the retail dealer if he sold a compound, the proportions of which were not specified. He did not approve of such an argument. This was a matter which affected the health of the people, and it was incumbent upon the Legislature to see they were not cheated. The clause as it stood really formed a premium to fraud. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeals made from both sides of the House, and, even at the eleventh hour, do something to prevent the poorer classes of the country being cheated.
§ MR. SLAGGsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not seem to give the working classes any credit for common sense. The working people of England were very well able to distinguish between a good and bad article, and it was not at all likely they would be cheated. He wholly objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it set up an entirely new principle with regard to trade. He did not know a single article to which such a restriction as was proposed applied. He doubted whether any hon. Member could mention a single article sold by grocers or others in respect to which there was any obligation to declare the exact proportion of the component parts. Deleterious mixtures were not contemplated. [An. hon. MEMBER: Horse beans.] He did not consider horse beans were at all injurious. It seemed to him that in a very short time the public would be able to discriminate between the establishments in which coffee was sold, and they would trade with the man who sold the best article.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the discussion had lasted a long time, and he wished to do all he could to bring it to a close. He thought it better to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the sense of the Committee might be taken on the proposition as it originally stood. He did not wish to occupy time in answering the last speech. He did not think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Slagg) had read the Amendment, or else he would have found that the objections he had raised to the Amendment existed to the clause itself. His (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) experience of the habits of poor people was that they would always buy in the cheapest market; regardless of the quality, they were buying tea at 1s. 8d. a-pound in preference to that at 2s. or 2s. 6d. a-pound. Parliament, by grandmotherly, or grand-fatherly, or by some legislation or other, ought to do its best to protect the poorer classes. One point had been raised which the Government had not attempted to answer; and that was that there was no guarantee that the mixtures would contain coffee at all. There was not that distinction between coffee and chicory which ought to exist. He had been an anti-chicorist all his life, and he was most desirous there should be some specification of the ingredients of the mixture sold as coffee. He was sorry hon. Members had not attended in large numbers upon the present occasion; but he trusted that as the speeches had proceeded from influential Members of the House the debate would make some impression on the Government. If a division were taken by those who had heard the debate the division would be all one way; but, unfortunately, the bell would be rung, hon. Members would flock in, and they would be told which way they were to go, and he and his hon. Friends would find themselves in a minority. Nevertheless, they had right on their side; and he hoped that, sooner or later, right would prevail.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had stated that this was a new departure, and it was sought to establish a new principle. It was certainly a new idea to levy taxes upon adulterated articles. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said it was impossible for the consumers to protect themselves. It was quite possible 245 for the people to protect themselves against adulteration if they would only use a coffee mill. There was another argument more important than that of the hon. Member for Guildford. The House was very much occupied with the question of the sale of intoxicating drink. Motion after Motion was made to prevent people drinking intoxicating liquors. To advance their cause the advocates of temperance ought to do all they could to secure that the non-intoxicating drinks were not only harmless, but good and nourishing; and they could do this, in some measure, by supporting the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he felt inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) in that matter. It was very difficult indeed to define the exact proportions of the ingredients in the mixture. He contended that if people knew what they were going to purchase the House would not do wisely if they were to endeavour to decide the exact compounds of the mixture. He should support the original Amendment, because lie considered it was a very proper one, and one which would meet with the approval of the public generally.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 114: Majority 41.— (Div. List. No. 302.)
§
On the Motion of Mr. MAGNIAC, Amendment made, by adding after Subsection (3)—
(4.) Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall in any way affect any Act or Acts now in force relating to the Adulteration of Food.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Penalty for buying, &c. labels before used) agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Repeal of Section 5 of 43 Geo. III. c. 129) agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Grant of duties for carriages) struck out.
§ Clause 10 (Provision as to return of increase of duty to coachmaker lending during repair of carriage) struck out.