SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 July 1887)

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to prevent the sale of a certain compound, not butter, under that name. A letter had appeared in The Times, which their Lordships no doubt had seen, from Sir Lyon Playfair, suggesting that, instead of margarine, this substance should be called "butter substitute." Others suggested that it should be known, by the name of "butterine." The object of a Bill of this kind was to make the law as difficult of evasion as possible. After many consultations on the subject, in some of which he had taken part, the agriculturists of England and Ireland had decided that the name "margarine" was most likely to carry out the desired object. Therefore, he hoped their Lord ships would retain that name in the Bill. There were one or two matters with regard to the clauses of the Bill which 1576 he should like to notice. In the second clause it was proposed to be enacted that the word "margarine" should mean the various substances mentioned in the clause, and that they should not be sold except under the name of "margarine." That was the view of people who were engaged in the butter trade. To the third clause an Amendment was suggested, but these were matters to be dealt with in Committee. Clause 5 was also proposed to be amended; but it should, not be done unless a proviso was inserted that a person giving a warranty should not be a man of straw, but a man of substance. Since coming to the House he had received a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, to whom the Bill had been referred, and the evidence taken by that Committee could be sent for. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the second Reading of the Bill.

§ LORD HOUGHTON
said, that this was by no means the first time this question had come before Parliament. Last Session a Bill was introduced into the other House, backed by the names of Members from Ireland, and a Bill was also introduced last year into their Lordships' House by Lord Vernon, which he professed his willingness to modify in accordance with suggestions made by the then Government. The present Bill was referred to a Select Committee in the other House, and that Select Committee had made certain recommendations with reference to the sale of margarine, of which the noble Lord had spoken. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee relating to the name under which the commodity should be sold was opposed in the other House, and rejected by a majority. The hon. Members who carried that vote had not had an opportunity of Reading the evidence upon which the Committee founded its Report; and it was most desirable that their Lordships should not be in the same position in deciding the question. Therefore, it would be better to wait until the House had the evidence taken by the Select Committee before it. He understood the noble Viscount was willing to postpone the Committee stage of the Bill till the end of next week.

§ LORD BASING
said, that as he was Chairman of the Select Committee of the other House with reference to this Bill, he should like to make one or two observations. The provisions of the Bill, with one exception, were practically agreed to by all Parties on the Committee. The persons representing the trade in this butter substitute were very honourably distinguished by the readiness with which they agreed to accept any restrictions or regulations which Parliament might think fit to impose with a view of carrying out the objects of the Bill. Unfortunately, there was great difference of opinion as to whether the butter substitute should be called "butterine" or "margarine." Upon that question he would only make this observation—that by the use of the term "butterine" this substance had become so well known as to obtain a great market. That, on the one hand, was in favour of butterine; but, on the other, it could not be doubted that the word "butterine" had greatly increased the fraudulent sale of the article. The appearance of the material produced, which was manufactured with care and as a proper and wholesome article of food—its appearance as well as its name had greatly increased its sale. The practical importance of the Bill being agreed upon, he ventured to hope that their Lordships would pass the second Reading, although he agreed that some time ought to elapse before coming to a decision upon the only important question that arose with regard to the Bill. The noble Lord opposite had referred to Clause 5 as needing some Amendment; but he would point out that it was practically only a reprint of a clause in the Food and Drugs Act, and had never done any mischief. It did not follow that because the allegation was made that an article had been sold is the same state as it was received with a warranty from the wholesale dealer the Court would accept that statement without evidence. He ventured to hope that the clause might be retained in the Bill. He should like also to suggest that the commencement of the Act should be postponed till the 1st of January next year, as it would be hard on many persons that it should be brought into immediate operation.

§ LORD EGERTON OF TATTON
said, whatever might have been the evidence offered to the Committee, there was a 1578 strong feeling amongst agriculturists, which had reached him from various quarters against the use of the term "butterine," which, obviously, was a word open to misrepresentation. It was clear that a tradesman in exposing the title "butterine" to his customers could so manipulate the ticket that the customer should only see the word "butter," and not the final "ine." The result of the use of the word had been that the substance was mistaken for butter and its price had been raised. While butterine was only worth from 4½d. to 6d. per pound, through being mistaken for butter, its price had risen to 10½d. to 1s.. per pound. Practical agriculturists and farmers were unanimous in wishing that the sale of pure butter should be insured by a substitute not being permitted to be sold under a name which caused it to be mistaken for butter. Unless some strong reason were shown, he trusted their Lordships would retain the name adopted by the other House.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, that in Committee he intended to move that the word "butterine" should be substituted wherever "margarine" occurred in the Bill. The Committee of the House of Commons, having heard the evidence, adopted the word butterine on Division by 2 to 1. It was not margarine, and it was not desirable to give it a false name. Margarine was the substance from which butterine was made. Margarine was pressed fat, and was manufactured into butterine by a wholesome process in which milk was used. The substance so manufactured had been known in the trade for the last 12 years as butterine, and during that period it had been sold to the extent of £4,000,000 in value. It would be most unfair now to throw suspicion upon the article by changing its name from butterine to margarine. If any thing were to be done to prevent fraud and adulteration as regards articles of this character it should be effected by means of a general Act, and not by a Bill of this character. He should endeavour to draw up a general Bill of the nature he had indicated. Of the 87 who voted in the House of Commons in favour of margarine 46 were Irish Members, who were interested in suppressing butterine as a rival of butter; but it should be remembered 1579 that farmers were interested in the sale of suet, from which butterine was largely made. He was glad to hear that the Committee stage of the Bill was to be postponed for a week in order that their Lordships might have an opportunity of reading the evidence given before the Committee which had been appointed to consider this subject.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he thought all were agreed that it was desirable to give a second Reading to the Bill, and that there should be an interval of some days before the Committee. In his opinion it would be equally absurd to object to the term "velveteen" instead of worsted, because of its similarity to "velvet," as to object to the term butterine. There are two textures, one is called velvet, the other velveteen, the former of a much finer material, the second, probably as worn for clothing. What would be thought of a Bill rejecting the name of velveteen which has been known for years, in order to give the substance the name of worsted, which does not describe it, but which describes one element of it, upon the excuse of its being necessary to protect the velvet makers?

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, that the object of those who objected to the word butterine was to prevent the public from being imposed upon. He thought that the question might be settled by the introduction of both words, "margarine and butterine" being given to the title of the Bill, as both these substances, which were quite different from one another, were strictly defined in the Bill.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THR COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
said, that he had seen the substance called butterine, which resembled butter, but which contained no trace of butter. The term butterine was calculated to mislead people into believing that the substance was of the nature of butter. It was therefore necessary to discriminate between those who made a well-manufactured article and those who made a bad and unwholesome mixture; otherwise the Bill would be an idle one.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he objected to the substance being called by the name of margarine, which it certainly was not.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
thought that it would be better to discuss all these points 1580 in Committee after the evidence which had been taken on the subject was in. their hands.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, what was wanted was an honest name. "Butterine" was a false name adopted to deceive the public.