Commons Sitting of 29 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment.
3° Administering of Poison.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to move the following Resolution, namely:—"That, towards raising the supply granted to Her Majesty, in addition to the duty now payable on spirits distilled in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on every gallon of such spirits at proof which, on or after the 29th of February, shall be distilled or be in the stock of any distiller, or in any duty-free warehouse, or removing to such warehouse the additional duty of one penny." It was not necessary for him to enter into any statement then, because, in point of fact, the duty of 8s. 1d. upon British spirits had reference to the duty which was about to be fixed on foreign spirits, and to the general arrangements consequent on the adoption of that plan. The most convenient period for considering the effect of this Vote would be when the Government made the proposal with regard to foreign spirits. Of course if that proposal was not adopted, then the present one might be open to modification—the simple object of it being to preserve the revenue from loss by any anticipated delivery from bond in the interval before the Committee had adopted the final Resolution.
Resolved,
"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in addition to the Duty now payable on Spirits distilled in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on every gallon of such Spirits at proof which, on or after the 29th of February, 1860, shall be distilled or be in the stock of any distiller, or in any duty-free warehouse, or removing to such warehouse, the additional duty of one penny."
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Friday.

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL.

  SECOND READING—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st February],"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, when the Bill was last under consideration, he had moved the adjournment of the Debate, because the Measure proposed to alter the present state of the law, under which no person could be excluded from a corporate office on the ground of religious belief. The law in respect to admission to those offices was analogous to the system adopted in regard to the admission of Members to that House. The constitution of this country was Christian, and that fact was expressed by the connection which existed between the Church and the State. The constitution both of the Civil Corporations and of this House recognized that fact by admitting the various sects of Christians according to their denominations, with a distinct provision as to the admission of Jews which constituted an exception from the general rule. He trusted that that principle would never be changed, for upon it was founded the greatness of the country, and the high moral character which it possessed in the eyes of the whole world. By virtue of that principle the meanest subject had the right of appealing to the great code of morality if any injustice were done to him. For the law and the State both being Christian, any violation of Christian morality was inconsistent with the character of both. His reason for objecting to the present Bill was, that it appeared to ignore, or depart from, that principle upon which legislation had hitherto proceeded, and which recognized the fact that the laws of England were based upon Christianity. The Bill seemed to lay the foundation of an internecine war between the various powers of the State, for it proposed to abrogate the declaration taken on admission to corporate functions against the use of the civic power for the purpose of attacking the Church. For those reasons he had moved the adjournment of the Debate when the Bill was moved at a late hour of the night. In the present thin state of the House, however, it would be absurd for him to enter into so great a question. He should, therefore, content himself by expressing his dissent to the passing of the Bill, and his hope that on some future occasion the House would feel disposed to consider more seriously the grave question it involved.
  Question put, and agreed to;
  Bill read 2a and committed for To-morrow.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACKINNON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the object he had in view was the establishment of a friendly tribunal, to be called a Council of Conciliation, and to be constituted of an equal number of masters and operatives, to which all disputes between those two classes should be referred. If the Motion which he had made last year had been adopted by the House, all the misery which had resulted from the recent strike would have been spared. Considering the extraordinary privations which had been caused by that strike, he could not help thinking that some measure of this sort was absolutely necessary, and he could scarcely see what objection would be raised against it. In every strike there were four classes who suffered—first, the masters, whose capital and property were sacrificed; next, the workmen, who were ezposed to misery and privation by reason of the loss of their wages; next, the small shopkeepers, whose ordinary class of customers were the working men; and, lastly, the public at large. The Preston strike had entailed a loss of £2,400,000, and it was calculated that the average loss to the community by strikes throughout Great Britain was about £1,000,000 a year. Under these circumstances, it was most extraordinary that Parliament should continue to refuse to provide a remedy for these strikes. He had heard it said that the reason why Parliament refused to legislate was, that it relied on the 5th of George IV., entitled an Act for settling disputes between masters and workmen; but that statute was totally inoperative. There was a mutual dislike, and more strong on the part of the operatives, to refer questions to an unknown set of men, nominated by a justice of the peace. Going before a justice, too, in the opinion of most of the men bore the character of a criminal proceeding, and when resorted to by the workmen not unfrequently ended in their dismissal. If the parties named refused to act, all decision was left to the justice, and many of the cases raised required special knowledge of the particular trade, which a magistrate could not be expected to possess. Mr. Hammill, in his evidence before the Committee, stated that the most disagreeable duty which he had to perform was the disputes between

  2011
  the Spitalfields weavers and their masters. Large bodies of operatives throughout the country had declared in favour of this Bill, and last Saturday a meeting was held in St. Martin's Hall, Long Acre, attended by about 2,000 builders and brick makers, at which resolutions were passed approving its provisions. The conduct of the workmen during the late strike was, considering their fearful privations, deserving of all praise, and therefore their desires on this subject should meet with the kind consideration of this House. The evidence before the Select Committee of the year before the last proved that the equitable councils of conciliation had worked wonderfully well in France for fifty-four years, and had prevented many disputes there between workmen and employers; and he had it on the authority of M. Van de Weyer, the Belgian Minister, that the same had been its effect in Belgium. It had been said that the idea of this Bill had been stolen from the French law, but that was not the case. It was taken from the practice of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. When they differed, delegates were appointed to meet in conferences and settle the questions in dispute; and why not give the same privilege to the workmen and their employers? How did strikes arise? The workmen, feeling themselves aggrieved, met together and sent to their employers, perhaps, a violent and impudent message, insisting on the raising of their wages or the shortening of their time of work. The masters had a meeting in their turn; they were excited at the insulting message they had received, and they sent back a point-blank refusal. Then there was a collision between the two classes, and a strike followed. It was impossible that the present system, which perpetuated hostility between the different classes, could be suffered to continue; and it was the duty of the House to pass such a Bill as would restore a feeling of confidence between employers and employed, and to lay the foundation of a future means of accommodation on equitable terms in the event of difficulties unhappily arising. As objections might very possibly be taken to the details of the measure, if the House would give it a second reading, he proposed to refer it to a Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  MR. SLANEY, in seconding the Motion
  2012
  for the second reading, said both workmen and masters owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman by whom the question had been brought forward for the unwearied pains which he had taken in endeavouring to provide a remedy for the great and increasing evils from which the country was suffering. Not merely were the working classes increasing from year to year in numbers and importance, but the different subdivisions of labour and the various degrees of skill required by the new kinds of manufactures which were constantly introduced gave rise to a complexity of interests more or less conflicting, and rendered it absolutely necessary that some mode should be devised whereby disputes could be adjudicated upon in a friendly spirit, and to the satisfaction of both parties. In all cases where controversy arose a great want was felt of some power which could interfere at the outset to prevent dissatisfaction from spreading and gaining a dangerous height. There could be nothing more valuable than some machinery by which workmen, who in moments of excitement were led by mischievous persons to commit acts of which they afterwards repented, and which entailed lasting injury on themselves, their wives, and families, should be induced to adopt the reasonable course of laying their complaints before a friendly council, impartially chosen, which would be the medium of accommodating exorbitant demands on either side, and in whose well-considered decision they would both be disposed to agree. In every part of the country vast buildings were to be found filled with the industrious classes, on whom this council would confer an inestimable boon, in elucidating points which might be in issue and in deciding whether complaints or demands were really founded in justice. Among those in a better position in life vexatious and expensive suits in courts of law were constantly avoided by a reference to arbitration. This Bill was in effect a proposal to extend the benefits resulting from such a course to the industrious poor, with whom the loss even of a few days' work was attended with more serious consequences than were felt by the rich who expended time or money in litigation. If the House rejected the measure, they would in effect be giving scope to angry passions, and encouraging the violent, the hasty, and the uncompromising of both sides, whose pride was interested in keeping up dissensions. On

  2013
  the other hand, by adopting the Bill they would be adding weight to the efforts of the moderate men who, from their practical acquaintance with the subject, were the best fitted for dealing with those difficult and delicate questions which were always involved in trade disputes. As it stood, the measure was merely an enabling Act, and his hon. Friend proposed to refer it to a Special Committee, in order that any provisions to which objection might be taken should be modified. He could not believe the House would refuse its assent to a proposal for the establishment of such a tribunal, when made with the view of lessening those great and growing evils to which the industry of the country had hitherto been subjected, and which, though it might not altogether prevent the occurrence of strikes, would lead, in his opinion, to a great diminution in their most pernicious effects.
  MR. WALTERsaid, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, because he believed that its provisions were, to say the least, harmless, and because the hon. Member by whom it had been introduced was willing to refer it to a Select Committee. But he must guard against its being supposed that he for a moment acquiesced in the opinion which had been expressed that such a Bill would have the slightest possible effect in preventing the periodical occurrence of strikes, and those serious differences between masters and workmen of which the country had such lamentable experience. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have become involved in some confusion of ideas with respect to the meaning of the word "dispute," for he had given a definition of that term which, he believed, altogether differed from the view that he really intended to convey to the House. In one portion of his speech he had alluded to a certain class of disputes which arose between masters and workmen as to questions of fact. It was easy to perceive that in trades of a complicated character differences of opinion must often arise as to the mode in which a workman had performed his task, which would involve other questions as to the amount or proportion of wages to which he was entitled; and for the consideration of technicalities and difficulties of this nature some council, such as it was proposed under this Bill to frame, might be a very fit tribunal. But the points on which strikes turned were not matters of fact, but questions of opinion,
  2014
  and originated in much deeper passions and feelings than were excited by mere disputes as to the mode in which a contract had been fulfilled. Those occurrences, of which the House had lately heard so much, arose, on the one hand, from a desire on the part of workmen to obtain a larger amount of pay than employers thought proper to give; and, on the other, from an equally natural desire in the minds of employers to keep down wages, and not to submit to what they considered the exorbitant demands of those who were in their service. It was not to be supposed that a measure like the present would have any effect in settling disputes of this serious nature, which in reality involved the question of free trade, and the right of both parties to agree upon their own terms. He therefore hoped that when it got into Committee the hon. Gentleman would endeavour to define those disputes as to which it was supposed the Bill might exercise a beneficial effect, and would not suffer himself to be persuaded that it could really terminate the differences between masters and men which eventuated in strikes. With this reservation he had no objection to the Motion for the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. Gentleman in former Sessions had not felt it necessary to take a vote upon this measure, but the events of last summer and autumn had probably induced him to think the present a more favourable time for asking the House to entertain the question. But it was precisely because the great builders' strike of last year had excited attention and given rise to anticipations in some quarters that legislation would take place that it peculiarly behoved the House not to give its assent to any measure on this subject, unless it were fully convinced that it would prove effectual as a remedy. If any hon. Member could conscientiously say he believed the propositions contained in the Bill would prevent the evils generated by a "strike," he ought to give his vote in favour of the measure; but otherwise he would probably agree with him that it was better not to raise false expectations and hopes throughout the country, unless the House had power to pass some measure which, in a moment of great excitement or difficulty, would arm either the parties themselves or the Executive Government with the means of carrying out some reasonable agreement. The Bill consisted of two parts. The first clause gave powers to workmen and masters to

  2015
  appoint certain persons to hear and determine cases in dispute between them; but in what respect did this differ from the existing law, which sanctioned the appointment of arbitrators. The clause therefore was either useless or imperfectly expressed. The second portion of the Bill provided that any number of masters and workmen, being independent householders, at a meeting specially convened, might agree to petition Her Majesty for licence to form an equitable council of conciliation, possessing all the powers enjoyed by arbitrators; and, if the licence were granted by Her Majesty or by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that a council—to consist of not less than two masters and two workmen—should be elected for a year. What object would be achieved by these enabling powers he was at a loss to understand; but if the machinery which it was proposed to create was to have any practical effect, it must be to make the Government to a certain extent responsible for the formation and working of these councils. Application had been made to the Government in the course of last summer to interfere in the dispute between the masters and workmen, and he refused to act in any way as an arbitrator, being perfectly convinced that if he undertook any such office he should have completely failed. The question was rather a trial of strength between the parties, or had reference to minute technical relations of trade, and in either case a Member of the Government was a most unfit person to become a mediator. Believing that the Government ought never to interfere unless it could do so with usefulness and effect, he had refused to do so, and the result convinced him that he had exercised a proper discretion. The same reasons induced him now to think that the Government would be outstepping its office in promoting the formation of these councils, which could only raise expectations that would not be fulfilled. When a strike occurred persons were ordinarily exasperated against each other, and if expectations of accommodation were held out by the Government which were afterwards disappointed, that exasperation would be naturally, and he would add justly, increased. His hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) with that benevolence for which he was distinguished, said, in seconding the Motion, that he wished the disputes between masters and men to be adjudicated on in a
  2016
  friendly spirit and in a manner satisfactory to both parties. When disputes occurred it was the wish of everybody that such a tribunal could be found by which that could be done; but in practice, where parties were envenomed by hostile feeling, he had never yet known any means of bringing them to an immediate agreement with perfect satisfaction to both. He therefore feared, if the House were now to give its assent to the second reading of this Bill, they would be only encouraging false hopes and fostering delusions among those whom they were most desirous of leading into the right way. But if the House believed that any good could arise from inquiring into either the facts or the law of the matter, he should not object the appointment of a Committee, with the understanding that it was to be in no way confined to the objects of the Bill, or contingent on its adoption. If the question went to a division, he should feel it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; but he trusted his hon. Friend would render that course unnecessary by withdrawing his Motion for the second reading.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six mouths."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the origin of strikes had been described by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) as a matter of opinion, and by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as a trial of strength between the two parties; but he would ask the House whether such reasons adequately accounted for a strike like that in Lanark, for example, in the year 1856, when there were 40,000 men on strike, and by which masters, operatives, and shopkeepers suffered to the extent of £300,000 in a month; or for that in Preston in the year 1852 or 1853, where the operatives alone incurred a loss of £520,000. Could such facts as these be caused by mere opinion? If it were a mere trial of strength, it was a battle of giants. During the building strike last year, they heard a great deal from the journal which had the largest circulation in this country about the acts of folly committed by the men; the wives and families of thousands were reduced to destitution, some died, and others actually killed themselves rather than give in. Was it likely that all this suffering

  2017
  was incurred for a mere matter of opinion? Men in general give up their opinions; nay, even desert their principles rather than lose their money; much less would 40,000 men combine to starve for nothing; or see their families perish around them for a mere tournament of strength. Or was it not rather probable that the men felt there was some principle at stake which they thought it necessary to uphold? It was easy to say that one man forced another to stand out, but if the majority believed that they were not right in doing so, they would soon force the minority to yield. Persons said the workmen were led astray by demagogues. But had the persons who hazarded such statements ever gone to see the men who were out on strike? He came to London for the purpose, and went to one of their committee-rooms in the Strand, and more reasonable and moderate men he had never met. They expressed their ideas well—in better English than he had sometimes heard in that House. He had also gone to the Paviors Arms in the neighbourhood of that House, where he had found men equally intelligent and equally reasonable, and he did not hear an angry word or a malicious sentiment till a hot-brained fellow named Potter made his appearance; and he, it is true, cast about his words "like a Fury slinging fire." Strikes arose from a want of sympathy and of proper understanding between the masters and workmen, which gradually engendered a mutual suspicion and estrangement, so that when some trivial circumstance took place, which might be easily settled by arbitration, it acted like a spark and produced an explosion. Some masters, for instance, would affix a notice to their gates intimating that after a certain date the rate of wages would be reduced; and this at once led to a strike; while others consulted their workmen, showed them that the reduction was reasonable, and the matter passed over quietly. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the existing law (namely, the Act of George IV.) is sufficient; but the blue-book issued by the Committee which sat in 1856, showed that nearly all the witnesses who were examined disapproved of the existing state of the law, because the first step to be taken in the event of any dispute was to go before a justice of the peace, which looked like a criminal proceeding. The justice was then to appoint the arbitrator, who was thus chosen after the difference on which he was to decide had
  2018
  arisen; instead of being appointed, as the Bill proposed, once a year, by which means greater impartiality would be secured. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) had called on any Member who conscientiously believed that the Bill would have the effect of preventing strikes to support the Motion for the second reading. He would be that Member; and he was strengthened in his view by the evidence to which he had referred. The eligibility of these councils of arbitration was not a matter of opinion, but one which had been tested by experience. They existed both in Denmark and in Norway, and their operations had been attended with most perfect success; in Belgium they were likewise to be found, and no strikes were ever heard of in the large manufactories of that country. In Prance they had their conseils des prud' hommes to deliberate on cases in which differences arose; and M. Van der Weyer distinctly stated that of the enormous number of cases, amounting to 15,000 or 18,000, which were heard every year, the vast majority were settled in a manner satisfactory to both parties, and but very few were followed by any subsequent litigation. The principle had likewise been voluntarily adopted in this country in various branches of industry; and, indeed, it appeared even better adapted to this country than to others, as foreign countries did not possess, to the same extent, the power of self-government. He was surprised at the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis), for if workmen in Manchester or Leeds living in £6 houses were, by the gift of the franchise, to be enabled to choose their representatives and to have a voice in State affairs, on what principle could he refuse to allow them to select a council for the management of those interests in which they were exclusively concerned? Boards of arbitration had been voluntarily established with perfect success. After the great strike of 1839 among the carpet-weavers in the north of England the masters expressed a wish that the trade should be governed on just and impartial principles, and proposed that a meeting of delegates should be annually held, at which they themselves would attend, and confer with the delegates from the operatives in regard to their mutual interests. After this board of arbitration was established the men two or three times demanded an increase of wages, which was held to be reasonable; and on another occasion, when they had

  2019
  manifested great anxiety to obtain it the board disallowed the claim, and the men acquiesced in the decision. This board entirely obviated all strikes. In Kidderminster, as long as a similar board was in existence, there were no strikes. In Macclesfield the board continued in existence for three years with the most perfect success, and was only dissolved owing to the want of legal power to enforce its decisions. In the Staffordshire Potteries the Courts of Arbitration worked so well and so amicably, that it never even became necessary to appoint the arbitrator provided by the rules. In Stoke-upon-Trent, similar arrangements were equally efficacious in preventing strikes, and most of the masters had now given their adhesion to such a plan. The compositors in London settle the disputes between masters and men in a similar manner. The masters and operatives of the boot-making trade met, after a long dispute in 1853, and their differences were speedily terminated. The shipwrights in Sunderland had such a board, and it met with a similar success. And in Price's Patent Candle Company disputes are avoided by a like conciliatory system between the masters and the employed. The ex-mayor of Nottingham, who was examined before the Committee of 1856, deposed that councils of arbitration, if established by law, would be acceptable, not only to the men, but to the employers, and certainly tend to obviate strikes. M. Chevalier, who was at present the great authority on political economy, viewed the system of equitable councils of conciliation as "one of the noblest creations of the present century." Mr. Mill, a writer on kindred subjects in this country, devoted two entire chapters to this question, in which he expressed himself even more strongly. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was anxious that this Bill should be withdrawn, and that a Committee should be appointed. He, on the contrary, hoped that the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion, as a Committee had already sat and collected evidence, and had strongly recommended that a tribunal of this character should be established. The present moment, when, if ever, a good feeling might be said to exist between masters and men, ought to be turned to account in preventing a recurrence of those strikes, from which so much evil had resulted. All are loud in decrying strikes, and in enlarging on the evils of such a loss of pay to men, women,
  2020
  and children; on the loss of trade, and loss of profits, and loss by unused capital, machinery, and buildings. All therefore allow that there exists a great evil, which calls for a speedy remedy. Such has now been proposed in the Bill before the House. Many witnesses have testified their approval of such boards of conciliation and arbitration. Similar boards have been tried with success in Denmark, in Norway, in Belgium, and in France. Such boards have accomplished their object wherever voluntarily established in this country. And, besides, the Bill before the House did not bind either class to submit to any new regulations; it was merely permissive in its character. The councils were only to last for a year, at the end of which time, if they proved unavailing, they need not be renewed; but if, as he firmly believed would be the case, it was found that they had done much to prevent strikes, the House would have no difficulty in renewing them for a longer period.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he hoped the House would accede to the very reasonable proposal that the Bill should be read a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee. To the principle of the Bill—the establishment of some system by means of which the disputes between masters and operatives might be satisfactorily arranged—he could see no objection that could be raised; while he was at the same time disposed to think that the machinery which it provided would be found unworkable. He should also observe that, in his opinion, the operation of the Bill, should it pass into a law, would not prevent strikes, although it might put an end to those early animosities and differences between masters and men which so often eventuated in strikes. He was of that opinion because he coincided with the hon. Member for Berks (Mr. Walter) in believing that strikes had their origin in causes far deeper than legislation, such as that to which the House was asked to assent, could remove. During the recent lamentable strike in London the workmen, it appeared to him, had put themselves into a false position by demanding to be paid for labour which they did not perform; but it must, upon the other hand, be admitted that the masters had adopted a retaliatory measure which was equally unjust—he meant the imposition of the document which they required the workman to sign. An arrangement of the dispute had, how-

  2021
  ever, been brought about by the kind interposition of a noble Lord, so that if such a tribunal as that proposed in the Bill had been in existence, it was probable the strike would never have taken place. He trusted that the appeal which—on behalf of hundreds of thousands of men who had passed through a great struggle and endured great privations with the utmost fortitude—was made to the House in the present instance would not be made in vain, and that they would at least affirm the principle, that they did not begrudge the time spent in endeavouring to adjust by some mode the differences between masters and their workmen.
  MR. HENLEYremarked, that the Bill presented a difficult question to the House, and great care should be taken in legislating on the subject. The object which the promoters of the Bill had in view was one which it was desirable to accomplish, but he, at the same time, agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken in thinking that its machinery would be completely useless for that purpose. The definition of terms which it contained was extremely vague, and it would, as a consequence, be impossible to say whether, in the recent building strike in London, the persons to be elected under its provisions should be chosen from among the Irish labourers or some of the other men belonging to the several trades concerned in the strike. He must also observe that the fact which had been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord B. Montagu) that voluntary arrangements were in a large number of cases effected between masters and men with a perfectly satisfactory result, inclined him to the opinion that it was undesirable to proceed in any careless and hasty system of legislation in the matter. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that, if the proposed councils were to be empowered to settle differences, and then, as was intended, the authority to enforce their awards was to be vested in somebody else, great inconvenience would be the result. He, for one, should, as a magistrate, object to have that sort of ministerial authority placed on his shoulders; nor did he think it quite right that he should be called upon to pass sentence of imprisonment in a case which he had not heard, and upon the merits of which another tribunal had decided. The result of acting upon the provisions of the Bill in that
  2022
  respect might be that he would render himself liable to an action for false imprisonment. He should, however, raise no objection to the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; but if, upon the other hand, the Government on their responsibility should maintain that the Bill ought to be thrown out, he should vote with them.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobserved, that while admitting the desirability of some tribunal by which disputes between masters and men might be settled, he did not think the operation of the Bill would be to remove those causes by which a strike was brought about, or to lead to the settlement of the differences which in those cases prevailed. There were, however, other questions—such as the amount of work done—he was ready to admit with which councils of conciliation might satisfactorily deal. He must at the same time say that the machinery which the Bill provided was of the crudest and weakest description possible. He thought it unfair to throw on the Secretary of State the responsibility of negativing a proposal of masters and men for the establishment of such a tribunal in a particular locality; and he doubted whether good would arise from reference of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, although he was of opinion that benefit might result from a reference of the whole subject to a Select Committee. On the whole, he would suggest to the hon. Member who had brought the measure forward, whether it would not be better at present, in the absence of decided suggestions for remedies of the admitted evils, that the recommendation of the Secretary of State should be complied with.
  MR. BLACKmaintained that the Bill, if it passed into a law, would, instead of promoting conciliation, lead to the contrary result; inasmuch as the very fact that the operatives knew that there were tribunals to which disputes between themselves and their masters might be referred for settlement might lead them to start objections which, under other circumstances, they never would have contemplated raising. It was true that the great bulk of the operatives were sensible men, but there were among them agitators whose office it appeared to be to excite discontent. He was convinced, therefore, that the Bill would be productive of more harm than good, and he thought that the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the sub-

  2023
  ject would only tend to excite hopes which could not be realized.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that any measure on the subject must be tentative. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to the second reading, in order that an attempt might be made in Committee to remedy the defects in detail of the measure. He had read several pamphlets of late on the subject of strikes. They were aware that the amount of wages depended on the ratio of supply and demand; but they seemed to imagine that strikes were the only means of raising wages where the masters desired to keep them unduly low. He thought that courts of reconciliation could be constituted, which would have a beneficial operation; and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsupported the second reading, and advocated the appointment of a Select Committee.
  SIR ERANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that his vote for the second reading might depend on the answer which the hon. Member should give with regard to the powers of the proposed courts of arbitration. He objected to the power which the Bill apparently gave to one party to compel another to appear before the proposed councils, a power which he believed could not be safely entrusted to a committee of working men.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he very much doubted whether the law as it stood was not sufficient to meet the object which the Bill proposed to effect. He had had some experience in strikes, and had always found it an easier matter to deal with the men themselves than with their committees. At present, however, there was an uneasy feeling among the working classes, and he should be sorry to see the House close its doors against the complaints of the workmen. There were, moreover, certain matters connected with the details of trade in which it was expedient that the men should have more power of producing evidence before some board than they at present possessed. He must, however, deprecate the passing of the Bill as it stood. In the machinery for electing the councils of conciliation, they did not, in his opinion, go sufficiently amongst the body of the people. The councils, also, ought to have the power of enforcing their decision.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, there
  2024
  were two matters involved in the Bill, first as to what questions were to be submitted to the new councils of arbitration, and next, what would be the power and operation of such tribunals, With regard to the questions that were to be referred to the new tribunal—were all the same as those which could be decided by arbitration under the existing law, with the exception of the question of wages. The statute of Geo. IV. strictly excluded all interference with the rate of wages, without the mutual consent of masters and workmen. The question of wages, however, was included in the new Bill. The principal change was in the constitution of the tribunal itself; and he thought the change likely to produce more mischief than good. The machinery of the existing law was very simple, and he had not heard any fair case of complaint against the tribunal of justices, or the powers it exercised. Then, if the existing tribunal was not open to objections, why should Parliament be required to set it aside? The machinery devised by the present Bill was very cumbrous, and was likely to cause a great deal of agitation that did not now exist. It would create a controversy between two classes without any good result to compensate for it. He hoped the House would reject the Bill.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he trusted the House would not adopt the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman; it would create an impression that they closed their doors against discussion on any question that affected relations between the working classes and their employers. Still, as to the measure itself, he thought it would not promote the object its hon. Mover desired. The noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) had correctly stated that councils of conciliation existed in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. He had had to conduct large works in Denmark; there the several trades were regulated by "guilds," and under them there were councils of workmen and masters. But he had found it so impossible to carry on any work, liable to the interference of these guilds, that he always made it a condition precedent, that the guilds should have no power of interference; and he did it quite as much in the interest of the workmen themselves as his own. In Denmark a workman could not remove from one parish to another to get work till he obtained a certificate from the minister and two churchwardens, declaring that he had con-

  2025
  ducted himself properly in that parish. Such regulations were of a nature that England could never adopt. He thought the existing law was effectual, as the magistrate had the power of appointing arbitrators. If the Bill before them had been law at the time of the recent strike, it would not have prevented or in any way affected it as had been argued, because the half a dozen masters would have been found voting one way, and the six workmen the other, so that the whole reference would have come to a dead lock. He hoped the second reading of the Bill would be postponed, in order to refer it to a Committee with large powers; it would sift the whole question, and its decision would be satisfactory to the country.
  MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to express his obligations to the noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) for his able and interesting speech, and to the hon. Member for the suggestion he had just made; no man had more practical experience of the subject. He would postpone the second reading of the Bill until that day month, and then move that it be referred to a Committee.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYobserved, that the tendency to strikes among the workmen was becoming every year much less in proportion as the master and workmen understood better their mutual relations; and he regarded the Bill as one which would not prevent those collisions that had occurred in times past, and which, in his opinion, might to a great extent have been avoided if the masters had met their workmen in a spirit of calm deliberation.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave withdrawn. Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 28th March.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read,
MR. WISEsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield) he rose to move that the House go into Committee on this Bill. An inquiry had been ordered three Sessions ago, into the subject of the adulteration of food and drink. The Committee made its Report in 1856, and subsequently the matter was discussed in the House, but nothing had been done. The Committee, however, had established the fact that adulteration was practised wherever it was possible. It had, in truth, become such a science, that other coun-
2026
tries, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, the United States, and Belgium had been compelled to take very strong measures to put a stop to this degraded and disgraceful system. Adulteration was in the highest degree an injustice and hardship on the poor; that fact alone should be an inducement to the House to go into Committee. The wealthier classes were able to protect themselves, the poor could not do so. The Report of the Committee proved that by the systematic adulteration of articles of food and drink, the public health was endangered, pecuniary frauds were extensively practised, and the moral character of the country deeply affected. It was no answer to the demand for legislative interference to say that the purchaser might protect himself. Least of all was that an answer in the case of the poor man who had enough to do to earn his bread without spending time in analysing it. He believed that many more persons died actually poisoned, than was generally supposed. Nux vomica and arsenic were common elements in articles consumed by the people. And as there were punishments for the makers of base coin, so ought there to be punishments for those who poisoned the public. The system had hitherto remained unchecked; the maxim had been caveat emptor; it was high time it should be caveat vendor. The Report of the Committee enumerated:—
"The leading articles that were more or less commonly adulterated; these are, arrowroot, adulterated with potato and other starches; bread, with potatoes, plaster of Paris, alum, and sulphate of copper; bottled fruits and vegetables with certain salts of copper; coffee with chicory, roasted wheat, beans, and mangel-wurzel; chicory with roasted wheat, carrots, sawdust, and Venetian red; cocoa with arrowroot, potato-flour, sugar, chicory, and some ferruginous red earths; Cayenne with ground rice, mustard husk, & c, coloured with red lead, Venetian red, and turmeric; gin' with grains of Paradise, sulphuric acid, and Cayenne; lard with potato-flour, mutton suet, alum, carbonate of soda, and caustic lime; mustard with wheat-flour and turmeric; marmalade with apples or turnips; porter and stout (though sent out in a pure state from the brewers) with water, sugar, treacle, salt, alum, cocculus Indicus, grains of Paradise, nux vomica, and sulphuric acid; pickles and preserves with salts of copper; snuff with various chromates, red lead, lime, and powdered glass; tobacco with water, sugar, rhubarb, and treacle; vinegar with water, sugar, and sulphuric acid; jalap with powered wood; opium with poppy capsules, wheat-flour, powdered wood, and sand; scammony with wheat-flour, chalk, resin, and sand; confectionary with plaster of Paris and other similar ingredients, coloured with various pigments of a highly-poisonous nature, and acid drops, purporting to be compounded of

2027
Jargonelle pear, Ribston pippin, lemon, & c with essential oils containing prussic acid or other dangerous ingredients. The adulteration of drugs is extensively practised; and when it is borne in mind that the correctness of a medical prescription rests on an assumed standard of strength and purity in the drugs or compounds employed, and how frequently life itself depends upon the efficacy of the medicines prescribed, it is difficult to exaggerate the evils arising from this prevalent fraud. The adulteration of drinks deserves also special notice, because your Committee cannot but conclude that the intoxication so deplorably prevalent is in many cases less duo to the natural properties of the drinks themselves, than to the admixture of narcotics or other noxious substances intended to supply the properties lost by dilution. Though adulterations prevail more or less in all districts, it may he assumed, as a rule, that the poorer the district, the greater is the amount of adulteration. Nor have the poor the same power to protect themselves against such frauds as their richer neighbours; they are necessarily limited to such means of purchase as are afforded by the immediate locality in which they reside, and are, moreover, too often bound to one dealer by the facilities of credit which he affords them."
The House would see it was a subject worthy of some consideration; and in Committee they would be able to say whether the clauses of the Bill were adapted to secure the object they must all have in view. One fact alone was almost enough to persuade the House to go into Committee. Dr. Hassall in his evidence described a kind of spurious tea called "Lie Tea"— a very fit name for it, though it was given by the Chinese—used to adulterate other qualities; and it was found that much of what was sold to the poor as tea contained no tea whatever. One sample was brought before the Committee, by which, though it excited a smile, they were much disgusted. Large quantities of tea were mixed with silkworms' dung; it was called and sold as "gunpowder tea." Of course the Committee did not venture to taste it, but they were assured its flavour was very peculiar; yet it found a large market in the poor parts of the metropolis, as the silkworms' dung gave it the appearance of great strength. The only other article he would allude to was wine. The facts not only bore on this question, but at this moment had an interest in respect of another discussion. Dr. Challice in his evidence stated:—
"Wine is an absolute necessary for the poor when they are recovering from sickness; they have no means of getting pure wine; the adulteration of it is fearful. I have seen many instances in which, when I have recommended port wine, and it has been procured at publichouses, instead of acting as a wholesome stimulant and a restorative astringent, it has produced pain,
2028
acidity, griping, irritation, and mischief, instead of good. It is a matter of notoriety, I believe, that a composition is sold as a substitute for port wine. I believe the astringency imparted to the liquid is by alum; I believe there to be an infusion of logwood; I believe there to be sloe-juice and sugar; it is a chemical combination entirely different from port wine."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he highly approved of the object of the Bill, and would concur in any means that would put an end to the adulteration of food and drink; but after an examination of the provisions of the measure, he had reluctantly arrived at the opinion that it would not secure the object intended; and that no alteration would make it do so. It would do no more than introduce a useful principle, that it was the duty of the Government to interfere to prevent adulteration. In the interests of Ireland he should be glad to support an effective measure; the trade in Irish butter was seriously injured by the importation of foreign butter adulterated with tallow, flour, and water. Beef suet was exported from England for the purpose of adulterating foreign butter, which could be sold in this country at a lower price than the genuine Irish. The consequence has been that the importation of Irish butter had declined from 10,000 casks weekly to 3,030. The Bill provided no means of stopping this adulteration. He would suggest an effectual remedy. Instead of a parish analyst, they should have a competent board of analysts, connected with the Board of Trade, or the Board of Health, who should be empowered to enter any shop, and analyze every commodity for sale. They might take the parish beadle and churchwardens, if it was thought proper, to assist them; but they should have the power of making their visits without notice; their reports to be lodged with the chief of the Board, with marks 1, 2, 3, and 4, according to the ascertained quality of the goods; these numbers to be inserted in the London Directory every year, attached to the tradesman's name. In this way shopkeepers would soon find it their interest not only to sell unadulterated articles, but to get as high on the list of excellence as possible. To show that this scheme was not impracticable, he instanced the article of Cork butter, which, it was well known, was classified and branded according to quality No. 1 up to 6; and the various qualities

2029
were sold according to the brands, without looking at the butter.
MR. CAVEsaid, he thought some protection was required for the poor, especially in villages where there was perhaps only one shop they could deal with; yet it was just in such cases that the provisions of this Bill would most likely become inoperative. It was requisite that the purchaser should go before a justice and complain that the article sold was adulterated. He should like to see a poor man enter the shop he had been dealing with after such a complaint. The plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cork county was rather a strong one, but it was carried out at this day in France—a country from which we had taken lessons of late. Officers went all over the country, going into every shop and analyzing every article, with summary power of destroying everything which did not come up to the standard. This was a very effectual process, as he could himself bear testimony. In one town where he had lived there was no milk one morning for breakfast; it turned out, on inquiry, that the milk was found, on application of the lacteometer by the octroi authorities, to be very much adulterated, and the cans were emptied into the gutter. There had been many complaints of the milk before, but after that its quality was very much improved. The salaries of the analysts would require to be very large, or they would be apt either on the one hand to be bribed, or to become the instruments of oppression on the other. He should be glad to see the objections he had stated to this Bill removed; but he feared it would be inoperative, so far as protection to the poor was concerned.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he thought, although the Bill did not contain all the provisions that might be desired, the first clause was a great improvement on the present law. There was now no power to go before a magistrate and obtain a summary conviction for any of the offences set out in the first clause; it was necessary to adopt the cumbrous machinery of an indictment. There was much force in the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) that the working classes were not anxious to carry tradesmen before the magistrates; but still less were they willing to incur the inconvenience and expense of proceeding by indictment, as they were obliged to do under the present law. He thought the first clause would be rendered more efficacious by a slight change in the
2030
Phrase "pure and unadulterated." He would substitute "or" for "and;" and in this way they would make provision for cases in which articles were mixed, such as coffee with chicory, which the present law did not meet. The word "warranted" should certainly be struck out, as it would give rise to endless difficulty. This was a question of great importance, but if they passed no other clause of the Bill except the first, even in a modified form, it would be a step in the right direction. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to get into Committee.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that he sincerely hoped some measure would pass on this subject. The Committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, had sat a year and a-half. They saw the great difficulties of the question, and this was not the least, to define what adulteration really was. He hoped in Committee that difficulty might not be found insurmountable.
MR. HARDYsaid, he had no wish to prevent the Bill getting into Committee, although he had opposed a somewhat similar measure on a former occasion, and would still have objections to urge against some of the provisions contained in this Bill.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he feared the Bill, if enacted, instead of being found by the poor to be a protection, and used by them to prosecute tradesmen selling adulterated provisions, would eventually be a dangerous weapon in the hands of rival traders against each other. What the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. V. Scully) said as to the branding of butter, was quite correct; but there was no analogy between Cork butter and adulterated food; and the very fact of a tradesman having got the highest certificate for a cask of butter one day, might be used by him as a cloak to sell a more adulterated article the next. He had no objection to going into Committee, but he foresaw considerable difficulty in carrying out a really good principle.
MR. WALTERobserved, that the difficulty suggested as to the mode of enforcing the provisions of this Act, might be got over by a very simple expedient. The principle involved in this Bill appeared to be analogous to that which already existed in the law respecting false weights and measures. The Bill was intended to apply to articles, in respect of quality, securities which the law now provided in respect of measures. He saw no reason why the same

2031
machinery should not be used for remedying the grievance complained of in one case as in the other; why the inspector of measures, for instance, should not be the authorized person to procure samples of the different articles of food sold in any shop or in stock, to place them before the analyst, and, if found adulterated in quality, to lay them before the magistrates in the same way as in a case of false weights or measures—without throwing the disagreeable duty on the poor customer or rival tradesmen. The real difficulty, as already suggested, would be to define what adulteration was. His belief was, that there was, perhaps, no single article of food unadulterated, except eggs and meat. Tradesmen had not yet found out the way of getting into eggs, and butcher's meat was, no doubt, sold in a tolerably pure state. But with respect to groceries, everybody knew they were nearly all adulterated, more or less. It might be doubted, however, whether bread, not being made of flour only, might not be considered as adulterated in the eye of the law, and introduce entire confusion into the trade.
MR. AYRTONexpressed a hope that the House would proceed to consider the provisions of the Bill in Committee. He had himself opposed the measure which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham last Session; but he found that many of the objections he had entertained against that Bill had been removed in the one which was then under their notice. Its provisions were threefold; first it provided that it should be penal to mix with articles of food anything injurious to health. Well, no man could claim a right to sell articles injurious to health, and he could see no objection to that provision. Then there was a clause to the effect that where a tradesman undertook to guarantee articles of food as pure and unadulterated, when they were not so, he should be liable to a penalty. That provision, however, left it to a tradesman to carry on his business as he pleased. If he chose to sell his goods without a guarantee he could do so. As matters at present stood, it was not pretended that London bread, London milk, and London gin, were sold as pure and unadulterated articles. A third peculiarity of this measure was that it established a board of local analysts, instead of having recourse to Government interference. In so doing the Bill did not create a new offence, but gave the people a summary remedy for an exist-
2032
ing offence when committed to their prejudice. If the argument as to borough magistrates sitting in judgment on tradesmen were sound, it was quite time to put an end to borough magistrates altogether. Those magistrates heard cases against working men; and why should they not also administer justice where tradesmen were concerned? If subject to the jurisdiction of the bench, why should not the working man also have its protection against the misconduct of those who assumed to be his betters? It might be that the poor would not be able often to enforce this power, but it would be something gained if it were known that they possessed it. Moreover, if rival tradesmen also aided in the punishment of each other's delinquencies, the mischief might be borne for the good that would accompany it; for when rogues fell out honest men might come by their own. It had been an established principle of our jurisprudence from the earliest ages that the local authorities should take cognizance of the sale of food. The corporation of the City of London held an inspection of markets, its officers being authorized to seize and destroy all unwholesome articles. In the present day, every shop in the metropolis was a market overt, and new machinery was required in place of the ancient to put down imposition and fraud.
MR. CLIVEsaid, he was by no means opposed to going into Committee; on the contrary, he thought they should have been in Committee an hour ago.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the Bill would be inoperative, inasmuch as in every case of sale in which any article of food or drink with which to the knowledge of the seller any ingredient or material calculated to injure health had been mixed, it would be necessary to prove not only that there was something injurious to life and health in the article sold, but also that the seller knew it to be so; and how was this to be done? In case of alleged adulteration, also, it would be necessary to prove not only that the commodity was adulterated, but that the vender was aware of it. The second part of the clause required that the tradesman should have given a warranty that the article was a pure one; but a mere representation that the article was of a certain character was not a warranty; and it would be unreasonable to expect that a tradesman

2033
would give a written engagement that an article was of a certain quality. Take the article of cayenne pepper, which was repeatedly sold as adulterated. It would be necessary first of all to inquire of the tradesman whether he guaranteed the article, then to analyze it; and if anything deleterious was found, to prove that the tradesman knew it was there, and knew it to be injurious. There was a peddling legislation that was more mischievous than leaving things in their original mischief. He believed if this Bill were carried into effect it would create such confusion in London that no shopkeeper would pass a quiet life. Legislation was a difficult art; there was no royal road to this science, and this had never been rendered more evident than by the provisions of this Bill.
MR. CLIVEsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the probability of the first part of this clause being inoperative. They were all aware of the difficulty of proving knowledge on the part of the vender; but still the offence was now cognizable by law, and he saw no objection to allow a summary conviction rather than an indictment. But he was entirely opposed to the second part of the clause which related to the furnishing of a warranty to the purchaser of an article. If that were to be a mere implied warranty it would have no force, as the difficulty of proof would be insuperable; and if an express warranty were meant, no person would give it. The whole question would therefore remain just as at present. He was afraid the first clause would tend to bring into discussion before the magistrates every transaction between man and man; and that it would produce the greatest possible irritation and uneasiness to tradesmen, without affording any protection whatever to the poorer classes, and it would be absurd to expect that an express warranty would be given in cases of that description.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would admit that there was very great difficulty in legislating on questions of sumptuary law. The poorer classes required some protection from the system of adulteration; but the difficulty of providing that protection was demonstrated by the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. Scully) had pronounced a eulogium on Irish butler, the produce of the fat fields represented by his hon. Friend; but, first of all, this Bill did not extend to Ireland; and, in the
2034
next place, Irish butter only came in here in the form of little pats. There would therefore be great difficulty in instituting the classification recommended by his hon. Friend. The principle of the Bill no doubt was good, and he should be glad if it could be safely carried out, but it appeared to him that the effect of adopting the machinery of this measure would be to give employment to informers, and to give rise to great confusion and annoyance. It would be no easy task to bring home a guilty knowledge to the vender. Suppose the case of French wines imported under the new Treaty; the analyst might detect some article injurious to life or health, the answer of the seller would be that he knew nothing of it—he received it from France or his wine merchant as a pure and wholesome wine; he was not aware of any deleterious quality it possessed, and should not be held responsible. This not being a charge against the manufacturer, but against the seller, the difficulty of proof would be very great. Then as regarded the second part of the clause, there was great difficulty in the warranty. What was a warranty? Not a mere representation. The auctioneer who described a picture as a Canaletti and Reynolds did not warrant the picture to be painted by the artists whom he named. He thought that the word warranty as it stood in the clause was quite unwarrantable, and could not be maintained.
MR. HARDYsaid, he thought that there was insuperable objection to the early part of the clause. It was not only very difficult to prove the scienter, because the tradesmen must be shown to have known not only that something was mixed with a given article, but that that something was injurious and deleterious, but then the scienter had to be tried, not in the ordinary way by a jury, but by the magistrates. Such a jurisdiction would be most dangerous, and as the borough justices were often tradesmen themselves the anomaly might be produced of one set of tradesmen sitting in judgment on the knowledge or intentions of their rivals. The animosities and the scandal which such a state of things would engender might be easier conceived than described. Again, the remedy provided by the Bill, such as it was, would be confined to the metropolis and the other towns of England, its machinery being inapplicable to the whole of the rural districts, as well as to Scotland and Ireland generally. More-

2035
over, where nothing was done that was positively injurious to health, why were they to make a different law for the sale of articles of food from that which extended to the sale of calico, cutlery, and similar articles? The State ought not to pretend to protect the buyer by a warranty in the one case more than in the other. Besides, if a shopkeeper sold anything noxious to health he would commit an offence under the measure introduced by the Home Secretary, for sending before a jury persons who had administered to others hurtful things knowingly and, therefore, maliciously. Useless Bills like the present were prejudicial to the progress of sound legislation.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he believed that much of the objection urged to the clause would be obviated by the omission of the words "knowledge of such persons," and also of the word "warranted." He should, therefore, propose that they be omitted. A person guilty of selling a deleterious article through negligence might be fairly subjected to a fine.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the omission of the words would make the clause wholly inoperative, and the Motion then before the Committee was that Clause I be omitted. The Bill was only explanatory of the actual state of the law; and with regard to the technical objection as to the difficulty of proving the scienter, that objection would apply equally to the whole common law of England. So, also, the objection brought to the jurisdiction of the country magistrates would equally apply to every other instance in which they were concerned. But it had always been part of the common law of England that the cognizance of the quality of articles offered for food should be submitted to local authority. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his opposition.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for the Home Department, whether he approved the clause as originally propounded. There would be no impracticability in convicting a man of selling an article that was injurious to health; the difficulty would be in proving that he knew the article to be of that nature. The objection to the clause, therefore, was not that it would be perfectly impracticable, but that it would be most unjust. Suppose a shopkeeper unwittingly sold a bottle of pickles that had been made unwholesome by sulphate of copper—per-
2036
haps even by the putting of a halfpenny into the bottle? They could not say the seller ought to have been more cautious, because the only sufficient precaution he could take would have been to eat the pickles himself. A tradesman was once accused of selling flour mixed with plaster of Paris. The man stoutly denied the charge, but the analyst proved the fact of the admixture. To test the matter further, however, the tradesman then took a bushel of the grain, put it into a mill and ground it, and still the analyst found plaster of Paris in the flour.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the clause as it originally stood would be inoperative, but the Amendment would make it mischievous. What authority was to decide—not on what was injurious, but on what was "calculated" to be "injurious" to the health of the particular person buying an article? Fancy a couple of magistrates sitting in judgment on that grave question with the conflicting evidence of half-a-dozen doctors before them. Take the common article of wine. Suppose the analyst, a teetotaller—a quite possible case—found 40 per cent of proof spirit in it, or even more, owing to the doctoring it had undergone after passing through the Excise, there might be great difference of opinion whether that wine was not "calculated to be injurious" to some particular person far gone in some disease. How was the tradesman, when he looked into a man's face, to know whether or not the article was calculated to injure him. The magistrates would be equally puzzled to determine such a question. He thought if the country was to be subjected to such an ordeal as the Bill would create, their desire to remedy what no doubt was a great mischief would be leading them much too far.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the difficulty stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was purely imaginary. Indeed he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the meaning of the clause. As it at present stood it would not be supposed to apply to the case of an individual in a particular state of health. The object was to prevent the sale of any article with which was mixed some material which was injurious to health, and following the dictates of common sense the clause would necessarily be construed as looking to the influence of the article upon the health of the community generally, and not to what might

2037
possibly be injurious to the right hon. Gentleman's ideal sick person. The question of knowledge, as in other similar cases, would have to be decided by inference, and considering that difficulties would arise under this Bill which did not arise under the present law, he thought that the word should be retained in the clause.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he must submit that they were a little splitting hairs in the matter. The wording of the clause would, however, be improved by the substitution of the words in the Nuisances Removal Act "injurious to health" for the words "calculated to injure health." He, therefore would propose that alteration. One of the commonest questions which Courts of law had to decide, even amid very conflicting evidence, was whether a particular thing was or was not detrimental to health. He would further suggest that words should be inserted extending the clause to "the manufacturer for sale" as well as to the seller. The manufacturer had often a more intimate knowledge of the adulteration than the actual seller.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, it was not necessary to mention the manufacturer specially, because, as he manufactured for sale, he would be included in the general category of sellers.
MR. WISEsaid, he could not consent to the omission of the words "knowledge of such persons;" because those words meant a knowledge that the articles were sold for what they really were. He would call attention to an Act of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. relating to the preparing of flour and the making of bread in the metropolis. By that statute any baker might make bread of wheat, barley, oats, Indian corn, peas, beans, rice, or potatoes, or any of them; but there was an important proviso attached to that provision—namely, that in the case of wheaten flour being mixed with the other articles named, the baker was bound to put a large Roman "M" on each loaf, signifying that it was mixed. That was what he understood to be comprehended in the word "knowledge" in connection with such a matter.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that fearing that he might endanger the passing of the Bill if he sought to make it more stringent, he would withdraw his first Amendment for expunging the words "the knowledge of such persons."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLIVErepeated that he had no objection to the first portion of the clause, which was not likely to be attended with any great effect; but he could not consent to the adoption of that portion of the clause which related to the warranty.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he wished to amend the clause, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. E. James), by inserting the words "injurious to health," instead of the words "calculated to injure health."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it rather hard upon the House that the Government, having such a bad opinion as the Under-Secretary of State had just expressed of this legislation, should, nevertheless, permit it to go on. Sanitary questions were a fertile source of contradictory swearing on the part of medical men and other witnesses, and a notable instance of this might be found among the numerous complaints made before magistrates against the keepers of pigsties.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he hoped the Under-Secretary of State would take the sense of the Committee whether they should go on with the clause or not. If, as that hon. Gentleman thought, the clause would be useless or inoperative, it would be only wasting time to discuss it word by word.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn, because it would be quite impossible to act upon it. In innumerable shop windows in that metropolis they saw "pure unadulterated gin" advertised, and yet everybody knew that the article did not answer the description thus given of it.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he would remind the Committee that if this clause were rejected the whole Bill would fall to the ground. He thought that the Government ought really to state their intentions. If they objected to the Bill, the fairest course would have been to oppose the second reading. It was remarkable that the name of a Member of the Government (Mr. Villiers) appeared on the back of the Bill.
MR. CLIVEsaid, he did not object to the first part of the clause, because he believed it to be inoperative. He would not object, in cases where a conviction under the criminal law could now be obtained before a jury, to give power to magistrates to deal with such cases.
LORD EDWARD HOWARDthought this was especially the time for such a

2039
Bill, when we were about to admit nearly all articles freely into this country. If the Bill were abandoned, it must be taken that all attempts to prevent adulteration in food in this country would fail. If this, the third Bill introduced after the labours during two years of a Committee, were rejected, he could only say, God help the poor.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the argument of the Under-Secretary of State was a curious one. He would ask him whether he would permit a man to be tried for murder before a magistrate?
MR. HANKEYsaid, that with a view to stop the further progress of a measure which he considered impracticable, he would move that the chairman should leave the Chair.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he should resist the Motion. Nearly all who had spoken had admitted that the object of the Bill was a desirable one, and the only argument against it was that it was impracticable. He believed that in nearly every other country in Europe some such law prevailed, and he could not see why that which was practicable and useful in Paris and Brussels should be impracticable in London.
Motion negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he would then propose to substitute the word "or" for "and," so as to make the clause read, "pure or unadulterated."
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he could not understand the distinction between pure and unadulterated.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYproposed to omit the words "to the knowledge of such person" in the clause, so as to prevent persons from sheltering themselves under an assumed ignorance that the article they sold was adulterated.
MR. HARDYobjected to conferring upon two magistrates the power of deciding what amounted to a breach of warranty. Why ought they to distinguish between articles of food and other articles? In ordinary cases a jury was called in to decide between parties, and upon what principle ought they to confer jurisdiction upon magistrates with respect to the articles of food?
MR. AYRTONreplied that no difficulty was found in conferring powers upon magistrates to punish workmen for breach of a civil engagement with their employers. It was only fair, therefore, to give the
2040
workmen a turn, and deal out to them the same measure of justice as was dealt out to tradesmen—their employers. Let them, too, have the benefit of the same summary procedure. He thought there was reason to complain of the little assistance which the Government were rendering to the passing of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State appeared in his place only for the purpose of criticising the Bill and throwing difficulties in its way, when he ought rather to be dedicating the powers of his astute mind to their solution. After the decided opinion on the part of the House last Session, with reference to the objects of this Bill, he thought it would have been becoming in the Government if they had sought to give expression to that opinion.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he wished to express a hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham would consent to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully.)
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, that the words "with the knowledge of such persons" were really introduced for the protection of tradesmen. At the same time, he thought it possible their insertion might render the Bill harmless, and consequently inoperative. On the other hand, as a tradesman would be liable to be punished for a second offence, the plea of ignorance would only avail him once, and therefore he thought the clause had better stand as it was.
Amendment withdrawn.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 25: Majority 91.
Clause 2.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsuggested that it be postponed, and inasmuch as it implied the adoption of the 3rd and 4th, by which its machinery was to be carried out.
Clause postponed.
Clause 3.
MR. HARDYsaid, he wanted to know why the operation of the Bill was to be confined to the metropolis and towns while the rural districts were excluded.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, the reason was very plain, that he wished to discourage opposition to the Bill, the Bill being somewhat of an experiment, and for that reason also he had omitted reference to Ireland.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, in order that the Bill should be made to ex-

2041
tend to the rural districts, he would move the insertion of the words "Courts of Quarter Session in every county" before the words "in Town Councils of every municipal borough."
MR. AYRTONsaid, the Amendment proposed would not harmonize with the rest of the Bill as it stood.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, the words in question might be introduced in the report.
MR.MONSELLthought the Amendment an excellent one.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he would bring up his Amendment on the report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to move a verbal Amendment, in order to raise a question as to the appointment of two analysts for each district, to be paid out of the rates by the vestries. This was extremely objectionable. The analysts would give their certificates ex-parte. A poor man who bought 3d. worth of ginger would have to pay 2s. 6d. for a certificate; and, moreover, the tradesman would be thereupon subject to a penalty. Besides, the Bill was merely optional with the borough or town to appoint analysts. Let offences be punished, but let them be punished in a legal and proper manner. Let there be proper evidence, and upon that evidence, but not otherwise, let the magistrates convict.
MR. CLIVEsaid, that, according to the provisions of the clause as it stood, there was first to be a public analyst; in the next place, the parties could employ analysts themselves; and in the third place, the magistrate could employ a skilled person God help the magistrate who might have to deal with the conflicting evidence of all the analysts. He thought the clause required alteration.
MR. JOHN LOCKEremarked that he did not think that Clause 2 was open to the various objections cited against it by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone. Analysts were not forced upon districts which did not care about eating or drinking nasty, unwholesome food. There ought to be some competent person who would give an opinion upon the quality of food. Neither would the proceedings be ex-parte, because under the second clause, notice must be given to venders so that they should have every opportunity of meeting the adverse testimony.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he had introduced the clause at the express desire of the Select Committee, who thought that the appointment of analysts was essential to the satisfactory and successful working of the Act.
LORD FERMOYsaid, that the mode of seeking a remedy under the Bill was very roundabout. The appointment of public analysts would be an inducement to men of that profession to go about looking for business, and that would lead to vexatious proceedings against tradesmen. If, however, they were found to be desirable, they could be appointed afterwards.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought the clause necessary for the protection of the poor, who could not afford to have their food and drink analyzed by private chemists.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYremarked, that he objected, not to analysts, but to the proposed mode of their appointment.
MR. STEUARTmentioned that the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland had appointed an officer to analyze adulterated manures. He saw no reason why their example should not be followed in the case of food and drink.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the vestrymen had the matter in their own hands. It was in favour of the tradesmen of the district that the vestries and ratepayers should have the appointment of analysts. The clause was merely permissive.
MR. ROEBUCKasked, for how long was the analyst to be appointed, or was he to become a fixed officer? Should they not fix a term?
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he contemplated the appointment of an officer who would be removable at the pleasure of those who had appointed him.
MR. PEACOCKEwas not in favour of the appointment of analysts in the manner proposed, as public inspectors were not to be appointed. He did not see how the clauses, as they stood, could be any protection to the poor man.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 58, Noes 34: Majority 24.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enforce uniformity in the use of ecclesiastical vestments by priests and deacons of the United Church of England and Ireland.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill of this sort? He thought Bills of this kind ought to emanate from a Committee of the whole Rouse.
  MR. SPEAKERstated that the Standing Order which required that Bills relating to religion should he introduced in a Committee of the whole House had been held to refer to religion in its spiritual relations, doctrines, professions, and observances, and not to the temporalities and government of the Church. Accordingly, the Church (Ireland) Temporalities Bill, and many others of a similar kind, had been brought forward for the first time in the House itself, and not in a Committee. The question, however, might certainly be open to some doubt. If the Bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Poole should be regarded as a measure relating to religious observances, it ought undoubtedly to be originated in a Committee; but on the other hand, if it should be held to be a matter of church government, designed for the purpose of enforcing decency and order, then, in his opinion, a preliminary Committee would not be necessary. That was a question for the consideration of the House, but for the reasons he had stated he should not think himself that the hon. Member for Poole was out of order in proposing to introduce his Bill in the House itself.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would be permitted to lay his Bill on the table. Nobody could be injured by the House being allowed to see it.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, if it were opposed it could not be brought in after a quarter to six o'clock.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enforce uniformity in the use of Ecclesiastical Vestments by Priests and Deacons of the United Church of England and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR and Lord FERMOY.
  Bill presented and read 1°.
  House adjourned at Five Minutes before Six o'clock.