HC Deb 14 March 1860 vol 157 cc543-8

House in Committee according to Order.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4. Power to Justices to have articles of food and drink analyzed in cases where complaints were brought before them.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, it appeared to him that this clause was not necessary. They ought not to make exceptions to the general law of evidence. He would propose to omit the words which stated that the substances which were produced in any court of justice should be taken for what they were called without evidence being required to prove the contrary.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

objected to any alteration in the clause.

Amendment negatived.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the question was, what would be considered adulterated articles and not pure articles. How was discovery to be effected without the aid of an analyst? And then take the article of bread, which was no doubt mixed with potatoes and other things not injurious to health. Would that be adulteration? No doubt under the Bill it would be an offence, and the maker subjected to a heavy penalty. But by what process would the analyst determine whether bread was adulterated or pure? He had received' a deputation of bakers, and they said the Bill would be injurious to their trade, and that they would not be able to exist under its operation. A statute was already in existence which in all ordinary cases was sufficiently calculated for the protection of the public, and it was for the Committee to consider whether the Bill might not be too general in its terms. The principle now recognized in all transactions between buyer and seller was that of caveat emptor, and he thought it ought not to be departed from.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

said, the bakers were sufficiently protected. If they did not warrant their bread to be pure and unadulterated, they would be safe. There was a difference of opinion whether alum did deteriorate bread or not. If tradesmen held out to the public that they were selling pure articles, and they were adulterated, they ought to be prosecuted for the offence.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

instanced the article of mustard for the purpose of showing that it was necessary sometimes to mix another article with the one to be sold, in order to render it vendible.

MR. AYRTON

said, the words "expressly warranted" had been introduced into the Bill to obviate possible objections. The measures only proposed to deal with those cases in which persons warranted their goods as being pure and unadulterated. There was already a statute which applied to bread, and the bakers were the only people who could not complain of this Bill. A person was liable to be transported for obtaining money under false pretences. Then, why should not tradesmen be liable to punishment when they cheated the poor people? There were no difficulties in the way of legislation excepting those which existed in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

MR. ROEBUCK

believed there were already a dozen statutes which were inefficient for the purpose of protection against adulteration. If they told the people the law would protect them against fraud and it did not, they did a very great mischief. He believed the buyer was the best person to protect himself, and so soon as a man was found to be selling impure and bad articles he lost his customers. The simple thing the Committee had to consider was, whether it was wise to spend their time in useless legislation.

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, the Bill was founded on the Report of a Committee, which had made careful and extended inquiry into this subject; and he thought it was clear the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the evidence taken before them. The application of the Bill was confined to articles which were necessaries of life, and it appeared that there was not a single article of necessary and general consumption which was not adulterated. The poor had no remedy. They could not prosecute the tradesmen of the village or town, with whom they were obliged to deal. They were compelled to take the food as they could get it impure and adulterated. All that was required was the power of publishing the names of the adulterators. That would be a protection to the people. There was no country in Europe which did not protect its subjects from adulterated food, and everybody knew that on the Continent articles were much better than in England. He was sorry to say that there was no country in which things were so much adulterated as in England. In America there was a strict law against adulteration, and no drugs from England were allowed to be received before being examined by a properly qualified inspector; and the appointment of such an officer had become necessary in consequence of the bad quality of the articles imported from this country.

MR. PEACOCKE

said, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) went against the principle of the Bill. He objected to the Bill because of the difficulty of determining what was adulteration. Certainly there was a difficulty in particular instances, but it was not insuperable. It would be decided by practice, and magistrates would necessarily be guided to a considerable extent by previous decisions. The hon. Member for Sheffield said the poor could protect themselves; but the fact was, that practically, neither the rich nor the poor could protect themselves. Take the case of Cayenne pepper. Evidence was given before the Committee that that which was sold as Cayenne pepper was not Cayenne pepper at all. What remedy had the purchaser? There was no law on the subject. As the Bill stood at present the interests of the vendor were only too well provided for, as he could not be punished unless he expressly guaranteed the authenticity of what he sold.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, he did not wish to interfere with the maxim caveat emptor. Under the present law, no doubt, the buyer was left to take care of himself, but the procedure was so cumbrous and expensive, that there was, in effect, no protection at all. With regard to mixture and adulteration, the Bill did not interfere with mixture. A man might mix what he pleased with an article, and if he did not sell it as a pure article, the Bill did not touch him; but if he did sell it as a pure article, he (Mr. Scholefleld) thought the House would, agree with him that he ought to be punished.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Power to appoint analysts).

MR. ROEBUCK

inquired whether an analyst was to be appointed in every little village in England, and how the expense was to be borne?

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, it was not as yet decided how those details were to be carried out.

MR. HALIBUBTON

said, he wanted to know who would analyse the analyst. Would he be subjected to a competitive examination, or appointed by the judge or by the magistrates at quarter sessions? There were not, he believed, half-a-dozen persons in the country fit to be analysts. Those who were examined at Dr. Smethurst's trial all contradicted one another, and involved the case in such inextricable confusion that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was obliged to discharge the prisoner as the only practicable solution of the difficulty. He wished to warn the House against over-legislation, which had produced the greatest evils in both the United States and the Colonies. It was said there was but little adulteration in America. Did they never hear of wooden nutmegs? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appeared under some uncertainty with regard to the nature of a mixture; and in reply he would only point to the Government of which he was a member, and say—si signum quæris circumspice.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

expressed his approval of the Bill, and did not believe any particular difficulty would be experienced with regard to its operation.

Clause 6 agreed to.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

stated that the Bill did not realize in practice what it professed to accomplish. Its real effect would be to prevent persons from warranting what they sold, which would by no means prevent adulteration. The real difficulty to be overcome was that poor persons bound themselves by a system of credit.

Clause 6, as were also Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 11, (Bill not to extend to Scotland or Ireland.)

MR. KER

said, he would move the omission of the clause. If the measure were a good one for England, he did not see why it should not be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, that the only reason why he did not propose the extension of the Bill to Ireland and Scotland was that a different machinery would be required for putting it in force in those countries. But he would be perfectly ready to assent to any proposal which would provide the requisite means of carrying out such, an enlargement of the measure.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 88: Majority 13.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he thought there must have been some misconception in the minds of several hon. Members who had voted in the last division. Every Irish Member was, he believed, in favour of the measure being applied to Ireland, and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland and the promoter of the Bill would take counsel together to provide the requisite machinery.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he voted in the majority against extending the Bill to Scotland, but he must say that if the Bill were good for England it was good for Scotland, and he suggested that the promoter of the Bill and the Lord Advocate should, before the Bill was read a third time, agree on a clause to adapt the Bill to Scotland.

Clause 2, which had been postponed,

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he wished to point out that, under the terms of the clause, there would be no protection for any one who bought unwarily a bad article. The purchaser would have to prove that he gave notice to the seller that he bought with the design to have the article analyzed, and that he afforded the seller an opportunity of accompanying him to the analyst.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, that protection was necessary for the seller.

MR. BLAKE

said, he hoped the Bill would be extended to Ireland. Since the increase of duty on spirits whiskey was much adulterated in that country. Persons who frequented some public-houses were more affected than others. He had at his own expense bought a pint of whiskey, and a celebrated analyst to whom he sent it assured him that, if a man drank such stuff for twelve months, he would at the end of that period lose his reason.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he wanted to know whether the giving an opportunity to accompany the purchaser to the analyst meant providing conveyance for the seller? If the analyst lived ten miles off the seller could not be expected to walk.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 16: Majority, 107.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

House adjourned at Six o'clock.