§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Interpretation of words).
MR. SPENCER STANHOPEsaid, that water was to be considered as associated with food, and should be subject to analysis. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 21, after "drugs," to insert "or water."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Description of offences.
§ Clause 3 (Prohibition of the mixing of injurious ingredients, and of selling the same).
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, the omission of the word "knowingly," on the ground that if it were necessary in order to obtain a conviction to prove that a 1264 vendor of adulterated articles knew they were adulterated, it would be impossible to obtain a conviction. He thought that the framers of the Bill, by the use of the words, had left a door open for persons charged with offences against it to escape in certain circumstances in relation to the evidence.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the hon. Gentleman opposite should have directed his observations to a subsequent part of the clause, and not to that, the first part of it. As the first part of the clause would impose a punishment of six months in case a person permitted articles injurious to health to be bought from him, it was only reasonable that the practice of the criminal law should, to a certain extent, be followed, and that a guilty knowledge should be proved against him before convicting him.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought his hon. Friend was right in asking for the first "knowingly" to be left out, but he would preserve the second "knowingly." He could not understand how anybody could be discovered to have been guilty of adulteration, unless it could be proved that he had knowingly done so.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that magistrates were always tender with a man who broke the law from ignorance, and he would keep the word "knowingly" where it was in the Bill. That was the spirit of our laws.
§ MR. W. GORDONsaid, he was of opinion that the onus of proving his innocence should be thrown upon a tradesman who mixed one thing with another so as to be injurious to health.
§ MR. FORSYTHwould retain the word "knowingly." The House did not wish to punish offences committed accidentally. The very essence of the offence which it was desired to put down was, that the person who sold these adulterated goods should knowingly and wilfully do so.
§ MR. FIELDENpredicted that the Act would be quite inoperative, if the word "knowingly" were retained.
§ MR. GREGORYcontended that if a mixture was made of various ingredients and sold as another article, that might be held to be done knowingly, and the retention of the word was unnecessary.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the argument of the hon. Member supplied the strongest ground for striking out the word. The accidental tradesman would 1265 be sufficiently protected by the clause; but the word "knowingly" would enable a trader to escape conviction when he ought to be convicted.
§ MR. VILLIERSthought the Committee ought to know that the Bill was regarded with great suspicion by the public generally throughout the country, because it weakened the security which a former Act was intended to give against the practices and usages of trade, from which they had suffered so much. The general impression was that a few years ago a Bill was introduced which seemed to reach the root of the evil; but the present Bill went quite in the other direction, and all sorts of excuses would be made that the tradesman had procured the adulterated article from some one else. If the Committee were in earnest in putting down adulteration, they ought not to insert these unnecessary words.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought that the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the original Act. The clause exactly followed the language of the old law, except that it used the word "knowingly" instead of "wilfully."
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, it was important the word "knowingly" should be taken out, because it gave a wrong impression in regard to the wish of the Committee. If the word were omitted, it was by no means likely that an innocent man would be convicted.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that an Act of this kind in Dublin had been obstructed for several years by the insertion of this word "knowingly." The City analyst again and again brought the vendors of "sweetstuff's" before the magistrates; but they were always able to throw the onus back upon the manufacturers, and the children continued for some years to be poisoned, until an alteration of the Act could be obtained. He warned the Committee that if the word "knowingly" were left in the clause it would obstruct the operation of the Act in the same way.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the discussion was proceeding on the basis that adulteration was general, whereas the Committee of which he had been a Member came to a very different conclusion. The fact was, there was very little adulteration in this country since the adoption of low tariffs, inasmuch as it did not pay. He was, therefore, opposed to making the law so strict that magistrates 1266 would not convict under it. Under the existing law much hardship had been inflicted upon traders. The Bill might be confined to farm produce, for the two great articles which were the subjects of adulteration were milk and butter.
§ MR. BOORDhoped that if the word "knowingly" were retained, it would be explained and defined. He did not see how it was possible for a tradesman to adulterate the articles which he sold unless he did so knowingly.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the first "knowingly" was not required in the clause. If a person mixed deleterious materials with food, he must be taken to do so with the intent to adulterate. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the general feeling of the Committee and accept the Amendment.
§ SIR HENRY PEEKconcurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that there was not so great an amount of adulteration practised as some hon. Members seemed to think, and that opinion was borne out by the Report of the Select Committee. He would like to know how people in this country would get their noyeau, if the use of prussic acid was altogether prohibited.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
MR. SULLIVANmoved, as an Amendment, in line 6, after "material," the insertion of the words, "whereby to reduce its value as an article of commerce." The effect would be to prevent the adulteration of food by substances which were not poisonous—such as of milk by water.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman alluded were sufficiently provided for by Clause 5.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to omit in line 8 the word "knowingly," referring to the sale of adulterated drugs, and remarked that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had told them that if they made the law too stringent magistrates would not convict; but if they made it too lax they could not convict. Ignorance could, in no case, be held as an excuse for the violation of the law, and it was 1267 more important to omit this word here than in the former case.
§ MR. FORSYTHsaid, that it would be extremely hard upon shopkeepers if the word "knowingly" were omitted from the clause, because they would in that case be liable to a fine of £50 for any improper ingredient which might be introduced into an article which they received from the wholesale manufacturer abroad.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would not go to a division. How was it possible a village shopkeeper could absolutely know whether an article he bought of the wholesale dealers was adulterated or not, and to subject him to a penalty of £50 for selling an adulterated article unknowingly was somewhat unreasonable. He did not think they could in justice strike out this word.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved that the word must be retained.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped hon. Members would not go on libelling and saying such hard things of a large number of their constituents who were just as honest as they were. He opposed the Amendment. The Committee had ascertained that almost the only articles adulterated were milk and butter.
§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, that the Bill was not brought forward to deal with the honest, but with the dishonest dealer, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member for Glasgow would divide on the question.
§ DR. C. CAMERONsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. W. E. Forster) he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, the insertion in lieu of the word "of," of the words "not exceeding" with a view of leaving it to the discretion of the magistrates whether a lesser penalty than £50 might not be inflicted.
§ SIR HENRY PEEKagreed with the Amendment. He had been amazed at the magnitude of the penalty. A man might kick his wife to death for less.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKspoke from experience on the folly of inserting large fines. He considered a penalty of £50 excessive.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the penalty was to be imposed on persons who knowingly poisoned articles of food consumed largely by children and others.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreminded the hon. Baronet the Member for Fins-bury, that under the 19th clause of the Bill, power was given for the mitigation of fines imposed under the Act.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEsupported the Amendment.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury would persist in his Amendment, as the clause referred to by the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the case.
MR. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, he did not think the penalty named in the clause as by any means too severe, regard being had to the fact that the offence must be proved to have been knowingly committed.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not accept the interpretation given by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh of the 19th clause, but was still willing to adopt the Amendment. He would remind the Committee that the six months' imprisonment was retained.
§ MR. HENLEYthought that penalties might be cumulative for many acts of adulteration, which might cost the offender £150 instead of £50.
§ Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
§ MR. O'SULLIVAN,in moving, as an Amendment, to add at end of clause—"No person shall be permitted to mix, colour, or stain any food while in Her Majesty's Custom House Stores," said, that a practice existed of adulterating Irish whisky with a coarse and deleterious Scotch spirit. Dundalk was celebrated for its manufacture of whisky, and some persons finding that out, had availed themselves of that reputation, and were importing from Scotland a spirit called "silent spirit" to mix with it. That spirit was not made from pure malt, but from any sort of rubbish that could be distilled, and being bought at 2s. 8d. a gallon, of course, the genuine article, which was worth 6s., could be easily undersold. What was scarcely fit to be given to pigs would make good spirit of this kind. There were some distillers in Scotland, and a few also in England and in Ireland, who produced 1269 this spirit with Coffy's patent still, and from any sort of rubbish, no matter how inferior. This spirit when imported was used in the Custom House stores for the adulteration of whisky, to the risk of the health and even the sanity of the people. He once asked a friend of his to try this liquor. He did not tell him what sort of stuff it was, and so he drank it under the impression that it was a genuine article. Seing he made a wry face over it, he asked him what he thought of the spirit, and he replied that when drinking it he felt as if a torchlight procession were going down his throat. There was no doubt about the matter, that doctoring shops were set up with the sanction and connivance of the Customs authorities in Her Majesty's bonded stores. In some of the vats in Dublin containing thousands of gallons of mixed spirits there was not one gallon of Dublin whisky, although it was sold as the pure and genuine article. [Laughter.] This might be for hon. Members a laughable matter; but before they laughed they ought to recollect that a large portion of the revenue of the country was raised from the duty on whisky. Nine of the vats to which he had already alluded contained 23,934 gallons, of which 10,849 gallons were silent whisky, and not more than 1,660 Dublin whisky, the remainder being composed of different country whiskies. The permit issued by the Customs authorities gave no information, or next to none. It was the same as that for sending out the genuine article, and all it said was that the whisky was plain, ex vat, but it did not mention what the vat contained. Three-fourths of the misery, evil, madness, and destitution caused by this wretched concoction ought to be placed at the door of the Government. He believed that the object in allowing this fraud to be perpetrated was to destroy that article of Irish industry, the manufacture of pure Irish whisky. ["No, no," and laughter.] That was no laughing matter. The Irish woollen trade had been destroyed by an Act of Parliament; but in the present case the same thing was being done by more subtle means—namely, by a deception on the public. The injustice was one which, although not having any pecuniary interest in any Irish distillery, he was determined to protest against and to expose until the Government inter- 1270 fered and absolutely forbade its perpetration.
§ MR. M. BROOKSbelieved that a quantity of German spirits made from potatoes was also sent into Dublin, and then re-exported to this country under the sanction of a permit as genuine Irish whisky, and recommended in The Wine Trade Review as pure unblended spirits. If beer from Burton came to London, and was here mixed with an inferior article, as was the case with Irish whisky, he believed that complaints would not be made in vain to the Board of Customs. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Limerick pressed his Amendment to a division, he should certainly support him.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he considered the matter they were discussing as altogether outside the Bill. If the question was as regarded mixing whisky with any article injurious to health, that was already provided for by the Bill; but to take advantage of this clause to prohibit the mixing of any articles of any kind in the Custom House would be to go beyond the provisions of the Bill. The words would apply to the mixing of old sherry, for instance, with a wine of younger vintage. Where an injury was done by mixing Irish whisky with spirits of a deleterious character and destructive of health, the Bill provided for such a case. If the hon. Member for the county of Limerick and the hon. Member for Dublin did not press the Amendment, but came to him, he would consult with the practical officers of the Customs, and endeavour to see what satisfactory settlement of the question could be arrived at. He should be glad to have an opportunity of arranging the matter so as to prevent further complaints.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the consumers got no information that the whisky was blended, as there was only the letter "B" rudely scratched on the casks. He would accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. BUTTthought the matter was within the scope of the Bill, but would advise his hon. Friend to accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer, which seemed to him (Mr. Butt) to be fair, and calculated to meet the case, on condition, however, that he should not be put to the test of tasting any of this whisky. 1271 If nothing could be done, the Amendment could be again brought up on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Prohibition of the mixing of drugs with injurious ingredients, and of selling the same).
§ DR. C. CAMERONproposed, as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 17 and 18, to omit the words, "of a nature injurious to health" in the case of drugs, which might be adulterated to an extent very prejudicial to the health and even to the life of a patient, by means of substances which were not injurious to health. Besides, chemists were not likely to do anything ignorantly, and therefore there could be no hardship in compelling them to sell their drugs in a state of purity.
§ SIR HENRY PEEKopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was not always possible for druggists to obtain articles in a perfectly pure state.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsupported the Amendment.
§ MR. GREGORYobserved, that the object of the Amendment was provided for in the 6th clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to substitute for the Amendment the words, "so as injuriously to affect the quality of the drug."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On the Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Amendment made in lines, 17 and 18, by striking out "of a nature injurious to health," and substituting "so as injuriously to affect the quality and potency of such drug."
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, the omission of the word "knowingly," on the ground that the persons who would be affected by this clause would not be ignorant shopkeepers, but chemists and druggists, who ought to be better informed as to the nature and quality of the articles they sold.
§ MR. MUNDELLAopposed the Amendment.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he was apprehensive if the Committee adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh University the result would be confusion and embarrassment.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had received representations from the Pharmaceutical Society, who could scarcely be supposed to desire the sale of adulterated drugs, against the principle of the Amendment. He therefore hoped the proposal would not be pressed.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment in deference to what appeared to be the will of the House, and not because he had changed his view.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Prohibition of the sale of articles of food and of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and quality. Exceptions).
§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 22, leave out all after "shall," and insert—
Knowingly sell any article of food or drug which is not of the quality demanded by the purchaser, nor shall any person abstract from any article of food or drug any part thereof, so as to impair its quality, with intent that the same may be sold in its impaired state, as being in its unimpaired state, or knowingly sell any article of food or drug so impaired under a penalty of twenty pounds for a first offence and of fifty pounds for every subsequent offence:Provided that no person shall be liable to prosecution under this Act for selling any compounded drug prepared in accordance with the written prescription of a registered medical practitioner, submitted for that purpose to the seller, or with the regulations prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia issued by the General Medical Council, or with a basis to be laid down by the Pharmaceutical Society, or the Privy Council, or with the provisions of 'The Pharmacy Act, 1868:'Provided also, That no person shall be liable to prosecution under this Act for selling any article of food or drug, mixed with any material not injurious to health, or impaired as aforesaid, who shall, at the time of delivering such article of food or drug, supply to the person receiving the same notice of its being so mixed or impaired, by means of a label, legibly and distinctly written or printed, stating the mode and extent in and to which such article of food or drug has been mixed or impaired.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped his noble Friend would not press the Amendment.
§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEYconsented to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL BERESFORDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "Where" to end of line 29, and insert— 1273
Where any matter or ingredient the presence of which is harmless when mixed therewith for the purpose of preserving it.
§ MR. VILLIERSopposed the Amendment.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsupported it. Sugar was mixed with cocoa constantly for the purpose of improving it for immediate consumption.
§ Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "or of improving its appearance."
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsuggested that the Amendment should be amended by the addition of the words, "unless such matter is used to conceal an inferior quality of the article."
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. CLARE READ, Amendment made so as to make the clause apply to propietary medicines.
§ MR. SANDFORDmoved, as an Amendment, to add at end of clause—
And he it further provided that in the case where a person may be fined for the sale of an article of food or drug to the prejudice of a purchaser as a foresaid, without knowing them to he of a different nature, substance, or quality from that demanded, then in that case he may recover his costs with damages from the dealer from whom he may have received such article of food or drug.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion until the Committee came to consider the 24th clause. There was no machinery provided for the recovery of the amount, and therefore the retail dealer had no better case against the wholesale dealer than that which he had under the present law.
§ MR. SANDFORDsaid, he had no objection to add words to that effect to his Amendment.
§ MR. MUNDELLApreferred the question should be dealt with under Clause 24. The wholesale dealer would be placed at a disadvantage, unless it was provided that the article was sold in the same condition in which the retail 1274 dealer received it from the wholesale dealer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.