Commons Sitting of 19 February 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Adulteration of Food and Drugs* [62].
Committee—Report—Common Law Procedure Act (1852) Amendment* [33].

THE MAGISTRACY—APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that recently in the city of Durham and in the boroughs of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Tyne-mouth, Sunderland, Stockton-on-Tees, and Middlesborough, forty-three new

553
magistrates have been appointed; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that thirty-four out of the forty-three gentlemen appointed belong to the Conservative party; and that in some cases, as at Middlesborough the appointments were made without the knowledge of the local corporate and magisterial authorities; and as at Newcastle and Tyne-mouth, while influential gentlemen of liberal opinions were recommended for appointment by Members of both political parties in the Town Councils of these boroughs, their names were set aside; and, if he is prepared to lay upon the Table the Correspondence that has taken place respecting these several appointments?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, since the Question was put on the Paper, having nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates, as the House must be well aware, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor, and had been informed by him that since April, 1874, additions to the Bench had been made for Newcastle, Durham, Sunderland, Tynemouth, Middlesborough, and Stockton-on-Tees. Those appointments had been—for Newcastle 13, Durham four, Sunderland eight, Tynemouth eight, Middlesborough four, and Stockton-on-Tees six. In all those cases the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that additional magistrates were required, and that the gentlemen selected were in all respects eligible. It was a misapprehension to suppose that magistrates in boroughs were appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of municipal corporations, or of any other public body or individual. The responsibility of such appointments rested solely with the Lord Chancellor, who was, however, always ready to receive and give full consideration to any communication made to him from municipal corporations, or other public bodies or individuals, as to the state of the Bench. In the cases referred to, he had received and examined all the recommendations of the town councils, mayors, or magistrates, when any such recommendations were made. They were made in the cases of Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Stockton-on-Tees. In the case of Stockton, all the names recommended by the mayor and the magistrates were appointed; in the case of Newcastle all those recommended by the magistrates
554
and the town council were appointed except one; and in the case of Tynemouth all who were recommended by the town council were appointed except one. The Lord Chancellor could not undertake to say to what political parties the gentlemen appointed belonged; and it was not the practice to lay on the Table any correspondence as to magisterial appointments.
MR. JOSEPH COWENgave Notice that on an early day he would call the attention of the House to those appointments.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE SHIP "MARY ANN."—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it be correct that after receiving a report from the Board of Trade Surveyors at Hull that the ship "Mary Ann" was unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life, an order was subsequently made that the vessel might proceed to sea provided the owner would execute a bond and sail in her himself; if so, what guarantee this gave for the safety of the crew if the ship were unsea-worthy?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The case is before one of the Superior Courts; I therefore abstain from stating anything affecting the points in dispute. I must, however, say that the hon. Gentleman has not quite correctly stated the facts of the case, which are these—It was at the owner's request that the Mary Ann was allowed to proceed to Sunderland for repairs, the owner having no means to get the work done at Hull. He requested to be allowed to proceed with her himself, and to give a bond of £500 to secure his going to Sunderland. The Board of Trade assented, and imposed the further conditions that he should start early on a fine morning, and be provided with a lifeboat, and should go in tow.

CRIMINAL LAW—COMMITTAL OF A BLIND BOY.—QUESTION.
MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, immediately subsequent to the imprisonment of the blind boy John M'Cracken, by order of the Mayor of Drogheda, for reading the Bible in the street, his father was committed to prison, for fourteen

555
days, without the option of a fine, for expressing his dissatisfaction at the treatment his son received; whether this was done by order of the Mayor; whether the sentence was afterwards erased from the charge book; and, whether the elder M'Cracken has since been suffering from severe illness, and still remains in prison?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, when the boy M'Cracken was arrested under the circumstances he had stated the other evening, his father molested the police, assailed them with considerable abuse, and, it was said, took up a stone for the purpose of throwing at them. He was therefore charged before the Mayor, and committed to prison for 14 days. That sentence, he believed, was not afterwards erased from the charge-book; and, after inquiry made of the medical officer whether the prisoner was suffering from severe illness, he was informed that he was suffering from a slight ailment, for which light employment would be beneficial, and that appropriate medicine had been given to him. There was, he believed, a slight error in the conviction. The question had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown in Dublin; and, of course, if it was found that there had been such an error in the conviction, the prisoner would be released. Neither the prisoner, nor anyone on his behalf, had memorialized the authorities.

INDIA—LEAVE OF UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been come to in regard to the new rules affecting the leave of uncovenanted Civil Servants in India, whoso cases so far as they belonged to the Bengal List, remained undecided last year, until further Communications should be received from the Government of India?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No further communication from the Government of India, in reference to the leave rules of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants, has been received at the India Office up to the 12th of January. Upon that day a telegram was sent to the Government of India, calling their attention to the fact, and in reply we were informed that a despatch upon the subject
556
would leave India by the next mail.

PEACE PRESERVATION ACTS (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Yesterday there appeared upon the Paper a Notice that the Chief Secretary would call the attention of the House to the statutes generally known as the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Acts, and move for leave to introduce a Bill. At his part of the House it was impossible to gather what had passed on that subject on the previous evening, and he found no record of it on the Votes. He therefore wished to ask, what course the Government intended to pursue on the matter?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was obliged to the noble Lord for giving him an opportunity of stating his intention to the House. He intended to call the attention of the House to that subject on Monday, the 1st of March.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would give Notice that on Tuesday next he would move for a Return of the names of the persons arrested in the county of Westmeath under the powers of the Peace Preservation Acts of 1870 and 1873, showing the time of detention of each prisoner, the names of those who were still in custody, together with copies of any memorials, with the signatures attached thereto, which had been presented for the release of any of those prisoners; and that on Monday he would ask the Chief Secretary whether that Return could be obtained in time for the Motion which the right hon. Baronet intended to make on the 1st of March?

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

FACTORIES ACTS EXTENSION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. W. HOLMS,in rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain and report how far it is expedient and practicable to extend the provisions of the Factories (Health of Women, &c.)

  557
  Act, 1874, to manufactures and occupations other than textile, and further to consider and report upon the consolidation of all existing Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts,"
  said: I am not sure that I quite comprehend the scope of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, "when, last evening, in replying to a Question by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant), he intimated that the Government proposed to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Factory Acts; nor am I certain whether he proposes to embrace in that inquiry all that is covered by my Resolution. I will, therefore, as briefly and as clearly as I can, state my reasons for asking that a Select Committee be appointed as proposed in the Resolution. From a Return made in 1871—the last Return on the subject—I find that there are 1,258,000 women, children, and young persons under Government protection so far as regards Factory and Workshop Acts. By passing the Factory Act of 1874, the principle was affirmed that on sanitary and educational grounds it is the duty of the State to interfere for the protection of children and young persons. The Factory Act referred to embraced only textile factories, in which 667,000 women, children, and young persons were employed. Under that Act children can only be employed at 10 years of age as half-timers, and subsequently for full time at the ago of 14. There is a provision that a child who has passed a certain educational standard may begin at 13 years of age to work full time. Of the 591,000 women, young persons, and children who were not affected by the Act of last year, 210,000 were under Factory Acts passed prior to 1874. Their condition is very different. Children are allowed to work half-time at 8 years of age, and full time at 13, whatever may be the state of their education. Those factories are limited by law to work 60 hours a-week; but, practically—owing to certain modifications and exemptions—they may work on an average 63 or 66 hours. It cannot be urged that the occupation of those engaged in them is more healthy, or their toil less severe, than that of those engaged in textile factories. Mr. Redgrave, one of the Chief Inspectors of Factories, in a recent Report, says—
  558
  "The experience I have had of the nature of work in all kinds of factories and workshops is that old factories—that is, textile factories—show abundant proof of the fostering care of Government, and that occupations infinitely more unhealthy, and labour twice as hard physically, are to be found in the factories brought under inspection by the Factory Acts of 1864 and 1867."
  And adds—
  "I know of no cotton factory in which young persons have to endure a temperature of 120 degrees as they have in the stove of a pottery; I know no labour more severe than that of a fustian cutter; or I know of no occupation more deadly than that of a millstone cutter."
  The remaining 381,000 were under the Workshop Act; but, as the Returns in respect to workshops are very incomplete, I believe it is a moderate estimate to take the number as equal to those employed in textile factories. What are the hours of labour? Nominally the same as in factories, but practically much longer. The work may be performed at any time between 6 in the morning and 8 in the evening by children, and from 5 till 9 by adults. The consequence is, that unless the Factory Inspector carefully watches the time at which each individual begins, he cannot with any certainty enforce the law. Children may therefore be employed long hours without fear of detection. Then, again, under the present Act it is extremely difficult to tell what is a workshop and what is a factory. For instance, you may have a small machine-making establishment with two boys and two men employed; and if driven by steam-power this is a factory. In the adjoining premises, under the same roof, driven by the same steam-engine, employing 40 children and five men, another establishment engaged in making buttons is in the eye of the law a workshop. In the former, whore there are two boys, they must be registered; but that is unnecessary in the latter. In the former, there must be a medical certificate of the ago of each boy employed—in the latter, nothing of the sort. In the former, the boys can demand two full and eight half-holidays a-year—in the latter, the boys cannot claim even Christmas or Good Friday. In the former, the machinery must be fenced—in the latter, there is no such provision. In the former, sanitary regulations must be carefully observed. The factory must be clean, well-ventilated,

  559
  and the walls whitewashed. As regards workshops there are no such provisions. What makes the absurdity of the position more apparent is, that you find men employed in the same trade under different laws. A brickwork with 50 men and one boy employed is a factory. Another brickwork where 40 children and young persons are employed and only five men is a workshop. It is unjust alike to employer and employed to have laws so different applied to industries the conditions of which are identical. I will now call attention to the conditions which have arisen since the passing of the Education Act of 1870. Last Session the Vice President of Council on Education said in this House—
  "That in most large towns compulsory bye-laws had been adopted, and it was unanimously determined that a child should be kept at school till the age of 10."
  The Education Act of 1870 gives no power to interfere with children employed in factories or workshops; these children being under the educational clauses of their several Acts. So far as the Act of 1874 is concerned, it is in harmony with the Act of 1870. Children cannot work in factories until the age of 10, and they must attend efficient schools sanctioned by the Privy Council. The position of children employed in work-shops is very different; they are only required to attend school 10 hours per week—that may be at any time during the week; and if they are absent from work during one day in the week, they cannot be compelled to attend school during that week. What is the consequence of this irregularity? Good schools will not receive those children; and Mr. Redgrave has, in one of his Reports, made the melancholy confession—
  "We are driven to accept mere apologies for schools, and greatly to our dissatisfaction to countenance what is after all a mere mockery of education."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) justly characterized the Workshop Act as an Act for preventing education. There is another reason why we should have no unnecessary delay in legislation—it is an undoubted fact that the measure passed last year is not national but sectional in its character. In Blackburn there are 17,302 women and children and young persons engaged
  560
  in textile manufactures under the Act of 1874, while there are only 1,009 otherwise employed, and therefore exempt from its provisions. In Sheffield there are 12,236 employed in the industries of that town, but not one of them has the benefit of the Act of 1874. I have this morning received a letter from a well-known cotton-spinner in Bolton, a supporter, I believe, of the right hon. Member for South-west Lancashire, who writes that the consequence of the exemptions of brick-works, paper works, &c, from the Factory Acts is, that children are sent to these trades because they can be employed one year younger than in textile factories, where they have often a difficulty in keeping the machinery going for want of children. The matter is made worse by the labour in these places being more severe than in cotton mills. If this anomaly is not removed by law, he says, there will be serious difficulty in getting hands for the cotton mills. It might be said that there had been no agitation in reference to this question. To some extent this was true, and the reason was obvious. Last year the Government led this House and the country to expect that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject as soon as possible; but as that has been delayed, the consequence is, that in many parts of the country there is already a certain amount of agitation. In my own neighbourhood, large meetings have been held in connection with bleach-works, and I believe the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) has a Bill to bring before the House, with a view to give those employed in bleach-works the benefit of the Act of 1874. I think it not at all unlikely that we shall have hon. Members introducing Bills for many trades which have not the benefit of that Act. They may urge—and I do not see how you can resist the argument—that what is good for children and young persons employed in cotton factories cannot be bad for children and young persons employed in glass or iron works, and that what is fair for a cotton spinner cannot be unfair for an iron founder. We have already had too much piecemeal legislation in connection with our factory system. There is nothing more to be deprecated than continually re-opening up this question, and I believe if the country is assured.

  561
  that we are to have a full inquiry with a view to legislation, the result will be awaited with patience. I come now to the last portion of the Resolution—that relating to consolidation, the importance of which can scarcely be overrated. Fortunately, there is no difficulty in proving its necessity. We have no fewer than 15 Factory and Workshop Acts, and so complicated are they with exemptions and modifications, and conflicting clauses, that they are very difficult to understand. The experience of the sub-Inspectors, some of whom are men of great educational acquirements, and of magistrates and Judges who have to make convictions, all tend to the conclusion that the sooner the present state of things is remedied the better. Lord Colonsay, the late Justice General of the Scotch Court of Session, gave it as his opinion that it would be a great assistance to those who had to administer the Factory Acts, if there was one consolidated statute. Mr. Fraser, the well-known author of The Law of Master and Servant, said these Acts refer to a class of the population whose labour and education they regulate, to whom clear directions are absolutely necessary, and yet a more confused jumble of legislative enactment does not exist in the Statute Book. Another authority which the House would receive with the highest respect, the Home Secretary himself, said, last Session that nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to bring before the House a measure for the consolidation of the whole of the Factory Acts. The task would be rendered comparatively easy if the two broad principles applied to the Act of 1874 were adopted. One was, that no child should be employed in a factory under the age of 10 years. The other was, that a child must be sent to an efficient school sanctioned by the Education Board. By the Act passed last year, the Home Secretary has shown that he is in favour of the policy of protecting children and young persons, a wise and beneficent policy, which, by making them stronger and better educated, must in the long run tend greatly to increase the wealth and prosperity of the country. I do not ask for hasty legislation; but I would urge on the House that, with the least possible delay, a question so deeply affecting alike employers and employed should be fairly,
  562
  fully, and calmly considered with a view to further legislation, and that laws, which are acknowledged to be in a state of confusion, should be consolidated and rendered intelligible. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain and report how far it is expedient and practicable to extend the provisions of the Factories (Health of Women, &c.) Act, 1874, to manufactures and occupations other than textile, and further to consider and report upon the consolidation of all existing Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts,"—(Mr. William Holms,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member, who had evidently a thorough understanding of the subject. When the question was before the House last year he (Mr. Cross) stated—at any rate he intended to state—that it was the intention of Government to take a broader view of the matter than was laid down in the Act of 1874, and to bring forward a measure for promoting the health and education of the children and young persons employed in other than textile manufactures. At that time he also stated that no one was more painfully aware than himself of the confusion into which the Factory Acts had fallen, and that he was determined to remedy the evil. To that statement he still adhered, and he hoped the hon. Member would credit him with an intention to carry out the policy then announced, although he had not moved in the matter so early in the Session. The amount of school attendance enforced at present was a mere shadow, and such a state of things was absolutely indefensible. Different rules prevailed in different trades, children were therefore employed in some trades much longer than in others, and the consequence was, that before legislation could be attempted it would be necessary to have full information upon the subject. Therefore, all the Government had yet done towards carrying out its declaration of last year was to consider what form the

  563
  inquiry had best take in order to lead to a satisfactory result. He had hinted last year that the Government would consent to the appointment of a Committee for that purpose, but further consideration had led them to the conclusion that a Royal Commission would be preferable. He would only say now that he was determined that all children employed in manufactures should, as soon as possible, have the benefit of as much education and enjoy such advantages of health as legislation could secure for them. With these two objects in view, the Commission would be appointed, and, having said this much, he hoped the hon. Member would not proceed with his Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexpressed the pleasure he felt at the course which the Government intended to pursue. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Holms) would feel that his object had been gained, and would not press the subject further. Although a Committee might, in some respects, have been advantageous, he cordially accepted the Home Secretary's proposal that the necessary information should be collected by a Royal Commission. He thought a Commission would be the most likely to furnish complete and exhaustive information.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was gratified at hearing that the Home Secretary would completely redeem his pledge of last year by the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into this subject. He (Mr. Mundella) believed the proposed legislation was just as essential in the interests of education as in the interests of health, and he had had the pleasure of introducing a deputation from school boards to the late Vice President, who represented to him that it was utterly impossible to obtain a fair standard of education while children were employed in workshops at 8 years of age. That was so, for one of the effects of the Education Act of 1870 had been to bring into existence a larger number of what were called "private adventure schools," but which were in reality schools of evasion. They were not under any inspection, there was not any register kept, and no instruction could be given to the children, since, in many instances, those who represented themselves as teachers did not know how to read or write. The children were
  564
  sent to those schools just as they might be put into any other house for a certain number of hours each day. They were schools established only for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the Workshops Act. Yet he was informed that in one of the largest towns of England, 20 per cent of the children were attending these schools. He was thankful that the Home Secretary was prepared to deal with the whole subject, and he trusted that when the Royal Commission had reported, he would have the courage to take up the question of juvenile labour in an effectual manner. If they enacted that no child should work until 10 years of age, and should until then attend an efficient school; and also that they should not pass to the category of full-time labourer until they had passed a certain standard of education, they would do much for the health of the children of the country, but more for their education, and would give satisfaction to most employers throughout the length and breadth of the land. Whatever interests might be represented in that House, he trusted hon. Members would all feel it to be their duty to secure a uniform good education to all the children in this country, whatever might be the employment in which they were engaged, and to protect their health as far as possible. He quite agreed in the policy of consolidation, and to show its necessity, he might mention that he was lately in the suburbs of a large town, and found that in one district no less than seven Acts of Parliament were in force—two relating to textile fabrics, three to workshops, and four to mines; but the brickyard and agricultural children were under no inspection whatever. In conclusion, he could only express the hope that the hon. Member for Paisley would not press his Motion after the statement which had been made by the Home Secretary. The object they had in view would be more effectually secured by the appointment of a Royal Commission than by an inquiry before a Select Committee of the House. He felt sure that hon. Members of both parties and of all shades of opinion in the House would give credit to the Home Secretary for an earnest desire to promote in every way the educational and social welfare of the people.
  MR. KINNAIRDconcurred generally in the remarks of the hon. Member who

  565
  had just spoken, and expressed a hope that the Home Secretary would extend the proposed inquiry to all children in all the different trades. Such a course, he believed, would be in accordance with the views of his constituents, and he tendered thanks in his own name and in theirs for the decision to which the Home Secretary had come. During the last Election he found that a great change had taken place in the feelings of his constituents on this question. At one time the parent was jealous of restriction upon his child's labour; but the effect of recent legislation had been entirely to alter opinion on the subject, and he knew no question of greater interest than the protection of children by an extension of the principle of the Factory Acts. If the Government continued to aid private Members in this way, and endeavoured to carry out what was most essential for the good of the people, they would not fail to gain the support of the country generally.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would not have troubled the House, but for a reference made to himself by the hon. Member for Paisley. Last Session those engaged in bleach-works and dye-works placed themselves in communication with him, with respect to the extension of the Factory Acts to their occupations. At their request he had a Bill prepared, and he was about to introduce it; but having learned from the Home Secretary that the Government intended to issue a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into that as well as other trades to which the Workshops Act applied, he at once gave up the intention of introducing such a Bill. He could only say, with the right hon. Gentleman who had already spoken, that he greatly preferred a Commission to a Select Committee. His constituents were much in favour of a Royal Commission, believing that inquiries made on the spot, or in the immediate locality, were much more likely to be effective than an inquiry made in one of the Committees Rooms of the House. No class to whom such inquiries formerly applied, or for whom Parliament had legislated, were, he believed, more deserving of attention than those women and young persons who were employed in the bleaching and dye-works of this country. He hoped the hon. Member for Paisley would withdraw his Motion, and
  566
  leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Paisley had every reason to be satisfied with the answer which he had received, though it did not come exactly in the form which he had asked for. He (Mr. Dalrymple) had no more opportunity of knowing beforehand what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the proposal of the Motion than the hon. Member for Paisley had, but, having called the attention of the House to the subject two years ago, and pointed out the inadequacy of the staff of Inspectors, under the Factories and Workshops Acts, he would take the liberty of making a few observations. It was even more important, in his opinion, than the consolidation of the Acts, that they should be enforced. Unfortunately, however, owing in many places to the insufficiency of the inspecting body, the Acts could not be said to be enforced. On the former occasion he brought forward a variety of evidence to show how very ineffectual the enforcement of the Acts was in the Black Country, in Bedfordshire, and other portions of the Midland Counties. The same remarks might be made now in regard to some of these districts. Two years ago he mentioned Bromsgrove and its neighbourhood, and since that time a great improvement had taken place there. The vicar had written, in answer to his inquiry, that shortly after the subject was brought before the House, in 1873, a very intelligent and determined sub-Inspector was appointed, and very good work had been done. But that strengthened his (Mr. Dalrymple's) case, for that enterprizing and active sub-Inspector had also under his charge a large portion of the Black Country, in which, he said, owing to the smallness of the inspecting body, it was impossible to overlook the numerous workshops under his charge. In one year, though he had made 2,000 visits to workshops, this sub-Inspector had not visited more than one-fourth of the entire number under his charge. There were 33,000 nailers in the district, and what was one Inspector among so many? As to half-timers, there were said to be 1,000 in the district, a figure which looked very well, but which was highly delusive, because the irregularity of attendance at

  567
  school was so great. To show in one word what the inadequacy of the staff of Inspectors was, a calculation had been made that to visit 109,324 workshops would occupy 3¾ years for the present staff, at one visit to each workshop. It was needless to say that one visit in the period was entirely insufficient. It was notorious that, owing to the rarity of Inspectors' visits, advantage was taken by the people in every possible way. A gentleman well-known to him (Mr. Dalrymple), and whose evidence on the subject was quoted in 1873, and who had done all he could to bring the case of the nailers before the public, had written to him (Mr. Dalrymple) that the moment the Inspector was seen all sorts of dodges were resorted to. Boys were put in sacks, and lads under eight years were present during the visit of the Inspector, but unseen by him. There was room also for much amendment with regard to half-timers, and he considered the fine for non-attendance ought to be higher than it was. In reference to the subject generally, it was of the highest importance; and as had been said by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) and another hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, no children under 10 years of age ought to be employed in the workshops, and certainly no women for more than eight hours a-day. It was terrible to think that men should be allowed to enjoy themselves in public-houses whilst women and children were allowed to work for a length of time that was most injurious to them. It was not necessary to detain the House longer, as a Royal Commission was to be appointed; but he wished especially to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the condition of affairs in the Black Country, and to point out the importance of instructing the Commission to have regard to the enforcement of the Acts as they stood, as a matter preliminary to any extension, or even consolidation, of the Acts. It was undesirable and mischievous that Acts should be at once unrepealed and unenforced.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that after the frank statement of the Home Secretary, he should ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DRAFTING AND REVISION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.—RESOLUTION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. FORSYTH,in rising to call the attention of the House to the language of and manner of drawing and passing Acts of Parliament, and to move a Resolution on the subject, said, the subject might not seem one of a very attractive nature, but it was nevertheless more interesting than at first sight it appeared, and one of great practical importance. The House of Commons, as a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, existed for the purpose of legislation, and our written laws affected the liberties, the property, the rights, and the lives of all. It was therefore of the utmost importance that the laws we enacted should be plain, clear, simple, and intelligible. It was a trite maxim that everyone was bound to know the law. That was a legal fiction; yet it was undeniably true that no one could plead ignorance of the law in excuse for its violation. The principles of the Common Law were simple and clear—the difficulty lay in the application, which often was only adapted to the capacity of legal minds. But with respect to the Statute Law there ought to be no difficulty on the part of any person of ordinary understanding to comprehend it:—it ought to be as easy to construe a statute as to read a book, provided the style was clear and ordinarily intelligible—an Act of Parliament should be like a scientific book, the style clear, arrangement skilful, the language accurate, and the sentences grammatical. But we knew very well that everyone who was not a lawyer approached a Statute Book with feelings of aversion and disgust, and turned from it as from a chaotic wilderness, a labyrinth of strange phraseology and intricate construction. Many years ago a French Judge came to this country for the purpose of studying and writing upon our criminal jurisprudence. He began to write upon the subject, and the first thing he dealt with was a statute relating to our criminal jurisprudence. He dismissed the subject in these two lines—"I spare my French readers the barbarous phraseology of this species of law-making." Montesquieu, the author of Esprit des Lois, in the chapter upon the Composition

  569
  of Laws, laid down certain rules which read as a satire upon our system of law-making. Montesquieu said, the style of a written law ought to be concise, simple, and direct. The Quarterly Review, in an article describing the state of English legislation, said the Legislature, instead of framing its measures with the utmost clearness, seemed to have some end to serve in involving them in the greatest possible obscurity. In order to show the importance of this subject, he would first state the number of statutes that had passed and were passing. Since the Statute of Merton in the reign of Henry III. there had been passed no less than 41,985 Acts of Parliament. Of course these were not all in existence now, but they had passed through Parliament. Of these, 18,297 were Public Acts. He came to the reign of Her present Majesty. In the reign of Queen Victoria there had been passed to the end of the last Session of Parliament 4,178 Public Acts, and of Private and Local Acts 8,089:—making the total of Acts of Parliament passed in the present reign up to the end of 1874, 12,267. We were passing every year about 100 Public Acts. Last Session of Parliament was not thought to be very prolific, but it was by no means an idle Session, 96 Public Acts and 209 Private Acts having been passed. Sir Edward Coke had quoted two Latin lines, one of which asked a question, and the other answered it—
  "Quæritur ut crescunt tot tanta volumina legran?
  In promptu causa est, crescit in orbe dolus."
  But the reason of the multiplicity of our laws was that Parliament dealt with such a vast variety of subjects. The House of Commons might well be compared to the trunk of an elephant, which could rend an oak and pick up a pin. To show the interest which the public felt in this matter, he might refer to two Notices which had been given by his hon. and learned Friends, the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), of their intention to ask the House to remedy the confused state of our legislation; and last night he received a letter from the National Chamber of Commerce thanking him for the attention which he had given to this most important subject. In a great speech made by Lord Brougham in 1848 he spoke in most severe terms of the obscurity pervading our Statute Law; he described
  570
  it as totally devoid of system—all was random, chaos, and wild chance. Since that time, he admitted, there had been considerable improvement. There was less tautology, less circumlocution, less prolixity, but still a great deal of confusion, in the laws we passed. There was a deceptive brevity'—brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. He would bear willing testimony to the ability of the learned gentleman to whom was entrusted the drawing of Bills on behalf of the Crown; but he entirely differed from him as to the plan on which they were framed. Of late years there had been a constant habit of making enactments, not by plain and distinct words expressed on the face of the Act, but by referring to other Acts passed in previous years, and by incorporating portions of preceding Acts; so that you were obliged to go back and back to those Acts to ascertain what in fact the Legislature meant. But that was a hopeless task; you became involved in a perfect chaos. There was also this habit—an Act was repealed, not bodily, but only a section or a portion of a section; and annexed to the Act with which you were dealing you found a schedule which stated what portions of former Acts were repealed, and you had to go back from Act to Act—so that even to a lawyer the task was almost hopeless. Take the case of the Public Health Act, passed in 1872. It was for the purpose, among other things, of establishing a new Sanitary Authority, and laid down the powers and duties of that Authority. How was that done? By referring to five distinct classes of Acts of Parliament—one class containing five Acts, and the whole making a total of 16 Acts of Parliament, from which you were to ascertain what were the rights, the duties, and the obligations of the new Sanitary Authority. Take another instance—that of the Church Building Acts. He believed that about 25 of that class of Acts were passed in the course of a very few years. Dr. Lushington, speaking of them, said he need not comment upon their obscurity, for that was a matter of perfect notoriety; but of one of them he said that it was entitled to pre-eminence for obscurity and difficulty of construction. In another case Vice Chancellor Kindersley said it was difficult in the last degree to discover the meaning of the Act of Parliament, He might also refer to the Mer-

  571
  chant Shipping Acts, which commenced with the Act of 1854; since which period he did not know how many Amendment Acts had been passed. Every one of these said—"This Act is to be taken and construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, and all the other amending Acts." To give a notion of the sort of puzzle these statutes presented even to legal minds, he might mention that the 33rd section of the Act of 1873 repealed the 39th section of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act of 1862, the 4th and 10th sections of the Amendment Act of 1871, and also various sections of other Amendment Acts. All these Acts were so incorporated one with another that a man must have the whole of them before him if he wished to determine any course to be pursued. He held that the proper way of amending an Act of Parliament on an important subject was to repeal it altogether and to re-enact its provisions in the new Act, with such modifications as might be necessary. This would enable everybody to ascertain within the four corners of the Act of Parliament what the law on the subject was. Numerous authorities might be cited in favour of adopting such a course, and the only possible objection to it was that all the clauses of the original measure might be opposed in Parliament. But surely, if the previous legislation ought to stand, the House of Commons would support it clause by clause, and if it required alteration they would amend it. He was very glad to learn, from the very able speech that he had recently made on the subject in the other House, that the Lord Chancellor intended, in consolidating the Patent Laws, to repeal the whole of the existing statutes, so that the whole law on the subject would be found within the four corners of his Bill. This was the way in which all amending Acts ought to be drawn. The evils of which he had spoken would almost all have been obviated if those who framed them, and those who passed them through the House, had observed certain rules mentioned by Lord Brougham. One of these rules was that a statute should never be made without careful regard to former statutes in pari materiâ—that one part of a statute should never contradict another statute—another that the least equivocal and the plainest terms should always be used, and that
  572
  different words should never be used in the same sense; and a third was that enactments should never be made by reference to another statute. This latter rule was violated in nearly every Bill that was introduced. Lord Brougham recommended that if, to avoid greater perplexity, it became necessary to refer to another statute, careful regard should be had to the effects of the Act referred to. Supposing, however, that a Bill was admirably drawn, and that there were no mistakes in it which even a legal mind could discover, what was done in that House? After the second reading it was considered in Committee of the Whole House, and it might be "pulled in pieces," as the phrase went. Amendments were frequently introduced which conflicted with the other parts of the Bill, and which caused the greatest difficulty when the measure came to be administered as law and construed by the Judges. It might, perhaps, be argued that the mistakes made in this House might be corrected in the House of Lords. Well, it certainly was not a very dignified proceeding for the House of Commons to trust to the Upper House for the correction of its blunders. Besides, the Bill underwent the same process in the Lords, who might also commit mistakes, for aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus. Possibly it might be said it was his own fault if he did not understand particular Acts of Parliament; and therefore, in order, to fortify his own statement, the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to quote opinions expressed by Lord A binger, Lord Denman, Lord Campbell, the present Lord Chief Justice of England, and Mr. Justice Blackburn as to the extreme difficulty of understanding the meaning of various Acts of Parliament. In 1873 Lord Cairns, in the discussion upon the Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill, called upon their Lordships to reject a series "of Chinese puzzles," which arose from the ambiguous phraseology of some of the clauses; and last year the Premier said he could not, and did not, understand a particular clause in the Endowed Schools Amendment Bill, which was, in fact, an extremely difficult clause to interpret. He held in his hand a list of 25 Acts of Parliament, in all of which blunders had been committed which had to be amended by subsequent Acts, and not one of those

  573
  blunders would have existed if there had been proper revision and supervision after the Bills had passed through Committee. Having thus established a very strong case, he would proceed to the more difficult question—namely, the remedy. Before 1856 a Statute Law Commission was appointed, including among its members some of the most eminent legal authorities of the day—Lord Cranworth, then Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Chief Justice Jervis, Mr. Walpole, Lord "Westbury, and the present Lord Chief Baron. The Commissioners in their second Report, made in 1856, submitted that—
  "The most effectual mode of insuring simplicity and uniformity, or otherwise improving the form and style of future statutes, would he the appointment of an officer or Board, with a sufficient staff of assistants, whose duty it would he to advise upon the legal effect of every Bill,"
  and who would suggest how it should be worded, in order to carry out the intentions of Parliament? In 1857, a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering so much of the second Report as had reference to the improvement of current legislation. This Committee sat for five days and examined five witnesses, but then reported that, having regard to the approaching Prorogation, they were not in a position to come to any conclusion on the subject referred to them. From that day to the present nothing had been done. Mr. Coulson, Mr. Rickards, Sir Erskine May, and Mr. Bellenden Ker were all in favour of some such plan as that he suggested—namely, that there should be a Committee of Revision and Supervision assisted by a legal officer, whose duty it would be to take care that the language of Acts of Parliament was uniform, consistent, and intelligible. This Committee would have no power to enact, but would simply take care that what Parliament meant to enact should be properly expressed. It might be said that a great burden would be thrown upon Members by the appointment of such a Committee. The work, however, would not be arduous. There might be two Committees, one appointed for the first and the other for the second three months of the Session. In this House there were some Members who never
  574
  spoke, and many who seldom spoke, and they perhaps for that reason were all the more valuable—men of acuteness and business-like habits, who would be glad to serve upon a Committee of this kind. Sir Erskine May had given it as his opinion that there was at present a waste of good material which might in this way be utilized. The very existence of this Committee of Revision would make Members more cautious in the Amendments they proposed; but even if precious time were occupied in this work, it was better that time should be so spent than that legislation should be imperfect and confused. Deliberandum est diu quod statuendum est semel. In conclusion, he would express a hope that the subject would receive due consideration from the House, and that something would be done now or before long to remedy what appeared to him to be almost a public scandal. He (Mr. Forsyth) begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed, to he assisted by a legal officer, to whom all Public Bills passing through this House shall be referred after they have been read a second time, and again after they have been reported, with amendments, from a Committee of the whole House, and whose duty it shall he to report to the House upon each Bill as to its accuracy of language, consistency of provisions, and harmony with existing legislation,"—(Mr. Forsyth,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he readily acknowledged that the subject to which his hon. and learned Friend had with so much ability directed attention was one which deserved the gravest consideration. Both the House and the Government were under an obligation to him for having taken up the matter. Without going the whole length of the criticism which had been pronounced upon the present mode of passing Acts of Parliament, or concurring in all his hon. and learned Friend had said, he felt bound to admit that there was a great deal of foundation for it. Of course, in a large measure the inaccuracies and contradictions which were to be found in the statutes arose from the

  575
  freedom of discussion which was necessary in the proceedings of Parliament. With regard to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, he confessed that it did not appear to him to be practicable in its present form. The Statute Law Commissioners, to whose Report of 1856 reference had already been made, recommended a different kind of tribunal from that which was now suggested. Their recommendation was, if he remembered right, that there should be an officer or Board outside Parliament to whom Bills should be referred from either of the two Houses. A Select Committee was appointed in 1857 for the purpose of having the whole question thoroughly considered; but, unfortunately, it was appointed late in the Session, and had not time to complete the heavy labour imposed upon it. The course adopted on that occasion suggested the course which it seemed to him desirable to follow at the present time. If the hon. and learned Member withdrew his Motion, he (the Attorney General) or some other Member of the Government would ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject-matter. He was not at that moment prepared to say in what precise form of words the Committee would be moved for; but the matter would not escape his attention, and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with this undertaking.
  MR. GREGORYsuggested that the evil complained of might in a great measure be remedied by a rule requiring that previous Notice should be given of Amendments to be moved in Committee.
  MR. FORSYTHthankfully acceded to the suggestion of the Attorney General; and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—INTRODUCTION AND PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BILLS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. NEWDEGATE,in rising to move the first of three Resolutions, of which he had given Notice, as follows:—
"1. No Notice of Motion for leave to introduce a Public Bill, other than a Bill to be introduced by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Ministers, or a Bill brought from the House of Lords, shall be held to be sufficient, unless copies of such Bill have, three days previous to such
576
Motion being made, been deposited in the Public Bill Office, or unless the Notice contain a description of the means or method by which the object of such Bill is proposed to be effected,"
said: Mr. Speaker, I have on former occasions ventured to call the attention of the House to the subject, to which the suggestions contained in the Resolutions relate. The House has, on several occasions—twice, I think, during the present Parliament—expressed an opinion that it is not advisable to appoint another Committee upon the Public Business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, when a proposal was made by the late Government that a Committee on the Public Business of the House should be appointed, expressed in very marked terms the opinion, that it was better that the House should consider any specific suggestions for the improvement of its procedure that might be submitted, before considering the appointment of another Committee. I trust, therefore, I shall be acquitted of presumption if. I venture to make some suggestions to the House. I have for this purpose given Notice in the form of three separate Resolutions, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will treat them seriatim. The first Resolution suggests, that the House should adopt means to revive its former practice of exercising its discretion and its judgment upon Motions for leave to introduce Bills. The habit of admitting all Bills that may be proposed has become so general, that it is now thought to be discourteous to the hon. Member who asks leave to introduce a Bill, if leave be not granted. I do not mean that this practice is invariable, because on a recent occasion, in the case of a Bill which I myself proposed to introduce, a division was taken upon the Motion for leave to introduce it. At that time I remember saying that the practice had become so unusual as to be almost discourteous; but I never disputed the regularity of that course, though it was a proceeding much disused. In my opinion, a great part of the objects of the Motion which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) has just submitted to the House, would be accomplished by the revival of the practice that the House should and will exercise its judgment on Motions for leave to introduce Bills; because I have known too many in-

577
stances in which leave has been granted for the introduction of a Bill, and yet no Bill has made its appearance for three weeks or a month after leave was granted; and upon inquiring in the offices of the House I have been informed that no manuscript had been delivered. It was perfectly obvious, therefore, that some hon. Members had obtained leave to introduce Bills without being at the pains of framing their proposals in such a manner as to render them worthy the consideration of the House before permission to introduce them was asked. Again, Sir, I am sorry to say that in the present Session there have been instances of the House having granted leave for the introduction of Bills early in February, and upon leave being granted the second readings were postponed until very distant days, in one case to a day so distant as the 7th of July. Surely, it must be obvious that a Bill in that position has little, if any, chance of being passed, and that by occupying such a place in the Order Book it stands there merely as an obstruction to proceeding with other Bills. But, Sir, I do not suggest that the House should revert exactly to the former practice, which was to require an oral statement from every hon. Member who might propose to introduce a Bill; so that there should be in all cases a previous statement, antecedent to the statement of the principle of the Bill on the Motion for the second reading. The first Resolution which I suggest is, therefore to this effect—that copies of the Bill, either in manuscript or in print, shall be deposited in the Public Bill Office three days previous to the Motion for leave being made, so as to be accessible to hon. Members of the House; or, in the alternative, if such deposit be not made, that the Notice for leave to introduce the Bill shall contain not merely, according to the present practice, a statement of the title and object of the Bill, but a statement also of the method or machinery by which the hon. Member moving for leave to introduce conceives that the object or objects of the Bill may be attained, because many Bills are introduced into this House almost without any machinery at all. The House is asked to read the Bill a second time—to sanction the mere object of the Bill, for the principle of its action is scarcely indicated, and
578
then to hammer out for itself in Committee provisions for carrying into effect the object of the Bill. Sir, that, to my mind, manifests a failure on the part of the hon. Members who introduced the Bill; they do not show that they have given such adequate consideration to the matter as would enable them not merely to suggest the object or objects for attainment, but to suggest to the House, probably after obtaining good advice, the means by which Parliament may effectively legislate on the subject, should it see fit to do so. The House will find that the Select Committee which sat in the year 1871 adverted to the object of this my first suggestion in their 6th Resolution. That Resolution was moved by Sir John Pakington, and with the permission of the House I will read it—
"That Members, who desire to move for leave to bring in Bills, "without making any explanatory statement, may give Notice of their intention to make such Motion at a quarter-past four of the clock on some future day, and then may make such Motion on such day, in the manner and at the time of making Motions for unopposed Returns, and leave shall be given for the introduction of such Bill without debate, provided no Member then objects thereto."
That is a recognition by the Committee of 1871, that the practice of introducing Bills without explanation had prevailed to an extent which they could not approve; the Committee therefore unanimously and very properly proposed to interrupt the custom of introducing Bills without explanation, to remove from the individual Member all semblance of a privilege or right to introduce a Bill without making a statement, and for this purpose the Committee proposed to recognize the fact, that the use of that privilege is entirely at the discretion of the House in each case. Such is the intention of that Resolution. I come next to the main difficulty which the practice of bringing in Bills without an adequate exercise of discretion on the part of the House has occasioned; during the last three Sessions of Parliament this has produced a perfect block of Orders, of stages of Bills entered on the Order Book. The House will find that although the non-official Members of the House have not so much as one-third of the time of the House, they have in the course of each of the last three Sessions introduced as many measures as the Government, to whom it has been the pleasure of the House to allot full two-

579
thirds of its time; and yet, difficulty enough is experienced by every Administration in passing a fair proportion of the Bills they introduce, although they have had two-thirds of the time of the House at their command, and all that power of combination which every Government must possess. Under such circumstances, it is simply absurd to expect that any large proportion of the Bills introduced by the non-official Members of the House, and which have been equal in number during the last three Sessions to the Bills introduced by the Government, should pass and reach the House of Lords. I say it is absurd to expect that non-official Members can pass any large proportion of this number of Bills. Some hon. Members have affirmed that these Bills embody merely the crotchets of individual Members, and that they do not contain matter which is really worthy of the attention of the House with a view to immediate legislation. I cannot deny that there is some justice in such comments; but I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not in itself a lax practice which ought to be restrained; restrained by the exercise of the discretion of the House; a discretion, the exercise of which, I humbly submit, is essential to the maintenance of the character of this House as a Legislative Assembly, essential to prevent the Order Book from being overcrowded by crude, ill-digested proposals. But this state of the Order Book is not only a misfortune, so far as the credit of the House is concerned; it goes beyond that. Among the large number of Bills introduced by the unofficial Members of the House, there are some which the House has willingly sanctioned on the second reading; but owing to the crowded state of the Order Book, especially after Whitsuntide, it has become morally impossible to carry out the intentions of the House, as expressed on the second readings of these Bills, by sending them up to the House of Lords in time to receive its approval. I have stated that the Order Book has been blocked, and with the permission of the House I will read two short calculations—rough estimates—to show that I am not misleading the House as to the manner in which its time has been distributed during the last three Sessions. I find that in the Session of 1872 the House sat 120 days, and that the average time of its sitting
580
was 8 hours and 33 minutes per day. In the Session of 1873 the House sat 112 days, and the average time of its sitting was 7 hours and 50 minutes per day. The following Session in 1874 was exceptional. There had been a change of Government, and, practically, the House left its legislative business to a considerable extent in abeyance, until the present Ministry should have had the opportunity of duly considering and of bringing forward the measures they contemplated. In the Session of 1874, then, the House sat 97 days, and the average time of its sitting was 7 hours and 20 minutes per day. How was the time of the House distributed? I will take, first, an average week in the ordinary course of proceeding, when the House meets at 4 o'clock on four days in the week, and on Wednesday at 12. On Monday, a Government day, 8 hours; available for opposed Orders, 7 hours. Tuesday, Notices of Motion and unofficial Orders, 8 hours; available for opposed Orders, 3 hours. Wednesday, unofficial Orders, 6 hours; available for opposed Orders, 5½ hours. Thursday, a Government day, 8 hours; available for opposed Orders, 7 hours. Friday, Notices on Supply and Government Orders afterwards, 8 hours; available for opposed Orders, 3 hours. The average for the week is, therefore, 38 hours; of which 25½ hours were available for opposed Orders, and 8½ hours for unofficial Orders. Thus the Government had 17 hours in the week available for Opposed Business, while unofficial Members had 8½ hours. But the House will bear in mind that a great change has been introduced by the adoption of Morning Sittings, which have commenced sometimes so early as the 27th of May, when not much more than one-half the Session has elapsed. What, then, is the state of things as to time during the prevalence of these Morning Sittings? How is our time divided between Her Majesty's Government and the unofficial Members of this House? Under these circumstances, the House meets at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, suspends the sitting at 7, and resumes at 9. On Monday the sitting would be 10½ hours; available for opposed Government Business, 9½ hours. On Tuesday the sitting would be 10½ hours; available for Opposed Government Business, 4½ hours; and for un-

581
official Orders, 1 hour. On "Wednesday the sitting would be 6 hours; available for unofficial business, 5½ hours. On Thursday the sitting would be 10½ hours; available for Government Business, 9½ hours. On Friday the sitting would be 10½ hours; available for Government Business, 6 hours. The general result would be, that during the Morning Sittings the House would sit 48 hours per week, of which 29½ hours, available for Opposed Orders, are appropriated by the Government, and only 6½ hours were available for unofficial Orders. According to the calculation, in the ordinary state of things, when the House has not adopted Morning Sittings, the unofficial Members have half the time available for Opposed Orders; but, when the Morning Sittings are appointed, they appear to have between one-fourth and one-fifth of the time. It may, therefore, be fairly assumed, that of the whole time of the Session available for Opposed Orders, the unofficial Members have, on the average, less than one-third—in other words, the Government have double the time that the unofficial Members possess—and yet the number of Bills for the last three Sessions introduced by the unofficial Members has been equal to the number introduced by the Government. This proportion may, however, be affected so far as to Government time for their Orders by Supply, and Financial Statements; but the time occupied by Motions by way of Amendment to Supply, made by unofficial Members, may be taken as a set-off, and probably balance the deduction from the Government's time for Orders. I think, therefore, I am justified in stating, that, on the average of the Session, the Government have double the time for their Bills, which is available for the unofficial Bills. Let me now glance at the number of Bills which were introduced respectively by Ministers and by unofficial Members. The total number of Bills introduced in the House of Commons, including Bills brought from the Lords, during the Session of 1872, was 240; of this number, 120 were Government Bills, and 120 non-official Bills. The official Bills passed were 92, and I was rejected on division; the total dealt with by the House being 93, whilst there were withdrawn or discharged—that is, not dealt with by the House—27. Then, of the 120 non-official Bills,
582
30 were passed, 18 were rejected on divisions; making a total of 48 dealt with by the House, whilst 72 were dropped, discharged, and laid aside; in other words, not dealt with by the House. Thus showing that, of the 120 official Bills, three-fourths were passed, and scarcely one-fourth abandoned; and that of the 120 non-official Bills, only one-fourth were passed, and nearly seven-twelfths were abandoned. In the following Session, 1873, the Government introduced 119 Bills, and non-official Members 120 Bills. Of the 119 official Bills 91 were passed, and 2 rejected on divisions, the total dealt with by the House being 93: and the number withdrawn or discharged—that is, not dealt with by the House, was 26. Of the 120 non-official Bills there were passed 26, and rejected on divisions 16; the number dealt with by the House being 42, while there were withdrawn, discharged, and dropped—not dealt with by the House—78. Thus, out of 119 official Bills, three-fourths were passed and scarcely one-fourth abandoned; whereas of the 120 non-official Bills about one-fourth only were passed, and nearly eight-twelfths were abandoned. Let me now take the Session of 1874. In that Session 202 Bills were introduced, of which 101 were Government Bills, and 101 non-official. The number of official Bills passed was 88, and I was referred to a Select Committee; the total dealt with by the House being 89. There were withdrawn, discharged, and dropped—that is, not dealt with by the House, 12. Of the 101 non-official Bills 23 were passed, and 17 were rejected on divisions, together 40; whilst 61 were withdrawn, discharged, or dropped—that is, were not dealt with by the House. So that of the 101 official Bills, more than three-fourths were passed, and scarcely one-eighth abandoned; whereas, of the 101 non-official Bills, about one-fifth only were passed; while six-tenths were abandoned. If any one, Sir, will take the trouble to look at the Order Book, I think he will come to the conclusion that the practice of allowing Bills to be introduced, which have not the slightest prospect of being passed, has been carried to great excess. By reviving the old practice of the House, by treating the Motion for leave as a substantive Motion, not as a matter of mere form, you do not debar hon.

583
Members from bringing in the substance of their proposals by way of Resolution, and taking the sense of the House on the subjects they would thereby introduce. Leave to introduce a Bill can only be obtained by a Motion; why should not the House, upon that Motion, having ascertained the character of the Bill, express an opinion not merely upon the merits of the Bill itself, but also upon the fitness of the proposal to occupy a place on the Order Book, to the interruption of the passing of other measures, and so to occupy the attention of this great Assembly on repeated occasions? For, remember, that when the House grants leave for the introduction of a Bill, it grants leave to the hon. Member in charge of it to appropriate to the consideration of the subject which he introduces, a portion—perhaps no inconsiderable portion—of the time of the House. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) is incapacitated by ill-health from being in his place this evening, for I have reason to believe that this subject has engaged his attention. I think I can show, from a public declaration on his part, that he is convinced that unless the House again insists upon the exercise of its discretion with regard to subjects which are to be brought under its attention, which are to occupy its time, gradually the House will lose all command over the time appropriated by it to the Business of unofficial Members. In the year 1873, I moved for the appointment of a Select Committee on Public Business, so far as the time appropriated to the Government and to unofficial Members respectively. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was then Prime Minister, and in reply to my observations thus spoke—
"While private Members squabbled with the Government, and the Government with private Members, the cardinal difficulty lay in the quantity of Business and the fixed quantity of time to do it in, and it was to the economical distribution of that time to which the House would have to look, rather than to any great advantage to be gained by private Members at the expense of the Government."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 240.]
Colonel Wilson-Patten, now Lord Winmarleigh, followed in the same debate, and used these expressions—
"The other day he counted the number of Bills awaiting discussion which had been
584
brought in by hon. Members. He found there were no fewer than 66 Bills on the Order Book."
Colonel Wilson-Patten was speaking on the 27th of March. It is now only the 19th of February, yet the Bills introduced by hon. Members already exceed 66. Colonel Wilson-Patten went on to say—
"He had not counted the Notices of Motion, but they were very numerous. It was clearly impossible that all of them could be considered and passed through their various stages in the time at the disposal of the House. The truth was, that the measures introduced by private Members impeded each other, and would continue to do so under any system that had been suggested. The only thing that would facilitate the passage of a portion of them would be the withdrawal of the rest.…Business had so increased that its discharge was almost impossible under any rules, unless, as he had stated, hon. Members whose Bills had no chance of passing, would at once withdraw them—a course, however, which it was hopeless to expect, every hon. Member naturally thinking his own Bill an important one."—[Ibid. 242–3.]
Having given to the House the opinion of the late Prime Minister, and of a Peer who was at one time the Chairman of our Committees, and was ever distinguished by the assiduous ability with which he applied himself to the Business of this House, I appeal to non-official Members themselves who have observed the state of Business during the last three Sessions, whether Colonel Wilson-Patten was not right, when he said that Bills which as they must see have no chance of passing, ought either not to be introduced, or ought to be withdrawn in good time? It is strange that so great an Assembly as this should submit to have its time during a third of the time of the Session embarrassed by the inconvenience, the hap-hazard, of an overcrowded Order Book.'—I have hitherto been speaking upon the 1st Resolution in my Notice. By the 2nd Resolution I propose to apply the principle of Lord Redesdale's Resolution, which has long been adopted by the House of Lords, with respect to Bills sent up from this House too late in the Session for their adequate consideration by the House of Lords. Lord Redesdale claimed for the House of Lords the exercise of a discretion as to whether they would entertain any of these Bills after a certain date in the Session. I propose that this House should claim the same kind of discretion in the terms of this Resolution by declaring—

585

"That no Order for any stage of such Bill shall be appointed for any day more than a month from the date of the previous stage of such Bill, with a view to the further consideration of such Bill during the Session, unless the House, by special Resolution, of which the usual notice shall have been given, shall otherwise direct."
We have already a Rule that no hon. Member shall be permitted to give a Notice of Motion further forward than a month from the day on which he may obtain leave to introduce it; and why should we not apply the principle of that Rule to the stages of Bills? Why should we countenance such a practice as that when a Member has, in February, obtained leave to introduce a Bill, which is always granted upon the presumption that he hopes it may pass into law, he should, as in a case we have before us, be allowed to appoint the second reading for so late a day as the 7th of July? It is almost a moral impossibility that this Bill should become law, were it to obtain the sanction of this House. But there is a further objection to this practice, and this is—that the Bill, which so stands for second reading on the 7th of July, obstructs the passage of other Bills in their latter stages which the House has approved and desires to see passed. This is a matter, however, in reference to which I think the House should not adopt as an absolute rule that no stage of a Bill shall hereafter be appointed for a day later than a month; but should declare that if any of the stages of any particular Bill are to be appointed further forward than a month from the date of its introduction, or its last previous stage, then Notice should be given to the House that an application will be made for permission, so that a further postponement of any stage of such Bill shall be the special act of the House according to its discretion, and not be considered in any sense within the privilege of the individual Member who has charge of the Bill. The third suggestion is, I have been told, rather too comprehensive. It is in these terms—
"No such Bill shall be appointed for Second Reading after the Whitsuntide Recess unless the House"—acting on the principle of Lord Redesdale's Resolution—"by special Resolution, of which the usual Notice shall have been given, direct that such Bill be appointed for Second Reading at a later period of the Session."
Now, the object of the Resolution is this—It has been doomed expedient that
586
the House should entrust to Her Majesty's Ministers' to the Executive the origination of by far the greater part of the legislation which is submitted to this House. I have shown that on the average of two Sessions—namely, 1872 and 1873—the Government introduced in round numbers 120 Bills, and that they passed three-fourths of them; but it has become the invariable practice that before Whitsuntide, whoever may be Ministers of the Crown, should declare which of their Bills then standing on the Order Book they intend to proceed with, and which to withdraw. My 3rd Resolution—or, rather, I should say, suggestion—proposes that the House should, before Whitsuntide, exercise a similar discretion with respect to those Orders and Bills standing in the Order Book that have been introduced by the non-official Members. I have thought, and thought deeply, whether it would be possible for non-official Members to act separately from the Government, but together among themselves, in the regulation of their business. I am convinced that this is impossible, and that it is only by calling upon the House itself in the aggregate to decide at its discretion which Bills shall be proceeded with after Whitsuntide, and which Bills shall be arrested or withdrawn, that we are likely so to clear the Order Book as to enable the House to carry out its intentions with respect to the Bills it has not only allowed to be introduced, but has approved after their introduction. The House could thus relieve itself from the difficulties caused by an overcrowded Order Book, relieve itself of having to debate Bill after Bill, introduced by hon. Members with no reasonable expectation that, after all this waste of time, after the trouble they give the House at large, these Bills will at any reasonable period, if ever, become law. These suggestions are, I hope, not extravagant; and I trust the House will remember that it is only after a Committee on public Business has been repeatedly refused, and last refused when I myself moved its appointment, that I have ventured to lay these suggestions before the House. I have now been a Member of this House for more than 30 years; I was a Member of the Select Committee on the Public Business of this House which sat in 1861, and again

587
I was a Member of the Committee on Public Business in 1871, and as the result of this experience I humbly submit to the House those suggestions for relieving the unofficial Members and the House from a real difficulty. I do not deny that there are advantages in having subjects for legislation submitted to the House in the form of Bills; I believe that the exertion of attempting to reduce the matter into legislative form has a wholesome effect upon the hon. Member who desires to occupy the attention of the House; for this exertion is calculated to dispel chimerical expectations and ideas in himself and in others, which may have been excited by glowing declamation; becoming acquainted with the difficulty of practical legislation may sober many who might otherwise indulge in wild exaggeration, may induce them calmly to consider the practicability of compliance with their demands. But if this advantage is to be obtained, the Bills must be well framed, so drawn as to be worthy of being submitted to this House; we should thus escape those specimens of crude legislation, which too often absorb and waste the time allowed to the unofficial Members by this House. It is far better that the House should consider each Bill, each proposal at the initial step, and if any hon. Member does not produce evidence that he is competent to submit a feasible framework of a measure for legislation, the House should not allow him to occupy a position on the Order Book with his Bill, which thus wastes time and becomes obstructive of other measures. I than the House for allowing me to submit these suggestions to its notice. I can assure you, Sir, that out-of-doors this subject has attracted considerable attention. I have always entertained an earnest desire to contribute, however humbly, to the maintenance of the high character of the House, and to the efficient discharge of its duties; and it is with that feeling that I submit to the House the 1st Resolution, which I have now the honour to move.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Notice of Motion for leave to introduce a Public bill, other than a Bill to he introduced by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Ministers, or a Bill brought from the House of Lords, shall be held to be sufficient, unless copies of such
588
Bill have, three days previous to such Motion being made, been deposited in the Public Bill Office, or unless the Notice contain a description of the means or method by which the object of such Bill is proposed to be effected,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, my hon. Friend in introducing these Resolutions has referred to an observation of my own made, I believe, last Session, in which, while expressing an opinion that it was not expedient that the Committee on Public Business should be again appointed, I thought it advisable that individual Members should offer to the House any suggestions for the improved management of our business. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire should have undertaken the task, for few hon. Members have given so much attention to the transaction of Public Business as himself, and he has, I believe, sat on more than one Select Committee whose recommendations have obtained the sanction of the House. At the same time, I may state that, looking at these Resolutions, and occupying the position which I do at this moment, I can view them with impartiality, because these Resolutions, although in effect they propose that great alterations should be made in the mode of conducting Public Business, and although they make restrictions in the conduct of private Members, yet they do not apply to Her Majesty's Government. With regard to these throe Resolutions, I would make three remarks. As to that which would require copies of Bills to be deposited in the Public Bill Office three days previous to their announcement in this House, I would ask the House to consider what a remarkable alteration that would make in the initiation of business. The House can hardly have forgotten that on the first night of our meeting there were nearly 50 Notices, the majority of which related to Bills involving proposed legislation; and, in fact, the business of the Session can be well indicated on the first night; but that would not be possible if this Resolution were adopted, for not a single Notice could be given on the first night of the meeting of the House.

589
When the House has been in Prorogation for a long time, the House naturally expects some expression of opinion on the part of hon. Members as to the subjects which require legislation or notice; but under this Resolution the first night of the Session would be a dull and silent ceremony, without the slightest echo of any feeling in the public mind, or any recognition of the pulse of public opinion, such as would be expressed by the meeting of a great popular Assembly under circumstances of considerable expectation, and when Parliament has been opened perhaps by the Sovereign herself. I now come to the second Resolution, which, as it seems to me, would practically add another stage to every Bill. While these Resolutions are brought forward to hoard the time of the House, and to prevent any unnecessary expenditure of that important element, this Resolution, so far as I can collect, would increase in number the stages of a Bill, which, though many think them too numerous, I am not prepared in any way to diminish, though I think they are ample to secure the liberties of the country. The third Resolution appears to me to be of a very peculiar character; the practical effect of it is an early Prorogation of Parliament for private Members. [Laughter.] That really would be the consequence of that Resolution. Certainly, the feature of these Resolutions is increased restriction. What is the ground on which my hon. Friend thinks it necessary to bring forward this code of restriction on our proceedings? It appears to be this—the official Members and the unofficial Members, generally speaking, propose an equal amount of legislation every year. Say, for example, 120 Bills are proposed by official Members and the same number by unofficial Members. The result is, that the official Members pass 100 of their 120, and the unofficial Members pass 20 of their 120. My hon. Friend seems to think that that is a very great evil—not that the Government measures are passed; he wishes them to be; he says that the Government have double the time of unofficial Members, and he does not grudge them it; but he says it is a great evil that the unofficial Members should have the privilege of introducing 120 Bills and passing only 20. I am not so clear that that is a great evil. In the first place, you must look
590
at the essential difference between Bills brought in by a responsible Government and Bills that are brought in by independent and irresponsible legislators. Generally speaking, no Bill is brought forward by a Government that is not to a certain extent called for by public convenience and public necessity; but Bills brought forward by those who are not responsible in that light, by those who are described by the hon. Gentleman as unofficial Members, are generally Bills that are essentially of a tentative character. It is very true that many Bills are brought forward in this House by hon. Gentlemen who do not contemplate their being passed, and do not even wish them to be; they are convinced, their constituencies are convinced, or some party or section of the country is convinced that legislation is necessary upon these subjects; they prepare Bills, and create a public opinion and hope in time to pass laws, the beneficial character of which is ultimately acknowledged. But that is a process which is necessarily peculiar to an Assembly like the present; it does not appear to me to be necessarily disadvantageous; and I am not at all prepared to say to the unofficial Members—as my hon. Friend's proposition practically does—"You are to be so tied and so restricted that, in fact, you shall be allowed to bring in only 20 Bills, with the prospect that you shall then be able to carry them." I cannot think that any alteration of that kind is at all needed. My hon. Friend says he objects very much to the practice of introducing Bills of which there is no prospect of their being passed in the Session; and he is in favour of the House making more use of that stage of the Bill in which the Member asks leave to bring in the Bill, so that they may decide upon that occasion whether the Bill should or should not be brought in. I have very great doubt whether that would be an expedient course. It is very difficult to decide upon a question, which is complicated enough to require legislation, on the more statement of an hon. Member; that may be as clear as possible; when you see the moans by which he proposes to carry out his suggestions you find that some of them are inconsistent and impracticable; and until you have the Bill really before you, I do not think it is possible to form anything like a sedate opinion on his

591
proposal. On these grounds alone, I am against the opinions which have been indicated by my hon. Friend. I know I shall be considered heretical in what I say; but I confess, referring to my own experience, which is longer even than the 30 years of my hon. Friend, I am not of opinion that there is too little legislation in this House. I think there is enough—there is sufficient, and it is sufficiently well grounded—and, although Acts of Parliament are not drawn up with the strict laws of literary composition, and although a Judge may, perhaps in a moment of irritation, due to the heated atmosphere of a crowded Court, occasionally sneer at our labours, and at an expression in some of our productions, I doubt very much whether, considering the kind of legislation which goes on, and the difficulty and complexity of the subjects which we have to encounter, results as favourable as we accomplish can be paralleled in any other Assembly in any other country. I really wish the House to give their opinion, and I do not wish in any way to dictate my own. The Resolutions do not affect the conduct of the Business of the Government, they concern the unofficial and independent Members. If they are prepared for increased restrictions—if they are prepared to give more time to Her Majesty's Ministers, I can only say that any boon of that kind will be received on our part with the utmost courtesy and gratitude. I wish hon. Members to understand that the observations I have made have reference to their interests, and not to those of the Government. I have a high respect for my hon. Friend. He could not have arrived at these Resolutions without much thought, research, and experience; but from what I know of attempts to deal with the procedure and conduct of Business in this House, I have come to the conclusion that, though, no doubt, there are changes which on happy occasions we may avail ourselves of, the general rules upon which our procedure is based are sound and beneficial.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the fact that there had already been two discussions this Session in regard to the arrangements affecting independent Members proved that those arrangements were not entirely satisfactory. Now that the half-past 12 rule had been adopted in all its rigour, private Members
592
had no opportunity to carry through the House a Bill which was the subject of serious discussion. That was more especially the case, when it was recollected that Bills of private Members were brought forward after midnight—no opportunity offering for them to introduce them at an earlier time of the night. Last Session, by an elaborate calculation, he ascertained that the time at the disposal of independent Members who had introduced Bills did not average more than 43 minutes and a few seconds. On the first night of that Session, 40 hon. Members sat for five or six weary hours, each having in his hand a paper with a bit of green riband round it. A more dismal set of objects it was impossible to conceive, and the agony they endured while they sat looking at each other was enough for the rest of the Session. With regard to the first Resolution, he came down rather prepared to support it; but after hearing the speech of his hon. Friend, he felt bound to oppose it. If adopted, it would cause three discussions on the principle of a Bill instead of two; and, therefore, so far from expediting, it would retard the progress of a measure. He could not see much objection to the second Resolution; but to the third, and by far the most important of the Resolutions, he must offer his most strenuous opposition. If that Resolution were carried, the result would be that only one-half of the Bills introduced by private Members would ever reach a second reading. The County Franchise Bill had been put down for the 7th of July, because, before Notice could be given of its introduction, every Wednesday in the Order Book up to that date was already full; and if the rule of the House were in accordance with that Resolution, it could never be read a second time at all. As the Prime Minister had pointed out, if private Members under the present system did not succeed in legislation, they got discussion. A subject was thoroughly ventilated in the House and discussed in the public journals, and thus became ripe for legislation. It was in that way that the Factory Bill of last Session, though brought in by a private Member, was, after discussion, judiciously taken up by the Government, and formed one of the few legislative results of the Session. In the same way he did not despair of the Burials Bill being taken

593
up by some Government and passed into law.
MR. ANDERSONconsidered the Re-solutions entirely impracticable. If the first were adopted, another Resolution would be necessary, requiring that only a certain number of Bills should be introduced in any one night. There would be a rush on the first night of the Session to got the Bills printed, and there would be so many to get printed and distributed and read, that it would be impossible to comply with the conditions laid down, or for hon. Members, under those conditions, to make themselves acquainted with the nature and the provisions of the Bills which were introduced. The second and third Resolutions would, in fact, add two more stages to those which already stood between the introduction of the Bill of a private Member and its passing. There were too many obstacles already, and he was not inclined to add to their number.
MR. DILLWYNapproved of the first Resolution. Under the present system, Bills jostled each other too much to permit of their proper consideration. He thought the great evil of the present system was that, all Bills being introduced without discussion, became Orders, and thus the Order Book was too crowded after Easter; but these Resolutions would ensure many Bills being disposed of before Easter. The House would thus have more serious work before Easter, and lighter work after Easter.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL— [BILL 62.]
(Mr. Scalter-Booth, Mr. Clare Mead.)
ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL— [BILL 62.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the first Act upon this subject was passed in 1860, and was rendered necessary by the frequent complaints of purchasers from retail tradesmen, of the injury to which they were subjected by the prevalence of adulteration. That Act was in operation for 12 years, when
  594
  it was entirely re-cast, partly under the auspices of his noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil) near him, and the question was then mixed up in a great degree with sanitary considerations. In the second Act authority was given to institute proceedings, and the appointment of an analyst was made quasi-compulsory on the authorities, who had to do with it, and the law had a sanitary object. The language of the Act was founded on the idea of adulteration, which was to be prohibited, not only because it was a fraud upon the purchaser, but also because it was an injury done to the community. But the Act was soon found to be attended in its working with serious difficulties, partly caused by the want of any definition of the word "adulteration" in the Bill. Judges differed, and magistrates were unable to understand what was exactly meant by the word. Again, as regarded some of the most important operative clauses there was a failure of justice, and, on the other hand, the Act caused heart-burnings and sometimes led to very serious cases of hardship and even injustice. With respect to the article of tea particularly strong complaints were made, and when he acceded to his present office he found a general opinion that though the Act was of so recent a date the time had arrived for reconsidering it. Consequently, about a year ago, he asked the House to appoint a Select Committee with a view to some amendments during the last Session of Parliament, and the House was pleased to accede to his proposal. He stated to the House at that time that his object in proposing the Select Committee was to mitigate the hardships which were undoubtedly imposed on traders in many cases by the law as it stood, but still more to facilitate and make plain the operation of the law so that the advantages which the public unquestionably possessed by the existence of those Acts might be preserved to it unimpaired. It was not, therefore, the intention of the Government that the securities to the community should be in any respect broken down. The Committee found their labours grew upon them, time went on, and the Report was not in his hand early enough to enable legislation to be pressed on last year. Having to consider the matter during the Recess, the first question was, whether the now

  595
  Bill should be laid down on the same lines as the old, and whether the same language should he used in its operative clauses. The experienced draftsman to whom the preparation of the Bill was entrusted, had the recommendations of the Select Committee before him, but found it impossible with satisfaction to himself or with any assistance which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) could give, to frame such a definition of the word "adulteration" as could be relied upon as the basis of permanent legislation on the subject. The consequence was, that what would be regarded as the operative clauses of the Bill had been drawn up in a different way, and an attempt had been made to lay down in the clauses the things exactly prohibited and the exceptions which might fairly release the trader from penalty. By an unfortunate error of the printer, with which the draftsman had nothing to do, the measure was still an Adulteration of Food Bill, but it was obvious that its title should be "The Sale of Food and Drugs Bill." The Bill was arranged in five parts; it described the offences prohibited, laid down rules for the appointment and duties of analysts, and regulated the proceedings against offenders; then there were some special provisions with regard to certain offences, and some important clauses with reference to the new duties imposed on those who were to carry out the measure. It prohibited under heavy penalties the admixture with food and drugs of any ingredients injurious to health, or the sale of any article not of the nature or quality demanded by the purchaser, with certain exceptions. Opinions might vary as to the value of the list of exceptions which had been made, but in Committee he would be happy to hear what might be said on the subject, and accept of Amendments which might appear to be reasonable. He wished that every security should be given to the public, but so that the reproach which had been cast upon Parliament for not removing certain hardships which existed could no longer be used. A now provision, which was very much required, had been added—in effect, that the interference with some articles so as to affect its quality should be subject to penalty. Under this provision, the offence of selling milk which had a portion of its nutritious qualities taken away from it would be rendered
  596
  penal. The Bill also provided that where there was an article which was sold mixed with something else for the convenience of the buyer and the seller equally, the mixture should be in proper proportions; and in the event of a legal question arising, it would be for the seller to show there was no excess of one ingredient to the disadvantage of the buyer. Under the old Act, the seller of retailed articles was obliged to declare orally to his customers if there had been any admixture. That provision had been seriously complained of, and it was obvious that in any shop where a large business was done, this express notice could not be given or insisted on. It was therefore now proposed that it would be sufficient if a label stating the fact was affixed to the article. The Select Committee had recommended, as against the practice of the existing law, that the appointment of analysts should be made compulsory on the authorities. But there were objections to such a course, and it seemed to him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that they were not in a position to go so far. In the first place, the number of candidates for these appointments was not very considerable, and great difficulty had been experienced in getting competent analysts. Then, though you might make an authority appoint an officer, you could not without stringent legislation make him put the officer in motion. He knew from the experience he had in other branches of administration how easy it was to make a colourable appointment, and then to take care that the person appointed should not do that which the law contemplated. Further, he did not think it advisable that the appointments should be too numerous, if a smaller number would be sufficient. It was clearly desirable that a small borough, for instance, should have inducements held out to appoint the same person as had been appointed in a large borough or town in the same county to discharge the duties, rather than to have separate analysts for each separate town. It had been recommended by the Committee that in the event of a trader refusing to allow an article to be carried off for analysis, the policeman might seize the article on tendering to him its money value. Government, however, thought that somewhat too strong, but they thought they would

  597
  meet the justice of the case if they made the refusal to supply samples for analysis an offence under the Act. The report of the analyst would be primâ facie evidence to support the charge, and the obligation to disprove it would be upon the tradesman. As a matter of common justice, the dealer and his wife would be admitted to give evidence at their trial, and he thought that when they were examined before magistrates accustomed to deal with such questions, a just decision would be arrived at. This led him to a provision to which he had given anxious consideration—namely, that if the defendant in any prosecution produced a warrant of the purity of the article from the person of whom he had bought it, and also proved to the satisfaction of the justices that he sold it in the same state as when it came into his hands, he should be discharged. In another part of the Bill there was a penalty provided for the forgery of any such warranty. There had been some consideration whether they should not proceed against a man who gave a false or incorrect warranty; but they had, after a time, abandoned that idea, inasmuch as it would be bringing into a Court of summary jurisdiction a matter which, possibly, could only be dealt with by another tribunal. Proceedings, however, might be taken by the seller against the person who had given such a warrant, in the event of the article proving to be adulterated. The fines obtained from prosecutions would in future go to the authorities who were charged with the carrying out of the Act, instead of to the police, and it was hoped that this would prove an inducement to those authorities to have the provisions of the Act strictly enforced. As a great many of the prosecutions which had been instituted under the present Act had reference to the adulteration of tea, power was given to the Customs to have that article analysed on its arrival in this country, and, as a rule, the adulteration taking place abroad, he thought, although he was not too sanguine in the matter, that soon they would hear little about the adulteration of tea. The retail dealer would still have to look out for himself, and there could, he thought, be no objection to that, inasmuch as it was for the public good. The Report of the Committee stated that the old Acts had been the means of much good, not
  598
  only directly, but also indirectly; and if the present Bill came into operation he was satisfied that the system of adulteration of food and drugs, which was a great scandal not many years ago, would soon be reduced within very narrow limits. Already analysts had been appointed in 34 out of 54 counties; and he had no doubt that under the present Bill, the number of such appointments would be largely increased. The Committee were strongly of opinion that mixtures of coffee, cocoa, mustard, &c, which were expressly labelled as mixtures, should be allowed for the sake of the public taste, and their recommendation this point had been adopted in the Bill. If the consumer desired those articles mixed, and they were harmless, there seemed no reason for prohibiting their sale. At prosecutions it would not be necessary for the analyst to attend, unless his presence was expressly desired, and samples for analysis might be sent through the post. A body of gentlemen representing the public analysts had, he was happy to say expressed approval of the general principles of the Bill, though, of course, they had suggestions to make in their own interest, some of which he should be able to accept. He hoped the local authorities would take steps to secure prompt execution of the Bill in case it passed into law, and at the same time to ensure fair hearings for all persons concerned in cases of prosecution. The measure would tend, he believed, to facilitate the conduct of proceedings before the local authorities—to enable proceedings to be conducted with greater speed, less hindrance, and fewer technical objections before the magistrates—and would tend greatly to the public advantage; and if that result could be attained it would be doing a great deal. The Bill, though not of first-rate importance, was nevertheless one in which great public interest had been taken. It had been prepared by a person of great skill and practice in those matters, and its provisions had all been very carefully considered. Still, he was far from saying that some of the clauses were not open to Amendment in Committee. Several Amendments had been placed upon the Paper, and these should receive the best consideration; but he hoped to be able to maintain the principle of the measure as affecting the

  599
  security of the public, and to remove the reproach that existing legislation was gratuitously injurious to the interests of trade. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Selater-Booth.)
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he had not read the Bill with unmitigated pleasure. It was framed, he thought, rather in the interest of the wholesale dealer, than in the interest of the public; and his impression was, that if passed in its present form, it would lead very considerably to the adulteration of food. Twenty-two years ago he had something to do with the passing of an Act on the subject. At that time, there was no doubt that the public were not only cheated, to use the classical language of the Secretary of the Board of Trade, but they were also poisoned; and if, at the present moment, they were only cheated, and not poisoned, they were very much indebted to legislation on this subject. He must, therefore look with considerable alarm on any measure that would lead to a restoration of the old state of things. His right hon. Friend said, in his opening speech, that the great grievance at the present moment was that adulteration was not properly defined. "Well, his right hon. Friend did not attempt in this Bill to define adulteration. Therefore he left unredressed, and without any attempt to redress, that which he admitted to be the great grievance of the present state of things. "When they came to what his right hon. Friend described as the main clauses of the Bill—namely, the 5th and 6th—they found that in order to procure the conviction of a person who sold adulterated goods, it must be proved that he had full knowledge that they were adulterated. Now, it was notorious that when proof of such knowledge was required, it was impossible to get a conviction. It was impossible to prove a man's knowledge of the adulterated character of the goods which he sold. But he passed on to Clause 7, because that, as the Bill at present stood, was the single clause under which you could obtain a conviction. Well, what did the 7th clause say? It said that no person should sell an article mixed for any of the purposes mentioned in the exceptions
  600
  before set forth, if the matter mixed was more than was ordinarily required for the purpose; so that you would have to consider Clause 7 in connection with some previous exceptions. It would be most perplexing for any magistrate to decide upon Clause 7. We all knew that what was necessary in dealing with this subject was, that the poor man should be protected—that when he believed he was buying a wholesome article of food, he ought to be protected against the sale of an unwholesome article. But if a poor man bought an article, he (Mr. Sandford) did not see how he would be protected under the Bill. The Bill said that dealers should offer goods for sale according to the "usages of the trade." But how was a poor man to know what was the usage of trade when he bought an article? Another objectionable feature of the Bill was, that it left the appointment of analysts in the hands of town councils. When he sat on the Committee that inquired into the subject, persons complained, perhaps with justice, that they were condemned upon what they believed to be not sufficient evidence—that the persons who had been appointed to analyze did not possess sufficient knowledge for the purpose. Therefore he contended that in amending the Act, the first thing you should do was to provide that a better description of analysts should be appointed, and that their number should be reduced. He believed that if England were divided into three or four portions, and one able analyst were appointed for each of those divisions, that number of analysts would be quite sufficient. He examined almost every witness upon that point, and they told him, he believed unanimously, that almost every article could be sent to an analyst, no matter how distant, from one end of England to another. He was not going to mention names; but he would say that in certain towns, analysts were appointed with the express understanding that they should take no action against any person in the town. If you considered for a moment of what persons the municipal council, especially in large towns, was to a great extent composed, you would perceive that they were the very class of persons to be proceeded against. Therefore, he thought the appointment of analysts ought not to be loft in their hands.

  601
  There was no doubt that the Act had pressed hardly upon some retail dealers, and he thought it was of very great importance that retail dealers should be enabled in some more expeditious way to proceed against wholesale dealers for having sold to them adulterated goods. But if the House wished to put down adulteration, if they wished at the same time not to press heavily upon retail dealers, the persons whom they ought to endeavour to punish were the wholesale dealers. Now, if one class of persons was favoured more than another by this Bill, it was the wholesale dealers. He came to another point—the inspection of tea in bond. He was opposed, in the Committee, to an inspection of tea in bond, and he would tell them why. He did not like to throw that duty on the Government. He thought it was the duty of the wholesale dealer to take care that he did not import an adulterated article. Wholesale dealers were not such poor people that they could not pay the expense of an inspection of goods which they imported into this country, in order to ascertain whether they were adulterated or not. He thought that on them lay the responsibility of not introducing into this country an adulterated article. If the system of inspecting tea was to be introduced, why was inspection to be confined to tea? If the system of inspection of tea was to be introduced, the principle should be extended to every article of food. Under the present Act, adulteration had been reduced to a minimum quantity; but if they were going to return to the old state of things, and to require knowledge on the sale of adulterated articles, then he said they were going to re-establish the state of things which existed 22 years ago, and which shocked the public when it was exposed before the Committee that sat. He was quite sure his right hon. Friend would be only too anxious to attend to any suggestions that might be made. He would venture to put on the Paper some Amendments which would embody the observations he had made, and he had only to request that his right hon. Friend would not fix too early a day for going into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he had not the slightest intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill; but he joined in the request that the Government would give
  602
  as much time as possible for the consideration of the measure, so that hon. Members might be able to confer with those who were more especially interested in the subject, and to ascertain what was really wanted to meet the wishes of the public and of dealers. He observed that the Bill contained a clause specially providing that the Bill should not apply to Scotland in Ireland. He could not understand why that clause was inserted. The working of the Act seemed to give satisfaction in Ireland. Dr. Cameron, the analyst for Dublin, was decidedly in favour of the Act, and if he (Mr. Muntz) remembered right, that gentleman stated that before the Act was put in operation in Dublin the "usage of trade" amongst the milk-sellers was, to every gallon of milk to add two gallons of water; but that since the Act came into operation, the water had disappeared, and the milk was sound. That, he thought, ought to be sufficient reason for continuing the operation of the Act in Ireland. The particular fault mentioned was, that there were only two or three analysts appointed for several towns, and that consequently there was a difficulty in meeting the public requirements. He could not remember the evidence that was given as to Scotland, but he believed the evidence was that in Edinburgh, at all events, the milk never had been adulterated. As to the word "knowingly," if it were retained in the Bill all attempts to check adulteration would be hopeless. He also objected to the use of the words "according to the usage of trade," on the ground that trade usages were often anything but what they ought to be. There was in the Bill another clause, which provided that if a defendant proved he had sold the article in the same state in which he had purchased it, and with a warranty in writing to that effect, he should be discharged. It was obvious, however, that, even if there were a warranty, it would afford no evidence that the article had not been wilfully adulterated, because the warranty might have been given by a man of straw. The recommendations of the Committee were, that if a warranty in writing were produced by a defendant, the case should be adjourned, and that the justices should direct a summons to be issued against the person or persons from whom the defendant had purchased the articles, who, if found guilty of adulteration,

  603
  should be liable to the penalties imposed. For his own part, he could see no objection to the insertion of a clause embodying those recommendations of the Committee. Certainly, the wholesale dealer ought to be held responsible, if it were clearly proved that the retailer purchased the articles of him in an adulterated state. If that alteration were made in the Bill it would be a most valuable one. In Birmingham and the neighbourhood there was a large number of respectable grocers, who did not object to a Bill against adulteration, though they were averse from being annoyed by analysts who did not understand their work. Then, further, if tea were to be inspected in bond, why should not wine be inspected also? More persons were poisoned by wine than by tea, and what the Committee heard about Hamburg sherry was enough to make people turn teetotalers next morning. It would, in his opinion, be dangerous for the Government to undertake the examination of tea in bond, and both his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) and himself opposed Government inspection in the Committee, but they were beaten by a majority of 1 or 2. If the principle were once admitted it would open the way to the introduction of a whole army of Inspectors for the examination of other articles in bond besides tea. He was thoroughly opposed to the systematic robbery of the poor, and, although the present Bill was far from perfect, it might, if amended in the way he had indicated, prove a very useful measure.
  MR. PELLsaid, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had misunderstood the 2nd clause, which, in fact, extended the operation of the Bill to Ireland and Scotland. He mentioned that in order to show the difficulty under which hon. Members laboured in consequence of the short time given to them for the consideration of measures. Under the Bill no fewer than 280 separate authorities would have the power, if they chose to exercise it, of appointing a petty officer to undertake very important duties. That number of authorities was far too large, and he should like to see some limit of population placed to the authorities who might appoint analysts. If, however, they prevented a small borough from appointing an analyst, the inhabitants who desired to have an
  604
  article analyzed could go to the adjoining area to have it done for them. But then came the obvious inference that they would get the services of an officer who was paid by one local authority doing the work of another without their contributing to remuneration. That arose very much from Clause 12, which limited the charge for the performance of a very intricate duty, and one which required a man of high standing and education, to the inadequate amount of 10 s. 6d. A number of analyses would be worth nothing, if performed for such an inadequate sum. The analyst's remuneration certainly was to be made up by salary, so that when he was appointed he would know the maximum he could get for his services; but the salary was to come from one portion of the community—namely, those unhappy people who, up the present moment, had contributed exclusively to many charges which ought to be borne by the community generally. He should propose an Amendment to remove this maximum amount to be paid for an analysis, for he thought it only fair, since the Government retained a voice in the appointment of the analyst, that his salary should be partly paid by contributions from the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities. He hoped that the Amendments to be submitted in Committee would receive favourable consideration from the Government, and that the Bill would be improved in many of its provisions before it was allowed to pass into law. His fear was, that there was a danger of no public analyst being appointed at all, seeing that the option of such an appointment was to rest with the 280 local authorities to whom the Bill would apply. Such a result would be a misfortune, more especially where the public mind was strongly in favour of the appointment of an analyst. He trusted the danger would be avoided, and that where the Government exercised any supervision they should be prepared to contribute annually towards the cost of such officials.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was glad to hear of the proposal to stop the import of bad tea, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give the House some idea of what the conditions were under which it was proposed to allow questionable tea to go

  605
  into use. It might be difficult to deal with all articles upon importation, for in many cases articles of consumption were adulterated afterwards. Clause 8 seemed to enact that, if the ingredients introduced for the purpose of adulteration were not hurtful, the articles sold might be described as "mixed." Surely, however, that was not sufficient, for in his opinion, the ingredients mixed with the original article ought to be stated; because it would be more satisfactory to persons purchasing, to know what the article was mixed with, than merely to know it was mixed. He thought, also, that the Bill should not be limited to articles of food and to drugs. Why should it not include snuff and tobacco? The Report of the Inland Commissioners showed a very extensive adulteration in the latter article. Out of 71 samples offered to the Excise, not less than 51 were adulterated; while sugar was adulterated with sand and other inorganic matter sometimes to the extent of 50 per cent. Another matter stated in the same Report was, that methylated liquors were greatly reduced in strength, and that, in his opinion, was a matter deserving consideration.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, that speaking with a practical knowledge of the tea trade of over 30 years, and having read the Bill with great care and attention, he had no hesitation in giving it his support. The question of the examination of tea in bond had the entire approval of the trade; and he believed that not one ounce in every ton which came to England was adulterated here. The examination of tea in bond, while still under Government control, was a very easy matter; not more than 5 parcels in 1,000 would require any examination at all; and if those 5 were found to contain anything injurious to health, it would not be difficult to prevent their going into consumption. Referring to the term "adulteration"—and, in passing, he would say that it was an unheard of thing to make penal an offence which, for six months past, the authorities had been endeavouring in vain to define—some of the analysts went as far as to say that all green tea was adulterated with deleterious matter, and a gentleman who was High Sheriff of Anglesea had been fined a large sum for retailing the very finest green tea procurable. The fact was, that analysts
  606
  wished to make themselves out exceedingly clever, and, as a means of blowing their own trumpets, made the most of the very least quantities of foreign matters they discovered in the various samples submitted to them. With regard to the term "custom of trade," it was very difficult to say what should or what should not be allowed; but it was a monstrous thing that the Government should be permitted to prepare their cocoa and mustard in a manner that would subject a private dealer to punishment for selling an adulterated article. His own opinion was that where, in the words of the Report, people were cheated, and not poisoned, it was better to leave them to seek their own remedies. When the proper time arrived he should be able, on the part of the trade, to show how the Bill might be considerably improved.
  MR. CARPENTER-GARNIER,in supporting the Bill, said, that having sat upon the Select Committee appointed to consider this subject last year, he wished to express his opinion that the Bill would remedy all the grievances of traders, while it gave increased protection to the public. He thought that the exception in Clause 6, relating to the usage of trade, should be omitted, dealers in mixed articles being sufficiently protected by Clause 8, which provided that there should be a written or a printed label on the article to be sold as a mixture, now cocoa and mustard came under this proviso, the first being generally mixed with farina and sugar, and the second with wheat flour coloured with turmeric; and, in his opinion, if such mixtures were no more than were ordinarily required, and if they did not materially add to the weight or bulk, the article should be exempt from penalty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) that it was a pity they did not get at the wholesale dealer, and that the retail trader should not be allowed to show that the article complained of was in the same state in which he had received it from the wholesale trader, and so throw the liability on the latter; because, although the retail dealer had at present the Common Law right of proceeding against the wholesale trader, the cost of taking proceedings was so great as practically to debar him from the exercise of that right. As to the Act of 1872, it was practically a dead letter in the country districts, be-

  607
  pcause the Inspectors who were generally superintendents of police, could not be spared from their other duties to take the samples to the analyst for examination, he was therefore glad to see that by the Bill, the sample might be sent by post.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONobserved that in due time he should move a new Proviso to Clause 30, to the effect that before tea was forfeited or destroyed the owner or owners might call in three sworn tea-brokers, and in the event of a majority of them being of the analyst's opinion then the tea should be absolutely destroyed; but in the event of the tea being pronounced by a majority to be marketable, it should be delivered to the owner. The cost of such certificate to be not less than £3 3s., or more than £15 15 s.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, a complaint had been made that people might mix poisonous articles with food under the Bill. Clause 4, however, provided that persons selling food containing anything injurious to health would be dealt with very seriously; for the offender would be liable to a penalty of £50 for the first offence, and for a second offence, he might be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months, and there were no exceptions whatever to the operation of the clause. Objection had also been made that a poor man would not receive what he asked for; but Clause 6 provided that whatever was asked for should be of "the nature, substance, and quality" he demanded. If it should be proved, as had been stated, that as much as 75 per cent of starch had been mixed with cocoa, no magistrate would hesitate to impose a penalty, for the demand would be for cocoa, and not for starch. He would admit that it had certainly been a recommendation of the Select Committee, that when the retail dealer proved to the satisfaction of a justice that he sold his articles in the same state as he received them from the wholesale dealer, the justice should be allowed to adjourn the inquiry and summon the wholesale dealer to attend; but however simple that appeared to be in theory, it was found very difficult in practice. It had been asked how it came to pass that tea was the only article that had been, so to say, taken under the protection of the Government on being imported. The reason was, that it was the only article
  608
  which had been represented as coming into this country in a seriously adulterated state. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) said that there, was some sort of doctoring of tea in England. That might be, but the conclusion to which the evidence taken by the Committee had brought him was, that there was very little adulteration of it practised in this country. He had only heard of two insignificant cases in which dealers had adulterated or coloured tea. It was very different with wine, which after its import was mixed and fortified by the trade. There had been expressions of opinion that several counties and boroughs should unite in the appointment of an analyst. The Bill made that desirable object easy, and it enabled samples to be sent by post, so there was no reason why ten or a dozen counties should not be under the superintendence of an analyst residing in London. As regarded the smallness of a neighbouring analyst's fee, referred to by the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), there was a great deal of force in the hon. Member's observations, and he had no doubt his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would meet that objection. Tobacco, he believed, was very little adulterated, and even if it were it was sharply looked after by the Excise. With regard to the observation that the operations of the Bill were confined to England, all he could say was that the Government intended and were desirous to extend it to Ireland and Scotland, and if, upon consideration with the legal advisers of the Department, it was found that this wish could be carried out, the alterations would be made in Committee. In reference to the suggestion that adulteration should be defined, he would express his opinion that any attempt to define it would completely fail, for instance, he had got about 40 definitions of it, and a more terrible jumble and confusion of the different ideas of adulteration he never saw; and as he believed the principle of the Bill was a good one, he hoped that with some few Amendments in Committee it would pass into law.
  MR. LYON PLAFAIRsaid, that in the preparation of the Bill the Government had to keep two objects in view—first, the removal of certain hardships of which traders might fairly complain; second, their removal in such a way as would not prove injurious to the

  609
  public. The operations of the Acts of 1860, 1867, and 1872 had been very beneficial. Prior to the passing of the last Act, the usage of the trade was to place 25 per cent of water in milk. That usage was condemned, and now milk could be had without any prejudicial amount of adulteration. Again, the usage with regard to bread was to place alum in flour, and to sell bread to the poor of a very inferior quality, made of the adulterated flour: for the object of using alum was to employ flour of deteriorated quality. The Acts had condemned that injurious practice. Their operation also drove what was known in the trade as "Canton capers," or tea which was imported in an adulterated condition, to other markets, and they required that coffee and mustard, which before had each been much mixed, should, when mixed, be labelled, so that the purchaser might at all events know what he was buying. Vinegar, too, which before the passing of the Act was adulterated with sulphuric acid, was now to be had in a pure condition. Thus, the articles of food in greatest consumption had been materially improved, and what he wished the House to consider was, whether the present Bill would relieve traders of what they considered hardships at the expense of the public. In his opinion it would, unless considerable amendments of its provisions were made in Committee. He would point out some of its clauses which induced him to think that much more serious protection of the public was required than the Bill afforded. In the existing Acts it was assumed that the seller of an article knew his business sufficiently well to know whether it was pure or impure. The Preamble of the Act of 1867 required that persons selling articles of food should have a sufficient practical knowledge of their business; and the 24th section enacted that the adulteration was to be assumed, unless the contrary was proved by the seller, who was to be deemed to have had knowledge of such adulteration, and the existence and propriety of that responsibility had been affirmed by several judgments of the Superior Courts. But the Bill said in effect that ignorance instead of knowledge was to be assumed. The question of "knowingly" came in. A person was to be punished who "knowingly" gold an adulterated article, so that he
  610
  could save himself by not knowing his business at all. For his part, he feared that this word "knowingly" would neutralize the benefit intended to be secured by the Bill, and then again the Bill recognized the "usage of trade." But it had been a usage of trade to add 25 per cent of water to milk, to mix alum with flour, to "strengthen" vinegar by adulteration, and so on, and all those usages of trade would, he feared, spring up again under the Bill. Another clause deserved attention. By the 25th clause the defendant was relieved, if he sold the article as it was bought by him under a warranty. Of course, in future there would be a warranty on every invoice, and the responsibility of the retailer would practically cease. But the Bill made no attempt to punish the actual adulterator who sold the impure article to the retailer. The Select Committee recommended that, and without a provision to that effect the Act would be useless. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had, he thought, hit a blot in the Bill. It was impossible to get a chemical analysis such as would be required under this Bill for 10 s. 6d., and therefore it would be more correct to say that the consumer would have the right to go and get an analysis at the expense of the ratepayers. It would be necessary to have combined areas with efficient public analysts at salaries of from £100 to £200 a-year, and it would be more accurate to say that the cost of the analysis would be 10 s. 6d., plus the salary drawn from the ratepayers and paid to the analyst. His hon. Friend had stated that it was intended that Scotland and Ireland should be introduced; but the Bill expressly said that nothing in the Act should apply to Scotland or Ireland, "except as hereinafter provided," and he found nothing provided in the Bill on the subject. At present Scotland and Ireland were left out in the cold; but he was sure that a provision would be made in the Bill to remedy any such inconvenience.
  MR. SALTsaid, that one good point in the Bill was, that it repealed two Acts of Parliament and consolidated the law on the subject. That was the proper course to pursue, as Acts of this class went all over the country, and had to be construed by persons who were not familiar with legal phraseology. He

  611
  also considered that some of the clauses of the Bill would require very careful consideration before being passed into law, for if the words "usage of trade" should be allowed to stand there would be no protection to any consumer. When a Bill of this kind was introduced, the first question one asked himself was, "How will it benefit the consumer; and especially how will he make use of it?" It was clear that a Bill of this character, to prevent the adulteration of food, was chiefly material to poor persons, who were most affected by adulterated food and drugs. It was more especially so, for this reason—that a rich man, when he was not satisfied with his tradesmen, could change them, or even buy his goods wholesale, whereas the poor man was at the mercy of the tradesmen who lived near him. Therefore Acts like these should be passed chiefly to benefit the poor consumer. How was a poor person, then, to act under the present Bill? How could he obtain a remedy against his tradespeople? The Bill certainly said that he might take the article he had bought to the analyst, and have it analyzed on payment of 10 s. 6d. But he would have no knowledge of the analyst, and was he likely to be in a position to pay 10 s. 6d. for an analysis of his small purchase of flour, coffee, tea, or sugar? By the 14th clause it was provided that if a person went to a trader with the intention of having the substance that he purchased analyzed, he must give notice of his intention, and divide his purchase into thirds, one of which he was to leave with the dealer and another to retain for himself. Was not such a proceeding beyond the capacity of the poor man, especially as no means were provided for bringing him into direct contact with any of the officers? That was a point, no doubt, to which the right hon. Gentleman had given his attention, and possibly he (Mr. Salt) was mistaken in the view he had taken of the Bill, but he wished to put the matter before the notice of the Government. While the House protected the consumer, it ought, however, to take care that the dealer was not unnecessarily annoyed. Agreeing with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) as to the charge thrown by the Bill on local resources, he doubted whether it might not be desirable that the Government
  612
  should endeavour to organize a machinery by which the whole, or nearly the whole, of these articles which had been referred to, and which were to be submitted to experiment, should be sent to some great central laboratory, where the greatest skill and care would be taken in the analyzing. The trading classes had not always entire confidence in the different local analysts, and some curious instances were cited of contradictory opinions being given upon the same identical article. It was necessary, therefore, that the greatest skill should be employed in these analyses, so as to give confidence to the public and the trader. In conclusion, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced the Bill.
  MR. COLMANsaid, that as he happened to be acquainted with the manufacture of some articles which had been named during the course of the discussion, he should like to make a few remarks before the debate closed. The articles to which he referred were mustard and cocoa. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh was speaking of the improvement which the Act had effected in preventing milk being mixed with 25 per cent of water, he wondered what would be said as to mustard, but he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman only referred to the difference which had been made in the labels—a difference which the manufacturers had been perfectly willing at once to adopt. Allusion had been made prominently during the discussion to Clause 25, which seemed hardly in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, that responsibility should rest on the wholesale manufacturers rather than on the retail trades. He desired, therefore, to say that the recommendation in question had the fullest sanction of the manufacturers of cocoa and mustard, and he hoped the responsibility would still be left on them, and that they should be bound by the labels which they placed on their goods. He was not at all prepared to complain of the remarks which had been made of the term in the Bill "usage of trade." There was much force in some of the remarks, but he was happy to feel that the private firms manufacturing mustard and cocoa could give very high authority as to their "usage;" for if hon. Members would

  613
  refer to the Reports from the Navy Victualling Yards, which had been for several years past presented to the House, they would find that the Government manufactured for the use of the Navy mustard and cocoa as mixed articles, which were in principle precisely the same as those supplied by private manufacturers, and such as many retail tradesmen had been fined for selling, and this seemed a manifest injustice. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had, he thought, fallen into an error in his statement that under the Act now in force an oral declaration was needful. This point had never been finally decided. Magistrates had given conflicting decisions. The haste with which the Act of 1872 had been passed at the fag end of the Session had left this point in doubt. He hoped, however, that by careful consideration in Committee the Bill might be made clear and distinct—that it would not absolve the manufacturer from any responsibility attaching to his labels; and that an Act might be framed which should be a protection to the consumer, fair to the retail tradesman, and not unjust to the manufacturers.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the inquiry of the Select Committee led them to the conclusion that very little adulteration of food existed. It was not so much Adulteration Acts as the reform of our fiscal system that had done so much to improve the quality of the articles sold, and he believed that the retail dealers scarcely ever adulterated tea, coffee, or other articles of grocery. At all events, no single case had been proved before the Committee. If, however, they raised the duty on tea again from 6d. to 2s. a pound they would make it to the interest of traders to adulterate, which at present it was not. The sensational letters which had appeared in the papers were traceable to adulterators who wished to advertise their own speciality. He believed that the Bill, with one or two Amendments, would be sufficient to protect the public, and, at the same time, to deliver the retail dealer from a vexatious system, which was becoming so annoying as to render the old Act practically nugatory. The inspection of tea in bond would do more than anything else to put an end to the vexation and difficulty which had been entailed upon retailers by the Act of 1870;
  614
  and with regard to the appointment of analysts, he thought it ought to be compulsory for the whole country, for the temptations to adulterate were perhaps greatest in the small places where it was difficult to make the appointments. He thought the Bill generally was a good one, and would give satisfaction to dealers and consumers alike.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, there ought to be some means of determining the chemical knowledge and acquirements of analysts. Chemists at present differed in their opinions as to the tests to be employed for detecting the presence of certain substances, and a Judge before whom a trader might be accused would hesitate to convict, if a chemist of high standing were adduced as a witness to prove that the process employed by the public analyst was not the best and should not be regarded as conclusive evidence of the alleged adulteration. It appeared to him that a great difficulty would arise in obtaining the services of skilled analysts at prices which traders in small communities might reasonably be expected to be able to give.
  MR. YEAMANhoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would see that it was made applicable to Scotland, because he felt quite sure that, with the Amendments which might be introduced in Committee, a very excellent Bill might be framed. Whenever the laws of the two countries could be assimilated, it was desirable it should be done, and, therefore, he suggested that the Bill should extend to Scotland. In the burgh which he represented, dealers were very anxious with regard to the question of tea in bond. They thought it a great hardship that they should be prosecuted for selling an article which had been adulterated, but which they had sold in the same state in which they had received it—the adulteration having been carried on in China. With regard to analysts, he thought that great care should be taken that the persons appointed to such an important office were competent to fulfil its duties, and that they should be appointed by Government.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, although he had no right to reply, he should like to make one or two observations with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Stafford

  615
  (Mr. Salt), who said the poor man was not considered in the Bill. That was not really so; but under the provisions of the Bill the police and public officer would be in duty bound to take care of such cases. He admitted that the term "knowingly" was used too frequently in the 6th and 9th clause, and he would consider whether it should not, in some instances at least, be struck out. He was not surprised also that many hon. Members had taken exception to the words in Clause 6, which referred to the usages of trade, and he would carefully consider whether the object of the Bill was not sufficiently provided for, as he believed it was, by the subsequent part of the clause. With reference to the complaint of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), that in addition to the charge of 10 s. 6d. for analysis, a supplementary charge was raised out of the rates, he could not help thinking if any charge on the rates was reasonable this was a charge of that kind. In conclusion, he would say that it was not intended by the Bill to take away from Scotland and Ireland the advantages they had hitherto enjoyed. He thanked hon. Members for the various suggestions which had been made, and he could assure the House they would all be considered by him with every anxiety to make the Bill as perfect as possible.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked when the Bill would be taken into Committee?
  MR. SCLATR-BOOTHsaid, that it would be put down for Thursday week.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 4th March.
  House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock till Monday next.