§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ Description of Offences.
§ Clause 6 (Provision for the sale of compounded articles of food and compounded drugs) amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Protection from offences by giving of label.)
§ MR. A. H. BROWNmoved, in page 3, at end, to add—
Or if he shall supply such article from any box, vessel, package, or other receptacle which is clearly marked in such a way as to signify that the article is mixed, and is so placed that the purchaser of such article may he able to read what is marked thereon.His object was to remove the necessity of wrapping up small quantities of an article in a paper marked "mixed," as that would entail in the case of small sales over the counter a good deal of unnecessary trouble on the seller.
§ MR. BRISTOWEpointed out that the clause as it stood was very good, and that the Amendment, if adopted, would open the door to fraud.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 3, line 19, at end to add, "and stating the nature of the mixture," with a view that purchasers should know what they were buying.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the Amendment would tend to the manufacture of inferior goods.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHalso opposed the Amendment. No information of value would be given by it to the purchaser, who would know nothing as to the quality of the materials used.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to,
197§ Clause 8 (Prohibition of the abstraction of any part of an article of food before sale, and selling without notice).
§ MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the clause would relate to the case of flour? Every miller in dressing flour took out of it some of the fine flour. What he wanted to know was, whether that would render him liable to a penalty?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that this point was provided for by the 5th clause, which enacted that the purchaser was to be furnished with a description of the quality of the flour which he demanded.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Appointment and Duties of Analysts, and Proceedings to obtain Analysis.
§ Clause 9 (Appointment of analysts.)
§ MR. SANDFORDsaid, that one of the strongest points which had been made out before the Select Committee was the incompetency of the local analysts. The Bill would not remove this grievance, but would leave it as it was. He contended that in many small boroughs it was impossible to find men possessed of sufficient skill to qualify them as analysts. "Why, in certain of the small boroughs the very worst sinners, as far as adulteration was concerned, were the town councillors. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "No, no," but he said "Yes, yes." It would conduce both to economy and efficiency if analysts were appointed by the county, and he therefore moved to leave out from "beginning," to "or boroughs," inclusive, in page 4, line 3, and insert—
In England the magistrates for each county shall, as soon as possible after the passing of this Act, appoint for each county one or more persons possessing competent knowledge, skill, and experience as analysts of all articles of food or drugs sold within such county.
§ SIR HENRY PEEKprotested against any analysts whatsoever being appointed. It had been proved before the Select Committee that there were not a dozen men in England who were fit to be analysts. He had no desire in saying that to screen the mal-practices of the trade, or to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill; but he was persuaded the latter could best be carried into effect without analysts. There was a 198 laboratory at Somerset House which would, if it were taken advantage of, answer all the purposes of analyses. All that was there wanted was to strengthen the staff by the addition of three or four men, at about as many hundreds per annum. He said unhesitatingly that analysts had been a complete failure over the whole country. As an instance, he alluded to the recent case of the Northamptonshire widow, who was fined for selling adulterated coffee, but two persons accused of the same offence at the same time, in the same place, and by the same local analyst sent the coffee to London to be analysed, when it was proved to be pure, whereupon the analyst, who, by the way, acted for three counties, merely said he was sorry that his apparatus being out of order he had been led into a mistake.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he could not agree with the proposal to transfer these appointments of analysts from the boroughs to the county magistrates. He thought the former were as capable of judging in the matter as the latter, and hoped the clause would be allowed to stand pretty much in its present form.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the Committee would not be prepared to accept the Amendment, which would, in the first place, swamp the small boroughs, and then give them an advantage by relieving them from contributions towards the salaries of the analysts. So far as he was aware the boroughs had acted quite as well as the counties, if not better. He could quote cases of boroughs in which the Act was excellently put in force. There was no occasion at present, whatever future experience might prove, for the whole analytical work to devolve upon a central establishment, and the Government was not prepared to assent to such a scheme.
§ MR. PELLagreed in the opinion that a sufficient body of competent men could not be found from whom to select analysts for the whole of the country. In his own county convictions had been obtained by an analyst, who, on one of the articles of which he complained being sent for examination in London, had been shown to be unfit for his office. Again, in Scotland, a person fined for selling adulterated milk sent the analysis on which he had been convicted to a competent chemist in London, and it was declared to be an accurate description of 199 unadulterated milk. This was a melancholy state of things. He was a farmer, and would like to have his manure analyzed, but he would not ask a country analyst to analyze it. If he sent it to London, he would be quite satisfied with the analysis of Dr. Hassell. They were authorizing uninformed local authorities to convict upon the statements of men who had received no training for the duties which they had to perform, and there was danger that they would allow magistrates who did not represent the ratepayers to throw upon the rates the enormous expences which these prosecutions would involve.
§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, that in the county with which he was connected great care was taken in the appointment of an analyst, and he thought borough magistrates were quite as competent as county magistrates to appoint analysts.
§ An hon. Member thought the appointment of analysts should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, with a view of securing the entire efficiency of the gentlemen appointed.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there could be no doubt that some incompetent analysts had been appointed, who had produced analyses unfortunate for themselves and for traders. But that was very much the fault of Parliament, which provided no safeguards for the selection of competent men. Even this Bill contained no proper security that the analysts should be competent. It was important that the Local Government Board should lay down rules as to the qualifications to be required, and then both boroughs and counties might be trusted to appoint proper men. But he would say one word for the analysts who had been appointed under all the difficulties of the present system, and suddenly called upon to make analyses without preparation. Before the Adulteration Act was passed Dr. Hassell made 2,000 analyses of articles and found that 76 per cent of them were adulterated. Since the Act was passed 17,000 analyses had been made by the public analyst, and only 26 per cent of the articles were found adulterated, of which 13 were in milk alone. Much as we might lament the ignorance on the part of analysts suddenly called upon, as a whole, the work had been performed 200 to the satisfaction and for the benefit of the public. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman because he thought London and the large boroughs were quite able to find efficient analysts.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, the great object was to secure a really competent analyst. If we had a large number of analysts, it was probable that they would all be very inadequately paid, and probably be inefficient; but if we had one superior analyst appointed for a more extended district, we could afford to pay him well for his work, and thus secure a superior man. Practically, these analysts were placed in the position of Judges, for on their decision, rather than on the decision of magistrates, rested the question whether or not those persons who were accused of adulteration should be subjected to a penalty. Under these circumstances, he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford), although at the same time, he thought the City of London was competent to appoint its own analyst.
§ MR. EVANSsaid, he hoped that some provision would be introduced to avoid for the future such gross injustice as had been inflicted on those tradesmen who, through the incompetence of analysts, had been groundlessly accused of adulteration. He believed the best course to adopt would be to appoint for the work of analysis a competent authority who would give general satisfaction.
§ MR. ALDERMAN COTTONobserved, that the analyst was all-important in the Bill. He believed that the Analytical Board of Somerset House was all-sufficient for analytical purposes. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) might treat the faults of analysts very lightly, their faults might ruin the reputation of innocent tradesmen. He was inclined to think that this discussion would make analysts more careful in the future.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, it would be inconsistent with previous legislation to leave the appointment of analysts in boroughs with the county magistrates, who would have to go to the large towns and cities for the persons to be appointed. He should vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. VILLIERSsaid, he thought there was a great deal to be said in justification of the Amendment, because it had in view the interests of the community independently of the trader. It appeared that only 24 boroughs out of 171 had appointed analysts; whereas the county magistrates had appointed analysts in 30 cases out of 54. Now, there must be some reasons why the towns and boroughs did not appoint analysts, and if the Committee were really in earnest in preventing the enormous evils of adulteration of food, they should take care that their legislation should be effective, compulsory, and general. At present nothing could be more capricious than the operation of the existing law. It had been two years in operation, yet while in some places the law against adulteration was rigorously enforced, in others no analysts were appointed, and the law became a dead letter. The consequence was, that the unscrupulous traders sent their adulterated goods to the latter places, and enormous injury was inflicted on the community. The analysts had been condemned, but had they had a fair trial? He did not know why it should be said that they had done no good. How could it be said that persons capable of analyzing adulteration were not competent authorities? They did not exist in sufficient numbers at first; but during the last two years a sufficient number of them had come forward. The House ought to remember that wherever analysts had been appointed great public advantage had accrued. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the statements sometimes made in the House that there was now no adulteration of food. Lectures were being delivered in the the metropolis which proved that all the evils that ever existed in regard to adulteration were still rampant. It had been stated, indeed, on good authority, that much of the savage ferocity displayed in recent cases of drunken assaults was attributable to the noxious ingredients with which the liquor of the lower classes was adulterated. There never was a time when, on sanitary grounds, an effective measure was more required. For 50 years such an Act had been demanded, and in 1860 an Act was passed, but no analysts were appointed, because the appointment was placed in the hands of those who took care not to appoint them. 202 The Act of 1872 was passed by something like an accident. The present Bill was, in his mind, no improvement on the Act of 1872, because it would dimmish the protection of the consumer, and offer facilities to the traders who practised adulteration. He hoped that the Committee would receive an assurance that the Bill would not be merely permissive, but that the word "may" in regard to the appointment of an analyst should be changed to "shall appoint an analyst."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could have given very little attention to the language of the Bill. The real difficulty was to insist on the appointment of analysts, when they were told that a sufficient number of competent persons could not be found. The Bill, however, extended the facilities for the joint appointment of analysts by boroughs and counties. There was, unfortunately, no School of Analytical Chemistry in this country; but, in a subsequent clause, it would be proposed to refer the analyses in certain cases to the Board of Inland Revenue, the effect of which might be that plenty of competent analysts would be found in a few years. When it was stated that county magistrates might be relied upon to carry out the Act, he would remind the Committee that the magistrates of two midland counties had appointed an analyst who was thoroughly incompetent. There were many difficulties in the way of working the Act in counties, while in several boroughs it was very well worked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had borne testimony to the general diminution of adulteration, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) believed that if powers were given to the Inland Revenue still greater improvements might be made.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it would be very invidious and almost unconstitutional to say that boroughs having quarter sessions which were competent to try criminals were not to be trusted to appoint analysts. It would be invidious to particularize, but he might say that the analysts were not infallible. The country had had accounts in the newspapers of a great mistake committed by one learned man, and of another learned man correcting it. He should be sorry to see any change made in the direction of the Amendment.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid that, as a borough Member, he must protest against the appointment of the local analysts being taken out of the hands of the borough authorities. He did not see why such towns as Leeds and Sheffield should not appoint their own analysts. Where were they to get the analysts unless they went to the large towns for them?
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he was ready to admit that the case of the City of London was peculiar, and therefore he did not object, so far as the City proper was concerned, to the appointment being vested in the Commissioners of Sewers; but, with respect to the other portion of the metropolis, he objected to the appointment being vested in the local vestries. The ratepayers would not be satisfied with such an arrangement.
MR. COLEcould only say that, as a vestryman, he thought the vestries were the very best possible bodies to be entrusted with the appointment of analysts. The only difficulty was as regarded expense, which disinclined those bodies to appoint analysts at all; but that difficulty would vanish if the appointment were made compulsory, and if that was done, they would take care to appoint the best men who could be obtained.
§ MR. SANDFORDdid not deny that the large towns would appoint able and competent men, but his object in wishing to vest the appointment in the hands of the county magistrates was to secure economy in spreading the cost over a wider area. He objected to the language of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board in describing what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) as irrelevant. That right hon. Gentleman's observations were perfectly relevant, and he would venture to say that he knew more about the subject than the right hon. Gentleman himself. On the whole, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, because he found that, at a subsequent period, some amelioration of the clause might be effected.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SANDFORDmoved the postponement of the clause, expressing his concurrence in the view which had been submitted to the Committee by the hon. 204 Member for Mid-Surrey (Sir Henry Peek), that it would be more satisfactory that things should be sent up to Somerset House to be analyzed.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY,in supporting the proposal for the postponement of the clause, gave it as his opinion that it was one of the most important in the Bill. He thought the public generally were of opinion that the analyzing of these things was a much easier process than it really was. He approved of the idea of making Somerset House a final Court of Appeal; but it was to be remembered that there were some articles which would not keep to be sent there, and some special provision might have to be made in regard to them. Among other reasons he had for thinking analyses should be done at Somerset House was this—that there was an impression that the analyses of local chemists depended very much on the interest of the person sending the articles, and, whether it was well or ill-founded, its existence would have a very prejudicial effect on the operation of the Act. If the analyses were made in London they would gain the respect and confidence of the whole community. Another reason he had for supporting this proposal was that hitherto, in Scotland, at all events, local authorities had not shown any disposition to pay such sums of money as would command the services of good analysts.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, the postponement of the clause would be equivalent to the postponement of the consideration of the Bill, and if the hon. Member desired to raise the question it ought to be done by a direct and substantive Amendment.
§ MR. WHITWELLopposed the Amendment. There was no reason why the countries and boroughs should not combine and appoint an analyst.
§ MR. RODWELLsaid, the clause provided for the appointment of an analyst who resided in London, if one could not be found in the county or borough of competent experience. It appeared to him almost a libel to say that in our large boroughs competent men could not be found. The clause would meet almost every possible case—it was partly permissive, and partly compulsory.
§ DR. C. CAMERONsaid that to refer all the analyses from the country to London would destroy the principle of the Bill. Somerset House had not the means 205 of undertaking the whole analyses of the country.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the clause would carry out with certainty the amendments required in the existing law. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. The Government were not prepared to set up a great Government establishment to take charge of the different localities, the expenses of which would have to be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. PELLmoved, in page 3, line 33, after "borough," to insert—
Containing, according to the last published census, for the time being, a population of twenty-five thousand and upwards.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment. If the matter was left to the discretion of the local authorities, he did not think that would limit the number of analysts, as anticipated. It was an attempt to restrain the action of the local authorities.
§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, the Amendment would preclude the city of Canterbury and the corporate town of Leamington from appointing their own analysts. He thought it would be dealing hardly with towns containing perhaps only 1,000 less in population than the limit proposed that they should be handed over to the discretion of the county bench.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, in page 4, line 3, after "boroughs," to insert—
Provided that such analysts he not engaged in the trade of buying or selling any article of food or drugs.Chemists frequently sold articles of food and drink besides drugs. Now, this was objectionable, because it gave them an unfair advantage over their competitors in trade, and was calculated to produce an impression on the traders that they were not fairly dealt with. There was no necessity to have traders any longer as analysts, as a sufficient number of professional chemists could easily be obtained, especially when the Bill gave power to districts to combine.
MR. COLEargued that if chemists and druggists were excluded there would be many localities deprived altogether of the services of an analyst. Persons 206 selling drugs in country towns were often highly skilled chemists and analysts, and it was often of the greatest importance that an analysis should be made promptly, which could not be done if the thing to be analyzed had to be sent to London.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHapproved of the intention of the Mover of the Amendment, but could not accept the proposal, because local analysts were, of necessity, persons engaged in trade. The Local Government Board always preferred that persons not engaged in the sale of food and drugs should be appointed analysts; but in some very important boroughs most excellent analysts had been appointed who would be disqualified by this Amendment. He believed that, in some cases, the Amendment would operate injuriously.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. It did not seem a reasonable thing to put one tradesman in the position of having to deal with the articles of another tradesman who was his competitor in business. No practical evil could arise from the adoption of the Amendment, considering that there was the power of uniting towns together, and that the supply of professional chemists was much greater now than it was formerly.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that it was very rarely that persons engaged in manufactures were analysts. What was wanted was professional analysts thoroughly acquainted with chemistry, and he felt so strongly on the point that he must divide the Committee on the subject.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsupported the Amendment as an independent Member. It was not right that persons who dealt in particular articles should be called in to analyze them. They should appoint men who were properly qualified to perform the very important duty cast upon them.
§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTINpointed out that, in some counties, a medical man in private practice was the analyst.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved that when a sample of an article went to be analyzed it was sent in cipher, without the analyst knowing from whom it was obtained. Those gentlemen who had already been appointed could not well now be disestablished. Although 207 it might not be a matter on which it could rely, he assured the Committee that he would endeavour to see that proper persons were appointed for those duties.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he thought a man should not he a judge in his own case, and therefore he would support the Amendment on that ground.
§ MR. CAWLEYsuggested that the Amendment should be confined to the special trade in which the analyst might be engaged.
§ MR. SANDFORDalso recommended that it should be modified so as only to exclude a man who sold the articles in question within the district for which he was appointed as analyst.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would introduce some words on the Report to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Town Council of a borough may engage the analyst of another borough or of the county) agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Power to purchaser of an article of food to have it analysed).
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved, in page 4, line 34, after "to," insert" the inspector or inspectors appointed under this Act, or where there is no such inspector to." The object was to ensure secrecy on the part of the analyst.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Officer named to obtain a sample of food or drug to submit to analyst) agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Provision for dealing with the sample when purchased).
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved, in page 5, line 18, after "parts," insert "after it shall have been marked and sealed by the analyst."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved the Amendment entirely unnecessary.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Provision where sample is not divided) agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Provision for sending article to the analyst through the post office) agreed to.
208§ Clause 16 (Person refusing to sell any article to any officer liable to penalty).
§ MR. EARPmoved, in page 5, line 38, after "sale," to insert "or on sale by retail on any premises or in any shop or stores."
§ DR. C. CAMERONmoved an Amendment that the penalty of £5, imposed upon a person refusing to give a sample of his goods—known to be adulterated—should be increased to £20.
§ After a few words from Mr. SCLATERBOOTH, it was agreed to increase the penalty, in case of refusal by the seller to submit his goods for analysis, to £10.
§ Clause 17 (Form of the certificate) agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Quarterly report of the analyst).
§ MR. PELLmoved, in page 6, at end of clause, add—
And every such authority shall annually transmit to the Local Government Board, at such time and in such form as the Board shall direct, a certified copy of the number of articles analyzed, and shall he entitled to receive the sum of five shillings, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, in respect of every analysis, to he applied towards the expense of executing this Act.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHaccepted the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Proceedings against Offenders.
§ Clause 19 (Proceedings against offenders).
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, in page 6, line 31, leave out from "and" to "same," in line 33, both inclusive, and insert—
In Ireland such penalties and proceedings shall be recoverable, and may be taken with respect to the police district of Dublin metropolis, subject and according to the provisions of any Act regulating the powers and duties of justices of the peace for such district, or of the police of such district; and with respect to other parts of Ireland, before a justice or justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions, subject and according to the provisions of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and any Act amending the same.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Certificate of analyst primâ facie evidence for the prosecution. Analyst to be produced if required. Defendant and his wife may be examined) agreed to.
209§ Clause 21 (Power to justices to have articles of food and drugs analysed).
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had a very important Amendment to move in this clause, on which he had a great deal to say; but at that late hour—a quarter to 1—the matter was too important to be discussed. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.