HC Deb 13 May 1875 vol 224 cc595-604

(In the Committee.)

Proceedings against Offenders.

Clause 21 (Power to justices to have articles of food and drugs analyzed).

Page 7.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, after the word "by," to insert the words, "the chemical officers in the employment of the Inland Revenue Department, who shall thereupon make the analysis, and give a certificate to such justices of the result of the analysis; and the expense of such analysis shall be paid by the complainant or the defendant as the justices may by order direct."—(Mr. Pell.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out from the words "and the expense," to the end thereof, in order to add the words, "and the expenses of such examination, analysis, and attendance, shall be deemed part of the expense of the executing this Act, unless the justices order the same to be paid by the complainant or the defendant."—(Mr. Grantham.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. RODWELL

opposed the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey. He thought the Amendment, if adopted, would place the justices in a very invidious position. He much preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell).

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.

DR. C. CAMERON

said, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey, he felt it his duty to push his Amendment to a division. If the Inspectors were to be punished they would not work out the measure.

MR. BARING

said, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire. If the costs were put on the person who had committed the error, the provision would be a much more equitable one.

Amendment (Mr. Pell) agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 (Appeal to quarter sessions) agreed to.

Clause 23 (In any prosecution, defendant to prove that he is protected by exception or provision) agreed to.

Clause 24 (Defendant to be discharged if he prove that he bought the article in the same state as sold, and with a warranty. No costs except on issues proved against him).

MR. RODWELL

moved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out "and with a warranty in writing to that effect;" his object being to relieve the retail trader of the necessity of producing a "warranty "from the wholesale dealer if he could prove in any other way that he sold the goods in the state in which he received them. He thought the production of the invoice would be quite sufficient.

MR. MUNDELLA

suggested the substitution of the word "or "for the word "and." The dealer would then only have to prove that the article was in the state in which he purchased it, or have to produce a warranty to that effect.

MR. RODWELL

intimated his readiness to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the assumption had been throughout that the retailer was to be responsible for the purity of the article which he sold, and it was quite evident that the Committee adhered to the principle that the seller should be held responsible, unless he could satisfy the Court that he was not guilty, and that somebody else was guilty. If the words referring to the warranty were left out, the retailer would escape, and what remedy would the purchaser have? He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, even with the alteration suggested.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, the hardship entailed upon the retailer by retaining the clause as it stood would be obviated if he were enabled to obtain a written warranty as to the quality of the goods he purchased from the wholesale dealer, such warranty to be a sufficient answer to any charge that might be brought, except as far as the person giving the false warranty was concerned.

MR. FORSYTH

said, he thought it would be unfair to impose upon the retail dealer a penalty for selling a thing which he had purchased in good faith from the wholesale dealer.

MR. VILLIERS

said, the whole measure was a wholesale dealers' Bill, with the exception of the proposal that retail dealers should be entitled to obtain written warranties as to the quality of the goods which they purchased from the wholesale dealers. He hoped this security would be retained in justice to the retail dealing class. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) ought not to have proposed the Amendment unless he had authority to speak in the name of the retail dealers.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

held that the general scope and object of the Bill was to protect the public, and to throw upon the retail dealer the onus of proving that he did not sell adulterated articles. If the words proposed were struck out, the justices who had to try cases would be at the mercy of the retail dealers. He thought that nothing could be easier than for the wholesale dealers to give the written warranties required by the retail dealers.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he thought it only just that the retail dealers should have something to fall back upon in the way of warranties from the wholesale dealers in reference to the goods they sold. The certification could easily be written on the invoice and that ought to be sufficient.

MR. HENLEY

was of opinion that the written warranty of the wholesale dealer should be a sufficient answer to any charge of dealing in adulterated articles brought against a retail trader.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBEES

said, he could not see how a warranty would be the slightest protection to the retail dealer. If be obtained a warranty, and it was afterwards proved that the article he sold was adulterated, it would simply prove that he had adulterated it. These words could not, therefore, be left in at all, either with the words "and" or "or."

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

was anxious that these words should remain in the clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

contended that it was impossible for every person who sold a gallon of milk or a firkin of butter to give a warranty for it, as one was supposed to give in the case of a horse.

MR. CAWLEY

said, that the retention of the words of the clause as they stood was absolutely necessary. They would protect the retail dealer. He would simply have to prove that he sold the article in the same state in which he purchased it from the wholesale dealer.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he thought that if ignorance were to be pleaded by the retail dealer he ought to have a warranty from the wholesale dealer. It would be almost impossible to obtain a conviction under this clause, and he suggested the omission of the words "to that effect," which should be read in conjunction with a warranty in writing.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

recommended the Committee to adopt the word "or," and give the retail dealer a fair chance of escaping.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, there was very great difficulty in defining the meaning of the word "adulteration," and this had been felt by the Committee. The wholesale dealer was as much at the mercy of those from whom he obtained the article as the retail dealer was at the mercy of the wholesale dealer. How could he tell whether the article sold to him was or was not adulterated? He (Sir Henry Peek) sometimes made contracts in the West Indies for certain marks of arrowroot; but if, when it arrived in the docks, a purchaser came to him and said—"Give me a warranty that it is genuine," he should instantly reply—" Not if I know it." He should tell anyone who wanted to buy to go and look at it in the docks, adding—" If you don't like it, don't buy it."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he hoped the Committee would perceive that, unless they retained these words, the principle of this Bill and the previous Acts must fall to the ground. He admitted that the clause might be rather hard on the retailer; but, on the other hand, all reasonable concessions had been made to him. To adopt this Amendment would be to depart from the pledge which the Government had given to retain the principle of the Bill unimpaired.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RODWELL

moved, in page 8, line 21, after "effect," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert— Upon such proof the justices or court shall dismiss the case and may order the prosecutor to pay such amount of costs to the defendant as they may think fit. The object of this Amendment was to protect the retail dealer from any act of oppression under this Bill.

MR SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he had no objection to make the language of the latter part of the clause more clear; but the real effect of the Amendment would be to make the purchaser of adulterated goods, who had succeeded in proving the adulteration, pay the cost of the prosecution. This would be a monstrous proposal.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

moved, in line 22, to leave out from "prosecution" to the end, and insert— But shall he liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecution unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will admit at the hearing the matters charged against him in the information.

SIR HENRY JAMES

considered that the Amendment was too vague in its terms.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

promised to further consider the subject before the Report.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SANDFORD

said, there were three parties whose interest were to be considered in the Bill—first, the consuming public; secondly, the retailing traders; and, lastly, the wholesale dealers. The latter were the chief sinners in matters of adulteration, any adulteration committed by retail dealers being usually on a small and insignificant scale. Under the clause as it stood the interests of the consuming public were not consulted at all; the retail dealer was protected, while the wholesale dealer escaped altogether. If the clause passed a regular traffic might be carried on in adulterated goods, and at the same time under a written warranty. He moved, in page 8, at end, to add— When a defendant is discharged under the provisions of this section, the justices or court in their discretion may summon before them any person by whom, or by whose agent or servant, the warranty was given, and the like proceedings may be had against such person as if proceedings had been taken against him under the other provisions of this Act, and the same justices or court shall have jurisdiction for all the purposes of the new proceedings, notwithstanding that such person does not reside and is not found, and the article was not sold, nor the warranty given, within their jurisdiction: Provided, That no person so summoned shall be convicted unless he appear, or the justices or court are satisfied that the summons was served upon him personally or came to his knowledge.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

observed, that if the Amendment were passed, it would be impossible to know upon whom the function of prosecutor was to be devolved. He could only assent to the clause proposed on that question being placed beyond doubt.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, there were many legal difficulties against carrying out the Amendment. If adopted, alterations must be made in it to enable it to be put into operation.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

, said, that would be so. The Bill would be better without the Amendment. The retailer when he found he had an adulterated article sent to him by the wholesale dealer should be left himself to proceed against the wholesale man.

MR. DODSON

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he should prefer having further time to consider the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

moved the omission of the clause, which, though it had given rise to much discussion, was clearly satisfactory to nobody, and, as it stood, extremely complicated.

Motion negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Application of penalties).

On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH the following Amendments were agreed, to:—Page 8, line 28, after "constable," insert "of the authority who shall have appointed an analyst, or agreed to the acting of an analyst within their district; "page 8, line 28, after "to" leave out "the prosecutor," and insert "such officer, inspector, or constable."

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he thought that the period within which a person charged with having committed an offence under the clause might be prosecuted should be extended from six months to 12 months after the warranty.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he would consider the point.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he thought that the penalties fixed by the clause were too severe, and would prevent magistrates from convicting under the Act.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

intended to propose on the Report that the words "not exceeding," which would give the magistrates the power of mitigating the penalties, should be inserted in the clause.

Clause, with Amendment, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Punishment for forging certificate or warranty; for wilful misapplication of warranty; for false warranty; for false label), agreed to.

Clause 27 (Proceedings by indictments and contracts not to be affected), agreed to.

Expenses of executing the Act.

Clause 28 (Expenses of executing Act).

CAPTAIN NOLAN

moved an Amendment, the object of which was to throw the expenses of carrying the Bill into operation upon the poor rate in Ireland, which was paid by the owners and occupiers, in place of upon the grand jury cess, which was paid by the occupiers alone. Should the Government not assent to the Amendment he should feel bound to divide the Committee upon the point.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from the words "by the grand jury cess," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "from the poor rates."—(Captain Nolan.)

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

opposed the Motion, on the ground that it would introduce the anomaly of having the appointments and the payments confided to different authorities.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

supported the Amendment, and said that the policy adopted in the clause represented a retrograde principle, from which the Government were obliged to depart the other evening in the case of the Explosive Substances Bill.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

observed, that in the Explosive Substances Bill a new charge was imposed for a new purpose, but that was not the case in the present Bill. If the charge in the present case was to be paid out of the poor rate there would be a great anomaly, as the guardians had no control over the appointment of the analysts.

Question put, "That the words 'by the grand jury cess' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 38: Majority 67.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Special Provision as to Tea.

Clause 29 (Tea to be examined by the customs on importation).

MR. YEAMAN

moved in page 10, line 10, after "stores," to insert— But may be delivered for exportation with the sanction of the said Commissioners, and on such terms and conditions as they shall see fit to direct.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

was unable to assent to the Amendment, which, if adopted, would prohibit the use of teas in this country, although the adulteration might be of a trifling character. He thought the Commissioners of Customs should have a discretion in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

moved in page 10, line 11, to leave out "unfit for human food," and insert "of a nature injurious to health."

MR. MUNTZ

pointed out that "dried tea," although not "of a nature injurious to health," might be "unfit for human food."

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY PEEK

moved, in page 10, at end, to add— Tea afterwards proved to be in the same condition in which it has passed the Customs shall not render the vendor liable to penalties under this Act. Tea was commonly imported in large parcels technically called chops—the chests being all filled from the same heap—and it would consequently be easy to test samples which might be doubted by comparison with what might be left of the same chop remaining in bond.

DR. C. CAMERON

opposed the Amendment, which he believed was contrary to the spirit of the Bill.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

objected to the provision. It was not, he said, the practice of Customs to have anything to do with details after goods had passed out of bond.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

moved, at end, to add the following Proviso:— Provided, however, That before such tea be so finally forfeited and destroyed or otherwise disposed of, it shall be competent for the owner or owners, if he or they shall think fit, to call in and demand the opinion of three experienced sworn tea-brokers, and, in the event of the majority of the three persons so called in agreeing in opinion with the said analyst, then the said tea shall be absolutely so forfeited, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of; but in the event of the said tea being held and pronounced, by certificate in writing under the hands of the majority of such three sworn tea-brokers, to be of merchantable quality, it shall forthwith be delivered to the said owner or owners; and in any case the costs shall not be less than three guineas, and shall not exceed fifteen guineas in the whole, and shall be paid by the owner or owners making such appeal.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

observed that the best security against injudicious conduct on the part of the Customs was an appeal to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. If experience showed that such an appeal as that proposed was required, it could readily be provided for.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, that the power of destroying tea was one which ought to be very carefully used, more especially as a great deal of tea which came to this country was on foreign, and not on British account, and a different international question might easily be raised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30 (Interpretation of Act) agreed to.

Clause 31 (Provision for the liberty of a cinque port) agreed to.

Clause 32 (Commencement of the Act) agreed to.

Clause 33 (Title of the Act) agreed to.

On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, a new clause (Application of the Act to Scotland) was added to the Bill.

On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, a new clause (Interpretation of terms in application of Act to Ireland) was added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday 21st May, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]