COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 07 July 1887 vol 317 cc181-204

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title).

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "Butterine," and insert "Oleomargarine."—(Mr. Matthew Kenny.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Butterine' stand part of the Clause."

MR. JACOB BRIGHT (Manchester, S.W.)

As this Bill is no longer blocked, the hon. Member in charge of it will see that it is safe, and I think he will not consider it unreasonable that Progress should now be reported. The Amendment before the Committee is a very important one, and one which, I think, ought to be brought to the notice of all those who are interested in the measure.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

I desire to express a hope that the Committee may be allowed to go through with this Bill to-night, because there are no substantial Amendments to occupy us for any length of time. The Bill was unanimously adopted by the Committee upstairs, and I have every reason to hope that it will pass through Committee in the same form as that in which it entered.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I rise to support the Motion for Progress on the ground that we require time for the consideration of this measure, and because I think the reason given by the hon. Baronet is strongly in favour of our not proceeding further with the Bill tonight. It is a Bill which seems to me to violate all the sound principles of legislation. [Cries of "Order!"] I am speaking to the question, and I say that this Bill is not of that simple character which has been assigned to it. On the contrary, it is one of very great importance, and one which re-enacts mediæval law in its worst form. It is an attempt to dictate to tradesmen the manner in which they shall mark and sell, and describe their goods in the interest, as it is said, of the public, who, in my opinion, are very well able to take care of themselves. There is already an Act of Parliament in force which deals with anybody who sells for butter that which is not butter; but this Bill goes beyond all that has been attempted before, inasmuch as it says—that you shall give to the article sold a particular name, sell it in a particular way, and mark it in a particular manner. I do not think that butter merchants deserve any more attention of this kind than other classes of the community.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

My own impression is, that this is an attempt to give an odious name to an article of commerce which the law allows, and which even this measure permits to be sold as a wholesome article of food. I think in the interest of those who sell the article in question some further light ought to be thrown on the character of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Amendment to withdraw their opposition. The real fact of the matter is, the only persons who are interested in the use of the word "butterine" are the French and the Dutch butter merchants who send the stuff into this country under the name of butter. The unfortunate consumers are made to pay the price of butter for that which is nothing more nor less than lard. This butterine rubbish competes with genuine butter in the market with the result that the farmers, and those who produce butter in this country are unable to get a fair price. If hon. Gentlemen who defend the present system knew the real facts of the case, they would be ashamed of the position they are taking up. They might just as well defend the receivers of stolen goods, as defend the men who send butterine into the market in place of butter. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to withdraw their opposition to this Amendment.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee from below the Gangway was not a Member of the Select Committee which assisted in framing this Bill. He has not spoken upon this Question with that intelligence, or with that degree of information, which he generally exhibits to the House. The Select Committee divided upon the point we are now discussing, and I think there were two to one in favour of retaining the name "butterine." The Select Committee examined a great many witnesses, and by far the greater number of those who gave evidence were strongly against the change of name. The trade which would be affected by this alteration of name, should it take place, is a very extensive trade. It is a trade which has grown largely and speedily, and the interests concerned ought not to be trifled with unnecessarily. This article, "butterine," has been described by the hon. Member as "rubbish;" but the evidence which the Committee almost universally received went to show that butterine is an admirable article of food, that it, no doubt, competes most severely with common and bad butters, that, in fact, it is so good an article that bad butters have no chance whatever against it, even when sold at the same price. As I have said, the Select Committee, by a majority of two to one, defended the name "butterine," and the evidence the Committee took was almost altogether in favour of its retention. There is a large trade in this article, and it will be felt outside this House to be a ground- less interference with that trade if the name under which the trade has been carried on for some 10 or 12 years, and which the Board of Trade itself has adopted for two or three years, is now to be changed. It will be a great injury to the trade.

SIR RICHARD PAGET

As one responsible for bringing in the Bill, I desire to say a very few words to the Committee upon this matter. The Bill, as brought in, would have prohibited the use of the word "butterine." My own opinion was that the admission of that name materially strengthened the measure. I am bound to say that, in the course of the investigation before the Committee, there was a good deal of evidence, on the part of the manufacturers and the retailers, in favour of the use of this name. The matter became the subject of serious consideration, and I am bound to say that the use of this name being conceded by a majority of the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee were immensely facilitated and the Bill was immensely strengthened. Having acted as Chairman during the final sittings of the Committee, and knowing exactly what evidence was given, I am obliged to say that I cannot vote for the Amendment now proposed. My opinion is that the Bill, in its present shape, is one which will admirably affect the object which we have in view; and, for my part, despite the fact that it was originally intended to prohibit this name, I am unable to support this Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

As representing an agricultural constituency, I earnestly support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman behind me. I certainly should have no desire to prevent those who wish to eat "butterine," "oleomargarine," or any other "ine," from indulging their tastes; but, at the same time, when an article is introduced into the market, there is a palpable disadvantage, at any rate so far as the consumer is concerned, in having that article, which is only a substitute for another article, called by a name closely resembling the genuine article for which it is substituted—so closely resembling it, in fact, as, in many cases, to displace it. I am surprised at hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who claim to represent the agricultural interests of England, opposing an Amendment which is clearly designed to benefit the majority of their agricultural constituents. Members representing the agricultural interests of England are clearly concerned in seeing that no imitation of a good article is foisted on the customers of their constituents as though it were an article of their production. I do not see why the interests of agricultural constituencies should be subordinated to the interests of the dealers in a spurious article—because that is what one may call this "butterine." This article has got a position in the market solely owing to its imitating a good article, and imitating it by an imitation so perfect that at the town of Maryborough, in Ireland, within the last few months, I saw butterine side by side with butter, and was obliged to confess that I could not tell which was the butterine and which was the butter. So perfect is the imitation, that producers of butter, not only in Ireland, but also in Great Britain, find their interests prejudiced by those who compete with them in the market for customers who really desire to obtain butter, and who do not wish to have butterine if they can help it.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

I recognize the position of the hon. Baronet who spoke a few moments ago on this question. The hon. Gentleman acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, towards the end of its proceedings, in the absence of Mr. Sclater-Booth, and, therefore, he is, to some extent, bound by the decision the Committee arrived at. But I submit that the Committee arrived at this decision to some extent under a false impression; because, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) said that the evidence given before the Committee seemed to be in favour of the name "butterine," it must be borne in mind that, of the witnesses examined before the Committee, there were at least 10 interested in the production and sale of butterine to one on the other side. It is not surprising, therefore, that the preponderating influence should have been on the side of retaining the name "butterine." The Select Committee would not of itself have adopted anything like the change which was brought about from the Bill as originally introduced by the hon. Baronet, had it not been that the advisability of the change was impressed upon it from outside. It was declared that, in the event of any alteration taking place in the name of this spurious article, those concerned in its sale would, through their Friends in this House, exhaust the Forms of the House in order to prevent the passing of the Bill. I am informed that one hon. Member, friendly to that interest, has declared that if we alter the name of this article, he, and those who act with him, will keep the Bill 10 years before Parliament. I must say that it is the duty of this House to overcome a conspiracy of that kind, entered into with the object of defeating the will of Parliament. I will not detain the Committee by describing the manner in which frauds are systematically carried out, under this name "butterine," as the law at present stands. It must be obvious to every Member of Parliament that if the name ''butterine" was not dishonest and misleading, and if it did not mean a great fraud being perpetrated on the public, the persons connected with the trade would not have the smallest objection to changing the name to that by which it was originally known.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I should like the Committee to bear in mind exactly what the issue is which it has to decide. We should recollect that not only have we to pay attention to the interests of the butter producers, but to the interests of large classes of the community in our great towns. So far as my knowledge of the matter goes—and I have had to investigate it at the Local Government Board—I understand that this butterine is a perfectly wholesome article of food, and that, as a matter of fact, it is sold at a very low price as compared with good butter, while it is decidely superior in quality to bad butter. I think the Committee cannot be too careful, while restricting the provision in this Bill—which will render it apparent to everyone who buys butterine that they are not buying butter, but a substitute for butter—to avoid going to the other extreme. They ought to think once or twice before they brand this article with a name which in itself would deter people from buying it. The name "oleomargarine" is by no means an attractive one; and if this substitute for butter were branded with such a name, people would imagine that it is something much more horrible than it really is, and would not buy it. The Bill distinctly provides, as I understand it, that persons buying butterine shall see on the face of it, if they want this article, that they are not buying butter, but butterine. There is a provision in the Bill that, where sold in small quantities, the article shall not only be marked "butterine," but "butterine—not butter." I think that is a sufficient precaution to safeguard butter. Every precaution is taken to make it evident to those who buy the article that they are not buying butter. I only wish to put these facts before the Committee so that they may see what it is they have to decide on. It is well known that this question formed the main bone of contention before the Select Committee, and that the name "butterine" was decided upon by a large majority.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I support the Amendment—at least, I would support it in a modified form if the "oleo" were left out, and simply the "margarine" left in. I think we ought to give this substance its scientific name, which is "margarine." I have no objection to the substance "margarine." It is just as wholesome as butter, just as fattening, and just as useful. The substance originally sold as "oleomargarine" was a mixture of clarified fat and butter; but the article now sold as "butterine" is composed solely of clarified fat, without the butter. The manufacturers simply clarify the fat, colour it, season it, and sell it as butter. It is just as good as butter, only the one comes in the natural way from the living cow, and the other comes from the cow after it is dead. I think you ought to call this substance "margarine," which it is, and by that means you would prevent people from being misled. If you call it "butterine," most people will think you mean some kind of butter; but if you simply call it "margarine," they will know you simply mean purified animal fat, and they will taste it as such, and buy it as such. By doing this, you will prevent people from being imposed upon. I hold that you should call a thing by its proper name.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I should not trouble the Committee on this matter, but that I had occasion to examine into this process some two or three years ago. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) says that the people who produce this article are swindlers; but when he says that, and when he says that the people who sell the article are guilty of a gross fraud upon the public, I consider that he uses language of exaggeration. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), that butterine can be made without butter. The acid which is necessary to give the material the butter flavour can only be introduced by means of butter, and that is why it is mixed with it. The material can only be manufactured from the purest suet; and, from the evidence we had, it is exceedingly good food. Though it may compete with the coarse kinds, it does not compete with the better descriptions of butter; and I certainly think that if you took the name butterine away, an injury would be done to this trade.

MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)

As representing a large commercial community, I feel bound to say that I am satisfied that the proposed alteration would cause great inconvenience, not only to the trade, but to a large section of the public. The only object of this Bill is to prevent butterine being sold as butter; and why we should carry it farther, so as to seriously injure a trade which has a large amount of money invested in it, and which is supplying an article largely used by the poor, I cannot conceive.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I do not intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time; but we are told by hon. Gentlemen over the way that this article, butterine, is equally wholesome and equally fattening with butter. Perhaps that is the reason why I do not take either of them, and am able to out prejudice either side. But I would ask the Committee not to sanction the principle of insisting upon a certain name or description being given to a product. On what principle of rational liberty or freedom is it that we are going to dictate to any set of people in this country, whether they buy or sell a certain article, what they shall call that article? On what principle of liberty? [Laughter.] Well, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite tell us a great deal about liberty for Ireland; and I fail to see why we should not claim liberty for the English traders to call a wholesome article they manufacture by any name they please. Why we should insist on calling this product which is under discussion by a name which sounds like a new kind of hair-oil, I cannot make out.

MR. M. J. KENNY

I have no objection to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The name he suggests would be a simple one. I adopted the name "oleomargarine" in my Amendment, for the reason that it was in the Bill as originally introduced by the hon. Baronet opposite. The Bill was brought in under that title, and I thought that by adhering to that name I should place the matter more clearly before the House. This oleomargarine may be a healthy article of food; but if that is so, and if the public have no objection to it, I should like to know what objection the people who deal in it can have to the proposed alteration of name? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks of this proposal as a novel principle of legislation, and describes our action as interfering with national liberty; but he must remember that it is the constant practice of the Legislature to interfere with the methods of conducting trade. He knows that it interferes in the question of fraudulent trade marks and names. I need not remind him that there is an Amendment before the House dealing with an analogous subject. It is a perfectly common-sense view of the matter, that persons carrying on trade by fraudulent means should be restrained by legislation.

MR. HOYLE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)

I should like to say a word as to the discussion in the Select Committee upstairs on the name of this article hitherto sold in Lancashire as "Butterine." There were several Members who said that when the Committee first sat they were strongly opposed to the name "butterine," but after hearing the evidence of the scientists and traders they changed their minds. When the Committee upstairs struck out the word "oleomargarine" and inserted the word "butterine," I do not think any one was more surprised than the hon. Baronet who has charge of the Bill. I would ask whether it would not be well for the Committee of the whole House to wait until it has read the evidence before rejecting the name decided upon by the Select Committee? I beg, Sir, to move that the 1st clause be postponed.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I would point out to the hon. Member that nothing would be gained by carrying such a Motion as that, as the same question arises in every part of the Bill,

MR. RITCHIE

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that proposal, as the word "butterine" runs throughout the whole of the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 87: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 289.) [3.5 A.M.]

Question proposed, "That the word 'Oleomargarine' be there inserted.

MR. CHANCE

I beg to move that "Margarine" be substituted for "Oleomargarine."

THE CHAIRMAN

Let the Committee negative "Oleomargarine" first.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to insert the word "Margarine."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

MR. ILLINGWORTH

I think the Committee has taken a very hasty step in having utterly thrown overboard the evidence of the Committee which sat upstairs. As the alteration now made will involve a series of changes all through the Bill, I think it would be as well to take a little more time before proceeding further. I, therefore, now move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Illingworth.)

MR. M. J. KENNY

I would point out, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has moved to report Progress, that the alterations which will be involved by the vote of the Committee are simply verbal alterations all through. They are all consequential, and are not questions which will involve discussion. I think it would be highly improper to postpone the proceedings of the Committee, seeing that we have now arrived at a definite and final conclusion. Seeing that the Committee have decided, by a substantial majority, on the adoption of a different term from that in the Bill, I think that we are entitled to claim that we should go on with the measure.

MR. RITCHIE

I would point out to the hon. Member who has moved to report Progress, that the Committee having decided that the word "butterine" be left out, it would be impossible for him, even if he succeeded in obtaining a postponement, to get that word re-inserted. If he has a question to raise, let him wait until the Report stage.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

Very well; I withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

The Committee is inflicting a gross injustice on an important trade; therefore, I move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)

MR. M. J. KENNY

The hon. Member jumps up and proposes a postponement at a moment when the adjournment can do neither him nor his Friends the slightest amount of good. It is not possible for the Committee to reverse the step it has taken and re-introduce the word "butterine;" but if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question again, he can do so on Report. It is absolutely frivolous of him at the present moment to move the adjournment of the debate.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definition) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Penalty).

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

I desire to move to insert after the words "or otherwise," the words "and every employé of such person." I am aware that in asking the Committee to agree to the insertion of these words, I am departing from the principle laid down in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. It is admitted that it would be a great injustice if the penalties under this Bill—which do not follow the precedent of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, being much more strict—were inflicted on a wholesale or retail seller by reason of the wrongful act of one of his employés. Under such circumstances, the employer would be unduly punished. I think that it would only be proper to make the employé who is the person who actually commits the offence liable jointly together with the principal. If this is adopted, I shall take the precaution to add similar words to carry out the same principle later on in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, after the words "or otherwise," to insert "and every employé of such person."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD PAGET

I hope the Committee will not accept the proposed Amendment. I do not think it will commend itself generally to the favour of hon. Members that the word "employé" should be here inserted. We are, in our legislation, in the habit of expressing ourselves in English, and I must say I fail to see any reasonable ground for departing from that custom on the present occasion. But the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment has himself given a reason why we should not accept it. He has said that it is not in harmony with the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. That is exactly what is the case. The whole matter was fully argued before the Select Committee. We had a large body of evidence upon this particular point, and the subject was thoroughly threshed out. My impression is that after the debates which took place upon the Committee, and after hearing the evidence which was taken, there was but one opinion—namely, that we should keep rigidly to the principle which underlies the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and require the burden to fall upon the retailer. The introduction of these words would place the Bill out of harmony with the Act on which it is framed. I would point out that Mr. Sclater-Booth, who acted as Chairman of the Committee, was the person who brought in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in 1875, and, consequently, was thoroughly acquainted with the details of that Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

This clause is extremely severe in its penalties. It provides for the first offence a fine not exceeding £20; for the second offence a fine not exceeding £50, and for the third or any subsequent offence a fine of £100 or imprisonment with or without hard labour, not exceeding six months. I beg to move that all the words after the word "pounds" in line 26 be left out. It seems to me that a penalty of this character surrounds the trade with all sorts of risks and dangers, and that if these words were to remain in the Bill the tendency would be to drive all respectable men out of the trade, and to leave it in the hands of the more reckless and the least respectable persons.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "or imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding six months."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. M. J. KENNY

This question was discussed in Committee and the imprisonment clause was carried by a majority. I think it was very properly carried, because it was pointed out by the Select Committee that if there is no deterrent influence greater than a fine, it is possible that the magistrates will, in certain places, go on imposing small fines—that the traders will go on breaking the law, being content to pay the fines, unless brought face to face with the possibility of imprisonment. In this clause the Bill merely follows the precedent laid down in numerous Acts. In the case of fraudulent weights and measures, a third conviction necessitates imprisonment. In this Bill we do not propose to follow that precedent, but we leave it to the option of the magistrate, who will judge of the nature of the offence, and who will judge as to whether or not the person charged is incorrigible. He can impose a fine of 5s., or he may send the offender to gaol for a week. I would point out that the representatives of the trade themselves, the men who spoke and gave evidence for these retail dealers and dealers in butter substitutes, all accepted the principle of the Imprisonment Clause. The hon. Member who is sitting below (Mr. Maclure) himself accepted the principle, and spoke at considerable length in support of it as representing these persons. I trust, therefore, that this matter having been decided after considerable discussion by vote in the Committee, hon. Members will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright).

MR. MACLURE (Lancashire, S.E.)

I must entirely repudiate what the hon. Member states. The cause of my voting was that an honourable understanding had been arrived at to the effect that the term "butterine" should be used. I consented to vote for imprisonment in cases where fraud was committed through the non-use of that name. Under existing circumstances, I shall most heartily support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester in his proposal to exclude these words. I think that a great injustice is about to be done to a most honourable trade, and to a trade which is very beneficial to the working classes of Lancashire. I think the Committee, in acting in the way it has done to-night, has taken a very false step.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

I do appeal to the Committee to accept this Amendment. I should have been glad if the hon. Member for Manchester had gone farther than the Amendment he has proposed, and had proposed that there should be no penalty exceeding £20. What is it that this measure proposes? Why, a piece of gross cruelty to the retail trader. The retail trader may be perfectly honest, and it may be farthest from his intention to commit a fraud, which is a term I object to in connection with the selling of two articles, one of which is just as good as the other, although the law requires that it should be sold under a different name. ["Agreed, agreed!"] I cannot imagine that the House of Commons will allow an Act of Parliament of this kind to pass without due consideration—an Act putting into the hands of the magistrates, many of whom may be interested in the production of one article, powers to restrict the sale of another, and to deal with traders whose industry they may conceive opposed to that in which, they themselves are interested. ["Agreed!"] I claim the right to be heard on a point of this character. The second argument of the hon. Member for Tyrone cut his first to ribbons. He said the magistrates would impose a fine of a few shillings, and that fraudulent traders would repeat offences against the Act over and over again. Well, I certainly think that when a magistrate has power to inflict a fine of £20 for the first offence, £50 for the second, and then £100, he is visited with the heaviest penalty that this House ought to pass on anyone who offends in the direction I speak of. I appeal with confidence to the Committee not to go to such extreme length. We have already been told that even in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act the penalties are not so severe as they are in this Bill. No evidence has been given to show that oleomargarine is not as wholesome an article of food as butter itself. It is not denied that it is as -wholesome; and, therefore, to impose these enormous penalties upon men for substituting one article for another I hold to be acting most cruelly.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

If the Committee will allow me to say one or two words—[Cries of "Agreed!"] If it does not listen to me, I shall move to report Progress. I shall insist upon that. I am not in the habit of intruding upon the House—

Mr. M. J. KENNY

here made an observation.

THE CHAIRMAN

I call upon the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone to withdraw that observation.

MR. M. J. KENNY

What observation, Sir?

THE CHAIRMAN

"He intrudes often enough."

MR. M. J. KENNY

I withdraw it, of course; but I did not intend the observation to be heard.

MR. F. S. POWELL

It is said that the Bill now before the House follows the analogy of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875. Now, as regards that Act, there is no penalty in the nature of imprisonment for the sale of any article which does not contain an ingredient injurious to health. No one can say that there is anything in this butterine injurious to health; therefore, all analogy based upon the Act of 1875 falls to the ground, or is entirely against imprisonment. The tendency of modern legislation is not only to form new crimes, but also to pile up penalties. I do not think the House is aware of the number of penalties we are asked every year to impose on the subject in our private Bill legislation. If the House were aware of this fact, I think our local legislation would be much more carefully guarded. Here we are asked to allow a man to be imprisoned on the arbitrary decision of the magistrates, and we go beyond the precedent of the Act of Parliament on which the supporters of the Bill rely as an example and pattern for their proceedings. I most sincerely hope that the precedent of that Act will be followed, and that there will be no imprisonment following the sale of an article that is not injurious to health.

MR. CHANCE

I do not agree that margarine is necessarily a wholesome thing. I have heard of its being made out of very strange substances indeed. If it is made out of unwholesome substances under the sale of Food and Drugs Act the dealer can be imprisoned. What we are dealing with, however, is not selling an unwholesome article which can be dealt with under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act; but the selling of an article which is not an unwholesome article. Well, it appears to me that a fine of £100 would be to a great many of these people an extremely heavy fine and I, therefore, do hope that the hon. Member for Tyrone will give way upon this point, and will not leave to the magistrates the power of inflicting six months imprisonment with hard labour. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell), I regret that his present objection to the creation of new crimes did not come to his mind two months ago.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I believe these particular words are taken from a Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for East Cork. Well, I drafted that Bill, and I remember expostulating with the hon. Member against the heavy nature of the penalty, and it was against my better judgment that I put that in. But as regards a heavy money penalty for a third offence against the provisions of this Bill, I am assured that so large are the profits from the manufacture and sale of this material margarine that a small pecuniary penalty would be, in many cases, altogether insufficient. But, whatever may be the money penalty it does seem to me that imprisonment for six months for such a thing as selling clarified fat is altogether beyond the necessities of the case.

MR. M. J. KENNY

I would point out that in many continental countries the penalty for the fraudulent sale of margarine for butter is two years imprisonment. But having succeeded in carrying the main part of the principle which appeared to me necessary in this Bill, and the Committee having decided upon a name which renders it more difficult to deal fraudulently with an article of this kind, the necessity for an excessively stringent punishment has disappeared, therefore, I should have no objection in acceding to the Amendment.

SIR RICHARD PAGET

When the Bill was originally introduced there was no such penalty as six months imprisonment contained in it. That was introduced when the Bill was passing through the Select Committee, under circumstances with which hon. Gentlemen are now familiar. I am by no means disposed to insist on the retention in this Bill of the six months imprisonment. I would venture to point out, however, that in the Merchandise Marks Bill which has just passed through Committee it is provided that when a false trade description is given of goods the offender is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for two years.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Marking of cases).

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I beg to propose that this clause be omitted from the Bill. It seems to me to be an illustration of legislation gone almost wild, because this is a clause that proposes to dictate to traders in what manner they shall sell this article, which we are told is perfectly wholesome. This margarine, as it is now to be called, is to be branded or durably marked. What is meant by durably marked I do not know, as I should have thought that a compound of this kind would be difficult to mark durably; and then it is to be marked upon the top, the bottom, and the sides. If the suggestion is that a trader is to be told how he is to mark, and where he is to mark a compound of this kind, then, why should you not deal in the same way with the manufacturers of Pears' soap and other articles? Then it is to be marked with printed capital letters. How is it to be printed; is the butterine or margarine to be passed through a printing press? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may well laugh at that, but that is the actual proposal that is made by this clause. For the first time, unless there is some Act in the 13th century that I am not acquainted with, this is the first time we have told any trader in England the exact letters and the size with which he is to stamp his goods, and the place where he is to put them. It seems to me to be a piece of legislation which if allowed to pass, no one can tell where it will stop. Let us really consider, even at this hour of the morning, what we are doing. If this compound is to be exposed for sale there is to be attached to it, in such manner as to be clearly legible to the purchaser, a label printed in capital letters of not less than half an-inch square, "Margarine," and any trader is to be liable under this Act who does not do all that. I cannot help appealing to the good sense of hon. Members whether in this country, or even in Ireland, they ever saw any attempt to interfere with people in their lawful trades in this way?

Amendment proposed, toomitClause4.—(Mr. Addison.)

Question proposed,'' That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

I think in answer to the remarks that have been made, that I can satisfy the Committee. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs, and we went very carefully into the consideration of all these questions, and this clause was framed at the suggestion of the traders themselves, both wholesale and retail. They have no opposition to offer to the proposals which are introduced into this clause, and, as in fact, in several instances the suggestions came from men engaged in the wholesale and retail trade it shows, so far as they are concerned, they do not consider it any hardship to have these restrictions put upon them.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

I submit that the traders must have been asleep to their own interests. Each parcel of butter purchased from a retailer has to be labelled "Butterine, not Butter,'' in characters 1½ inch long, while such parcel may amount to only half a-pound or a pound. This would be a great inconvenience in a shop window; and further, the retailer will have to keep a special supply of printed wrappers to wrap up these small parcels. It is absurd to think that the retailers were aware of what they were sanctioning, and I hope therefore that the Committee will agree to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison).

MR. HOYLE

In confirming the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penrith as to this clause having been framed on the suggestion of the trade itself, I wish to say that was done in the hope that the word "Butterine" might be retained, and the clause was passed after the adoption by the Committee upstairs of the name "Butterine." Now that "Margarine" has been substituted, there is not the same necessity for stringent regulations.

DR. CLARK

I was rather astonished at the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, because, at the present moment, the principle of the clause is in operation. If the hon. Gentleman went into a grocer's to buy coffee and chicory, the grocer would have to sell it with the label—''This is sold as a mixture of chicory and coffee"—and it is simply the application of the same principle to this compound, margarine. As very large profits are made out of it, there is no hardship in asking them to pay for printing the word "margarine" upon the paper in which it is sold. At the present time they do print upon the firkins the name of the material.

MR. M. J. KENNY

The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. F. Lawrence) has called up difficulties that do not exist. The provision trade of Liverpool, stated in evidence, that it was the custom to wrap up even the smallest quantities in paper upon which was printed the word "Butterine." One witness supplied us with numbers of examples, and stated it was the invariable practice in Liverpool, and what we asked for was that the custom which prevailed in Liverpool should be extended among all traders throughout Great Britain and Ireland. I think there is no real difficulty in the way, and as regards the inconvenience that would arise to retail traders to be compelled to ticket this article in their shops, we were supplied also with tickets which they were in the habit of using at the present time, and all these it was argued might be used without inconvenience; therefore the operation of the clause would not be any hardship upon the trade. I would further point out that it would be unwise to listen to the proposal to omit this clause; because, if it were omitted the Bill would cease to hang together; therefore, it is of vital importance that the clause should be retained, and it is essential to the carrying out the policy which the Bill seeks to carry out.

MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in regard to the practice in Liverpool, as the traders have been careful there to mark the article; but I quite agree with the hon. Member for the Heywood Division of Lancashire (Mr. Hoyle) that an alteration having been made in the name, there is no longer any necessity for the clause.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

The Committee should not be misled by the statements that have been made as to the traders agreeing to this clause, because that was when the title was different, and they were threatened with an article to compete with butter under an almost identical name. But are we here to regulate the sale or the use of the article "margarine?" ["No!"] Then if that be the case, why is this thing to be put upon it? [An hon. MEMBER: We want to advertise it.] Yes, exactly so; but that is not our business; our business is to act honestly and fairly. I think the Committee has gone as far as it would be disposed to go to make the distinction, and to go one step further would be an unnecessary and unbusiness-like interference with the trade of the country. If done in this case, then there are many other articles that it would be applicable to, and legislation should follow. In the illustration given of coffee and chicory there was a mixture in which the quantities could not be ascertained; but here there is no such suggestion, and I do not think it is the business of the House of Commons to damnify any article that is genuinely offered for sale.

SIR RICHARD PAGET

This clause is the very essence of the Bill. Whatever name the Committee may decide this imitation butter must bear, that name must be boldly displayed. As to the particular marks on the labels and wrappers, I would inform the Committee that every one of them was taken from the examples given to us of those in use in the trade in Liverpool. In some cases the labels are used, and in others the wrapper; but this is the open way in which traders should act.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 23: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 290.) [4.5 A.M.]

Clause 5 (Presumption against vendor) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power of officer of local authority to inspect manufactory).

MR. ADDISON

As regards Clause 6, this introduces an entirely novel principle into our legislation, for it enables an inspector to enter at all reasonable times any premises where the article is manufactured for the purpose of inspecting them. Now, we have heard over and over again this is a perfectly lawful trade and perfectly wholesome and proper, and yet we are to be told the inspector may come on any man's premises at any reasonable time—that being, I suppose, to be decided by his own discretion—and inspect the way in which any trader may carry on his business. That is contrary to one of the most elementary rights we have, the elementary right being that people shall not be disturbed or have their premises invaded without some reasonable cause. I beg to move the omission of the words "any inspector may enter and inspect, at all reasonable times."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words, "any inspector may enter and inspect, at all reasonable times."—(Mr. Addison.)

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

SIR RICHARD PAGET

This clause was introduced at the instance of one of the largest manufacturers of the article.

DR. CLARK

This is a very important matter, and without this clause the manufacturers, instead of making margarine from suet, which is the best thing to make it from, might put into it something that was very dangerous indeed.

MR. ADDISON

I would only add one word to what the hon. Member says. The same thing would be exactly true in the manufacture of cigars, which I am told—I do not smoke myself—are often made from cabbage leaves and other stuff, and the same with sausages, which may or may not be made of animals of which sausages ought to be made; but I will not discuss the matter further. I should have thought the feeling of the Committee would have been entirely with me, but if not, I shall not force the Amendment to a Division. Having made my protest, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Butterine imported or manufactured).

Clause 8 (Registration of manufactory).

MR. ADDISON

Again, as to this clause I cannot, having regard to the wishes of my constituents who have representations to make, allow this to pass without protest. This is a proposal that the manufacturers of "margarine" as it is now to be called must be registered with the local authority in such manner as the Local Government Board may direct, and a person not so registered is to be liable to all the penalties we have heard of. On what ground has the manufacturer of margarine to register himself any more than any other manufacturer in England? It may be right with regard to gunpowder and all other dangerous compounds, but not in this case, which is an infringement of a man's rights.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Power to inspectors to take samples without purchase).

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

In Clause 9, page 3, line 14, I beg to move to leave out, after the word "may," the words, "without going through the form of purchase." This is a departure from the Food and Drugs Act, and it appears to me there is not sufficient reason for it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, after "may," to leave out "without going through the form of purchase."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)

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

SIR RICHARD PAGET

This, again, was the suggestion made to the Committee by several of those interested in the sale of the article, and no one expressed any objection to it. I would call attention to the Food and Drugs Act, in which will be found ample provision for the payment of the article.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

I would like to explain, as the hon. Gentleman says those he has had to deal with approve of the clause, those I represent highly disapprove of it.

MR. M. J, KENNY

The reason for the provision is this. Inasmuch as this Bill deals not only with shopkeepers who sell by retail, but persons who sell wholesale, it would be very inconvenient to have an inspector going into a wholesale dealer's and taking away a large packet, and the provision is put in for the purpose of providing for a email quantity to be taken for analysis. Further than that, this clause had the approval of the persons who represented the trade when they came before us.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Appropriation of penalties) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Proceedings).

SIR RICHARD PAGET

I have an Amendment in the first line of this clause, and it is to insert in line 25, page 3, after the word "shall," the words "save as expressly varied by this Act."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, after "shall," to insert "save as expressly varied by this Act."—(Sir Richard Paget.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. F. S. POWELL

I should wish to ask the effect of this Amendment?

SIR RICHARD PAGET

The effect of the Amendment is this. This clause embodies Section 28 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875; but there is a provision in a previous clause of the Act that would, to a certain extent, modify it unless these words are introduced.

MR. F. S. POWELL

My hon. Friend has not answered the question which I ventured to put as to the safety of the innocent retailer, whether there would be security that the sample taken should be divided.

MR. M. J. KENNY

Yes, there is; all that is included in the Food and Drugs Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amended Title (changed to "Margarine (Fraudulent Sale) Bill);" as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.