Lords Sitting of 15 June 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bishopric of Saint Albans (108); Metalliferous Mines* (106).
Committee—General School of Law * (90); Sale of Food and Drugs* (122–155).

BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
BISHOPRIC OF SAINT ALBANS BILL.

  (NO. 108.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, their Lordships would remember that at an earlier period of the Session the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had brought forward a Bill, the object of which was generally the increase of the Episcopate. He (Earl Beauchamp) was not an enthusiastic supporter of that proposal; but by reading that Bill a second time their Lordships committed themselves to the principle that some increase in the episcopacy was necessary. The measure now before their Lordships—which had come up from the other House—differed from the Bill of the noble Lord in respect that it had a distinct and definite object—that object being to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, so as to enable them to carry into effect a proposal for the re-arrangement of the dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester, with the view to the erection of a new Bishopric of St. Albans. In fact, the object in view was to carve a new diocese out of the dioceses of London, Winchester, and Rochester. To a plan like this, which would transfer parishes from one diocese to another, which affected interests of long standing and touched old associations, it was not difficult to find objections; but it must be remembered that it was the existence of objections to the present arrangements which had given rise to this Bill, and it would be for their Lordships, as practical men, to consider what were the best means of remedying the evils it proposed to deal with. The question was whether a remedy for existing evils was not required, and whether that remedy

  1881
  would not be supplied in the least objectionable manner possible by the measure to which he asked their Lordships to give a second reading. The advantages proposed by the Bill were undoubtedly of a most substantial character, and he trusted their Lordships would not be deterred by any objections to "piecemeal legislation" from giving it full and fair consideration. The word "London" had received many and divers meanings in various Acts, such as the Police Acts, the Board of Works Acts, and others, and in like manner the Diocese of London had undergone several changes, and some even in our own time. That diocese in 1835 consisted of the whole of Middlesex, of Essex, and a portion of Hertford. The Bishopric of Rochester was at that time territorially the smallest in England, and the Bishop always acted as provincial chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1835 it was arranged that the diocese of Rochester should be entirely transformed. The city and deanery of Rochester was all that was left it of its old jurisdiction; but it received from London a part of Hertfordshire and the whole of Essex, and from Lincoln the remainder of Hertfordshire. The diocese of Winchester was geographically the ancient kingdom of Wessex, and it had undergone no change since the Conquest. It was abstractedly desirable that dioceses should have the same boundaries as the counties they contain—as in the case of Chichester, which was co-extensive with the whole county of Sussex. When, however, dioceses included such vast populations as the Metropolis and its suburbs, it was hopeless to sigh after an ideal state of things—they must be content to deal with things as they found them. In 1835, as he had said, there was a re-arrangement of the dioceses in the neighbourhood of London; but in 1863 the most rev. Prelate then the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait) held that a new distribution had become absolutely necessary. If it were necessary then, how much more was it necessary now, when the growth of population since those dates had been so enormous? In 1867, at the death of Dr. Wigram, nine parishes in Surrey and nine parishes in Kent were transferred to Rochester, under the arrangement agreed to in 1863. At the present moment the diocese of London
  1882
  contained 4,608,000 souls, Rochester about 1,000,000, and Winchester about 1,500,000. It was deemed that the only satisfactory way of dealing with the existing state of things was by the creation of a new bishopric on the north of the Thames. Accordingly, by this Bill it was provided that the new bishopric of St. Albans should be formed to the north of the Thames, and would consist of the counties of Hertford and Essex, which counties would be taken away from the diocese of Rochester. The diocese so created would have for its cathedral church the abbey church of St. Albans. Again, with the view of securing a more complete episcopal supervision for South London and the district south of the Thames, it was proposed to transfer to what would remain of the ancient diocese of Rochester, after the loss of Essex and Hertford, all those parishes situated in East and Mid-Surrey which now formed part of the diocese of Winchester, and all such parishes in Surrey which now formed part of the diocese of London. This would transfer to the new diocese the large and populous parishes of Deptford, Woolwich, and others from Winchester, and of Putney, Mortlake, Barnes, Newington, and others from London. The Prelate who presided over the latter diocese would still have under his pastoral supervision a vast population, more than sufficient to require his utmost exertions. As to the endowment of the new See, the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Winchester (Dr. Harold Browne) had generously offered to give up the episcopal residence in London attached to the Bishopric of Winchester, in order that it might be sold, and that the proceeds might create a basis for the endowment of the new bishopric of St. Albans. The Bill accordingly would empower the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to sell the episcopal residence, and also to receive contributions for the purposes of an endowment of the new Bishopric. Upon the Commissioners certifying to Her Majesty that this fund produced a net income of not less than £2,000 a-year, Her Majesty was empowered to fund the new bishopric. The endowment would be further increased at a future time, because under the provisions of Clause 6 of the Bill, but subject to the rights of the existing Bishops of Winchester and Rochester,

  1883
  there was to be transferred to the St. Albans Bishopric Endowment Fund such portion of the endowments or incomes of these bishoprics, as would in the case of each yield an annual sum of £500. The number of Lords Spiritual sitting in their Lordships' House was not to be increased by this Bill, but the occupant of the new See would succeed in the order of seniority to a seat in their Lordships' House. The formation of the new See and the appointment and income of the Bishop having been provided for, the Bill proceeded to provide for the constitution of a Dean and Chapter, and to assign to the Bishop all courts, officers, and jurisdictions belonging to a Bishop of the Church of England. For the former purpose the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to hold in trust the St. Albans Bishopric Endowment Fund, for the purpose of paying to the Bishop an annual income of £4,500 a-year—the same amount as was now received by other Bishops—and next for the foundation of a Dean and Chapter, in such manner as may hereafter be provided by order of Her Majesty in Council. There was a further provision in respect of the See of Rochester, which it was right he should state to their Lordships. The present residence attached to that See was at Danbury, in Essex. This, always an inconvenient locality in respect of the diocese, had become useless now that the diocese would be entirely on the south of the Thames. The Commissioners wore, therefore, empowered, with the consent of the present Bishop, to sell Danbury, and out of the proceeds to provide in the county of Surrey a suitable episcopal residence for the Bishop of Rochester; carrying any surplus to the Endowment Fund of the Bishopric of St. Albans. These were the general provisions of the Bill. The details required some previous knowledge of the subject to make them intelligible to the lay mind, but they had been most carefully considered by those who were well competent to deal with them, and he trusted that on examination they would commend themselves to their Lordships' House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Steward.)
  EARL STANHOPEthought that the principle of the Bill was excellent, and
  1884
  that the details had been very well worked out. He wished, however, to draw attention to the clause which provided that there was to be no increase in the number of the Bishops who had seats in the House of Lords. In that clause—the 7th—it was provided that, except in the cases of the Sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, and Winchester, the seats in the House of Lords was to be supplied by seniority from those of the Bishops who had not previously been entitled to this writ of summons to Parliament. This was exactly in accordance with the precedent in the case of the newly-founded See of Manchester. In the case of only one or two new Bishops there might be no great objection, but if a further increase was in view, then he ventured to think that was not a desirable principle. Had it been in operation when the late Dr. Wilberforce was appointed Bishop of Oxford, and had there been four or five other Bishops before him in seniority, of how much power and eloquence would not their Lordships' House have been deprived for many years? He believed the sense of Parliament was against any increase in the number of the Lords Spiritual. That being so, he thought it would be better that the Bishops of the well-known Sees that had been in existence for ages should retain the right to sit in Parliament, and that the newly-founded Sees should not entitle their Bishops to any seat at any time in the House of Lords. This plan would also be in better accordance with the incomes. The new Bishopric of St. Albans would, no doubt, ultimately have an endowment equal to the older bishoprics; but that could not be so if many new bishoprics were founded. An income of £2,000 a-year was scarcely sufficient to enable a Bishop to bear the expenses of a residence in London or the other expenses incidental to a seat in that House. The question was not made very serious by the creation of one new bishopric; but the feeling seemed to be in favour of a considerable increase of the episcopate, and if this principle of seniority and rotation were to be introduced with respect to their seats in the House of Lords, he (Earl Stanhope) would feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the question he had stated.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONknew that in the county of Surrey there was, and had been for many years, a feeling that the diocese of Winchester was too large, and an Association had been in existence for 15 years to obtain a division. But he thought if it was at length to be divided some means should be devised to keep the county together as a whole in one diocese. An injury was done to it by placing it in two different dioceses. The people in his part of the county were glad that they were still to be within the diocese of Winchester; but they could imagine the feelings of those in another part of the county whom this Bill would transfer to another diocese. However, believing that the Bill was an honest attempt to obtain an increase of the episcopate, he should not offer it any opposition.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that when the diocese of Winchester was first offered to him, he felt that the weight of such a diocese must be very great indeed, and he entertained doubt as to whether he could accept the responsibility, and when he was translated, and found the necessity of looking the facts fairly in the face, he found that he had become Bishop of the largest diocese in England, and the largest that had ever existed in England. It was true it was not the largest in point of population, for the population of the diocese of London was one-third larger, and the population of the diocese of Manchester was by 300,000 larger than that of his diocese, the numbers being 2,650,000, and 1,893,000, and Winchester 1,560,000, now nearly 2,000,000; but, in respect of area, the difference was much greater; the area of the diocese of London not exceeding 250,000 acres; while Manchester had 850,000 acres, Winchester had 1,570,000 acres. Therefore, taken as a whole, the diocese of Winchester was the largest and most laborious in the United Kingdom. Then in population all the diocese, but signally Surrey, had largely increased—especially of late years; for while in Middlesex there had been an increase of 15 per cent. in Surrey the increase had been 31 per cent. Not only was the diocese one of great extent and including a very large and increasing population, but at one end of it there was a very large town—South London—of 700,000 inhabitants. He felt it was not right that South
  1886
  London should be attached to a diocese extending from the Thames to the coast of Normandy. The London portion of the diocese had a very large poor population, and required constant episcopal supervision. Well, attached to his diocese was an episcopal residence in London, which, he was informed, would sell for about £70,000; and he asked himself why should he live in a house worth £3,000 a-year, when by selling it, it would almost provide an endowment for a new bishopric? His original wish was that there should be a Bishop of South London, and that he should be a kind of missionary Bishop. It did not seem to him to be important whether that Bishop should be a Member of their Lordships' House or not. However, on his talking the matter over to members of the Episcopacy and lay friends of the Church, it was suggested to him that it would not be desirable to have a poor Bishop among a poor clergy in a poor diocese; and, on the whole, it appeared that the scheme before their Lordships was the best that could be devised to meet the particular object in view. Of course, it was impossible in forming only one new diocese to do all that was desirable, and all that might be done by a general re-distribution of diocese; but, on the whole, the plan before their Lordships seemed to be the most hopeful. He admitted the force of what the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) had said about placing one county like that of Surrey in two different dioceses; but at present different portions of Surrey were in several different dioceses—it was distributed among the dioceses of Canterbury, London, Rochester, and Winchester. If the whole of Surrey could be placed in one diocese, and several new bishoprics could be founded, that would be so much the better; but the necessary endowments could not be found. The present plan would constitute these manageable, but still large dioceses. Even with the proposed alteration, the diocese of Winchester would have a larger population than that of Lincoln, which had been frequently referred to as an overworked diocese. There was, undoubtedly, something anomalous in the Bishop of one diocese having ecclesiastical patronage in another; but still, if in Committee an Amendment was moved to authorize the Ecclesiastical

  1887
  Commissioners to transfer from Winchester to Rochester the patronage of certain parishes, he should not object. His only wish was that everything should be done that was for the general interest of the Church. In conclusion, he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) that this Bill had not been brought forward in any opposition to his scheme for an increase of the Episcopate; but he believed that this Bill was only the carrying into effect in a particular case the general principle enunciated in the Bill of the noble Lord.
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid, that when he was first appointed to the see of Rochester he received from the most rev. Prelate below him, who was then Bishop of London, a large accession to his diocese—an accession which was almost as large as another diocese. The most rev. Prelate handed over to him a population of 300,000, which since then had become, perhaps, 400,000. He could see by the aspect of those who were first introduced to him that they did not much relish finding themselves transferred from the one diocese to the other; but by this time they had almost forgotten that they had ever belonged to the diocese of London. It would be the same with the people who were to be transferred from Winchester to Rochester, and the other transfers it was proposed to make, and he trusted that these alterations would be found to tend to the benefit of the Church. That accession from the diocese of London to his own diocese had made him feel that some re-arrangement of the diocese of Rochester must be made. Considering its whole configuration and arrangement, and the large population it contained, it was impossible that that diocese could be managed by a single Bishop, and he was therefore glad that this Bill had been introduced. They must all acknowledge the perseverance, the energy, and the zeal with which, notwithstanding the lukewarmness of its friends, the opposition of its adversaries, and the vexation to which he had been exposed, the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), who had introduced another Bill for the increase of the Episcopate, had endeavoured to carry it through Parliament. He hoped that the present Bill would be amended with regard to the distribution of patronage. The large diocese of Rochester would be left with only 10 livings, or
  1888
  14 benefices, as rewards for zealous service in the Church. Unless, therefore, something was done to assist the Bishopric of Rochester in that respect, he was afraid the present scheme might be deemed faulty indeed. Then, as regarded Rochester, the cathedral church would still be at one extremity of the diocese; and, as regarded St. Albans, if the diocese were constituted as now proposed, the same remark would apply to the new cathedral. But he concurred entirely in the hope that the Government before the Bill passed into law would make those changes in it which were necessary for its real usefulness. He trusted that that measure would be the precursor of other measures of a like character before very long. He believed that a fair and moderate increase of the Episcopate was necessary for the due development of the system of the Church of England. Many of the evils that had crept in among them had been owing to the isolation of the clergy and the want of episcopal superintendence. On the Bishops devolved the settlement of disputes and controversies which arose from time to time in their dioceses, and which sprung sometimes very much from the increased energy and devotion with which their parishes were worked. Many of those disputes, he believed, might have been avoided if the Bishops had been near at hand. The Bishops felt a deep personal interest in the work, and desired to bear their part in the increased spirit of piety and devotion which was spreading throughout the land. Those were his own sentiments, and the sentiments also, he was sure, of the order to which he belonged. And yet they were held up continually in public prints—which might not have a wide general circulation, but which were largely circulated among the clergy—to obloquy as men who only made use of their high office to quench the flame of piety and devotion, which, in truth, it was their highest hope to see spread throughout the length and breadth of the land. In conclusion, he rejoiced greatly that their Lordships were disposed to give a second reading to that Bill.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERcordially supported the second reading of the measure.
  LORD DYNEVOR: *My Lords, as a clergyman, I wish to say a few words on the Bill. Good reasons have been given

  1889
  for it. There are 5,000,000 of people in the three dioceses. Are three Bishops enough for them? I by no means wish to ignore the great work carried on by Nonconformists. As a Churchman, I desire to promote the efficiency of my own Church; but still I rejoice in the labours of thousands and tens of thousands who, though not wearing the same uniform, are allies in the same great war against vice and sin and human misery. Nor can I forget that there are more than 7,000 chapels in England and Wales, and more than 1,700,000 members of those communions. Nor have I any sympathy with those who would brand their ministers as "chiefs among schismatics, to be lamented over "rather than treated with reverence and respect. Still, in this million-peopled city, there is a vast multitude of persons as ignorant of the things which are of the highest importance as the people of Nineveh. This Bill is a step in the right direction, but I think there are weak points in it. Thus it takes away three-fourths of a million of a people from Winchester and transfers them to Rochester; but almost all the valuable patronage is retained by the former See, and only £500 a-year out of £7,000 is to be given up, though the population in the new diocese will be so much diminished. Another complaint is, that it allows the Bishop of Rochester—for whose character I have a very high regard—to take St. Albans with the whole of his present income, leaving Rochester, which the new Bill will make one of the most populous dioceses in England, with perhaps at present only £2,000 or £3,000 a-year. This measure has been much discussed out-of-doors and by the public Press. I am indebted to one of the morning papers for the heads of another plan, which I think is worth bringing under your Lordships' notice. The three Bishoprics of London, Winchester, and Rochester, comprise five entire counties and part of another, including London. There are 2,000 churches, 2,500 clergy, and 5,000,000 of people. The whole income of these Sees is £22,000 a-year. There are two palaces, one castle, and two town houses. It is urged that £22,000 a-year is enough to pay four Bishops. Danbury House and Winchester House would realize large sums: £75,000 is asked for Winchester House. Liberal voluntary contributions may also
  1890
  be expected from the nobility and gentry. The suggestion thrown out is that this immense area ought to have at least five Bishops—one for the Metropolis, one for Herts, one for Winchester and Hants, one for Surrey and South wark, and one for Rochester. Is the plan feasible? Can the money be found? We start with £22,000 a-year, and the five residences named. Take the case of the Bishop of London—£10,000 a-year, with Fulham Palace and London House. If both are necessary, then £10,000 a-year is not too much. But the question is asked out-of-doors, is a London house necessary when Fulham is so near town? For business purposes commodious chambers might be provided. I am disposed myself to think that a London house is requisite. However, according to the plan proposed £2,000 a-year would be gained, and the proceeds of London House, towards another Bishopric. The Bishop of Winchester, who has now £7,000 a-year, might be relieved of the charge of the whole of Surrey, including Southwark, in which case £6,000 a-year would amply suffice. This would give £1,000 a-year and Winchester House towards another See. There would then be five dioceses instead of three. £4,000 a-year each would be enough for St. Albans and Rochester, the smaller dioceses. The Bishop of Manchester, with nearly 2,000,000 of people has only £4,200 a-year, and Ripon with nearly 1,500,000 has only £4,500. The new See of Southwark should have £5,000 a-year. The whole needed for the five dioceses would be £27,000 a-year, leaving only £5,000 a-year to be made up. Danbury Palace, Winchester House, and London House, and after the next avoidance, Ely House, in Dover Street, might be sold. The income of that See is already £5,500. I do not expect your Lordships to adopt this scheme now. I believe you are in favour of the second reading of the Bill, to which I do not object, but I hope for some alterations in Committee.
  LORD LYTTELTONexpressed a hope that the passing of the Increase of the Episcopate Bill would not be endangered by the views of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) who had spoken in the early part of the discussion. He thought the endowment provided was a fair one, and nothing more; but he did not object that the new Bishop was not to take his

  1891
  seat in the House except in due seniority. He believed it would be of great advantage to have a larger number of Bishops out of Parliament, who would be able to devote their attention exclusively to their dioceses for a few years before taking part in legislative duties.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL.
(The Lord Selborne.)
GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL.

  (No. 90.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpresented Petitions from the Council of Benchers of the Hon. Societies of the Inner Temple and of Lincoln's Inn, protesting against the measure. They represented that by superseding the system of legal education established by the Inns of Court the Bill was obviously calculated to destroy those institutions altogether, inasmuch as it would be said, after it came into operation, that the very object of their existence had ceased, and that they had become mere instruments of call to the Bar. On the occasion of the second reading he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated certain objections he had to this Bill, as distinguished from the Bill for the Regulation of the Inns of Court. The latter, he believed, ought to become law, and might be extremely beneficial to the Inns of Court themselves. As to the Bill at present before the House, it proposed that for the present there should be established merely a body to conduct examinations in connection with call to the Bar; but, at the same time, it contemplated that as soon as funds could be obtained there should be really a School formed for the purpose of teaching law. Now, he held that a measure for that purpose was not only unnecessary, but entirely antagonistic to the other measure. By the Bill which had already passed their Lordships' House, powers had been given to the Inns of Court—much in the same way as powers had some time ago been given to the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge—with a view to the improvement
  1892
  and development of legal education. It was provided that if within a limited time the Inns of Court did not provide an adequate system of legal education, the Commissioners appointed by the Bill should have power to make the regulations necessary for that purpose. Now, look at the effect of the present measure, in connection with the operation of the Bill which had already passed their Lordships' House. The Bill for the government of the Inns of Court proposed that those Societies should themselves pass regulations, and draw up rules for establishing the best and most judicious system of teaching law; whereas the present measure proposed to set up an antagonistic and rival School of Law—such a step must paralyze and bring to naught such efforts as the Inns of Court might make for the purpose of improving legal education. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) in desiring that some Examining Body should have the power of declaring who were properly qualified for admission to the Bar. Knowing as he did how anxious his noble and learned Friend was to do what was most expedient in this matter, he felt extremely unwilling to appear to take issue with him on the subject of this Bill, and, therefore, what he proposed was that the noble and learned Lord should rest satisfied with having passed this Bill through its second reading—or, at all events, with going into Committee upon it pro formâ—and should wait and see whether the Bill for the Regulation of the Inns of Court was successful in passing the other House of Parliament. If the measure did not pass into law during the present Session, it would be open to the noble and learned Lord to re-introduce this measure next year, with such amendments as he might deem it necessary to make in it.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, he thought that the Bar generally was much indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) for bringing forward this measure, which, in his opinion, ought to become law at some future period—unless in the meantime a suitable scheme for the improvement of legal education was adopted under the provisions of the Bill for the regulation of the Inns of Court. He regarded it as an untoward circumstance that certain

  1893
  members of the Inner Temple should have presented a Petition to that House in almost identical terms with that which had been read to-night by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He regretted extremely that the terms of those Petitions showed that some members of the Inns of Court, at all events, regarded this Bill as calculated to have a mischievous and damaging effect upon those institutions. At the same time, however, he trusted that the noble and learned Lord would excuse him for expressing the opinion that, believing as he did that some larger measure would ultimately be necessary, it would be unwise to press this Bill forward at the present time, seeing that by doing so he might imperil the success of the Bill for the Regulation of the Inns of Court, which he believed would prove a really useful measure.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he had taken the greatest interest in the subject of the improvement of legal education for several years, but his experience in life had taught him that patience was one of the most valuable qualities a man could possess. He had already borne a delay of five years, and he could bear some further delay, rather than unnecessarily widen any differences which might exist on this subject, between himself and others, with whom it was his desire to agree. Under the circumstances, therefore, he felt bound to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and would not further press this measure in the present Session, after their Lordships had gone, pro formâ, into Committee upon it. He hoped, however, that the Bill for the Regulation of the Inns of Court might pass into law in the course of the present Session. Before he sat down he must defend the Bill against certain misconstructions which had been put upon it in the Petitions that had been presented against it to their Lordships' House. The main object was to collect together and to give an aggregate constitution to the several learned bodies which were now separated. The interest the country had in proper provision being made for the best possible legal education for all persons, whether they practised the profession or not, ought not to be left out of sight in the consideration of the subject. He altogether denied the unworthy suggestion
  1894
  that the Bill was meant to be antagonistic to the Inns of Court. The object in view was that all the legal institutions should co-operate and become constituents of a legal University or School of Law—he cared not by what name it was called—it would virtually be a University, and the relation of those bodies to it would be similar to that which existed between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the Colleges they contained. He retained the opinion that it was desirous an aggregate body of the kind he contemplated should have power to contribute to the public teaching of the law; and he could not undertake that in any Bill which he might introduce in another Session, this subject should be wholly left out of sight, though he was quite willing to consider how far he could consistently go, for the sake of meeting, as far as possible, the views of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; House resumed.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
(The Lord President.)
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.

  (NO. 112.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Prohibition of the mixing of injurious ingredients, and of selling the same).
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved, in page 2, line 6, to omit the word "knowingly," the retention of which would, in his opinion, greatly mar the utility of the measure. How could it be proved—as it must be before a conviction could be obtained under the Bill if it became law as it stood—that a trader knew he was selling adulterated drugs or food? He believed that druggists, at all events, were perfectly competent to judge of the quality of what they were selling. They either mixed the articles they sold for themselves or they obtained them mixed from others, and in the latter case they had a remedy against the person they purchased from under Clause 5. He had no desire to harass traders or to place undue restrictions upon trade; but to secure that the Bill should operate beneficially, he hoped the word "knowingly" would be omitted from the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be to render every trader who sold adulterated drugs or food, however ignorant he might be of the fact, liable to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months with hard labour. Surely their Lordships would not agree to the imposition of a penalty like that? A man might be perfectly innocent and have nothing whatever to do with the articles he sold save to sell them, and yet he would be liable to imprisonment. The clause was substantially the same as that in the Act of 1872—so that the proposed legislation was not new, but proceeded on the basis of the old. He should be sorry to omit the word "knowingly," as he believed that great injustice might ensue if it were struck out.
  EARL FORTESCUEthought that the onus should be thrown on the trader of proving his ignorance, as it would be most difficult in the case of a prosecution to prove guilty knowledge.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Earl in moving to omit the word "knowingly" proposed that the question of knowledge should not enter into the offence. The Act would, therefore, impose a penalty of £50 upon a tradesman who sold a mixed article, whether he knew it to be mixed or not. Was that justice? A suggestion had been made by the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) that the onus ought to be changed, and that it should be assumed that a man was guilty until he had proved that he was innocent. In that case, however, the mouth would be stopped of the person who could give the best evidence—namely, the accused himself, and thus while there was a fair chance that the prosecutor would offer presumptive evidence in favour of a conviction, there would be no opportunity on the part of the person accused of proving his innocence.
  After a short conversation,
  On Question that ("knowingly") stand part of the Clause? their Lord-ships divided:—Contents 41; Not-Con-tents 23: Majority 18.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Prohibition of the sale of articles of food and of drugs not of the proper nature, substance, and quality. Exceptions).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he proposed to strike out the proviso that if a retail dealer who had sold an article in the condition in which it was supplied to him by the wholesale dealer was fined, he should have a right of action against such wholesale dealer for the recovery of the penalty and costs. It seemed to him that the proviso did not afford the remedy which was intended in the case it was desired to meet, and that this could be done best in Clause 24, which provided for the acquittal of the retail dealer if he had purchased from the wholesale dealer with a written warranty.
  Amendment moved to leave out, line 40 from ("And") to ("subjected.")
  THE EARL OF MORLEYapproved the change, remarking that at present the retail dealer was under no obligation to prosecute. It ought to be clearly understood that there was to be a prosecution of the wholesale dealer if he were to blame.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Appointment of analysts).
  THE EARL OF MORLEYurged that the appointment of analysts ought to be made compulsory, and not left optional with local authorities. Appointments had been made already in 32 out of 34 counties, and in 154 out of 171 boroughs. If the Act had done good in some places it would do good in others; and it was desirable that there should be uniformity in the administration of the law, or else adulterated articles would certainly find their way into places where no analysts had been appointed. No doubt there might be a difficulty in finding analysts, but that could be partly met by the combination of authorities and the making of appointments for larger areas, and by boroughs accepting the analysts appointed by the county authorities. Essex, Kent, and Sussex had appointed analysts in London. Up to the present time he believed the Local Government Board had not exercised the power conferred upon them to compel a local authority to appoint an analyst.
  Amendment moved, page 3, line 51, to leave out ("may") and insert ("shall.")—(The Earl of Morley).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment. The Local Government Board already had the power to compel where they thought fit, and it might be presumed they would exercise that power where they thought it necessary. It was not desirable to make appointments more compulsory than they were at present; and there were practical difficulties in the way of boroughs combining with counties and counties combining with each other, for there was no machinery to enable them to make the necessary apportionments of the salaries of the analysts.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought it very desirable that the analysts should submit to some regular examination before they were appointed. The Committee had made a recommendation to that effect.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobserved that the responsibility rested with the Local Government Board, and no doubt they would satisfy themselves as to the qualifications of the analysts before they sanctioned their appointment.
  LORD ABERDAREsuggested that, instead of the words that the Local Government Board "may" require satisfactory proof of competency to be furnished to them, the word "shall" should be substituted. This would go far to secure the appointment of properly qualified analysts. The Home Office could not appoint an Inspector of Mines without his undergoing an examination.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETread an extract from the evidence given before the Committee to show that there would be no difficulty in having an examination at South Kensington. People would have more confidence in the analysts if they knew that they had been regularly examined. It would also tend to greater uniformity of opinion as to what should be considered adulteration if they passed an uniform examination.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, it was distinctly recommended by the Select Committee that the appointment of an analyst should be compulsory.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthen moved, in line 11 of the same clause, that the word "may" should be struck out and "shall" inserted before the
  1898
  words "require satisfactory proof of competency." The clause as it stood provided that the Local Government Board, to whose approval the appointment of the analyst was to be subject, might require satisfactory proof of the competency of the person appointed. He thought they ought to be bound to require such proof, and therefore he proposed that Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDopposed the Amendment, thinking they ought to place confidence in the Public Department, which could be trusted to see that there was satisfactory proof of competency in those cases.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved, that if they left the word "may" in the clause it implied an assumption that the Board would not, in all cases, require satisfactory proof of the competence of the analyst.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that there were cases in which it would be difficult to say in what mode the evidence of fitness was to be obtained.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Proceedings by indictment and contracts not to be affected).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved, at end of clause, to add the following proviso:—
  "Provided that in any action brought by any person for a breach of contract on the sale of any article of food or of any drug, such person may recover alone or in addition to any other damages recoverable by him the amount of any penalty in which he may have been convicted under this Act, together with the costs paid by him upon such conviction, and those incurred by him in and about his defence thereto, if he prove that the article or drug the subject of such conviction was sold to him as and for an article or drug of the same nature, substance, and quality as that which was demanded of him, and that he purchased it not knowing it to be otherwise, and afterwards sold it in the same state in which he purchased it; the defendant in such action being, nevertheless, at liberty to prove that the conviction was wrongful, or that the amount of costs awarded or claimed was unreasonable."
  Amendment agreed to; words added; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Expenses of executing Act), agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Tea to be examined by the Customs on importation).
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, that he objected to the clause, and wished it would be omitted from the Bill. It was not the. duty of Custom House officers to examine articles which came from foreign countries. Take the quantities of tea imported annually: 161,000,0001bs. in 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 packages came to this country and would have to be examined, and to do that effectively the Government would require a whole army of Custom House examiners. Consider the expense that would be incurred. There might be no objection to meet those expenses, if such an examination were necessary; but it was not necessary, and for this reason, that the passing of the Act against adulteration had put a stop to the introduction of spurious teas into this country from China. The tea merchants should examine their own teas. The whole object of this clause was, he conceived, to saddle the public with the expenses of examination, and which the merchants should pay themselves. He would refer the noble Duke to the memorial presented to Mr. Gladstone by 78 large houses in the City, and they said that the sampling and examining of the teas should be done by the dock companies, and they considered that if that were done, the public would be properly protected. He hoped that the noble Duke would consider this matter. Testing teas could be only by sampling, and it was perfectly possible that in spite of the vigilance of the Custom House officers some bad tea might be brought into this country. If the clause should not be omitted, it ought to be amended.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDregretted that he could not accept the proposition of the noble Lord. The Committee which had sat to consider this question had recommended that the examination of the tea should be conducted by the Customs on its arrival in this country, so as to put an end to the practice of adulterating tea which prevailed in China. He had been informed by the Custom House authorities that the examination of the tea could be made by the Custom House officers without difficulty. The effect of the clause would be to benefit the consumer and to protect the retail dealers in this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEviewed with some apprehension the introduction by this clause of the principle
  1900
  that the mere lodging merchandise in the Custom House was a guarantee of its purity.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas of opinion that the effect of the clause would be to prevent bad teas being shipped from China.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to; remaining Clauses agreed to; Amendments made; Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 155).
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.