§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Moved, "That the Report of Amendments be considered."—(The Lord Basing.)1324
said, he had no wish to interfere with the sale of a good substitute for butter; but in the 3rd clause of the Butter Substitutes Bill brought in last Session, it was expressly provided that no word should be used which included "butter" in it. The Bill was to have been referred to a Select Committee. It was brought in by Lord Vernon, a nephew by the brother's side of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). Lord Vernon made by machine exceedingly good butter, which always commanded a high price; but yet it might be mixed with lard by the retail dealer, and the best lard cost only 9d. per lb. The practice had been suspected in private dairies, and when on a visit with his father on the Circuit at Strathfieldsaye, he heard the Marquess of Douro say that he thought the dairymaid put lard into their butter. The article was sold in Lancashire as "rine" and bosh, and in America it had been called bogus; but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Mr. Vaughan, the Police Magistrate, had fined a man for selling butterine as butter; but as it was not unwholesome the fine was very small. In this Bill the fines were discretionary; but "rine" included both margarine and butterine, and they were distinct, for margarine could not be spread upon bread. If it wore said that I the word was not sufficiently known, he I would say—Licuit semper que licebit,Signatum prosente nota procudere nomen.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
, in rising to move that the word "butterine" be substituted for "margarine" in the title of the Bill, said, that since the great controversy between "the big and the little Endians" as to the right way of eating an egg, there had been no such excitement as this over the great Margarine versus Butterine Question. On the last occasion when this subject was before the House mention was made of the fact that many of their Lordships had come from the country, at great inconvenience to themselves, with the object of voting in favour of what they held to be the suppression of fraud. He thought, however, that I there was another motive which had actuated some of their Lordships. In addition to voting against fraud, they had determined to vote at the same time for the suppression of a prosperous rival, which threatened to compete success- 1325 fully with butter. What had been the history of this question? Last year a Bill was brought in by Lord Vernon for the purpose of abolishing butterine, but did not reach the stage of second reading. Early in the present Session a Margarine Bill was brought in, and referred to a Select Committee, who came to the conclusion, by a majority of two to one, that, upon the evidence, the name should be "butterine." The Bill having reached the other House, a Division was taken at 2 o'clock in the morning upon the question that the name "margarine" be adopted, and the Motion, was carried by a majority of 87 to 70. But 46 of the Members who voted in the majority were Irish Members deeply interested in Cork butter. It appeared, therefore, that if England and Scotland could enjoy Home Rule with reference to this question, there would be a large preponderance of opinion in favour of "butterine" as against "margarine." On a subsequent occasion it was proposed to re-insert the name "butterine" in the Bill; but the Motion was lost. The numbers were 124 against the Motion and 99 in favour of it. In the majority 41 Irish Members voted, so that the wishes of the English and Scotch Members were once more overruled by the Irish butter vote. The President of the Society of Analysts had made a statement on the subject of butterine, which was endorsed by Sir Frederic Abel in his evidence before the Committee. Sir Frederic Abel described butterine as a finished article of commerce, consisting of 60 per cent of margarine. Margarine was not butter, but a fluid portion of animal fat. Butterine was the generally accepted name for butter substitutes, and there was no reason for prohibiting its use. Another scientific witness, Sir Lyon Playfair, called the term margarine scientific nonsense, and yet that House was asked to stamp butterine with a name which was scientific nonsense. It was not only the butterine manufacturers but also the margarine manufacturers who objected to the articles which they made respectively being miscalled. That alone was strong ground against the use of the term margarine. Those of their Lordships who had been to the Refreshment Room would see that margarine and butterine were as distinct from each other as chalk from cheese. A noble Friend who had 1326 tasted a sample of it, when asked to what conclusion he had come, said—"Why, I have, I am sure unknowingly, eaten tons of it." Now, as to the character of butterine as an article of food. The evidence was quite distinct that it was a perfectly wholesome article, and that it had in many workhouses and other public institutions taken the place of butter. It was indeed, preferable to a good deal of what went by the name of butter. In Liverpool it was largely used and highly appreciated in the workhouses, where it was used after a careful trial and report by the medical officer; and a saving was effected of no less than £500 a-year in one workhouse alone as compared with what would be the cost of butter. Mr. Thomas, of the Local Government Board, who was an important witness, gave evidence before the Select Committee of the excellence of butterine as an. article of food, and its popularity was attested by its having been an article of trade for the last 12 years, the annual value of the trade now being £4,000,000 sterling. That was the trade which the House was asked to injure, for he believed the use of the name margarine would injure it. The President of the Board of Trade had actually, on this question, dissociated himself from the Government, and expressed himself in favour of the views of the Select Committee. Margarine, butterine, and oleomargarine were all pretty names, and he was told that Corney Grain, in one of his popular songs, addressed the girl of his heart as "Margarine," and when his passion was at its height he called her "Oleomargarine." But he objected to these names being misused. Suppose it was a question of fraud. Surely if anybody bought butterine in mistake for butter the maxim caveat emptor would apply. If the poor bought butterine at 6d. a pound, instead of butter at three times the price, and thought it was butter and liked it, no particular harm was done, and no service would be rendered if they were undeceived. He was quite sure that tons of butterine were sold under the name of butter by regular butter retail merchants. Mr. Howard, the late Member for Bedford, who was an authority on all agricultural questions, said that the term butterine had become well established in the trade, and that the name should be retained, but that it 1327 should be coloured in such a way as to distinguish it from butter. Now, were the agriculturists of this country wise, oven on the lowest grounds, in the view which they had taken on this question? Bather they were being made the cat's-paws of by the dairy farmers. Butterine was made from the fat of the ox, while butter was made from that of the cow. Why should not the farmers of this country utilize their oxen in this way instead of leaving all this thriving trade to foreigners? The English farmer was being misled on this subject, exactly as he had been misled about the Malt Tax, for the repeal of which there was such a continuous outcry. When at last it was repealed the barley growers were in no better plight than before, all sorts of substances were used for the manufacture of beer, and barley had fallen 3s. to 6s. a quarter in the market. He objected to the Bill on this broad ground. He objected to its principle, and he objected to some of its provisions. To the principle of the Bill, he objected because he believed it to be wholly novel and unprecedented that Parliament should be asked to suppress the name of an article of trade which has been in use for 12 years; and that Parliament should legislate in this way by a special Act of Parliament for one and against another special interest, and that all this should be done under the guise of suppression of fraud. If there were any fraud which the existing Adulteration Acts did not touch that was a reason for amending those Acts, so as to reduce fraud to a minimum. But he objected to a system under which whenever one interest found a rival that it thought hurtful, it might come to Parliament and ask for the practical suppression of the name of the article of trade sold by its rival. That was a very wrong principle of legislation. It was un-statesmanlike, and it was a sort of legislation to which their Lordships ought not to give their sanction. If this Bill were passed what was there to prevent similar legislation with regard to velveteen, ivorine, and coralline, and, more still, gasoline, which stood on all fours with the question of butterine? Gas was supposed to be made from coal and it was an illuminant. Gasoline was also an illuminant, but it was made from 1328 oil. The difference between them stood on all fours with this question of margarine and butterine, and it would be quite as reasonable for the manufacturers of gas to come to Parliament and ask to have gasoline suppressed or called by some other name. There were other provisions in the Bill, and how the House of Commons, which was full of manufacturers of all kinds, could allow this Bill to pass their House and to come to their Lordships' House with the 7th clause in it passed all ordinary comprehension. That clause allowed the Government Inspector, to be created under this Bill, to enter at any hour of the day or night into the place where the butterine was manufactured, to watch the process of manufacture, and to report upon it. Moreover, all manufactories were to be registered. An attempt was being made to get in the thin edge of the wedge by which an Inspector was to be empowered to enter a factory and to ascertain the process of manufacture. This would put a stop to all improvement in this country, and would give rise to corruption and bribery. Our manufacturers were very jealous with regard to disclosing their modes of manufacture, he had been told that when the Prince of Wales was recently admitted to the works of Sir William Armstrong he wag not shown some particular process of manufacture, but an Inspector would be able under this Bill to see what the Prince of Wales would not be permitted to see. There would be an immense demand for the Inspectorship, because, by another clause, the Inspector might take away as many samples as he pleased from every manufactory without paying for them, and his impression was that the butter bill of this Inspector would not be very large. He would now say a few words respecting his own action with regard to this Bill. It was sometimes said that he had made himself a tool of the butterine manufacturers. Last year, when his nephew (Lord Vernon) brought in his Bill, he opposed it on the broad principle that that was not the way to legislate, and that Parliament ought to amend the general Acts and ought not to pass these particular Acts. He did that without any communication whatever with the butterine manufacturers. He objected to and resisted this Bill on principle. Any noble Lord who went to the Refreshment Room might see for 1329 himself that margarine was an uneatable substance, and yet they were now asked to give that name to an article of diet. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to sanction a Parliamentary lie by putting into an Act of Parliament that which was opposed alike to science and to sense.
Moved, in the title, to leave out ("Margarine") and insert ("Butterine").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ LORD THRING
said, that to make it a misdemeanour to call an article by its well-known name of "Butterine" was a thing unprecedented in English legislation. Moreover, all the 21 witnesses examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, with the ex-caption of three, were in favour of the word butterine, and deprecated the use of any other word. The Committee divided two to one in favour of butterine.
§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, he had taken an interest in those questions ever since he sat on the Adulteration Committee of the other House in 1856, and had read every word of the evidence in the Blue Book, and that had led him to the opposite conclusion from the noble Lords. Eleven of the 21 witnesses only spoke in favour of the name "butterine;" five were neutral. As to the question of the recommendation of men of science that the name "butterine" should be used, he wished to point out that if English men of science were of opinion that "butterine" was the right name to give to those substances they were apparently at issue on the point with the scientific men of most of the other civilized countries in the world. In Germany the name "margarine" was attached to these substances by law, and in the United States the term "oleomargarine." In France they had the further alternative of graife alimentaire, rendered in the Blue Book by "edible fat." He, therefore, thought it was rather too much to expect them to submit the settlement of the name in this matter explicitly to the dicta of our men of science when the men of science of the United States and of pretty nearly the whole of Europe took the opposite view. Although he might not think "margarine" the best name that could be selected, he learnt from one of the 11 witnesses hostile to it that under the name of "margarine" people would not love 1330 butterine any the less. He was satisfied that, as compared with the misleading name of butterine," the preponderance of reason and justice was in favour of the name which the majority in the other House of Parliament had twice affirmed as the right one to be applied to this article.
§ LORD BASING
said, that on behalf of the promoters of the Bill he must ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl and to adhere to the Bill as it came from the Commons. A great deal had been made of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on this subject; but he thought that too much reliance ought not to be placed on the evidence published in the Blue Book, because it was all on one side of the question only, and the evidence on the other side was not taken at all. The experience of the last 12 or 14 years since the Food and Drugs Act was passed had shown that the exceptional legislation which has since been found necessary in the case of other articles of food included in that Act was also required in the matter of butter. There was no doubt that the use of the ambiguous term "butterine" had had a great effect in stimulating the sale of the article, it being peculiarly liable to be mistaken by the unwary purchaser for "butter." All that the Committee desired was that those who bought this substance, which consisted of 60 per cent of margarine, should know it to be a substitute and not butter, and that was in accordance with the principle of the Food and Drugs Act—to secure the purity of the food of the people. Moreover, the traders in butterine and margarine made no objection to the provisions of the Bill, and welcomed the presence of the Inspector in their factories. The noble Earl spoke of the sale of butter substitute as important in the interests of the farmers, because it was made from the fat of the ox. But it was the fact that the great mass of this butter substitute was not produced in this country, but was of foreign manufacture. He did not, however, wish to put this forward as a question of Protection, but only as an amendment of the Food and Drugs Act. He did not pretend that the decision in the matter of the name was free from doubt; but he ventured to think that their Lordships ought seriously to regard the conclusion to which the House 1331 of Commons, after ample debate had I had come. Moreover, after the House had arrived at a decision in the first instance the traders, and especially the dealers in butter substitute, had ample time to secure what interest they could, and yet the House on a subsequent occasion arrived at the same conclusion. That was the principal reason why he should ask their Lordships to retain the word "margarine" and to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl.
§ LORD HOUGHTON
said, he thought there must be some reason very much out of the common which could persuade their Lordships to take away from a perfectly well-known substance the designation which it had borne for 12 years, and to give it a name which, by general admission, was not its name, but the name of something else. He had no doubt it was perfectly true that there was a consensus of opinion among dairy farmers that some legislation on this subject was necessary. But it seemed to him that their Lordships ought to discriminate, on the one hand, between a perfectly legitimate amendment of the law which the dairy farmers might reasonably desire, and, on the other, between the annoyance they might feel at an inconvenient competition. If effect were to be given to the latter they would practically be entering upon Protection. Whatever might be the intention of the promoters of the Bill, its effect would be to raise the price of butter. After the decision of the House of Commons The Times stated that its Chester correspondent telegraphed that in expectation that the House of Lords would adhere to the word "margarine" the price of butter had risen considerably. He imagined, therefore, that the hope of a great many promoters of the Bill was that the unfamiliar name of "margarine" would scare the purchasers who had hitherto bought this butter substitute. That, he had no doubt, would be the case for a time; but it was unfair to assume that the purchasers of butterine would not buy it in preference to butter if they knew how it was made. He would remind their Lordships that butter might be made in an undrained dairy, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the farmyard and manure, and in vessels far from clean, and it might, moreover, contain a much larger percentage of salt and water than the butterine, though 1332 it still owed its existence to exertions of the cow. It would be far better to allow the poor to buy honest butterine, which was admittedly wholesome, than to compel them to buy butter produced under the circumstances he had described. With regard to the use of the word "margarine" in other countries, the analogy was entirely fallacious, as the avowed intention in using it was to protect the makers of butter, and if Protection was to he embarked upon in this country it ought to be done openly. As the Bill stood it would not protect the large class of persons who bought butter in hotels, restaurants, and lodging-houses, for there was nothing to prevent the proprietors of those places buying margarine under that name and supplying it to their customers as butter. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had not attempted to insert a clause making it necessary for refreshment houses to exhibit a placard, as was done in the United States, saying "Oleomargarine is used here." He did not believe that it would be to the interest of the dairy farmers that the Bill should pass in its present form, as the result of suppressing the sale of margarine would be to throw back any improvements made in the quality of butter. He should therefore vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SUFFOLK AND BERKSHIRE
said, that the perusal of the evidence taken before the Select Committee had not altered his opinion on this subject. Many witnesses laid great stress on the fact that the name "margarine" was unscientific, but he would wish particularly to direct the attention of the House to the evidence of three dairy farmers. They said that they feared no competition whatever with any grease or fat that could be manufactured, except so far as it was called by some name resembling butter. They insisted that the word "butter" was the trade-mark of the agricultural interest, and that any plausible imitation of that trade-mark was calculated wrongly and injuriously to affect their interests. In his opinion the word "butterine" was such a plausible imitation, and for that reason he trusted the House would adhere to the word "margarine."
§ LORD BRAMWELL
remarked, that the question was not whether butterine was a convenient or a scientific name, 1333 but whether margarine was a right or a false name. He understood from everybody that margarine was not a correct name for the substance known as butterine, and they wore asked, therefore, to enact that this substance should be called by a name which was not true, in order to mislead people. The noble Lord who had charge of the Bill justified the name "margarine," on the ground that 60 percent of the materials which wont to make up the substance were correctly described by that term. He would ask the noble Lord this. Would he propose to call bronze copper because bronze contained 60 per cent of copper? If the argument of the noble Lord were accepted, they ought to call bread flour. It was ridiculous to suppose that the adoption of the title "margarine" would prevent fraud. Did their Lordships believe that a rogue who wished to palm off butterine as real butter would be deterred from doing so by a change of name? He had no doubt that the opposition to the name ''butterine" came from the butter trade. It was a curious thing that no witnesses were called before the Select Committee to show that vendors of butter-substitute were prone to commit fraud. If the proposal wore merely that the name "butterine" should be abolished it would not be open to so much objection. The supporters of the Bill, however, went further, and wished to designate an article by an untrue name, the object being to induce purchasers of butterine to buy butter in future. But this was an idle expectation, for the matter would soon be understood, and the people who now bought butterine would soon discover that the so-called margarine was the same thing and would purchase it under its altered name.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that it was one of the chief functions of legislation to secure the consumer against adulteration and could he view this measure as being for the consumer's protection he should certainly vote in favour of it; but the object of the Bill was not to prevent adulteration. There was no butter in butterine. Butterine was a manufactured article that had been in the market for a considerable number of years, and had established a firm footing in the consumption of this country; and the question was whether they were, by a side wind, and by giving this article 1334 an opprobrious and incorrect name to supply an artificial stimulus to the butter trade. Any endeavour of that kind he did not think legitimate. What the butter trade wanted was the stimulus of competition, and the exertions of farmers ought to be directed to the production of better butter. He felt ashamed when he thought of the butter which many of our farms produced. It was offensive in smell, rancid in taste, and could not bear comparison with even the inferior qualities of foreign, butter. Yet our climate, which favoured the growth of grass, was that of a butter-producing country, and he believed that if the attention of our farmers were but directed to the making of a higher class of butter, they could produce as fine an article as was now introduced into this country from Holland, Belgium, and the Baltic Provinces. He objected to the Bill before their Lordships, because it was indirectly a protective measure. He held that margarine was not a proper title to apply to a manufactured article. There was already an article called margarine. What was to become of that? He did not think it was wise to give so large and wide powers of inspection as were proposed by the Bill, and he trusted Parliament would not be led away by the obvious interests that had induced the Irish Members in large numbers to vote for the Bill in "another place." No doubt if they had a separate Parliament for Ireland they should have plenty of protective measures of this kind; but so long as they had a united Parliament and an honest system of Free Trade, they ought not to impose a false tariff upon an article which had become an article of general consumption.
THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
said, the sole point which the House had at the present moment to decide was as between the names "margarine" and "butterine." The noble Lord on the Cross Benches desired that this substance should be sold as butterine, but if as was stated it was incorrect to term it margarine, it was still more incorrect to call it butterine. To term it butterine would be giving a false credit to an article which was in no sense butter. They would find in the evidence that there were three kinds of butterine, and he 1335 thought; the noble Earl would be very sorry himself to eat the third article. They talked of protecting dairy farmers, but this Bill would protect humble persons to a certain extent by enabling them to take samples for inspection of this compound article sold as butterine or butter. It would further insure that the substance was labelled margarine and not butter. In one instance a surgeon was called in to a family that were violently vomiting after having partaken of this butterine, which the surgeon described as cart-grease or an oleaginous mass.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that though this question did not involve the fate of the British Empire, it was important, and he desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment. If the Bill passed in its present form great injury would be inflicted on all those engaged in this trade. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) said that no doubt after a time the thing would find its level, but that would not be until very considerable injury had been done to a large class whose trade was enormous. Everyone knew how difficult it was to introduce a new article into the market. Twelve years ago this article was introduced, and there was a great feeling against it, but that had been overcome, and its sale was now a very large one. The Bill in its present form would destroy this trade, and render it necessary for those engaged in it to make a new beginning, selling the old article under the new name of margarine. This would, at any rate for a time, be exceedingly difficult. No answer had been given to the question as to what would become of the substance called margarine, which was uneatable, while butterine was a wholesome and palatable article of food. Their Lordships should deal with this question in a judicial manner, but he did not think they did that upon the last occasion when the majority insisted upon the name margarine being retained, and left the discussion whether it should be 1336 retained or not for the Report stage, and that was recommended because it was not in Order for a noble Lord to make more than one speech. He thought that their Lordships should pause before they did this great injury to an important trade—or committed a grammatical error by adopting the term margarine, which was not descriptive of the article to which it was applied. Scientific evidence pronounced butterine to be an excellent article of food, and it was desirable even in the interests of dairy farmers that they should encourage rather than stop the trade. Indirectly it was an incentive to farmers to make good butter, by bringing butter into wholesome competition with this article. Those who produced good butter would not suffer any injury from the word butterine being used, but those would suffer who made bad butter, and a great deal of butter was made in the dirtiest and most unwholesome way. As to the fact that the House of Commons had passed the Bill in its present form, it was to be noted that the Bill passed through Committee in the House of Commons at 3 o'clock in the morning, and that the decision of the House of Commons in favour of the word "margarine" was in the teeth of the Report of the Select Committee.
§ LORD WANTAGE
said, he thought the term which had been deliberately adopted after careful examination should be retained. The object of the Bill was to take care that there was no confusion in the minds of the people as to whether they were buying the real article or the imitation. This was the first time it had ever been proposed to compel people to adopt a particular name. The evidence showed that this term was totally inapplicable to the compound, His noble Friend who was in charge of the Bill had quoted the evidence of Sir Frederic Abel; but he had that morning read that evidence, and his conclusion from it was in direct opposition to that of his noble Friend. When he heard that the House of Commons had reversed the decision of their own Select Committee he turned with some interest to the Division List, and discovered in the majority no fewer than 30, names beginning with O, and he found that the reversal of the decision of the Select Committee was entirely due to the action of those Irish Members who took so 1337 keen an interest in English by-elections. That was an additional reason why lie should vote for the Amendment; and he was anxious to show also, by voting in favour of the term "butterine," that he was not actuated by any desire unfairly to protect the interests of the dairy farmers.
§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, he must protest against the argument of the 30 or 40 Irish Members as a most unconstitutional and unfair argument. He had received a circular couched in offensive terms and emanating from the Liberty and Property Defence League, with which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches was connected, in which that argument was used. The Irish Members were selected by their constituents to protect not only the interests of their country generally, but those of agriculture in particular, and it was no reproach to them that they had honestly exercised their privileges. No one had suggested what truer name could be given to this product than margarine. He declined to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion. It was necessary to protect the interests of the poor and to see that they were not misled into the belief that a substance which contained 60 per cent of margarine was butter. The dairy farmers sought no protection or advantage over the sellers of margarine, or what some would call butterine. But articles ought to be sold under distinctive names and in their true character, and all the evidence showed that for some years butterine had been sold and charged for as butter. The change of name would have no prejudicial effect on the sale of margarine or butterine, though the present exorbitant prices would probably be reduced. It was said that this substance was not deleterious, and scientific witnesses had deposed that if it was made of such and such constituents in a sound condition butterine was a wholesome food. But none of these witnesses said that they had tasted and tested the article sold. He believed it was generally injurious, and Canadian experience was in the same direction. There was an interesting discussion on the question in the Dominion Parliament at Ottawa, and it appeared that the Canadian Government had, in the first instance, imposed heavy duties on the importation of the article from the United States, and then, after the estab- 1338 lishment of manufactories in Canada, felt obliged to put a stop to the trade altogether.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, he would not stand long between the House and a Division on this extremely interesting question, which seemed to have racked this House to its foundation. He wished, however, to put one question. If he wanted to buy butterine after this Bill was passed, how was he to acquire the article? He supposed the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would reply that the proper word was margarine. What they were in vain attempting to impress on the House was that the word margarine was an absolutely false name for the article he would wish to acquire under these circumstances. There wore already three qualities of margarine in existence that they know; but how were they to distinguish this further article when it was added to this great generic name? He did not suppose that their Lordships were large consumers of this article. The working classes in Lancashire used it to a large extent. Let them put themselves in the position of the working man who sent his child to purchase some butterine. The child would naturally say to the dealer "Give me some butterine;" the dealer would purse up his lips and observe "You mean margarine;" and the child would reply, "I mean nothing of the kind; I mean butterine." He did not see how the required article was to be obtained unless the purchaser adopted the racing phraseology, and said, "I want margarine, late butterine." A dealer who was examined before the Committee stated that there was very little difference between the profit on butter and the profit on butterine. The noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches had laid great stress on the general consensus of European opinion in regard to this matter. That was an argument which he hardly expected to hear in their Lordships' House. A right hon. Friend of his is the other House was rather fond of appealing to the universal opinion of Europe, and he was always reproached by his opponents for doing so. A proper designation of this article might be found in the word "bova;" but he did not think they should embark upon the use of fancy names, or upon the fraud—for it was very little else—of deliberately 1339 fixing a wrong name to a particular article. For that reason he should give the Amendment of the noble Earl his hearty support.
§ LORD TRURO
remarked that the lower and middle-class consumers of butterine took almost anything that the tradesmen gave them. They got credit, and unless they accepted the article which was offered them they had to go without any food whatever. He was ashamed to say that there was no country on the Continent where adulteration and petty frauds of this kind were carried on to anything like the extent that they were in this country.
§ On Question, "That ('Margarine') stand part of the Bill?"
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 14: Majority 38.1340
|Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Clancarty, V. (E. Clanearty.)|
|Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)||Cross, V.|
|Buckinghamand Chandos, D.||Ashbourne, L.|
|Bulfour of Burley, L.|
|Grafton, D.||Basing, L. [Teller.]|
|Manchester, D.||Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)|
|St. Albans, D.|
|Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)||Clinton, L.|
|Salisbury, M.||De L'Isle and Dudley, L.|
|Mount Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)||Deramore, L.|
|Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain)||FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]|
|Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)|
|Bathurst, E.||Hartismere, L. (A. Henniker.)|
|Dartrey, E.||Hawke, L.|
|de Montalt, E.||Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)|
|Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)|
|Fortescue, E.||Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)|
|Jersey, E.||Sherborne, L.|
|Mar, E.||Stanley of Alderley, L.|
|Suffolk and Berkshire, E.||Stratheden and Campbell, L.|
|Waldegrave, E.||Toliemache, L.|
|Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.||Truro, L.|
|Granville, E.||Houghton, L.|
|Morley, E.||Lingen, L.|
|Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)|
|Forbes, L.||Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]|
|Save and Sele, L.||Wantage, L.|
|Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)||Watson, L.|
|Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]|
§ Resolved in the affirmative.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, he moved to strike out Clause 7, which provided that all imported margarine should be consigned as such, and that it should be lawful for customs officers and other public officials charged with the execution of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1875, to examine and take samples from any package and submit them to analysis.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
said, the noble Earl had not put any Notice to that effect upon the Paper.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, that if it were not competent for him to move the rejection of the clause now, he would give Notice of his intention to do so on the third reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, that although the noble Earl had not given Notice, he was not precluded by the Rules of the House from moving his Amendment.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
said, he understood that the Standing Order of their Lordships' House not to allow Amendments to be moved without Notice applied to third readings only.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, that he was desirous of affording their Lordships time to consider the gravity of the principle involved in his Amendment, and should therefore postpone it till the third reading.
§ Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to he printed as amended. (No. 215.)