§ House in Committee, on re-commitment, according to Order.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I have to move an Amendment to the 1st Clause, which provides that no person shall sell, offer, or expose or keep for sale, any horseflesh for human food, elsewhere than in a shop containing a conspicuous notice that horseflesh is sold there, by inserting after "food" the words "cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by or mixed with any other substance."
Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I have to propose the introduction of a new clause, which was originally part of the Bill, but has been struck out in the Grand Committee. I propose to insert after Clause 1. this clause:" No person shall sell horseflesh for human food, cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by or mixed with any other substance, to any purchaser who has not asked to be supplied with horseflesh." I think, my Lords, it is required for the purpose of carrying out the other clause, and will be useful machinery for making that clause more effectual. It is is clearly necessary that care should be taken in this matter in regard to the manufacture of sausages.
§ LORD THRINGMy Lords, I oppose the introduction of this clause. I think this is a most oppressive Bill, especially to the poor, who, by dealing at a shop labelled as this measure requires, with words four inches in length announcing that horseflesh is sold there, would be subject to the jeers of those who saw them enter. They would be laughed at for going into a cook-shop where sausages of that kind were sold. The poor may object, therefore, to having these places called "Horseflesh-shops." I would suggest to your Lordships that a man cannot go into a shop of that 491 description to eat what is considered to be inferior food without being exposed to the jeering of his companions, because over the shop would be painted in large letters "Horseflesh." The law provides that if deception is practised in the sale of articles of food, a penalty shall be inflicted. Therefore, if a man asks for beef and gets horseflesh, the seller would have to pay a penalty of £20. Does that govern this Bill, or does it not govern this Bill? Why are we, after a most careful Act has been passed to prevent the substitution of one kind of food for another, to pass a Bill of this character, dealing with the food of the poor, simply because we think we are promoting their interests by that interference?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that the noble Lord's observations applied to the principle of the Bill, whereas we are now in Committee considering a special clause which the promoters of the Bill deem necessary in order to carry out its object— namely, to protect the poor against being supplied with horseflesh, when they pay for ordinary meat. The clause is also required to prevent the honest trader from being undersold. I submit that the Bill is not open to the interpretation which the noble Lord has put upon it. He talks about it being an unjust Bill, but its purpose, a very simple one, is to prevent the poor man being deceived. So far from its being unjust and oppressive, it is a Bill for doing justice to the poor and to the honest trader alike. As regards the Bill not being required, because there is already a measure regulating the sale of food, the noble Lord has had a good deal of experience in the framing of Bills, and I think he will see that this is not at all unjust or oppressive. In 1886, after the passing of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, I received a letter from Manchester complaining of the sale of large quantities of horseflesh, and asking that such restrictions should be placed on the sale of it as would enable purchasers to know whether they were purchasing horseflesh or not. Though the Local Government Board had full cognizance of what was going on, the Inspectors reported that they were unable to act in the matter. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that the Manchester people and the Local Govern- 492 ment Board are at least as likely to know how the existing law is being enforced as the noble Lord. Then they submitted a draft Bill. I need not read now the reasons put forward by the Local Government Board in the matter. I confess I cannot agree with the noble Lord that this Bill is unjust and oppressive, unless it is unjust and oppressive to take care that the poor man only pays the proper price of the food which he obtains. If that be so, it is unjust and oppressive, not otherwise.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I am not going to say anything against the principle of the clause. I accept the Bill generally as a proper one, but I think the wording of the clause is open to objection. I would call attention to the effect of this section. The first section provides that in no case shall horseflesh be sold, except in a shop which shall have painted over it a notice in letters four inches long that horseflesh is sold there. Persons selling horseflesh in any other place are subject to a penalty. Now, the question which arises upon this proposed clause is this: In such a shop as that ought it to be an offence if a customer goes in and asks for a piece of meat to sell him a piece of horseflesh? I quite agree that except in a shop where it was notified that they were selling horseflesh that ought to be so, but I do not know that that ought to be the case where, if a man asks for meat, he must expect to get horseflesh. If he goes into a horseflesh shop, what he asks for really is horseflesh, and I do not see that any wrong is done. It does not say that if the purchaser intending to buy meat asks for meat and gets horseflesh the penalty will be inflicted. A man might go into a shop labelled as selling horseflesh, might point to some and ask for so much of it, knowing well that it was horseflesh, and yet the vendor would be liable under this clause because the purchaser would not "have asked to be supplied with horseflesh." It ought to be borne in mind that the shop would be labelled as selling horseflesh, so that the customer would be put on his guard against horseflesh if he did not desire it. If a customer intending to buy meat asked for it and was supplied with horse-flesh, that was a case which could be dealt with by the general law.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPWith regard to the letters of description four inches long, notifying that the shop is registered for the sale of horseflesh, I do not think that is very unreasonable. The notice must be made conspicuous, otherwise customers entering the shop after dark would not see it. Those who are most conversant with the matter think that would be a great misfortune, and I do ask your Lordships to take care that a purchaser coming in and asking for meat shall not be supplied with horseflesh. Therefore, if he has to go there after dark I do not think there is anything oppressive or too stringent in this new clause.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think this clause is necessary to carry out the object of the Bill. It is hardly conceivable that anybody going to such a shop would expect to get meat supplied to him, though, of course, it depends upon what is said at the time by the parties. I think this clause is required.
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I would suggest that the object of the clause would be effected if it constituted the offence, supplying horseflesh where "other than horseflesh" should be asked for. I should like to say that the clause goes rather beyond what my noble Friend has alluded to. If the person who asks for anything other than horseflesh, gets horseflesh, then he is supplied with what he has not asked for. He goes into a horseflesh shop and asks for a joint of meat. He buys it knowing that it is a horseflesh shop, and yet the man who sells it to him is liable to a penalty.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would point out that though the shop would be labelled, the words announcing the Bale of horseflesh might not be seen at night.
§ LORD HERSCHELLThat is so; but that is a matter which might be easily met. It might be well to consider whether you should not provide that the notice that horseflesh is sold there shall be so put up as to be legible at all times when the shop is open. I think that would be very reasonable, and certainly would carry out the spirit of the Bill, so that anybody going there after dark might see the notice. I think that would meet any objection to the clause, and would cover the cases where meat 494 or anything else might be asked for where a man might complain that he was supplied with something he had not intended. My objection to the clause is that it punishes the one man for selling that which the other knew perfectly well he was buying.
* LORD BALFOURMy Lords, I would put the case of a shop where horseflesh, as well as other things, are sold. It does not rest altogether upon the question whether the joint of meat is that for which the purchaser has asked. It may be that the purchaser asks for "cooked meat," "sausages," or some preparation, the composition of which is not evident from inspection, and unless there is some distinct announcement that it is horseflesh that is being sold, I think there is some danger that those who do not desire to buy horseflesh will be imposed upon. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will agree to the insertion of the clause. I can only say further that it has been brought to my knowledge that a very large number of the population in the district of Manchester and Salford are anxious that this Bill should pass. My Lords, there has been a petition sent in in favour of this Bill signed by 30,000 people. Those who know that district will know that a petition of that description could not have been got up contrary to the wish of the majority of the population. Another petition has also been sent up from that district, asking that the clause now under consideration should be inserted. I sincerely hope that in order to make the Bill efficient, that clause will be inserted. I may also point out that the clause which has been struck out had been carefully adjusted in the House of Commons and the words approved by the Attorney General. The whole scheme of the Bill is almost exactly following that of the Margarine Bill which your Lordships passed two years ago, and I earnestly hope the Bill will pass in a workable and efficient form.
§ LORD THRINGI suppose the Committee understand that the clause applies to any purchaser who has not asked for horseflesh but something else. After the elaborate way in which this Bill has been framed, it is better to put exactly what it means.
* LORD BALFOURNo possible harm can happen to the seller if he sells horse- 495 flesh for what it is. The clause now proposed is that—
No person shall sell horseflesh for human food, cooked or uncooked, alone or accompanied by, or mixed with any other substance, to any purchaser who has not asked to be supplied with horseflesh.Surely there can be no hardship in that. Sausages partly made of horseflesh may be so sold, and then there can be no hardship.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI would suggest that the end of the proposed clause should read "to any purchaser who has asked to be supplied with something other than horseflesh."
§ LORD HERSCHELLI would accept those words as an Amendment of the clause.
Clause as amended added.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI have to move the addition to Clause 5 of these words:
And if any horseflesh is proved to have been exposed for sale to the public in any shop, store, or place, other than such shop, store or place as in the 2nd Section mentioned, without anything to show that it was not intended for sale for human food, the onus of proving that it was not so intended shall rest upon the person exposing it for ssle.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI should accept those words except in cases where meat is supplied in a shop or place mentioned in the 1st Section. I think it is quite right to throw the onus on the person selling, of proving that it was not so intended.
Amendment agreed to.