HL Deb 16 March 1893 vol 10 cc176-84

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

*THE EARL OF ON SLOW, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, although of bore a prosaic title, it might be more properly called a Bill providing for the marking of imported meat. The question excited great interest at present in this country and in various parts of the world; and this Bill was in furtherance of a principle which the Legislature had already adopted in several Acts in connection with imported articles. It was said they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament, but it was not said that they could not make people honest by Act of Parliament. They could see, at all events, that people were not made dishonest by Act of Parliament. It was, he believed, a matter of common notoriety that large quantities of meat were sold in this country as the product of a locality far from that in which they were actually produced. It was a most excellent motto to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, but it was not legitimate to buy an inferior article and sell it as a superior article. That was not the forethought of commercial enterprise but the knavery of the common cheat which this Bill would provide against. He could quote many instances of this particular form of fraud. In the case referred to by Mr. Nelson, a large importer of meat from the Argentine Republic, it was undoubtedly, as he said, a fraud to substitute Colonial meat for English meat. There was also the case mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture in the Lower House of Parliament in New Zealand of the Australian gentleman who went into a butcher's shop in London where his own frozen meat was being sold, and having told the butcher that it was Australian frozen mutton, the butcher threatened to send for a policeman and give him into custody for daring to say so, and all the time this gentleman knew that the sheep were his own. He had not the slightest intention of imputing fraud to those engaged in the wholesale trade. In July, 1891, when Scotch mutton was at the highest point it reached during that year—namely, 5s. 8d.—New Zealand mutton was fetching 3s. and River Plate mutton 2s. 2d. per stone. In July, 1892, Scotch mutton had again reached its highest level of the year. It was then at 5s. 4d. Buyers were at this time paying 2s. 9d. for New Zealand mutton, and 2s. 3d. for mutton from the River Plate. Over the whole of the former year, 1891, Scotch mutton averaged 4s. ll¼d. per stone, while the average of New Zealand mutton was 2s. 11d., and of River Plate mutton 2s. 4d. In the year 1892, buyers paid on an average 4s. 9½d. for Scotch mutton, 2s. 10¾d. for New Zealand, and 2s. 2¾d. for River Plate mutton per stone. That showed that a considerable difference existed in the wholesale value of these various qualities of meat. The growth and present extent of the import trade were significant. In 1880, only 400 carcases were brought over and sold from Australia; in 1887, from the same place 88,000 were sent to us, besides 750,000 from New Zealand, and over 500,000 from the River Plate. In 1892, those figures had still further increased. In that year we received 500,000 carcases from Australia, 1,500,000 from New Zealand, and over 500,000 from the River Plate. This importation of frozen meat had so affected that of live sheep on the hoof that it might be said to have annihilated it, and to have taken its place. In the year 1883, when we imported only 200,000 frozen carcases, there were sent to Great Britain over 1,000,000 head of live stock. In the year 1892, when over 3,000,000 of frozen carcases were received from abroad, the number of live sheep imported into Great Britain had dropped to only 85,000. The importations of beef were chiefly from America. Of the total supply of beef as meat consumed in the British Isles, Australia furnishes us with the insignificant proportion of one-third per cent., while the contribution of New Zealand is even less important, being at the rate of one-fourth per cent. It is estimated 15,500,000 cwt. of beef grown at home are consumed annually in Great Britain, while 5,500,000 cwt. of our consumption are imported. In October last, the President of the Board of Agriculture, replying to a deputation of persons interested in the Deptford cattle trade, on the subject of the importation of foreign cattle, quoted some interesting figures. A calculation that he had made, he said, showed that in 1891 the total meat consumption of the country was 2,139,000 tons of food, and out of that 1,478,000 tons were produced at home, 489,000 tons of dead meat were imported from abroad, and only 172,000 tons of live imports wore brought into this country. So that, while the produce of this country in round numbers amounted to something like 70 per cent. of the whole consumption, there was 22 per cent. of imported dead meat, and only 8 per cent. were living animals brought into this country. Their Lordships would thus see that not only was the trade in imported dead meat very extensive, but the range in prices between meat from different countries loft open the door for the perpetration of considerable fraud by the substitution of one for the other. As to the possibility of marking moat, it was largely practised not only in this country, but in the United States, and on the Continent of Europe. The Hebrew race would only eat meat killed in the manner directed by their religion, and in order that a Jew might be able to recognise Kosher meat, it was stamped with a die, and by making a hole in the bone and passing through it a little metal tag, upon which a leaden seal was placed bearing the butcher's mark. In the United States a system of marking meat had been carried out since 1891, which had proved quite efficacious, the process adopted being much the same as that of the Jews, a leaden seal being attached to the meat and stamped by the Board of Agriculture. The marking of meat was, however, most completely carried out in Denmark, and he was indebted to the courtesy of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for procuring information for him from Copenhagen on the subject, which he would ask should be laid on the Table of the House. In Copenhagen, the practice was to stamp several parts of each carcase, showing whether it was first or second class meat, the former being marked in blue, the second in black, in such a way that it could not be got out, without leaving evidence that the meat had been tampered with. He proposed to adopt a combination of both those methods, stamping all carcases in several places, and passing through the bone a tag with a leaden seal immediately below the fleshy part of the leg. If the loss of time in doing this were made an objection, he would point out the rapidity with which letters were stamped in the Post Office, and that already carcases were sent to this country sewn up in bags, an operation which must take a considerable time. But he was satisfied seeing the increased prices obtained, that no objection would be raised on account of the increased trouble involved. This was not the first Bill for the purpose which had been introduced into their Lordships' House, for a measure was brought in some years ago by the late Lord Leamington, though it was very different from this. That Bill, he confessed, had filled him with amazement as a friend of our Colonial Empire, for it was proposed that all meat sent from our Colonies should be termed "foreign meat." He opposed that Bill for another reason: that it would not have distinguished between certain kinds of meat. In the New Zealand House of Assembly a motion was made to procure that a system of marking should be initiated by the New Zealand Government. The Minister for Agriculture, himself a practical sheep farmer both in this country and in New Zealand, said— Any legislation that we may pass here, or any brand that we may put on our mutton, will have no effect, and the only way to meet the difficulty will be to have legislation introduced in the Imperial Parliament to deal with the matter. … It is not much use representing the matter to the British Authorities, but the Government will do all they possibly can. We intend to again communicate with the Agent-General. But we have no power to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government to induce them to pass the law. … The matter must be left to the British Government in England. The Australasian, a Melbourne weekly newspaper, which probably had the largest circulation of any in those Colonies, among the class who were chiefly interested in the production of wool and mutton, had appointed a "special commissioner" to examine into the whole question of the export of meat to England, and, in the course of his Report, he said— How to break down the imposition and fraud that seem so inextricably associated with the sale of the meat in Great Britain is the crux of this question at the present time, and certain it, is that nothing less than a great co-operative effort on the part of the producers to secure due protection of their interests in the English market, or an official grading of the meat can possibly grapple with the evil. Again, at a great banquet given to inaugurate the commencement of a trade in frozen beef from Queensland, Mr. Weddel, the agent for the new Company in England, replying to the toast of "Prosperity to that Company," said— A great deal of correspondence has appeared in the papers lately on the subject of branding Colonial mutton with the country of origin. To this we could not have the slightest objection; on the contrary, we would welcome any such scheme as being the best advertisement we could have of our wares. We know we have a thoroughly good article to sell; we have no reason to be ashamed of it, and have no desire to sell it for other than what it is. These views were not confined to persons engaged in the Colonial Trade for Mr. Ward, a large importer of meat from the River Plate, to Liverpool, in an interview" with a newspaper representative, alluding to this Bill, was reported to have said this— People are saying that the measure which is being brought forward is intended to ruin the foreign meat trade; but we would hail with delight such a measure as is proposed. We have so much confidence in our trade that we can allow it to stand on its merits. In November, 1890, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, under the presidency of the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, resolved— That it is desirable to label all imported meat when sold in this country. The present Bill was not introduced in the interests of any class in particular, as was sometimes suggested to be the case with measures when introduced into their Lordhips' House. It was brought forward in the interests of the artisans and labourers; of clerks, whose incomes were, as was well known so meagre; in the interests of small shopkeepers and tradesmen, who, if they could buy at a cheaper price, might be able to have meat every day in the week, instead of only two or three times; in the interests of young married couples, who frequently saw their families increasing more rapidly than their incomes; and, finally, in the interests of large public institutions supported by charitable funds. In one depot, in Liverpool, he was told that 50 purchases averaged no more than 2½d., while in another the average of 100 purchases was only 2¼d. He would like to ask, on the other hand, who were likely to be injured by the Bill. Certainly not the consumers or their Colonial friends; still less the English farmer. In fact there was but one person who could be injured, and he was a person with whom neither their Lordships nor the public would have any sympathy—the fraudulent butcher, who ground the faces of the poor. He did not ask the House to pass this Bill as a matter of special favour to the British farmer, all he asked their Lordships to do was to give a fair field to our Colonial stock-raisers, to see that our commercial men were shielded from fraud in the purchase of an important article of food, and to discourage imposition in trade. He moved the Second Heading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read, 2a—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD RIBBLESDALE

said, that he did not propose to follow his noble Friend into all the statistics or considerations he had touched upon. He would address himself to the Bill his noble Friend had explained so pleasantly and clearly. This Bill was one of several similar proposals, already in print, dealing with the identification and marking of imported meat. There were three Bills of this nature in print in the House of Commons, and there were kindred measures drafted relating to marking, with the view to identification and showing the origin of fruit and cheese. Now, what was the justification and object of these measures, as stated by the promoters? He conceived it to be this, and it was so stated to their Lordships by his noble Friend, the prevention of misrepresentation by the retailers, who were supposed in these cases, upon which Parliament was invited to legislate, to be getting a better price for foreign and colonial meat than they ought, by selling-it at the price of home-fed stuff, and so not only imposing upon the consumer, but also adversely affecting prices to the detriment of home-fed meat and our own graziers. If this was really going on, it was a very bad business. But was it the case? The noble Lord said it was a matter of common notoriety; but matters of common notoriety did not always stand the test of particular investigation. For himself, and he thought their Lordships also, he would have to be convinced by more evidence than they had at command at present, before they subscribed to en actments which must impose novel and troublesome obligations all round. But, even granting that all this was going on, he was under the impression that his noble Friend's Bill was inadequate for his object. He did not profess to be a Parliamentary linguist, but it seemed to him that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill did not deal with the grievance. The carcase was the noble Earl's special care and not the pieces of meat cut from it. It was the small retailer they wanted to get at, but there was nothing in these clauses to protect the artisan or clerk from the operations of the small retailer, if the latter were inclined to be fraudulent. Carcases, indeed were to be marked, but not the smaller portions of meat which the small consumers presumably purchased from the small retailer. This Bill proceeded upon the lines of the law in Denmark, but the law in Denmark, as he understood it, was directed against meat unfit for human food, rather than against misrepresentation as to native origin. Moreover, the cases of London and Copenhagen were not identical. There was a public slaughterhouse in Copenhagen; there was no such institution in London. This fact alone would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House to adapt the provisions of the law in Denmark to our own requirements. Failing a public slaughter-house, the submitting of all meat to public Inspectors was the alternative, which must involve a complicated, and might involve a harassing, machinery. This question was a large one, not to be lightly undertaken, and it appeared to him that, upon three fundamental points, fuller investigation and more light were essential. Those points he took to be—first, the necessity for this legislation; secondly, the practicability of this legislation; thirdly, perhaps the most important of all, the effect of such legislation upon our international commercial relations. In view of these considerations he must ask his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill, but not without giving him a quid pro quo. Upon his part he would undertake, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that a Select Committee of their Lordships' House should be appointed forthwith to investigate and report upon the whole question of the marking of imported meats and other produce, such as fruit and cheese. Margarine, and the working of the Margarine Acts, had been alluded to by the noble Lord, but, although the Government would consider the advisability of including those matters in the Reference of the Committee, he could give no undertaking as to margarine. He believed this would be the best course, and that it would commend itself to general approval, and command the confidence of the interests involved. The question of the marking of meat might have been included in the Reference of the House of Commons' Committee, to which he had alluded the other day, upon the general condition of agriculture. That Committee had had a sad fate; it had been blocked—and blocked by the action of a right hon. Gentleman in whose breast the patriotic fire of agriculture was supposed to burn with peculiar brightness, but he did not suppose that in that House it would suffer a similar fate. It seemed advisable, therefore, to appoint a Committee of their Lordships to deal with this question of marking imported produce, and he hoped his noble Friend would accede to his proposal and withdraw his Bill upon the undertaking he had given.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, that he did not know whether he quite followed the noble Lord in the proposal he made. He was not quite clear whether it was proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into all agricultural matters in lieu of that in the House of Commons, or to inquire more into matters connected with the importation of goods. In any case, however, he admitted that the subject was surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and the proposal of the noble Lord would no doubt tend to elucidate the matter, which was one of considerable interest to a large portion of the community. In reply to the noble Lord's appeal, he gladly withdrew the Bill on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would propose a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. The noble Lord said something about margarine. He was given to understand that the working of those Acts was not all that was desired by those at whose instance they were passed, and bethought, if possible, the working of those Acts should be referred to the same Committee.

Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.