SECOND READING. (Hansard, 1 September 1893)

§ *LORD RIBBLESDALE
said, he hoped their Lordships would give a Second Reading to this Bill. It was not a Party measure, but was prepared on the lines indicated by the Departmental Committee appointed in March, 1892, by the then President of the Board. The Committee was presided over by the noble Lord the then Member for the Med way Division, and it had the advantage of the services of the Member for Northamptonshire, who had given special attention to the subject, Mr. Albert Pell, Mr. Peter M'Lagan, and various official Members. They took a great deal of evidence, and their Report fully established the necessity, in the interests of agriculture, of legislative action for the purpose of rendering it more easy for the purchaser to ascertain the real value of the article with which he was supplied. In the case of manures, or, as they were more delicately termed, fertilisers, the Committee reported that there was a preponderance of evidence to the effect that a considerable amount of fraudulent dealing (especially in the case of compound manures) existed; that they were sold as containing certain properties which they did not contain; and that there was a system, particularly among the smaller traders, of selling unguaranteed and comparatively worthless articles at an excessive price. With regard to feeding stuffs, the Committee reported that the trade in seed and oil cakes was a field in which the practice of adulteration was particularly prevalent, and that there was a large quantity of articles, more or less impure or adulterated, sold as genuine or pure products, certain ingredients being put into cotton cakes and linseed cakes which were positively injurious. They 1694 were, he believed, generally known in the trade as "buffum"; and even castor-oil seeds, which were very unpleasant to the cattle getting them, were included in buffum. The Bill proposed, in the first place, to place a purchaser in a better position to obtain his remedy, by civil proceedings, in cases in which the fertiliser or feeding stuff was inferior in quality to what he was led or entitled to expect when he purchased it, and did not contain the ingredients it was pretended to contain; and, in the second place, it made certain fraudulent practices the subject of criminal proceedings and penalties. If any person fails, without reasonable excuse, to give the invoice which, under the Act, must be given and was to have effect as a warranty; if the invoice or the description was false in any material particular, to the prejudice of the purchaser; if an article sold for use as food for cattle contained any ingredient deleterious to cattle; or if to any such article had been added any ingredient worthless for feeding purposes and not disclosed at the time of sale, the offending person was made liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £20 for a first offence, and £50 for any subsequent offence. At the same time, the Board of Agriculture were quite aware that the trade would object to having a Sword of Damocles of this sort always hanging over their heads when they sold their manures or feeding stuffs. It was represented by the traders that civil proceedings were extremely expensive; and that even if they showed they were right, they would be put to very great expense. They, therefore, represented to the Board that civil proceedings under this Act should not be taken except after special investigation by some responsible Body. The Board recognised the validity of the views urged on behalf of the trade, and the Bill, therefore, made a certificate of the Board of Agriculture an essential preliminary to such proceedings, except in cases where they were instituted by the Council of a county or county borough. With regard to machinery, the Bill made it incumbent on County Councils to appoint district agricultural analysts; and buyers of fertilisers or feeding stuffs would be entitled, on payment of a fee, to have their purchases analysed if they considered themselves aggrieved. This 1695 analysis, subject to appeal to a chief analyst to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture, might be made the basis of proceedings either by the person aggrieved, by a County Council, or by any Association—Farmers' Club or Chamber of Agriculture—authorised by the Board in that behalf. The Bill extended to Scotland and Ireland. Speaking generally, the Bill required sellers of goods to do what honest sellers were already doing — namely, to give a guarantee or warranty for what they were selling, and it added criminal liabilities in cases of fraud or of wilful contravention of its requirements. An endeavour had been made to frame it so that, although, on the one hand, it would be effective in minimising the malpractices to which reference had been made, it would, on the other hand, impose no restrictions or obligations which would unduly hamper business, and which would either have the effect of raising the prices of the articles affected to the consumer, or could be easily evaded or disregarded in practice. The machinery was simple, and the Board considered that while the trade would not suffer the consumer would gain very much by this proposed legislation. As he had said, the Bill was in no sense a Party measure. It had been the duty of the present Board to prepare it on the basis of the Report of a Committee which their predecessors appointed, and he trusted that their Lordships would consent to give it a Second Reading.

§ *LORD KNUTSFORD
I do not suppose your Lordships will in any way hesitate to give this Bill a Second Reading. As it has not yet been printed I have only had an opportunity of skimming through its provisions and hearing what the noble Lord has said about it, but it seems to me that its object is good, and I understand that its framework is based upon the evidence taken by the Select Committee, which, of course, is very much in its favour. But I hope the noble Lord in charge of it will allow a little time to elapse before it is considered by the Standing Committee. Of course, I speak without much authority, as none of my late Colleagues are present, 1696 but I do not imagine the Bill will be opposed at any future stage.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIM-BERLEY)
We propose that it should pass the Committee stage in the House on Monday, and be considered by the Grand Committee on Tuesday; otherwise there would be no chance of passing it now.