HL Deb 09 May 1929 vol 74 cc493-509



Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Regulation of sale of artificial cream.

1.—(1) No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale for human consumption under a description or designation including the word "cream" any substance purporting to be cream or artificial cream as defined in this Act unless—

  1. (a) the substance is cream as defined in this Act, or
  2. (b) where the substance is artificial cream as defined in this Act, the word "cream" is immediately preceded by the word "artificial."

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRAD-BROKE) moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:— (1) Artificial cream as defined in this Act shall not be sold or offered or exposed for sale for human consumption under any description or designation including the word 'cream' unless that word is immediately preceded by the word 'artificial'.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Onslow. It is really a drafting Amendment, and restores the original wording of the subsection with the substitution of the words "artificial cream as defined in this Act" for "reconstituted cream." Apart from the desirability of making the minimum of verbal alterations for the consideration of the House of Commons, the Amendment is necessary in order to remove ambiguities and to make the Bill workable. The clause as it stands at present is open to criticism on two grounds. One is that it might possibly be contended that it would prohibit the sale of Articles of food under such designations as "ice cream" or "chocolate cream." This interpretation was certainly not intended, and it would be far beyond the object of the Bill which is to regulate the sale and manufacture of "artificial cream." Further, the effect of the words "purporting to be" is not quite clear. In the event of a prosecution it would be much more difficult to prove what the article purported to be than to prove what it actually was. On those grounds I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)


My Lords, before the House decides this point, I wish to say that in the event of the House accepting the Amendment I should propose to move as an Amendment to it part of the Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and myself, so that it would read at the commencement: "Artificial cream as defined in this Act shall only be sold or offered or exposed for sale under the name lactine, or under some other name approved of by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."


My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment, and I am prepared to accept the decision of the Department. The Bill as amended in this way would be less ambiguous than it is at the moment, and I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.


I shall only put the first portion of the Amendment in order to save the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has intimated he intends to move.


My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke, in moving this Amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in accepting it, have, I think, been a great deal too moderate in their description of what this Amendment is. Both noble Lords have described it as a drafting Amendment; it is more than that. It cuts out, in my opinion, an important part of the clause which your Lordships put into the Bill on the Committee stage. One of the objects in moving that new clause into the Bill then was to make it quite certain that nothing should be sold under the name of cream which was not a natural product, and I still think it is wise specially to mention the fact that the purchaser is not to be induced to purchase anything under the name of cream unless it is actually what is defined in the measure. I am not quite clear what is the object of putting a definition of cream into the measure at all unless you link it up with something in the Bill itself.

There is, I think, a further objection. Under the Food and Drugs Act the view might be taken that a man was not prejudiced because he purchased an article which contained some perfectly harmless addition to a substance which partook of the nature of cream. If a trader could evade the definition of artificial cream in this Bill by adding such a substance I doubt if he could be prosecuted either under the Food and Drugs Act or under this Bill. It seems to make a very considerable alteration in the Bill itself. The noble Earl has told us that unless these words are taken out such substances as ice cream and chocolate cream, may come within the purview of the Bill, which, of course, is not intended. I should have thought there could be no possibility of any doubt as to what those substances are that are sold under the name of ice cream or chocolate cream. The noble Earl may be advised that that is the case, but I think that this Amendment is something much more than drafting and does affect the meaning of the clause as decided at the Committee stage.


My Lords, I confess I prefer the words of my noble friend behind me, Lord Clinton. I think they would be much more protection both to the purchaser and to the farmer. The purchaser would know that he was purchasing something which was either cream itself as defined by the Bill, in which case of course it would be all right, or something called artificial cream which is not cream but is something defined by the Bill. Therefore, as regards the purchaser, I think the protection would be better. I should like, in two or three words, to meet the objections to the clause which have been raised toy the noble Earl. He suggested that the sale of ice cream or chocolate cream would be prohibited under the clause as it stands. I do not think that is so, because the provision is against the selling of a substance purporting to be cream or artificial cream as defined by the Bill. Ice cream certainly is not cream as defined by the Bill. It does not purport to be cream. Therefore there is no question of the sale of ice cream being affected. Precisely the same is true of chocolate cream. It does not purport to be cream and does not fall into the defini- tion in the Bill of cream or artificial cream. These two articles are entirely outside the purview of the Bill and I think no Court could interfere with their sale under this Bill. The other objection raised by the noble Earl is that the clause as it stand is ambiguous. I have looked carefully into it to see if there is any ambiguity either latent or patent, and I cannot find any ambiguity whatever. I think the noble Earl, if he sits (as he may) on a bench of justices, would not have the slightest difficulty in construing the Bill. It is because I think that the words in the Bill are really better for the protection which we all want to afford, on the one hand to the farmer and on the other hand to the purchaser, that I hope your Lordships will leave the clause as it stands.


My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton that it is not advisable to put this Amendment in the Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments he used, which are all good; but I hope your Lordships will think twice before accepting this Amendment.


My Lords, I cannot but think that there is a mistake with regard to the apprehensions put forward by the noble Earl. There really is no difficulty in construing the clause as it stands. It seems to me that it carries out exactly the intention that was arrived at after considerable discussion. The point is that you must not have the sale of cream or any substance purporting to be artificial cream unless it comes within the purview of this Bill. That is precisely what is done. Ice cream and chocolate cream would not come within the definition at all. I think the clause as it stands does carry out what your Lordships intended after the very considerable discussion we had two days ago. My recollection is that we debated this phraseology and came to the conclusion that we should incorporate it in the Bill, partly to get away from the difficulty that was felt by a number of your Lordships that the word "cream." should not be used at all. In order to meet that objection we decided on this clause so that a purchaser who bought cream should know that it was artificial cream as distinct from natural cream.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, after Clause 1, to insert as a new clause:—

Name under which artificial cream to be sold.

".Artificial cream shall only be sold, offered or exposed for sale under the name lactine, or under some other name approved of by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I take it that what has now happened is that Clause 1 has been approved and in that case I beg to move the insertion after that clause of the new clause standing in my name. Your Lordships will recollect the discussion which took place only two days ago. I will not weary you by reiterating what was said then, but I venture to say that there was a considerable consensus of opinion that what was desirable in this Bill, or in any measure similar to this Bill, was that it should be made abundantly clear that this new substance was not cream. Speaking as Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture I can say that it is the view of that body that for the safeguarding of the producer without losing sight of the interests of the consumer the use of the word "cream" is to be deprecated. For this reason I propose the insertion of the clause which stands in my name on the Paper. The wording is based partly on the precedent to be found in the Food and Drugs (Adulteration of Food) Act, 1928, Clause 23 of which gives, discretion to the Minister of Agriculture in the manner suggested in this clause. I suggest that in the interests of the farming community of this country it is of real importance that a definite word, different from any phrase embodying the word "cream, "should be employed as a label for this composition, manufactured or produced, which is being sold to the public. On this account I beg to move the clause standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord O'Hagan.)


My Lords, I have just been looking up the meaning of this word "lactine." In Murray's English Dictionary I find that the proper word is "lactin." The word is the same as lactose. It is defined as "a saccharine substance present in milk commonly called sugar of milk." I think, therefore, that this is a most unsuitable word to propose.


My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, because I do not think it is at all necessary to the Bill. We discusssd this matter at great length on Tuesday and then your Lordships came to the almost unanimous conclusion that "artificial cream" was the best name for this substance. I feel that it is only fair to the producer that we should leave the word "cream" in the Bill. As your Lordships have been told this substance is cream in its composition, and passes the test of chemical analysis. It has the same properties as cream, and I am informed that it has the same amount of vitamins in it as natural cream, if not more. I do not believe that the British public are so stupid as the noble Lord seems to think. I am quite certain that nobody is going to buy a substance labelled "artificial cream" and think that he is buying natural cream. Accordingly I do not think that this proposed word, whether it means artificial cream or some obscure form of sugar, is at all necessary. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.


My Lords, for my part I rather regret that we should have to retain the word "cream" in the Bill. On the other hand, I am not at all satisfied that any such substitute as is now being suggested will properly meet the case. First of all, I am not at all convinced that the word "lactine" suggests cream at all. If it suggests anything, it suggests something made of milk, and milk is in many respects essentially different from cream. It is perfectly true that cream does possess a certain amount of lactose and milk sugar, but it is such a very small percentage as to be really almost negligible. I must join issue with the noble Earl who has so ably submitted this Bill to your Lordships' House in his argument about vitamins. There may be vitamins of a certain character—A, B, C, or D—but I am quite certain that there is not the same amount of vitamins, appropriately proportioned as nature has allotted them, as is to be found in either milk or cream. I think that on the whole we had better be satisfied with the term "artificial cream." I am not quite sure who are the people who are deliberately going to purchase artificial cream with any great gusto for the delectation either of themselves or of their guests, and I should have thought that we had provided a sufficient deterrent in the language to which your Lordships have agreed, without carrying the matter further.


My Lords, I do not pretend to be a very adequate draftsman, but I really think, apart from the arguments submitted by my noble friend who has just sat down and by Lord Clinton, that to insert this Amendment here would be to make nonsense of the Bill—I say it with great submission—because your Lordships have already decided that the term "artificial cream" shall be used, and in fact have directed absolutely that whenever this substance is sold the word "artificial" shall be put in front of the word "cream." We cannot go on altering the name. If this substance is always to be called "artificial cream, "to introduce a new name would not be consistent. It would be an absolute contradiction in terms. I suggest that my noble friend would do well not to press this Amendment. I do not attempt to deal with it upon other grounds.


My Lords, the noble Marquess who leads the House has objected to this Amendment as inconsistent, but I would remind him that, owing to the way in which this Bill has been rushed through, we have had no real opportunity of considering our Amendments. What has happened with regard to this Bill? It comes to us on Report after being considerably amended in Committee. That amended Bill was not circulated with the Votes yesterday morning in the usual way. It did not arrive at noble Lords' houses in London until night, and noble Lords living in the country cannot have got it until this morning. That shows the state of things. I understand that after the Report stage it is proposed, following the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX, to rush the Bill through its remaining stages. This is not the fault of those who have opposed the Bill, but—I venture to say this with all respect to the noble Marquess—of those who try, at the end of a Session, to force upon the unwilling agriculturists a Bill to which they object entirely without giving an opportunity for full and adequate discussion. I am rather surprised at the attitude of the noble Marquess, because he has always been one of the first to insist that, in the interests of the functions and dignity of this House, we should have full opportunity of discussing and revising Bills. I am sure that the noble Marquess cannot contradict me when I say that we have not had proper opportunity of considering and revising this Bill.

I have already quoted agricultural opinion in opposition to the statement of the noble Earl that this Bill is introduced in the interests of the producer. Perhaps the noble Earl will be surprised when I tell him that only yesterday the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, of which so many of your Lordships are members, unanimously accepted the report of its Dairies Committee in which it was declared that the word "cream" ought not to be used in respect of artificial cream or reconstituted cream. That is the expressed opinion of the most influential body of agriculturists in this country, and I venture to oppose it to the noble Earl's claim regarding the interests of the producer. Another very important body, so far as the dairy interest is concerned, is the Council of the British Dairy Farmers' Association, of which several noble Lords whom I see present have been President. At a very large meeting of the Council of that body yesterday they unanimously passed the following resolution:— That in the opinion of the Council of the British Dairy Farmers' Association the word 'cream' should not be allowed in any description of artificial cream and this should be called 'lactine' or by any other name approved of by the Minister of Agriculture. Two noble Lords have taken objection to the word "lactine." They seem to think that if the word is put into the Bill it will have to be used, but this Amendment very carefully safeguards that point by referring to "some other name approved of by the Minister."

What is the reason for the insertion of those words on the part of my noble friend and myself? We were following the precedent created under the Margarine Act, 1887. That Act was repealed, but the form of words is found again in Section 23 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1928, providing in exactly the same way that margarine is to be called by some name approved of by the Minister of Agriculture. When I had the honour of representing the Ministry of Agriculture in another place we had constantly to consider names sent up to us and to make sure that none of these names had anything to do with butter. I think I have shown that there can be no objection on the score of the unsuitability of the word "lactine," and this seems to me to remove the difficulty entirely. I have also been informed that there are other kinds of artificial cream to which special names have been given. There is one that is sold very largely at present, of which 50 per cent. is fat. This has some resemblance to cream and is sold under the name of "malga." We on this side of the House have no objection to this cream being sold, so long as it is not described as cream. We do not want to interfere with the sale of a cheap substitute for cream, any more than we wish to interfere with the Bale of margarine, which is cheaper than butter; but I venture to say that agriculturists are bitterly opposed to the proposal that this substance should be sold under the name of cream when it is not cream at all, but only a manufactured article. I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment, because I am quite certain that he will have all the great agricultural bodies at his back.


My Lords, as one who proposes to vote for this Amendment, I have to admit that it is somewhat inconsistent with what your Lordships did the other day in Committee. It is a little difficult to defend a clause which, when this material is called "artificial cream" in one place, proposes that it should be called something else in another. But with regard to the Bill as a whole, many of us—I believe the majority of the House—would have thrown it out on Second Reading if the noble Marquess the Leader of the House had not made an appeal to us to allow it to go to Committee. The Bill went through Second Reading, and then we were informed that unless the word "cream" was somewhere in the Bill, this reconstituted cream, as it was called, would continue to be sold and could not be prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act—that unless the word "cream" appeared in the Bill the article could continue to be sold as reconstituted cream, and all the evils to which we object would continue as before. That was the reason why, upon a general discussion as to low this substance should be defined, we came to the conclusion that it should be called "artificial cream." As far as the consumer and the farmer are concerned that is not sufficient protection for either of them, because although it is admitted that this article is not cream in any sense of the term, it can continue to be sold under that name.

The object of this Amendment, as I understand from my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, is to define it further and to prohibit the use of the word "cream." I admit that that is inconsistent with what is already in the Bill; but that is not really the fault of my noble friend: it is due to your Lordships having accepted the Second Reading. It is essential to take care that the name "artificial cream" is further qualified by some such term as "lactine." The same thing occurred with regard to margarine. It was first sold under the name of "butterine," but that was found to be inexpedient from the point of view of the farmer and the consumer, and an Act of Parliament was passed requiring it to be called "margarine." Surely, that is a very good precedent. I do not know whether the term "lactine" is a proper description or not, but that, at, any rate, can be altered by the Minister of Agriculture after the Bill has passed. What we want to do is to prevent the consumer being induced to buy an article because he thinks it has some element of cream in it, and to prevent the farmer also being injured by an article being sold as cream which is not cream. It is really not the fault of my noble friend that we are in this difficulty: it is really due to your Lordships allowing the Second Reading to pass.


My Lords, may I ask whether we are to take the Amendment as it stands on the Paper? If so, the proposal will be on page 1, line 23, at end, to insert the words as printed as a new clause. I am as jealous as anybody of the reputation of this House, and I cannot be a party to passing a measure which in itself would make nonsense. Just look at the Bill as it stands; and see what will be the effect if your Lordships pass this Amendment. I would far rather that the Bill be thrown out on Third Read- ing than pass an Amendment which makes nonsense of what your Lordships have already done. Clause 1 provides for the regulation of the sale of artificial cream, and the substance is defined later. Then the second subsection of Clause 1 provides that: Every receptacle used for the conveyance of artificial cream for sale for human consumption, or containing artificial cream at any time when it is exposed for such sale, shall have the words 'artificial cream' printed in large and legible type either on the receptacle itself or on a label securely attached thereto. Having provided that you can never expose for sale or sell this substance unless you label it "artificial cream," the Bill goes on to provide a penalty for any offence against this provision. Then you come to the Amendment, which says that: Artificial cream shall only be sold, offered or exposed for sale under the name lactine. Whatever may be the intention of the mover of the Amendment, your Lordships cannot pass an Amendment which would make nonsense of all that the House has done before.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 6:


6.In this Act— Food and Drugs Authority" has the same meaning as in the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928; Cream" means that portion of natural milk rich in milk fat which has been separated by skimming or otherwise; Artificial cream" means an article of food resembling cream and containing no ingredient which is not derived from milk except water or any ingredient or material which may lawfully be contained in an article sold as cream.

THE EARL OF STRADBROKE moved, in the last paragraph, after the second "which," to insert "by virtue of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section two of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment for the purpose of clearing up the doubts which were raised in Committee as to the purpose of the words "or any ingredient or material which may lawfully be contained in an article sold as cream." The proviso referred to enacts that an offence is not deemed to be committed— (a) where any ingredient or material not injurious to health has been added to the article of food…because it is required for the production or preparation thereof as an article of commerce…and not fraudulently to increase the bulk, weight or measure…or to conceal the inferior quality thereof,

(c) where the food…is unavoidably mixed with some extraneous matter in the process of collection or preparation.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 11, at end insert (" by virtue of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section two of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928 ").—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)


My Lords, I should like to ask a question for my own information. I have no doubt this Amendment is desirable, but I am not quite sure whether it would affect a, matter which I raised with some doubt on the Committee stage, as to whether the term "milk"—which appears in the Bill immediately before this—without any qualifying word at all can be milk which is not of animal origin, because it is only fair to the vendors and manufacturers of this article that the term "artificial cream" should not be allowed to refer to some fat that is removed from some product which is not the produce of a cow, or possibly of an ass or a goat. I am not quite sure, however, whether this particular Amendment covers it. I only received the amended Bill last night. But it does occur to me that if in the previous definition you have used the words "natural milk," you ought surely in fairness in this definition to use a similar term, or at least indicate that the milk is derived from an animal and not from a vegetable product, like a cocoanut or soya bean. There are all sort of products known as milk. There is, for example, one most excellent one, sold in the West of England under the name of Bristol milk.


I am informed that the word "milk" is used in the Food and Drugs Act without any qualification, and that it can be used here equally well. This Amendment is merely to satisfy the doubts raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, it was moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)


My Lords, if this Bill is thrown out now I am sure it would give the greatest satisfaction to the agricultural bodies, although some noble Lords seem to think that they are of no importance at all. I may point out that if this Bill is thrown out now it would not have the usual effect of preventing early legislation upon the subject, because, as we all know, this Parliament comes to an end to-morrow. Parliament will meet again in June, and then it will be perfectly possible for another Bill to be brought in, which can be properly and adequately discussed. It has been generally admitted on all sides, and by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House as well, that we nave not had proper time for its consideration. I shall certainly oppose the Third Reading, and I understand that my noble friend who temporarily leads us on this side of the House will support that Motion, although he was not willing to support me just now, as regards the question of cream. We are going to take a Division on a very clear point indeed—namely, whether it is desirable to have this Bill at all.

May I say, as a matter of personal explanation, that I have had a letter from Mr. Everard, who fathered this Bill in another place, who tells me that the reason why he was absent from the Standing Committee was that he was then laid up with influenza. I was not objecting to Mr. Everard not being present at the Standing Committee; the only reason why I mentioned him was to emphasise the fact that at the time of the Standing Committee the Minister of Health had practically taken charge of the Bill, and I had not seen that Mr. Everard had taken any part in it. I am very glad to say at once, however, as he asked me to say so, that the only reason why he was not at the Standing Committee was that he was laid up with influenza.


My Lords, the noble Lord opposite, started with the assertion that the agricultural societies of the Kingdom will be delighted if this Bill is thrown out on Third Reading. I doubt very much whether he has any ground whatever for making that assertion. There are, I know, quite a number of bodies and of individual farmers who are of opinion that during the passage of the Bill through this House a very great improvement has been made in it. Many of them, I know, were opposed to the Bill in the form in which it was introduced into your Lordships' House, but they recognised that the alterations that have been made in it have rendered it effective in the interests of the farmers, and they will regret exceedingly if your Lordships reject it now.


My Lords, as one who was in considerable doubt on the Second Reading as to which Lobby he should go into, for or against the Bill, I should like to say that not only do I feel now that personally I shall be justified in supporting the Third Reading, but I really believe that in doing so I may be instrumental with others in affording some satisfaction to the farming community. In fact, I should really like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. I always admire his persistence and courage and enterprise in the matter of legislation affecting the farming community, and I have a sort of idea that, even if he does go into the Lobby against this Bill, the Bill will be registered to his credit among the members of the agricultural community for all time. It is very largely, if not mainly, due to his extraordinary activity in the matter of this so-called reconstituted cream that a Bill was framed and brought before Parliament at all, and I am quite satisfied that, even in these expiring days of the Parliament we have done good work in protecting, and I believe effectively protecting, the farming community against the foisting upon the public of something that is not their own product. My only disappointment in connection with this interesting discussion, which has produced a remarkable capacity for coalition on the part of at least two Parties in the State as represented here, is the amazing emptiness of the Labour Benches during the discussion of this matter, which is so vitally important to the agricultural industry. But for the tacit, but none the less substantial support of my noble friend, Lord Muir Mackenzie, demonstrating some interest on his part in agricultural matters, one might almost imagine that agricultural interests were not duly husbanded by the Leaders of the official Opposition and those who claim support for the Labour Party in this country.


My Lords, in this discussion we have heard much about the views of the producers and the agriculturists, but we have been rather forgetting the interests of the consumer. On the Second Reading debate it was from that side of the House more than from this side that objections were offered to the Bill on the ground that any article sold as cream, however described, would deceive the public, and I still feel that, although we have inserted the word "artificial," a great number of people will nevertheless buy this substance believing it to be cream of equal value with the real product, although it is artificial. It is because I think we have been rushed in connection with the procedure on this Bill, and because I think that the Bill might be revised and brought in hereafter in another place, that I shall support my noble friends if they go to a Division. If the Bill is passed in its present form I think the purchaser will be deceived in connection with the product which will be sold.


My Lords, notwithstanding the respect I have for the position and knowledge of my noble friends Lord Clinton and Lord Bledisloe, I venture to intervene again in the debate. I should not like it to be supposed that a large body of dairy and other farmers in the country would view with approval the passage of this Bill even in its present form. Indeed, from the information I have received from communications that have been sent to me regarding this matter and dealing with the very-question, but from the other angle, which has been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I venture to think that the agricultural community would

deplore its passage even in its present form. I have, therefore, no alternative but to oppose the Bill.


My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, informed the House that various agricultural societies had told him that they dislike the presence of the word "cream" in the Bill. I have not brought into the discussion in your Lordships' House a single word that I have had from any agricultural society; but I feel confident that your Lordships, as a body which, I suppose, has in it more agricultural experts than any other body in the world, are capable of judging of the merits of this Bill. It was opposed by all the agricultural experts in your Lordships' House on Second Reading. We have now had two of the biggest experts in agriculture approving of it. From what I know of agriculture, which is very little, I approve of it myself, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Third Reading because I am convinced that it will do an enormous amount of good to the dairy farmers of this country. I am convinced also that it will save the public at large from buying something which they think is something else. It is almost inconceivable that any man or woman outside a lunatic asylum could buy a substance labelled "artificial cream" and still think it was natural cream. One sees young girls buying artificial silk stockings every day and I am perfectly certain that they know what they are buying. The public also will know what they are buying when they purchase artificial cream.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a third time?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 12.

Dufferin and Ava, M. Bertie of Thame, V. Danesfort, L.
Churchill, V. Desborough, L.
Bradford, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Dynevor, L.
Cranbrook, E. [Teller.] Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Iddesleigh, E. Kylsant, L.
Lindsay, E. Lincoln, L. Bp. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Lucan, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Stradbroke, E. Bledisloe, L. Templemore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Clinton, L. [Teller.]
Reading, M. Gainford, L. Shandon, L.
Hemphill, L. Stanmore, L.
Buxton, E. Middleton, L. Strachie, L. [Teller.]
Muir-Mackenzie, L. Wharton, L.
Clwyd, L. O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.