reported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Thursday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

The Amendment I desire to move is one approved by the Select Committee which sat so long on this subject. We sat for three years, held thirty-five sittings, and examined sixty-eight witnesses, and the effect of our Report was that margarine should not be coloured so as to resemble ordinary butter. We have no desire whatever to restrict the sale of margarine; we only wish to put down fraud. We do not ask that it should be coloured blue, pink, or green; we only say it should not be coloured so as to imitate butter. Yesterday it was stated that margarine was a valuable article of food for the working classes. I am not prepared to dispute that. But I noticed that the statement came from hon. Members who admitted that they had never tasted it. Is it not rather a dangerous argument to put forward that an article which they themselves disdain to eat is a valuable article of food for those who earn their living by labour? It is certainly one which would not go down with a working-class constituency. Why should not the working classes be put in a position to know exactly what they are buying? We have been told that those who speak for the working classes have declared that they do not wish margarine to be sold any other colour except that of butter. I dispute that entirely. I do not believe there is a single scrap of evidence of their desire that margarine should be coloured so as to imitate butter. The hon. Members for Morpeth and Battersea, both working-class constituencies, have voted against margarine being made to resemble butter in colour. What is this mixture? It is composed of beef and mutton fat (thirteen parts), cotton seed oil (four parts), and milk (three parts). The beef and mutton fat is sold at 2d. per lb. I do not see why the working classes should be anxious to eat this fat mixed with cotton seed oil, which is an excellent cattle food. Tallow candles are made of beef and mutton fat. Again, the mixture is sometimes made with lard, and why should people of the Jewish persuasion have their feelings outraged by having forced on them an article abhorrent to them, but disguised as butter. Further, the small retailer of genuine butter in towns is put at a great disadvantage by having to compete with the shopkeeper, who unscrupulously sells as butter margarine which only costs 4d. or 6d. per lb. I am told that my motion amounts to an infringement of the principles of Free Trade, and the hon. Member for Dundee has declared that the Bill is founded on Protection. But I never knew that Free Trade meant Free Fraud, and it is fraud that I am anxious to put down. This Bill will necessitate the appointment of a very large number of inspectors, whereas my desire is to enable every purchaser to be his own inspector. When he purchases margarine, let him know that it is not butter. If it were such a valuable article of food, would not the manufacturers endeavour to keep it as distinct as possible from genuine butter, whereas they imitate it as closely as possible in colour, they make it up in pats, and these pats bear the impress of a cow. When I pointed that out to one of the witnesses before the Select Committee, he replied that both the milk and the fat come from cows. Yes, but the milk comes from the living cow and the fat from the dead cow. Let margarine be labelled as dead cow's fat if you like. The fact is that this mixture is in reality made to be sold as butter and not as margarine. I do not believe that my proposal would destroy the trade in it, although it might somewhat reduce the price of the article. Holland is the home of the margarine trade, for out of 899,000 cwt. of margarine imported into this country, 843,000 cwt. came from Holland. In connection with these figures it is significant to notice that the country from which the exports of butter have most largely increased is also Holland. I am convinced that a large amount of what purports to be butter, and comes from Holland, is really margarine. I have here the prospectus of a margarine company recently started in Holland, on the board of which it was desired that English Members of Parliament should serve, and I say that this is an attempt to induce hon. Members to countenance what is really a fraudulent trade. As to the colouring of butter, that has been much exaggerated. The secretary of the dairy section of the Bath and West of England Show has assured me that no prizes are given for butter artificially coloured. In any case, butter is never coloured to imitate margarine. We know the opinion of the Committee which examined into this very question—the Committee of which the Secretary to the Local Government Board was chairman.

I dissented.

Yes, but you were beaten by eleven to five. I am informed by the Secretary to the National Agricultural Union that the members of that body are pledged to a programme which includes the prevention of the colouring of margarine to imitate butter, and I am sure that if you allow this you will do it in opposition to the opinions of ninety-nine out of every hundred agriculturists. There is a great desire to induce people to return to the land, but how can you expect them to do so if you will not allow them fair play when they seek to sell the produce of the land on the market? I do not want, I repeat, to infringe the principles of Free Trade, but I contend that it is our duty to give our farmers fair play, and I therefore hope that even at this the eleventh hour the Government will consent to accept the clause which I have placed on the Paper.

New clause—

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."

The hon. Member has recommended this clause to the Committee in a speech which, I think, contains views by no means new, and I have heard nothing from him or from elsewhere which leads me to change the opinion I have formed, that the proposed change of the law embodied in this clause is unjust and impolitic, and, if carried out, would not attain the object the hon. Member has in view. This it should be borne in mind is not merely a clause to prohibit colouring it is to prohibit colouring in order to imitate butter, and therefore in order to make it effectual, one must, so to speak, project himself into the mind of the manufacturer in order to see if the colouring is not merely to make the article attractive to the purchaser—for if that were the reason the Act would be inoperative—but in order to imitate butter. That is perhaps only a technical objection, but it is one which makes this clause as framed absolutely ridiculous. I wish the House to consider what it is, on such very insufficient grounds, asked to do. The hon. Member said that butter was coloured only to a small extent. I entirely disagree with that view, for everyone knows that the butter industry is largely local in its character, and that the colouring of butter is a general practice. Neither is butter the only dairy product which is coloured. What does the hon. Member say with reference to cheese?

Margarine does not imitate cheese.

But the suggestion is that the colouring of one particular article should be prohibited, and I am endeavouring to explain how it is impossible to justify the prohibition by law of a manufacturing practice which is allowed with regard to other dairy products. Certain kinds of cheese are made according to the fancy of the customer, and the cheese is coloured in the factory not to imitate another cheese, but because colouring is attractive to the purchaser. In view of that, what becomes of the suggestion—endorsed, I notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet—that the colouring is done for the mere purpose of imitation? I have inspected more samples of margarine than perhaps any other Member of this House, and the majority of samples have been coloured a kind of yellow. Is it suggested that the bulk of butter made in this country is yellow? On the contrary I believe that the greater amount of the ordinary butter consumed is white in colour. I am well aware that some of my hon. friends on this side of the House are in favour of this clause. I deeply regret it, and for the reason that in a matter of this kind it seems to me that some sections of the agricultural interest decline to profit by experience. I have been long enough a Member of this House to re member the controversies over the old malt duty. At that time the agricultural interest took practically the same line as they are adopting to-day in regard to this colouring question. When in 1880 Mr. Gladstone abolished the malt tax, what occurred?

He put it on in other ways.

Yes, and does my right hon. friend think that the House is going to allow the colouring of margarine to be prohibited, and not at the same time prohibit the colouring of other dairy products? No, if you do it in one case, it is only just and right the prohibition should apply to other agricultural produce. We know what was the result of substituting the free mash-tun for the Malt Tax; it enabled many other articles to be used in the manufacture of beer, and I venture to assert that hon. Members now are running the same risk as they then ran. They are under a delusion if they fancy the prohibition will be confined to margarine. It is a great mistake to maintain that this margarine is a competitor of butter. There is no doubt that a great deal of margarine made in a particular way has been sold as butter. The object of the Bill is to make this impossible in future; but if this ridiculous clause is to be incorporated in the Bill, this kind of fraud will not be checked. The Amendment would indeed be fatal to the Bill, and the Government cannot accept it, because its effect would be to dislocate a very great trade which supplies a vast number of consumers in the country, and which produces a valuable article of food for the people. I have been told the working men of England desire that this prohibition should be made. I doubt whether the working men have realised what are the alternatives presented to them; but, even if they have, I should prefer to take the opinion of the housewives first upon this question, and I am sure they would hold a very different opinion, for they know how desirable it is to be able to obtain a cheap and wholesome article of food. I maintain that we ought not to interfere with the margarine trade unless we are satisfied that by no other means can we put down fraud. I am satisfied we can put it down by this legislation, whereas the proposed clause would not be workable at all. I earnestly ask agricultural Members not to take a step which would be prejudicial to their best interests, and fail in the object they have in view.

The first question I ask myself in approaching the consideration of this question is, What is the object of the Bill? The reply is that it is to put down fraud. The next question is whether the provisions in the Bill as at present framed are sufficient to secure that end. I think that they are. Fraud has arisen from various causes, but the main one has been the failure of the local authorities to put in force the existing law. Again, margarine mixtures, have been made which have been sold in the place of butter at butter prices, and under this Bill the making of such mixtures is to be prohibited. That provision will, I think, have a very beneficial effect. Further, the Bill provides that where a man persistently commits fraud he will subject himself to very heavy penalties, and eventually find himself in prison. What would be the effect if the proposition of my hon. friend were carried? In the first place, it would interfere with a perfectly legitimate trade. I do not say it would destroy it, but it would deal it a severe blow. The margarine manufacturer, be it remembered, is entitled to protection just as much as any other manufacturer. It is not the manufacture of the article which is complained of, it is the manner of its distribution, and I submit that this Bill is ample to put a stop to the fraud which has been carried on in the past. As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said—if you prohibit colouring in one direction you must prohibit it all round. I Wonder if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet is aware of the enormous number of food products which are coloured. I dare say he consumes many of them daily and raises no objection. He himself yesterday spoke of ices being coloured; would he look at a strawberry ice if it were not of a strawberry colour? It is admitted on all hands that butter and cheese are largely coloured, not with the idea of concealment, but in order to meet the demands of particular markets. If you send to Manchester a highly-coloured cheese they will not look at it. Tinned vegetables and fruits from France are artificially coloured so as to make them resemble the fresh vegetable; maccaroni, tapioca, Demerara sugar, and many other articles of daily consumption are coloured. I have the greatest sympathy with, and respect for, the feelings of agriculturists on this question, but I say they are taking a wrong view on this particular point, and if once the principle for which they are contending is admitted, it will prove highly destructive to more than one industry.

In my Division the farmer is the predominant partner, and I should not like, therefore, to record my vote on this subject without explaining my reasons for it. I spoke at length on the motion for the Second Reading. But what is the present position? We have just had a very vigorous speech from my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has told us that if this clause is carried he is prepared to drop this Bill.

Hear, hear.

That is a serious fact, and as agriculturists we must view the situation from that point of view. We are in the position of the dog in the fable which lost the substance in trying to get the shadow. In this Bill we have something substantial, but if we grasp at the shadow we stand a good chance of losing the substance. If, in order to secure the greater advantage offered by the clause of my hon. friend, we adopt a course which destroys the whole Bill, I think it will be a very unwise proceeding. There seems to be some confusion here between means and ends. The end to be aimed at is to stop fraud. The prohibition of colouring is only one means of stopping fraud. It may be the best, but on this occasion it is not the best, because if we insist on it we lose the whole Bill. There are other means of stopping fraud, such as an active and vigorous administration of the other clauses of this Bill. My right hon. friend, as every dog owner knows, is a very vigorous and able administrator of the law, and when once he has started the department in the right direction we may look for desirable results. For these reasons I cannot support the clause. A suggestion has been made that it is embodied in the programme of the National Agricul- tural Union, to which many hon. Members pledged themselves at the last General Election. I have no such recollection. I think the item has since been added, and I would point out that if we pledged ourselves to the programme as it then existed, we did not bind ourselves to accept everything that might subsequently be added to it. Even if I had pledged myself to the principle, under the altered circumstances I should deem it my duty to vote against the clause rather than risk losing the whole Bill.

The hon. Member for South Molton suggests that those who oppose this clause have not tasted margarine. I have myself tasted margarine, and think it a most excellent food. I find it wholesome, nutritious, and, generally speaking, infinitely better than butter. I will not say better than the best butter, but you very seldom get the best butter, and good margarine is undoubtedly better than second-rate butter. My hon. friend seems to have margarine positively on the brain. He seems to imagine it is some horrible, noxious compound which is not fit for human beings to eat. He said it consisted of fat, cotton seed oil, and milk. What objection has he to either of those three wholesome ingredients? The truth is, that it does not depend upon what the compound was made of originally, but upon what it is in the end. Margarine is composed of the same ingredients as butter, less butterine. Butterine is so volatile that it disappears entirely when the weather is a little warm, and it has absolutely no taste; there is a slight smell and that is all. Beyond that there is not the slightest difference between margarine and butter. The fact is, we have improved upon the cow. At the present time the cow is almost a played-out animal as far as making butter is concerned. Does my hon. friend really imagine that when a cow eats grass that grass at once becomes milk, and that out of that milk you get butter? Not a bit of it. It passes through a process as in a factory. The grass becomes chyle, the chyle passes into the veins, in the veins is deposited a certain amount of fat, that fat passes through the lacteal glands, and you get milk; out of the milk you take the fat and you get butter. In a factory you put the same ingredients which produce the same effect, with the exception of the butterine, and you get precisely the same article. In one case you get your stuff from the tissues of the animal, in the other you get it from the blood and the interior of the animal. My hon. friend alluded to that fact and said: "The difference between milk and other products is this: it is true that milk comes out of the cow, but it does not come out of a dead cow, whereas the fat does come out of a dead cow." What is the distinction? When milk ceases to appertain to the cow, it is, to all intents and purposes, just as dead as the fat out of a cow; and if my hon. friend is prepared to eat dead meat, such as beef or mutton, why should he not, even assuming that milk is dead, drink dead milk? My hon. friend's Amendment is specially in regard to the colouring matter. He asked me if I had ever made butter. I have never made butter, but I have tasted both it and margarine, and I do know something about it. The peculiarity of the agricultural mind is that it imagines that unless a man goes into a field and keeps cows, he knows absolutely nothing about the matter. My hon. friend absolutely questioned whether butter is coloured. I will tell him what is done, and then he can go back to Somerset and acquaint the agriculturists of the fact. I will take Yorkshire. In Yorkshire there is no such thing as yellow butter in winter. When the animal is fed with dry food the butter is absolutely white. I do not live in Yorkshire myself, but so as not to prejudice my case, I yesterday asked an eminent agriculturist on the other side of the House, who has a great many cows and farms, to tell me what happened in Yorkshire. He said to me, "I make an enormous lot of butter, which in winter is all white, and if I were to sell it in Leeds as white butter I should get twopence per pound less than if I sold it as yellow butter." "What do you do?" I asked. "I put a few carrots or some saffron into the churn, and it comes out yellow butter, and sells at twopence per pound more than white butter." It is perfectly absurd to tell us that there is any fraud on the part of the margarine people in colouring the product yellow, when the butter people themselves do the same thing, and get twopence per pound for doing so. Then there was the argument about the poor man. I thought my hon. friend was going behind our old friend "Three acres and a cow." He told us what would happen. "Here is a poor man with his three acres, we want him to get his three acres"—undoubtedly "we want him to get his cow"—undoubtedly; "but unless you insist upon margarine not being coloured yellow, all our work and labour in getting this gentleman his three acres and a cow is useless, because he will not be able to sell his produce at a profit." The poor man naturally wishes to get his food as cheaply as possible. I have pointed out that margarine, as far as taste and wholesomeness are concerned, is just as good as butter. The poor man, if he is a wise poor man, buys margarine instead of butter, but he likes it better yellow than white. I do not know why, but he does—it appeals more to his eye. Why should my hon. friend deprive every poor man in the country of the pleasure which he derives when he spreads this compound upon his bread from seeing it is yellow instead of white? He says, "In order that there may be no fraud; in order that he should not buy margarine when he fancies he is buying butter." But I suspect the poor man knows perfectly well what he is buying. There is quite sufficient competition in the trade to prevent margarine being sold as butter. The poor man goes into a shop where margarine is openly sold; he is not in any sort of way defrauded. This special legislation in regard to margarine is an insidious attempt at protection on the part of my hon. friend and his supporters. The person he wants to benefit is not the poor consumer, but his friend with the three acres and two or three cows. I daresay if margarine could be driven out of the field, that person would to a certain extent benefit, and for that reason my hon. friend has gone out of his way to abuse and to vilify this excellent and wholesome compound. For my part, I am for the poor man being able to get an article precisely the same as butter, except that it comes out of a factory instead of out of a cow. He can get that for sixpence, whereas he would have to pay tenpence or one shilling for his butter, which means a saving to him of fourpence. It seems to be supposed that unless this clause passes, the Bill will be absolutely useless. The hon. Gentleman does not say so——

I want to make it a better Bill.

He wants to heap impediment upon impediment; he wants to make it difficult for the trade of the country to be carried on because he imagines he will make the Bill a better one. I think the Bill has already gone a little too far, but I am certainly not going to better it in the way here proposed. I have risen mainly because I think it is a pity that people should read in the Debates of this House the insinuations that they would be foolish, if their means are not large, to buy margarine. I have got neither a margarine factory nor a single cow, so that I am entirely unprejudiced; I speak entirely for the consumers of towns, and I believe they ought not to be told that margarine is a useless and bad article of food.

I would like to answer certain expressions which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with regard to the Amendment. I do not approach the question from the point of view of the agriculturalist only; I believe it is a question in which the great body of consumers are interested as well. I sent a letter to certain representatives of working men's associations in the country, asking whether the members of that particular society were in favour of giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Food Products and Adulteration, to prevent margarine being sold as butter, and to ensure it being sold as margarine, and that its colouring and its mixture with butter should be prohibited. I had no reply taking exception to those proposals. I had replies from thirteen associations in favour of the proposals, representing altogether some 302,638 working men. Those replies came from different parts of the country—Glasgow, Derbyshire, Lancashire, London, Birmingham, and Nottingham—and from associations representing the mining interests, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, shipwrights, compositors, boiler-makers, and a co-operative society, and some members of weaving societies. All these societies that replied pronounced in favour of the recommendations of the Select Committee. That is to say, associations representing over 300,000 working men have pronounced in favour of the proposals which are embodied in the clause now before the House. I understand my right hon. friend to say that, granted that was the case, you had not to consider the working men themselves, but their wives. I did not quite grasp what he meant. Did he mean to convey that the working man would believe he was getting butter, but that his wife went behind his back and purchased margarine, which she put before her husband as butter? If he did not intend to convey that, I do not see what force his argument has. My contention would be this: I entirely agree that you do not want to prevent the sale of a wholesome article of food, if it is altogether wholesome; but if you prevent this particular substance being coloured so that it may be taken for another article, you must of necessity bring down the price of that particular article to its natural level. My opinion is, that by virtue of its fictitious colour the article has reached an artificial price, and my contention is that that price would fall at once if the article was sold in its natural colour. The interests of the wives of the working classes would undoubtedly be advantaged by the adoption of this proposition. It has been assumed in the course of these Debates, that this particular product is altogether wholesome. Is that really the case? I am anxious to have that proved, because I have in my hand a Report of a Commission appointed by the French Senate which was appointed to examine into a law containing the same provisions as my hon. friend's Amendment. This Report is extremely interesting, for it deals at length with this particular point. I take it that if margarine is produced under conditions which enable you to inspect it, and to see that proper materials are used, then you are entitled to say it is a wholesome article of food. I should like to ask if the House is aware where the larger portion of margarine comes from? The greater portion of it comes from Holland. I believe that in 1896 there were 773,991 cwts. of oleo-margarine imported into Holland, while Holland exported something like 100,000 cwts. over and above that amount of the finished article, margarine, to this country. I find that the United States in the same year exported 922,116 cwts. of oleo-margarine. Now, as Holland is the great margarine manufacturing country, we may take it that the greater portion of supply from the United States went to Holland in that year; that it was made up into margarine in Holland, and then exported to this country. I would like to ask my right hon. friend if there is any inspection of margarine factories in Holland, and can he assure us that the article sent over here is thoroughly wholesome for the consumer. I would further ask whether there is any inspection of the oleo-margarine factories in the United States.

The hon. Member appears to be now dealing with the whole question of the manufacture of margarine. The only question now before the House is the desirability of preventing it being coloured.

Might I be permitted to point out that the hon. Member for Northampton has laid great stress upon the fact that this was a very wholesome article of food, and that by preventing the sale of this article we are injuring the working classes of this country? I was endeavouring to show that, in the opinion of the experts of another country, there are good grounds for believing that this article is produced under conditions which would make it absolutely unfit for human food.

But that will hardly justify an inquiry upon this Amendment into the whole manufacture of the article.

May I be allowed to state, in the first place, that a large portion of this margarine is produced under conditions over which we have no control whatever; and in the second place, as the expert authorities abroad have shown, it is produced under conditions which interfere with its digestibility and its nutritive properties. Therefore I say that there are good grounds for believing that this particular article of food, which is being accepted as most nutrititious and wholesome, ought to be regarded with the greatest suspicion. I do not say that this applies to its production in this country, because as produced in England it may be the most wholesome article possible; but I think that a large portion of that which is produced abroad ought to be very carefully inspected. We are told that if we vote for this particular clause, we shall probably lose the Bill altogether. I do not think that is a fair threat to hold over us.

I have not the slightest desire to threaten the hon. Member, but what I said was that the Government decline to take the responsibility for such a proposal.

As far as I have been able to ascertain the views of the working classes, they are in favour of such a clause. As regards the agricultural interest, which my right hon. friend so ably represents, and whose interest he has so thoroughly at heart, I wish to point out that the whole of the agricultural interest are in favour of this proposal; and, to go further afield, Belgium, France, and Denmark have all adopted similar propositions. The only difference made by Denmark—which is dependent upon its agriculture—is that they have adopted a varying scale of colour for butter and margarine which enables you to colour your margarine up to a certain point. This is a compromise which I offer for the consideration of my right hon. friend. It has been adopted by Denmark, where it has been found to be of the greatest service. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept a compromise of that sort, I should be disposed to vote against this clause as presented at present; but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this compromise, I shall feel bound to support this clause.

I desire to allude to the remark made by the last speaker in reference to a compromise. I happened to be the Chairman of the Select Committee when that evidence was given, and the impression I formed was that to adopt the scale in force in Denmark would land us in very serious difficulties. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member upon the force of his argument, when he says that his view is supported by the working classes, because the societies he alludes to would represent some 300,000 persons. From this he draws the inference that 7,000,000 working men are on his side.

The working men Representatives in the House have spoken in favour of the clause.

I believe some of them will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion during this Debate. I feel pretty confident that the 7,000,000 workmen in this country are not anxious that the sale of a cheap and wholesome article of food should be interfered with. The whole evidence that we had before the Select Committee in reference to margarine was in favour of its wholesomeness, and we had not a single piece of evidence against the wholesome character of this product, made, as it is, under special precautions from selected fats of good animals. I believe it is a wholesome article of food. Being convinced of the wholesome character of the food, I should strongly deprecate any interference with its manufacture which would make it less pleasant to the eye. The man who eats margarine has just as much right to have it coloured as the man who eats butter, and it is, after all, only a question of fancy. In some parts of the country, such as Devonshire and Cambridgeshire, the butter produced there is of a deep rich colour, whilst in other parts of the country it is of a much paler colour. If you allow colouring for one kind of food, you have no right to limit it for another kind. I believe that if we attempt to interfere in any way with the production of this food we shall be doing a serious injury to the working classes, and we shall be trying to put back the clock of progress as regards the artificial production of food. If carried, I regard this Amendment as one which cuts at all artificial food production in this connection, and it is unworthy of the time in which we live.

The hon. Gentleman has just argued that the consumption of margarine is perfectly legitimate in itself. This Amendment does not suggest any impediment in the way of the manufacture or consumption of margarine. What it does propose is that margarine should not be sold in such a form as to imitate butter. Nobody wants to place any check whatever upon colouring, so long as such colouring is not had recourse to for the purpose of deceiving purchasers. I have been reminded that strawberry ices would come within the meshes of the Amendment placed by the hon. Member for Dundee next on the Paper. If such ices are produced from ingredients other than that which is indicated, that would be a distinct fraud. The hon. Member for Devonport stated that Demerara sugar is coloured; but it is not sold as any other article than what it is. It is not coloured to represent any other article than Demerara sugar. If any other article is so coloured as to represent something else, that is a fraud. Chicory is an article of food that has been similarly dealt with, and the proposal in this clause is to place margarine in the same category that chicory has for several years occupied, in order that the purchaser must not be led to, think that he is buying something else. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has compared this to the Malt Tax. I will not go into that question now, though I may observe, in passing, that I was not one of those who were taken in by the abolition of the so-called Malt Tax. I said at the time it was a fraud on the public, because the tax was reimposed in a more objectionable form. I know there were others taken in, but I am glad to say I was not. My right hon. friend pointed to that tax as a case in point; but is it any reason for rejecting this clause that Mr. Gladstone took in a certain number of people by transferring a tax from one pocket to another? Then my right hon. friend says, "Oh, if you force this clause upon us, it stands to reason it will be carried still further." I must remind my right hon. friend that the repeal of the Malt Tax was a fiscal question, but that is not the case at present. Nobody means to stop the colouring of articles simply with a view to interfering with the trade in them, but in order to prevent a false impression being created in the minds of purchasers. My right hon. friend talks about the feeling of the working classes in this matter. He passed by the hon. Members for Morpeth and Battersea, and the other hon. Members who spoke on behalf of large sections of the working classes, and more than that he passed by the working men themselves, and constituted himself the exponent of the views of the wife of the working man. I should like to, know what credentials my right hon. friend has received to speak on behalf of the working women of England in this matter. Why does my right hon. friend imagine that domestic discord will follow if the clause is accepted? If the opinion of the wives of the working, men of this country had been so pronounced as my right hon. friend appears to assume, without any authority, why have we not heard of it long ago? The representatives in this House who speak on behalf of large sections of the working classes do not apprehend any such consequences as my right hon. friend represents would follow. He has told us very plainly—he did not say it at all in any discourteous manner, or in any sense offensive to our ideas of Parliamentary traditions—that if the House, by a majority, expressed a preference for the clause, the Government would drop the Bill. I venture to think my right hon. friend has spoken without having consulted his colleagues upon the issue raised. In saying that if the House of Commons displayed anything approximating to general approval of this clause that the Government would drop the Bill, I think my right hon. friend has taken it upon himself to come to a decision as to what he would do under circumstances which have not arisen. But if such circumstances did arise, my right hon. friend would do nothing of the kind. Not a single argument has been really brought forward against the principle of this clause. We have had adequate tributes to the virtues of margarine, and no one seriously questions the nutritious character of that remarkable commodity, but no argument has been addressed to us as to why a purchaser of margarine or of butter should not be clearly informed as to what he is buying; and if any ingredient is coloured in such a way as to have the effect of concealing from a purchaser what that commodity is, the sooner Parliament interferes the better.

I have listened with interest to this Debate, and when I saw my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet rising, I immediately perceived the cloven hoof. I have been a great many years in this House with my right hon. friend, and I have seldom heard him speak—I have always listened to him with pleasure—except when he saw an opportunity of getting in the thin end of the wedge of protection. Does anyone believe that this proposal is made except for the purpose of diminishing the supply of a commodity which is used as a substitute for butter?

A large quantity of butter is imported as well as margarine, and if I saw an opportunity of putting a duty upon both I would be very glad to do it, but that has nothing to do with this clause.

The time is not quite ripe for that, and therefore that is what I would call the thick end of the wedge. My right hon. friend just now is concerned with the thin end only. Can anyone honestly deny that the hope and expectation of those who support this clause is that its effect will be to diminish the quantity of the article sold instead of butter? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has made, in my opinion, a very sound and a very courageous speech. He has said—and is perfectly true—that if you forbid the colouring of one thing you must forbid the colouring of all. As regards butter—yellow butter in the market seems the natural product from a high class of cow; but the butter produced at various seasons of year, and from in inferior class of cow, does not look like the superior article, and therefore it is a widely extended and almost universal practice to colour English butter up to the mark, which represents it to be of a higher quality than it really is, and it fetches a higher price in consequence. All modern manufacturers endeavour to make their products look something better than they really are, in order to obtain higher prices and larger profits. To suppose a demand of this kind can be made with regard to a single article is perfectly absurd. What the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject is quite true. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire is also perfectly right with regard to the deliberate misrepresentation of margarine as being what it is not; but what does my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet say with reference to English butter of an inferior quality being made to look like butter of a superior quality in order to fetch a higher price? This seems to me a proposal which in principle is absolutely wrong, and which, if it produced the effect it is expected to produce, would be an injustice. I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman.

I desire to most strongly support the Government. In fact, I do not think it would be possible to strike a greater blow at British agriculture than by adopting this clause. You would be putting British agriculturists in the position of saying, "We are engaged in very great competition with the margarine manufacturers, and we therefore appeal to this House to take a step which will have the effect of destroying an industry which is in opposition to us." A blow of that sort would be one of the worst that could be delivered at British agriculture. I know there is a great amount of support for this clause in certain quarters. A few days ago I had an opportunity of talking with a large dairy fanner in the country. He told me he was very much in favour of this clause. He said "Oh, we have very great competition with the margarine manufacturers." I, for one, as an agriculturist—though I may not have as much knowledge as other hon. Gentlemen, yet my interest is as great—strongly support the Government in this matter, and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he has taken.

A very important point was raised in regard to the colouring of margarine to represent butter, and that was that it enabled the manufacturers of that commodity to raise the price and palm it off as butter. The speech which made the greatest impression on me in opposition to the Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Northampton, who came before the House of Commons as a brilliant example of the excellence of margarine. He said he had been fed on margarine of most excellent quality, and that he liked it very well. Of course, I cannot myself speak from experience, for I do not know that I have ever eaten margarine; but, considering the excellent effect it has had upon the hon. Member's constitution, he must furnish a splendid advertisement for that article. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of the colouring of butter by putting carrots into the churn, and I hope that the idea will not be lost on the butter makers of Ireland, as it struck me that it was a splendid one. Butter, no doubt, is artificially coloured, but I object to the colouring of butter as much as to the colouring of margarine. In Ireland we find it is not necessary to colour the best butter; and we insist that this colouring of margarine to represent butter is not honest trading, but simply a proceeding to enable a fraud to be perpetrated on the public. Any measure which has for its object the securing of good, pure food for the people of this country will have my support. We have been told that all the margarine that is made, or is likely to be made, would not compete with butter, and that therefore there is no reason why we should fight so hard in behalf of butter as against margarine. But in nine cases out of ten margarine is sold as butter, and for that very reason I should have liked to see this Bill go even further than it does. We have been told that there are a great many other things, which are in daily use, that are coloured as well as margarine; and reference was made to tinned French vegetables. But my contention is that all articles which are coloured to represent what they are not ought to be put down. We are not opposed to the manufacture of margarine, but to the selling of margarine as butter. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill says there is no reason why margarine should not be coloured. Be it so; the manufacturers may colour it red, blue, or orange, so long as they do not colour it the colour of butter.

What is the colour of butter?

Good butter is the colour of that Mace [pointing to the Mace on the Table].

Although I am going to vote against my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill on this point, I am quite sure that all the farmers are very thankful to him for having introduced it; and whether we carry this Amendment or not, I hope the Bill will in a short time become an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Northampton contrasted the various properties of butter and margarine. The farmers, no more than I do, wish to go into that. The farmers do not deny that margarine is a very wholesome diet, but they insist that margarine should be sold as margarine instead of as butter, and at double its real price. I hope hon. Gentlemen will recognise that in voting for tins Amendment they are not voting to stop the sale of margarine, but only to stop the sale of margarine as butter. Some hon. Gentlemen drew attention to the colouring of cheese. I would remind the House that cheese is not coloured in order to represent some- thing else. Gloucester cheese, for instance, is highly coloured in order that the cheese may be sold and known as Gloucester cheese. The colouring is a particular trademark, and therefore there is no fraud in the transaction at all. Dutch cheese is also coloured, but it is never sold as anything else than Dutch cheese. As I have said, these cheese colourings are trade marks. If we could only stop this fraud, it would not matter what colour margarine was. My right hon. friend has undertaken to stop the fraud. He has undertaken a very large task, and I hope he will succeed. But whether margarine is coloured or not, he is trying to stop it by methods quite different from those which are employed in foreign countries. I never wish to hold up foreign countries for imitation, but I do say that nearly all the margarine is made abroad, and that there they take very good care not to allow it to be coloured to imitate butter. In France under no circumstances may colouring matter be added to margarine. What is that for? It is in order to stop fraud. But as soon as it is exported to this country margarine is coloured to imitate butter, and is sold as butter. I wish hon. Gentlemen would more often read the reports of the cases which are brought before the police courts in London relating to the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter. I call assure them that every week there are cases, and sometimes a whole string of cases, where men are prosecuted for the fraudulent sale of margarine and heavily fined. But I am told that these men resort to the practice of fraud on such a large scale, that although they may be fined £20, they make more than five times that sum in a very short time, and are, therefore, easily able to pay. But let me go on to Belgium. A great deal of margarine is made in Belgium, but it must not he coloured except with such matters, and to such a degree, as may be authorised by the Minister of Agriculture. In Denmark margarine must not be of a deeper colour than certain shades of yellow. In Italy colouring matter may not be added to make margarine resemble natural butter. In Russia margarine may not be coloured so as to give it the appearance of real butter. In Germany the colouring of margarine is not absolutely prohibited, but all margarine must contain not less than ten parts by weight of sesame oil to every 100 parts of fats and oils used in the preparation of margarine. Practically therefore, the colouring of margarine to imitate butter is prohibited in France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and Russia. That is all we desire to secure by this Amendment. I can only hope, in conclusion, that this Bill will become law, and that the fraudulent dealing in margarine may be stopped.

A great deal has been said by hon. Gentlemen as to protecting the interests of the working men. But I take it that if this new clause were added to the Bill, the working men might very well judge for themselves what is the most wholesome and desirable article of diet. Any attempt to restrict the sale of margarine would be looked upon as a distinct return to Protection. They can themselves judge whether they wish to buy pure butter or this article which has become so popular, and which is not merely used by the working classes, but to a very considerable extent by those who do not like to be so described. Not merely inferior butter, but some of the very highest class butters have to be coloured in order to make a market. Some of the very highest class butters in Scotland are highly coloured, and that not because they are in any sense improved by the colouring, but because they are more popular in the market. if the hon. Member who moved this new clause was willing to add to it a provision prohibiting the colouring of all other articles of diet, one could understand the consistency of such a clause; but so long as he attempts to deal with one class of food to the disadvantage of another, I think it is the duty of every Member, especially of those who seek to represent the masses of the community, to oppose this Amendment.

I naturally approach this subject from the point of view of the agriculturist, but I think experience has taught us that it is hardly possible to put the agricultural interest in a worse strait than by opposing it to any measure which would be for the benefit of the community at large. I would strongly, therefore, warn my brother agriculturists to consider whether they will be wise in taking up an attitude which practically pits the agricultural interest against the interest of the masses. I feel convinced that at this moment the masses of the community are in far more prosperous circumstances than the agricultural community, and, other things being equal, I should have been very glad indeed to see my way to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. But it seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are arguing against the Amendment have lost sight of one important point. We are not instructed by the agricultural community to make a crusade against the colouring of margarine, except in so far as it amounts to the fraudulent sale of that article. There is unquestionably a very strong desire that the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter should be stopped. The right hon. Gentleman who has framed this Bill undertakes to deal with the fraudulent part of this question. He thinks that, by the method he has introduced in this Bill, he will be able to check, restrain, and put an end to the fraudulent selling of margarine as butter. If that can be effected, surely our object is achieved. If that object is not achieved, then we shall stand upon very strong ground when we come and ask for the amendment of this Bill in the direction we desire. Therefore, although I am naturally prejudiced in favour of this Amendment, I cannot but recognise that the argument is very strong against it, and I think that I shall best consult the interests of agriculture and of fair play, on which agriculture depends, by giving the Bill a chance as it stands, and not supporting the Amendment.

I should like the House of Commons to look at this question from the standpoint of those who will be compelled to carry out the Act. I have given some little attention to this subject as a medical officer of health who carried out the old Act, and also from the scientific standpoint, and I want to point out the impossibility of this clause being any good whatever. My hon. friend probably knows the kind of butter he gets from Scotch farms—it is made from Ayrshire, shorthorn, and Channel Islands cows. The butter from the Ayrshire cow is almost pure white, and in Glasgow, where nine-tenths of the butter is Ayrshire butter, the public have it absolutely white, and the best butter is sold as nearly white as possible. Shorthorn butter is slightly yellow, and Channel Islands butter fairly yellow. Therefore, as far as these three great milk-producing cows are concerned, they all give you different standards of colour. What standard are you going to establish? Is there any regular colour for margarine? No. There is scarcely a pint of milk in London which is not coloured, and if you got it uncoloured on your breakfast table in the morning you would think some mistake had been made, and that it was of very poor quality. If you are going to prevent uniformity of colour by preventing colouring, you must apply the same process to butter, and you will prevent a great many classes of useful butter being sold.

I am the last man in the world to deny the importance of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, or the discussion it has given rise to, but I would venture to suggest to the House, after the arguments we have listened to, that the matter has now been thoroughly debated. So far as I am able to form an opinion, the great body of opinion is on the side of the Government; and, under the circumstances, I think, having regard to the interests of the business of the House, and the interests of all concerned in the measure, we should now proceed to a Division, if necessary, and that the House should show, as it will, I believe, by a large majority, that it supports the attitude of my right hon. friend.

It is quite obvious that the House has become weary of this discussion, and I merely desire to say, that though I have an Amendment upon this point, as I am desirous of seeing the Bill pass, I shall not move it.

There is only one point which I wish to raise. I agree entirely with my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, that we must not look upon this measure as a Protectionist measure, and, for my part, I have always looked at it from the point of view of the consumer. I also agree with my right hon. friend when he says he is against deliberate mis. representation, and that we ought not to allow butter or dairy produce to he coloured to deceive the consumer, any more than we ought to allow the colouring of margarine for the same purpose. The point I wish to call attention to is that representative farmers and others in Devonshire have declared, and I believe in public, that they do not use any colouring matter, and they are prepared to accept any prohibition which may be ordered. All we want is that margarine should be sold on its merits, and we are, in the West of England, prepared to sell ordinary produce on its merits.

We have been asked why we support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton, and it is perfectly evident that those who ask us have not read the evidence taken before the Committee up-stairs. That evidence, which was mostly with regard to adulteration and fraud, compelled the Committee to come to the conclusion that, so long as margarine was allowed to look like butter, it would be impossible to stop fraud. Professor Lawrence opposed the colouring of margarine because it gave the trader facilities to impose upon the consumer by giving him an article which was not what it professed to be; whilst Mr. Hamilton said, if margarine was sold as margarine it would command a large sale, and the prohibition against colouring the margarine would not have the effect of killing the trade at all. It would only prevent the retailer making an inordinate profit by the fraud he commits by palming it off as butter. It is for that reason that we shall vote for the Amendment if we are compelled to go to a Division.

It has been stated by the hon. Member for Chester that the overwhelming bulk of the working classes are in favour of this Amendment. From the societies he mentioned, he evidently means organised labour. I would like to point out how very misleading the hon. Member's remarks are. In the first place, the question submitted to these societies was of a kind which laid down as a premiss that it is wrong to force on a working man a fraudulent article. It then ingeniously led up to the conclusion that the only possible precaution to take was by way of an Amendment of this kind. But other precautions are taken in this Bill, so the question put to these working men is of no value at all. The hon. Gentleman cannot tell us even whether this question was put at mass meetings, branch meetings, or executive meetings; and even if it was put to all, there are only 300,000 men in these societies, and that is only one-fifth of organised labour. One point I wish to draw attention to is, the societies the hon. Gentleman addressed were the skilled workmen—they are not driven to buy margarine; but there is a class whose views I desire to voice in this Debate, and that is the unskilled labourers, whose precarious employment only returns some 13s. or 14s. a week. What will they say if their Parliamentary friends in this House tell them that their margarine can be painted grey, or drab, or black. Is it fair?

Nobody suggested it.

My hon. friend has only just come in, and I do not think he is omniscient. The alternative that you offer this class is, "You can colour margarine any colour you like, except butter colour." I wonder how hon. Gentlemen would like to sit down to bread with margarine painted green. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain his position. I object to another portion of the Bill, but if this proposal were passed it would be a wrong act, not to the skilled artisans, but to the poorest of the poor.

There are two kinds of fraud which this Bill ought to stop. There is the fraud of substituting margarine for butter—we all want to stop that; and there is the worse fraud by which margarine is sold at about double its proper price. In the name of the class for whom the hon. Gentleman opposite professes to speak, I protest against that. Why is it desired to colour this substance? Because it makes it look more like butter. The colouring makes it not a whit more digestible or pleasant-flavoured, but if you prevent colouring, margarine will be sold at fourpence or fivepence instead of tenpence or a shilling per lb. as it sometimes is at present.

I should not have taken part in this discussion but for the statements of my hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. I think he is wrong in thinking that working men support his view. Some years ago I took part in a very important deputation to the President of the Local Government Board on this very question, a deputation organised by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. Prominent the deputation were representatives of the whole of the great co-operative societies representing hundreds of thousands of working men, the movement with which my hon. friend claims some connection. I should like him to explain how it was that representatives of the great co-operative societies came and joined us in urging the imperative necessity of dealing with these frauds, and dealing with them on the programme which included the provision suggested in this present proposal. The hon. Member for Brightside has put his case for the support of the Government in resisting this Amendment on the one plain issue that the unskilled labourer will be deprived of a cheap and wholesome article. How can he establish that case unless he can show that margarine is sold all over the country under its own name and at its true value? It is not sold at its true value except in a very few shops. I believe that three-fourths of the margarine in this country is sold as butter, and at butter prices. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures, with which I cannot now trespass on the time of the House, but I came to a decided conclusion it would not be rash to estimate that that means a fine, and a fine mainly imposed upon the very class for whom my hon. friend pleads, of £1,500,000 per annum. I should unhesitatingly support the Amendment, because I believe we shall be protecting the pocket of the poorer classes by securing the fullest possible precautions against these frauds, the greatest instrument in the perpetration of which is undoubtedly the colouring of margarine to resemble butter. I repudiate with scorn the suggestion that the article should be coloured some offensive hue. My own view is that very likely we shall arrive at some such result as obtains in Denmark, where they are allowed to colour their margarine to secure an attractive appearance, but are simply prohibited from colouring it the same shade as butter. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee to inquire into this question of colouring, as well as the question of preservatives. I hope we may look forward to that Committee conducting an impartial and exhaustive inquiry into this question of colouring, into the procedure adopted in other countries, and into the whole of the legal aspects of that question, so that if the Government is against us to-day it may not be ultimately against some reasonable proposal in this direction. The cry of "Protection" has been raised, but who are the protectionists? It seems to me that they are those who are going to maintain this instrument in the hands of the great fraudulent manufacturers and the whole army of retailers who are demoralised and debauched by those manufacturers into committing this fraud, and are guaranteed as to fines and penalties by those who instigate these frauds. By rejecting this Amendment you are protecting those capitalists who are levying an enormous blackmail upon the consumers of the country, and especially upon the poorer classes of consumers who cannot protect themselves, that is where protection really comes in under this Bill.

Question put—

The House divided:—Ayes, 68 Noes, 297. (Division List, No. 276.)

When I first placed this clause on the Paper I intended it to be a substitute for Clause 19, but according to the Rules of the House I find that my clause must be dealt with first, and Clause 19 considered separately, but it would be almost impossible even to allude to this clause without pointing out that I proposed it instead of Clause 19. The whole of the Bill really hangs on Clause 19, because it is very little use laying down what is wrong, and ought to be punished, unless we devise some means of carrying the punishments into effect. There are two troubles that local authorilies have to contend with in this matter, viz., the defence of the warranty itself, and, secondly, the postponement necessitated by the dismissal of the case owing to the defence of the warranty and the time-limit laid down by the Act of 1875, and perpetuated in this Bill. You really cannot obtain a conviction against the warrantor within the time limit, and consequently this provision will be a dead letter unless we are able either to extend the time limit or to put aside the defence of a warranty. For that reason I put this clause on the Notice Paper. I fully believe the Bill is intended to be framed in the interests of the consumer, especially the poor consumer, but at the same time all men affected by it should have justice. It is a very extreme ease that a man giving a warranty for, say, a ten-gallon can of milk should be responsible for that milk when it is distributed in half-pint cans and taken out into the street. Yet so it is under the present arrangement. Therefore, I propose that only until the bulk is broken should the warranty be binding. In regard to the possibility of dealing with the warrantor, our experience is that it takes fourteen days to bring an original defendant into a police court; then he pleads a warranty, and you have to begin again against the warrantor at a distance. Twenty-eight days pass, and the proceedings fall through. Is it fair to charge local authorities with not doing their duty when you do not give them time enough to discharge the duty you ask them to do? If Clause 19 is left as at present, you might as well throw the Bill into the fire, and therefore I beg to move this clause.

New clause—

Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."

This clause would practically reverse the law in regard to the warranty, and is directly opposed to the Amendment made in the Committee upstairs. There is an inconvenience in discussing the question in this form, and I hope my hon. friend will consent to withdraw his new clause, and reserve any opinions he may have to express for the consideration of Clause 19. I hope then to be able to move an Amendment carrying out the views expressed last night—viz., that the difficulty with regard to the defence of the warranty is a very real one. It would be impossible to read a second time a clause which is diametrically opposed to the spirit and intention of Clause 19, and for the reason I have given I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Under the circumstances, with the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I think it will best serve the interests of the House if I at once ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I should like to have a more explicit statement as to what will be the purport of the Amendment which the Government is going to propose on Clause 19. At present, if the defendant can prove that there was a warranty in writing, and that he sold the article in the same state in which it was received, that is held to be an answer to the primâ facie case made out by the Crown against him. Clause 19 says that an invoice shall have the same effect as a warranty under the Act of 1875, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the clause requires amending.

The hon. Member will be out of order in discussing that matter now. The question before the House is whether this clause shall be read a second time.

This clause on the Paper is being moved in lieu of Clause 19, and I have no objection to the withdrawal of the clause if we have some explicit statement.

I understand that the hon. Member has withdrawn or proposes to withdraw this clause upon the understanding which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. The point I wish to call attention to is that this clause is a very serious alteration of the existing law, and it would be a very serious matter, because it says that the warranty must remain as long as the package remains intact. That would be very awkward in the case of many articles in the sale of which the retailer would not be protected at all. I should like some assurance from the President of the Board of Agriculture that his Amendment is not going to take the form of this clause.

I endeavoured to say as plainly as I could that the new clause proposed is one which we could in no sense accept. My hon. and gallant friend referred to certain difficulties in regard to prosecutions; that is to say, where adulteration has been proved and the liability has been shifted from the shoulders of the first person summoned to somebody else from whom a warranty is produced. We hope to put into Clause 19 some Amend- ments which will remove that difficulty, but of course it will not proceed in the reverse direction which my hon. and gallant friend has indicated.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Somerset is out of order.

Upon a point of order, I desire to point out that it is not a question of colouring margarine, but skimmed milk.

If the hon. Member is going to take a different line of argument to that which has been already taken in discussing the colouring of margarine, he will be in order.

I do desire to argue this from a totally different point of view. This is simply a question between the public and the dairy producers, or the men who sell dairy produce. What I am anxious to do is to prevent either the farmer or the retailer of milk, cream, condensed, separated, or skimmed milk, from imposing upon the public. We have seen a most deplorable state of things in reference to young children fed upon separated milk or skimmed milk without knowing that it has been coloured in such a way that it represents genuine milk. There was some very important evidence given on behalf of the Camberwell Vestry upon this point. The medical officer there said he attributed 40 per cent. of the deaths of infants in the Camberwell district to the use of this separated milk, which he said was only giving the children chalk and water. It is not only a fraud, but it causes injury and death, and 40 per cent. is a very large percentage. Besides this, the public are deceived. I do not believe that mothers would purchase this milk if they were not deceived by the colour of it, for it looks as if it was the very best milk, because there is no statement upon the tins to show what it is. I think milk ought to be sold entirely upon its merits without the addition of any colouring matter whatever. It is perfectly ridiculous to see how milk is coloured in the winter time, when we know that it is impossible to have such a high colour without colouring. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me on this point, for he thinks his Bill is quite perfect on this matter. I am quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has conducted these proceedings both in Committee and in this House in a most able manner, and if this Bill had not been in charge of a gentleman so cognisant with agricultural matters he would have had great difficulty in piloting this Bill, and in giving his agricultural friends any benefit. I beg to move.

New clause—

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

I think the point of my hon. friend is that this milk is consumed by children, and that it is very injurious to their health and strength. I am afraid there is no doubt that there is a certain amount of consumption of skimmed and separated milk by the children of the poorer classes, which is very much contrary to what one would wish, but to deal with a difficulty of this kind in a manner like this is a suggestion which I think the House will not seriously entertain. I do not know that colouring gives milk any special advantage, but if you want to deal with this question a very different method will be required to that which is now proposed. I think the House will require stronger evidence as to the effects of a prohibition of this kind before it can accept the Amendment of my hon. friend opposite.

I think if my hon friend had limited his proposal to skimmed or condensed milk something might be said for it, but the clause is for all milk and all cream, and you will be striking such a terrible blow at the dairy trade that you will be practically making a crime of it. I agree with what has been said with regard to condensed milk, and I think it is absolutely necessary that something further should be done. But I surely you do not expect that we are going to make this revolutionary change in our system. If the colouring had done any harm then I could understand it, but simply because a certain taste in colour is at present popular, are you going to make it a crime? The result of the use of some of this condensed milk shows a terrible mortality, but that ought not to affect ordinary milk and cream.

I cannot understand why there is such a desire on the part of those on this side of the House to protect every sort of fraud. What is the use of having this coloured milk forced upon the children? Do hon. Members not know that the very colouring matter which is put into the milk causes children to get thinner and thinner? It is a great pity that we have not got a Government in office which is not afraid to tackle this question and also to tackle the margarine question by insisting that the working classes shall have value for their money. I support my hon. friend because the more colouring matter you put in the less milk you will get.

It seems to me that this proposal is being contested upon grounds entirely different to those raised in considering the last clause, which was obviously an endeavour on the part of the agricultural interest, if not to destroy, to impede and hamper the trade. They coolly state that colouring the margarine injures its quality or prevents people from knowing it. It is, however, an entirely different matter when one comes to condensed milk. In this case it is the parent who is deceived into buying something which is intended for the benefit of the child, and the parent ought to be protected. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this clause is too wide in its application, but I think there is no difficulty in cutting down the clause so as to make it applicable only to condensed or separated milk. My right hon. friend asks us to reject that which he appears to admit is a beneficial clause. Why on earth should not condensed milk be sold in its original condition, so that every parent shall know by its appearance whether it is pure or not? There is no reason why any special favour should be shown to persons who put adulterated matter into milk for the pur- pose of deceiving the purchaser. I certainly do not think that the person who adulterates condensed milk with colouring matter should be allowed to go scot free. The colouring of milk deceives the parents and involves suffering upon the children who are fed upon it, and there is no reason why any of the dairymen who colour their milk should be protected. If it is true that the colouring of milk is a universal habit, then the legislature cannot interfere too soon to stop it.

I desire to point out that we are dealing now with a totally different case from the colouring of margarine. The object of colouring margarine is to make it resemble butter, but nobody wants to buy milk which has been made to resemble water, or something else from which every good quality has been extracted. Margarine is a more or less wholesome product, but nobody can say that bad, weak, and injurious milk coloured to represent good milk is a good thing for anybody. In these circumstances, I think my right hon. friend ought to see that there is a considerable difference between the cases we have just been considering, and I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend opposite.

I should like to say a word or two with reference to this Amendment. I think the hon. Member is perfectly justified in bringing this question before the House, but I think the position is a good deal altered with reference to this milk by the first clause of the Bill. No doubt a gross fraud is being perpetrated on the public, and thousands of children are practically starved to death by being fed on condensed separated milk which is imported. This milk is bought by parents as good food for the little ones, with the result that the infants risk starvation. That is a very grave condition of affairs and ought to be stopped. I think, however, it will be stopped by the fact that the first clause insists upon this milk being labelled as "separated" or "skimmed" milk, and that will be a warning to the parents. This separated milk is made to resemble pure milk by the addition of colouring matter, and this is not only perpetrating a fraud upon the public, but it is also injuring very seriously the health of the children. It is possible we may be able to amend the first clause so as to meet this difficulty, and there is, moreover, a Departmental Committee sitting on this very question. I am entirely with the hon. Member as far as his object is concerned, but I think at the present time it would be unwise to press the clause which he has moved.

My opinion is that if a man sells skimmed milk to represent new milk or cream he should be treated as a rogue. You prosecute a man for introducing water into milk, which is not half so injurious as this colouring matter. For my own part I entertain a very strong opinion on this matter, for I think the colouring of milk is a gross fraud. I had no idea that this fraud was being perpetrated in the country, and I venture to say that the Government ought to take the strongest steps possible to prevent the injury which is being done. If the hon. Member goes to a Division with his Amendment I shall certainly support him, but I do hope the right hon. Gensleman will do something to put an end to something which is now doing a very serious injury.

No doubt it may be perfectly true to say that the colouring matter in milk is injurious to health, but this is one of the points which have been reserved for the consideration of the Committee which is now considering the whole question. In reference to milk, I think the effects of colouring have been exaggerated, for the real injury which is done to the children does not he in the fact that the milk is coloured, but is due to the fact that the nutritious substances have been taken out of it. That is an entirely different matter to the point of colour. I myself have the strongest feeling that everything should be done to prevent parents being misled as to the nutritious quality of the milk which they purchase. It is well known that there are an enormous number of penny tins of condensed milk sold, and they are purchased by the working classes; and, of course, it is the duty of the Government to do what they can to prevent fraud in this respect. I would respectfully submit to the House that the question of colouring has nothing to do with this matter, and I think other provisions should be made in this Bill to, ensure that the nutritious qualities are not extracted from the milk.

This colouring matter in milk is attended with very serious consequences, because it deludes the purchaser into believing that the milk which he or she is purchasing is of good quality, when it is as a matter of fact impoverished. It seems to me that this is. an Amendment which ought to be accepted by the Government. My hon. friend suggested that milk in Wales is a light colour. That does not coincide with my own experience, which is that milk in Wales is like milk elsewhere. The colour depends on the time of the year and the nature of the vegetation more than anything else. What we ask for is that dealers should be compelled to sell milk as it is, not as they would wish people to believe it is. I shall be glad to support my hon. friend's Amendment.

As I understand it, the object of this Bill is to prevent fraud. There is no doubt whatever that there is a process by which inferior milk is made to look like good milk. That comes very suspiciously near fraud. It does seem to me to be an adulteration of milk, and it is essential in great cities that nothing should be done to milk to give it a fictitious quality. I cannot quite understand why, if we are going as far as this Bill goes now, we should be afraid to go further, and protect the consumers of milk in our great, cities.

I think the attention of the House ought to be called to the existing law on the subject. Section 6 of the Act of 1875 provides that any person who sells prejudicially to a purchaser any article of food not as substantially described is liable to a penalty of £20. Accordingly, as far as condensed milk is concerned, the man who sells it for good milk is liable to a penalty under that Act. Section 9 of the same Act provides that no person can sell any article of food from which such a part of it has been abstracted as to render it in- jurious, under a penalty not exceeding £20. That section applies to persons selling milk after a valuable part of it has been abstracted. The Amendment is to prevent the addition of colouring matter to milk or to condensed or sepaated milk. No one pretends that in the case of condensed or separated milk the addition of colouring matter does any harm. The harm is done by the fraud perpetrated in selling poor milk as if it were good milk, and that is already provided against. With regard to the proposal to penalise the addition of colouring matter, I would really suggest to the House that inasmuch as it has already decided by a large majority not to interfere with colouring matter in the case of margarine it would be a very questionable step if we were now to proceed to penalise colouring matter in the case of milk. The strongest argument, to my mind, against legislation in such a matter is that we should be only touching one part of a large subject. We cannot pick out one particular article and leave all the others alone.

The answer to the Solicitor-General appears to me to be that confessedly the existing law has failed. It has been abundantly testified this evening that a great quantity of milk which is not nutritious is sold in defiance of the Act of 1875. That is because the class to which it is sold is very ignorant, and does not know the provisions of the law or how to enforce it. This Amendment, however, goes further than the House is likely to go, and I think that the first clause of this Bill proposes a new remedy which is more likely to be efficacious for the protection of the humbler classes than the existing law, and we might await its operation before we attempt any alteration of the law on the general subject of colouring.

We have been given to understand that the object of this Bill is to protect the public generally from having certain articles of food palmed off on them as of a certain quality whereas they are not of that quality. By adding colouring to milk the public are distinctly defrauded, because they are led to believe they are buying milk which is of a better quality than it is. A large number of persons who purchase milk, more especially in London, are ignorant of what good milk really is, and it is rarely that poor people in London are able to buy such milk. The dealers, by colouring poor quality milk, lead parents to believe that they are giving their children milk of first-class quality.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 23S. (Division List, No. 277.)

The Government not being ready to protect temperance drinks, perhaps they may be able to protect an alcoholic drink, although it is of a very mild character. At the present moment a very large amount of cider is produced in this country which is not made from the juice of the apple. Ingredients of a thoroughly bogus character are used, and it is in the interests of the public that only cider made from the juice of the apple should be allowed to be sold. I am quite ready to add perry, and I agree that all perry should be made from the juice of the pear. Manufacturers are so clever nowadays that they are able to produce cider and perry from other articles altogether. I beg to move the clause with the addition of the words "or perry" after "cider," and the words, "or pears" after "apples."

New clause—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

I have great pleasure in supporting the new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has moved it in the form in which my clause appears on the Paper. Cider and perry are most wholesome products, and much better than many foreign wines. The reason why we desire that these liquors should be mentioned in this Bill is that since the trade in them has increased, as it has very considerably within the last few years, it has been found profitable by some persons to produce liquors which they call cider and perry, but which do not contain a single ingredient belonging to apples or pears. About a hundred years, ago or rather less, the demand for cider and perry was very considerably in Devonshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, and Herefordshire. The trade fell away in consequence of the malpractices of those engaged in it, who adulterated it after a fashion of their own, though not so astutely as the manner now adopted. Since the trade has revived persons have endeavoured to Manufacture so-called cider. I have several specimens of labels taken from so-called cider now on the market. One label is marked "Champagne Cider, Superior Quality." I had a bottle of that liquor analysed by a gentleman who holds the position of county analyst in my neighbourhood. He reported to the effect that there was not a trace of apple juice in it, but that a certain flavour of fruit given to it was produced by a drug which I am informed has a very deleterious effect on the heart. I notice that people drop off very often from failure of the heart's action, and I am inclined to think it is because of the adulterated things they drink. I have another label marked "Puris Champagne Cider, Protected by Registration; Highest Awards, London, Newcastle, 1887." The analyst also examined that champagne cider and reported that it had never seen an apple and that it was flavoured with acid, sugar, and honey. It is quite clear that a great many people are injured by this system of adulteration. The consumers themselves are injured in their health, whereas if they drank the genuine article it would benefit them. They also get an extremely erroneous idea as to what good cider and perry ought to be, and if one gave them a glass of the genuine article they would declare it was not cider at all. That is injurious to the producer and gives a false impression of what cider really is. For these reasons I beg to support the new clause, and to express the hope that the Government will look with increasing interest on this great and growing industry. In the South-Western and Midland Counties and also in Kent and Norfolk it is becoming it great industry. It is, so far as I know, the only agricultural interest now left in this country which is capable of indefinite expansion, and I hope it will be protected in a legitimate way.

We are all anxious that every reasonable facility should be given for the manufacture and sale of cider and perry. I beg to point out to the hon. Member for South Somerset and the hon. Member for Hereford that they hardly realise the full extent to which the clause asked the House to go:

"It shall be unlawful to sell, or import for sale, any liquid under the name of cider or perry, unless the same be made from the juice of pears and apples only."

The existing law in regard to adulteration is sufficient, I am advised, to prevent anyone selling cider or perry as such if it were only made from sugar and water and chemical compounds. We have certainly not sufficient knowledge as to the conditions governing the manufacture of these beverages to justify us in adopting a clause of this kind. I would remind the House that the Select Committee which inquired into the operation of the Adulteration Acts for four years did not embrace tins subject within the scope of their inquiry. We have no definite information on the point, and we heard nothing of it until this proposed clause appeared on the Paper. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. friends will be satisfied with having raised the subject.

Question put, and negatived.

The clause I have put on the Paper raises, not the question of fraud, but a question of great importance, the question of public health. It is notorious to all who have gone into this subject that the use of antiseptics and preservatives, in order to enable food to be kept for a time, much longer than its nature permits, has grown to enormous proportions within the last few years. The ordinary processes of preservation by heat and by cold, which are perfectly innocuous and safe, are practically being neglected in a great many cases, and drugs are being used instead. I am bound to bring this subject before the Committee, because of the absence of any adequate restrictions on the use of drugs in preserving food. Food is placed daily on our tables full of preservatives. Our milk and cream and butter is full of boracic acid, our bacon is cured in it; our jam is full of salicylic acid, while fish are also now soaked with preservatives. And, further, in this way we may be dosed ten or a hundred-fold beyond the amount which science would say was safe for human con- sumption. The use of preservatives is being regulated entirely in the interests of those who manufacture or dispose of these food products, not in any sense in a scientific manner. This question has been repeatedly brought before the attention of the public through great scientific gatherings. A very important inquiry was undertaken by the Lancet in 1897. The special Sanitary Commission on this question initiated by the Lancet not only demonstrated the extensive use of boracic acid and salicylic acid, formalin, and other antiseptics, but also elicited most important opinions from the leading medical experts of the day. And the opinion of the medical authorities is uniformly in favour of some such clause as I propose. Sir Henry Thompson expressed the strongest objection to the dietetic use of any drugs whatsoever. Dr. Allen said that whatever antiseptic may be used, if it is strong enough to preserve by checking various processes of decomposition brought about by bacteria, would also be strong enough to check the digestive processes which were helped by beneficial organisms. Dr. Sims Woodhead, another great authority, spoke very strongly as to the danger of the use of antiseptics, especially as regards the digestibility of food, and he thought that until the scientific aspect of the restriction of the use of preservatives in food products had been thoroughly worked out, "it should certainly be made illegal to use them." At the Congress of Sanitary Science and Preventive Medicine held in Birmingham, in 1896, the President, Dr. Alfred Hill, in an exhaustive address on this subject, said that by the manner in which milk and cream and many other articles of food are being doctored in this way, consumers are being subjected to experiments on their constitutions by those who have no knowledge of the matter whatever, and that these experiments involve very serious risks. The purveyors of food have the most indefinite notions of what is required. One man will add 18 grains of boric acid to a pound of butter, the next man will add 80 grains. Another danger is that antiseptics are not only used by the first producers and by importers, but also by retailers. One case was given of very serious results happening to a family from eating blancmange which had been first adulterated by the manufacturer, and then another dose added by the servants in the house. "From this point of view," says Dr. Hill, "I can only come to the conclusion that the use of chemical preservatives ought to be prohibited altogether." One gentleman who made inquiry for the Royal Agricultural Society illustrated the absurdity of allowing the free use of these antiseptics by saying that one part of boracic acid added to 3,200 parts of milk or cream was quite sufficient to preserve the milk or cream, but that a solution of boracic acid amounting to one ounce in two gallons is actually in frequent use, while to hide the bitter taste of the antiseptic glycerine or gelatine is added. In some of the American States, in France, in Denmark, Belgium, and in Germany it has been decided to absolutely prohibit the use of preservatives altogether, because of the administrative difficulty of deciding by law or regulation the proportion of these preservatives which might be made use of in food. In France they have recently prohibited the importation of American bacon which is largely doctored by boracic acid. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will reply to me that he has appointed a Committee to deal with this question. Well, if he does, I will put to him the same inquiry in regard to that Committee which I put, too late, in regard to the colouring of margarine. I would like to know whether we may look to the Committee to determine whether preservatives should be used at all, or merely to lay down what is a safe proportion of these drugs and preservatives which may be allowed in food, and whether the Government will be prepared to give effect to their recommendations by legislation or by Order in Council during the ensuing year. I venture to say that the more this question is studied of the introduction into the human system of these drugs in small quantities hour by hour, and day by day, the more it will be seen how important it is that some such proposal as I have made should be adopted.

New clause—

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

There can be no doubt that the question raised by the proposed new clause is one of the very greatest importance in this sense—that the use of these preservatives can very easily be abused, and the results of that abuse might be most injurious to human health. But, unfortunately, we have not had, up to the present, knowledge as to the effect of the use of these preservatives which would enable us, if necessary, to put the existing law into force. The hon. Gentleman has asked me what is the object of the Committee which my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board recently appointed. The object is to examine precisely those questions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, namely the use of these preservatives and colouring matters, and whether that use to any excessive extent becomes injurious to health, and whether their use to a limited extent is not necessarily injurious to health. We hope that that inquiry, which has already commenced, will result in getting some definite information with regard to this matter. If we are able to lay down rules for the guidance of the health officers of the country there will be no need for issuing an Order in Council or for fresh legislation. The existing law would be sufficient. If the preservatives are not injurious to health, then I do not think the House would agree for one instant to prohibit their use for a proper purpose.

What is the character of the Committee?

The Committee is composed of scientific experts, and the names have already appeared in The Times.

Not in the other papers?

I cannot say. No doubt they have appeared in the other papers, but as it happens The Times is the only paper in which I have seen them, and therefore I mentioned it.

I only wanted to know for my own information.

The Chairman is the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire, and there are two medical officers of the Local Government Board, including Professor Thorpe, if I remember rightly. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that the Committee is one to whose deliberations and conclusions the greatest possible weight will be attached; and the reference is one which will bring into the inquiry all those difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred in his speech. I gathered from the remarks he made that all he wanted was to raise a discussion and to elicit further information as to the appointment of this Committee, and the work it is intended to do, rather than to ask the House to vote on his Amendment. I think it would be extremely improper to include in an Act of Parliament a prohibition of this kind, which is unnecessary, if these articles are injurious to health, and which ought not to be put on the Statute Book, if these articles are harmless. If the Report of the Committee shows that these preservatives ought not to be used, and cannot be used without injury to health, then the law of the land is already amply sufficient.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to place himself in the hands of these experts?

The carrying out of the Act of Parliament does not rest with me or with any Minister of the Crown; it rests with the local authority.

Quite so; that is the point. We are told that the object of this Bill is that the right hon. Gentleman is to have a roving commission in order to see that the local authorities are doing their duty. That being the case, is the right hon. Gentleman going to pledge himself to the views of this Committee? Is he satisfied that fifty or sixty grains of boracic acid in a gallon of milk is safe? No doctor would convince me that that is a desirable or right thing. Now boracic acid is used as a medicine in certain diseases, and if a man takes butter, milk, margarine, fish, or any kind of food which has been preserved with boracic acid, he is not only taking a much larger quantity than fifty or sixty grains of boracic acid a day, but he gets saturated with it. The consequence is, that the boracic acid medically prescribed would have no effect upon him, like a man who is saturated with alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Amendment was only meant to raise a discussion. Is he ready to say a little later on that he will accept the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Caithness, which provides that every man should know exactly what he is buying and that the amount of preservative used per pound or per gallon should be stated? The right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment upstairs; is he ready to-accept it now?

This is an exceeding discouraging discussion, as it suggests, immediately before the dinner hour, that the food we are about to partake of may be overdosed with these preservatives. Seriously, I do not think that we can quite follow the example of other countries in this matter, as England is a much larger importer of food than these are, and some of the foods must necessarily be preserved in order to reach this country. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire as to the importance of this question, and I also agree with the spirit in which he raised it. We have on the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the subject a Member of this House, in whose general ability we have great confidence. We have also the most distinguished chemist of the time, and one of the leading officials of the Local Government Board, and a medical man to assist him. We have therefore, all the elements necessary for arriving at a sound conclusion, and when that conclusion is arrived at, I have no doubt the operation of the ordinary law will restrict the use of these preservatives. No one can speak dogmatically on the use of these preservatives, for it is a question which science has not yet solved. Therefore, I think that to persevere with this new clause at the present time is unnecessary, in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

The hon. Member for South Somerset has pointed out to us all the horrors which may arise from the excessive use of these preservatives, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he proposes to accept the verdict of the Committee before the Committee has hardly. met. A more extraordinary question to a Minister I have never heard, and I think my hon. friend's zeal outruns his discretion. I would point out that my hon. friend's demand is unreasonable, especially as the mover of the Amendment is satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.

The proposed clause would prohibit the use of every preservative except salt. Surely it is not proposed to prohibit ice. I believe it would be an enormous mistake to enter into these terrifying details, and I think it would be best to withdraw the clause and leave the country under the impulse of the horror created by this Debate, which I think will send a thrill thoughout the country to-morrow morning. As it is, I am afraid to go to dinner.

I hope my hon. friend will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to wait until we see the Report of the Committee. Then, if the Committee report on the lines that my hon. friend thinks, no change will be required in the present law. The only difficulty at the present time is that there is a difference of opinion as to whether boracic acid is more harmful than salt. A large number of medical men will tell you that they are equally harmful and equally harmless, but I take it this Committee will try and gather a consensus of opinion on the subject, and after it has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee, we shall have one medical man giving his opinion to the magistrates that a certain preservative is injurious, and another medical man saying that he believes it is perfectly innocuous.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, under Clause 4 of this Bill, to make regulations dealing with the quantity of preservatives that may be added, before or after this Committee has reported?

I could not make any regulation as to the quantity of preservatives until we have the Report of the Committee before us.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'for consumption therein.'"—( Mr. Lough. )

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

moved to insert at the beginning of Clause 1 the words "butter and cheese." The object of the Amendment was to widen the scope of the Bill. A great deal of bad butter was imported into this country, and bad cheese other than margarine, and he submitted that equal information should be given with regard to this trade.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 7, before the word 'margarine,' to insert the words 'butter and cheese.'"—( Mr. Lough. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division. I cannot understand the introduction of good butter and cheese into the list of questionable articles as to which the clause provides precautions.

said he thought this Amendment would have a most serious effect, and he was much surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington should recommend it. if Danish butter were marked it would be impossible to sell English butter. People bought Danish butter because they preferred it to any other butter, and until the English farmers made English butter equal to Danish the large importation of Danish would continue. To place butter in the same category as margarine would be a very great mistake, and he was very glad, therefore, that the Government refused to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

moved the omission of "margarine cheese" from the articles as to which the restriction was provided. He pointed out that skimmed milk cheese and other kinds of cheese were not included, and therefore submitted that the words "margarine cheese" should be left out.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words or margarine cheese.'"—( Mr. Colville. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'or margarine cheese' stand part of the Bill."

I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn. I can see no reason for leaving the importation of this article unrestricted.

expressed the hope that the hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. This was another example of the vicious system of legislation which selected a few articles and proceeded to deal with them in a fragmentary and inefficient manner. The Solicitor-General had said that there was no reason for this Amendment. If he dealt with milk products, why did he not take the matter all round? They were advancing one step deeper into the quagmire into which they had drifted when the House passed the Margarine Act.

said he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He could not understand how, in the interests of legislation for preventing fraud by margarine-filled cheese, the Amendment could be supported.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 19. (Division List, No. 278.)

I rise to move, as an Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "or impoverished." Obviously these words are not applicable to butter; there is no such thing known to law as impoverished butter.

I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the facts that the Minister in charge of the Bill is not in the House, and there are not forty Members present.

I recently ascertained that there were forty Members in the House.

It is impossible for there to be impoverished butter. There might be impoverished milk, but you cannot impoverish butter without destroying its character. If you make the butter from inferior milk you may have a less quantity of butter, but the constituents will be the same. It is the quantity, not the quality, that will be affected. Observe how the words are brought in here. They are brought in in a section which obviously applies to imported articles. You do not find the word "impoverished" in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act dealing with articles manufactured in this country. "Adulteration" is referred to in Sub-section 7, and is held to apply to any article if it has been "mixed with any other substance or if any part of it has been extracted so as injuriously to affect its quality, substance, or mixture." "Impoverished butter" could not mean anything added; at any rate, that would be adulterated butter, while if you take out any substance it is butter no longer. It is the same as if you take hydrogen or oxygen out of water. These words are not needed at all; the word "adulterated" is quite sufficient. It is always an injudicious thing in Acts of Parliament to begin a new definition of an offence. We know what "adulteration" means, and it can be made to apply to every offence that is covered here.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'or impoverished.'"—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'or impoverished' stand part of the Bill."

If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Grand Committee he would have discovered what was news to many of us, but a fact, nevertheless, that there were methods of treating butter which could only be met by the term "impoverished." The word "adulteration" is not sufficient——

Why not—as in Sub-section 7?

The word "adulteration" is not sufficient. It is one thing to add one article to another and so adulterate, but it is an even worse offence to abstract from an article one of its valuable qualities, and sell the article as if nothing had been extracted from it. The words are absolutely essential, and I hope the House will not waste time in discussing the question.