290 FRAUDULENT COMPETITION 



In April, 1886, on the motion of Mr. Carrington Smith 

 (Staffordshire Chamber), the Council unanimously resolved 

 that the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts required amending, 

 as a large quantity of imitation butter was then being sold as 

 butter, and asking that every parcel of this imitation butter 

 should be delivered with the word " butterine " distinctly 

 marked upon it. 



In March, 1887, the Council considered two Bills which had 

 been introduced that year, one, the Oleomargarine (Fraudulent 

 Sale) Bill by Sir Richard Paget, the other, the Butter Sub- 

 stitutes Bill by Mr. Mayne. After some discussion the Council 

 expressed their preference for the former. Sir Richard Paget 

 said that in 1886 the importation of butter substitutes 

 amounted to 800,000 cwt., of a declared value of about two 

 millions sterling ; so even at that date it was a considerable 

 industry, though it is doubtful if much was made in this 

 country. In spite of the quantity imported, it was said to 

 be impossible to find a shop that sold any of this commodity 

 except as butter. 



The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who altered 

 its title to the " Butter Substitutes Bill," and reported favour- 

 ably upon it. On 7th June the Council discussed the Bill 

 further, and strongly urged the Government to press forward 

 the measure ; they also urged individual Members of Parlia- 

 ment to give it their support. The Bill ultimately passed 

 under the title of the " Margarine Act, 1887." 



In April, 1892, the Council passed a resolution asking for 

 further legislation, as the Margarine Act had proved a failure. 

 Next month the Council set up a Special Committee, called the 

 Margarine Committee, among its members being Sir Richard 

 Paget (Chairman), Mr. Carrington Smith, Mr. Middleton and 

 Mr. F. J. Lloyd. They presented a report to the Council 

 the following month, but it contained no definite suggestions, 

 so Mr. James Lowther (Vice-Chairman of the Chamber) 

 objected to copies being sent to Ministers, and his objection 

 was upheld by the meeting. 



The following November this Committee presented a 

 further report, stating that a return , moved for by Sir Richard 



