ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 29 February 1860)

§ MR. WISE
said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield) he rose to move that the House go into Committee on this Bill. An inquiry had been ordered three Sessions ago, into the subject of the adulteration of food and drink. The Committee made its Report in 1856, and subsequently the matter was discussed in the House, but nothing had been done. The Committee, however, had established the fact that adulteration was practised wherever it was possible. It had, in truth, become such a science, that other coun- 2026 tries, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, the United States, and Belgium had been compelled to take very strong measures to put a stop to this degraded and disgraceful system. Adulteration was in the highest degree an injustice and hardship on the poor; that fact alone should be an inducement to the House to go into Committee. The wealthier classes were able to protect themselves, the poor could not do so. The Report of the Committee proved that by the systematic adulteration of articles of food and drink, the public health was endangered, pecuniary frauds were extensively practised, and the moral character of the country deeply affected. It was no answer to the demand for legislative interference to say that the purchaser might protect himself. Least of all was that an answer in the case of the poor man who had enough to do to earn his bread without spending time in analysing it. He believed that many more persons died actually poisoned, than was generally supposed. Nux vomica and arsenic were common elements in articles consumed by the people. And as there were punishments for the makers of base coin, so ought there to be punishments for those who poisoned the public. The system had hitherto remained unchecked; the maxim had been caveat emptor; it was high time it should be caveat vendor. The Report of the Committee enumerated:— The leading articles that were more or less commonly adulterated; these are, arrowroot, adulterated with potato and other starches; bread, with potatoes, plaster of Paris, alum, and sulphate of copper; bottled fruits and vegetables with certain salts of copper; coffee with chicory, roasted wheat, beans, and mangel-wurzel; chicory with roasted wheat, carrots, sawdust, and Venetian red; cocoa with arrowroot, potato-flour, sugar, chicory, and some ferruginous red earths; Cayenne with ground rice, mustard husk, & c, coloured with red lead, Venetian red, and turmeric; gin' with grains of Paradise, sulphuric acid, and Cayenne; lard with potato-flour, mutton suet, alum, carbonate of soda, and caustic lime; mustard with wheat-flour and turmeric; marmalade with apples or turnips; porter and stout (though sent out in a pure state from the brewers) with water, sugar, treacle, salt, alum, cocculus Indicus, grains of Paradise, nux vomica, and sulphuric acid; pickles and preserves with salts of copper; snuff with various chromates, red lead, lime, and powdered glass; tobacco with water, sugar, rhubarb, and treacle; vinegar with water, sugar, and sulphuric acid; jalap with powered wood; opium with poppy capsules, wheat-flour, powdered wood, and sand; scammony with wheat-flour, chalk, resin, and sand; confectionary with plaster of Paris and other similar ingredients, coloured with various pigments of a highly-poisonous nature, and acid drops, purporting to be compounded of 2027 Jargonelle pear, Ribston pippin, lemon, & c with essential oils containing prussic acid or other dangerous ingredients. The adulteration of drugs is extensively practised; and when it is borne in mind that the correctness of a medical prescription rests on an assumed standard of strength and purity in the drugs or compounds employed, and how frequently life itself depends upon the efficacy of the medicines prescribed, it is difficult to exaggerate the evils arising from this prevalent fraud. The adulteration of drinks deserves also special notice, because your Committee cannot but conclude that the intoxication so deplorably prevalent is in many cases less duo to the natural properties of the drinks themselves, than to the admixture of narcotics or other noxious substances intended to supply the properties lost by dilution. Though adulterations prevail more or less in all districts, it may he assumed, as a rule, that the poorer the district, the greater is the amount of adulteration. Nor have the poor the same power to protect themselves against such frauds as their richer neighbours; they are necessarily limited to such means of purchase as are afforded by the immediate locality in which they reside, and are, moreover, too often bound to one dealer by the facilities of credit which he affords them. The House would see it was a subject worthy of some consideration; and in Committee they would be able to say whether the clauses of the Bill were adapted to secure the object they must all have in view. One fact alone was almost enough to persuade the House to go into Committee. Dr. Hassall in his evidence described a kind of spurious tea called "Lie Tea"— a very fit name for it, though it was given by the Chinese—used to adulterate other qualities; and it was found that much of what was sold to the poor as tea contained no tea whatever. One sample was brought before the Committee, by which, though it excited a smile, they were much disgusted. Large quantities of tea were mixed with silkworms' dung; it was called and sold as "gunpowder tea." Of course the Committee did not venture to taste it, but they were assured its flavour was very peculiar; yet it found a large market in the poor parts of the metropolis, as the silkworms' dung gave it the appearance of great strength. The only other article he would allude to was wine. The facts not only bore on this question, but at this moment had an interest in respect of another discussion. Dr. Challice in his evidence stated:— Wine is an absolute necessary for the poor when they are recovering from sickness; they have no means of getting pure wine; the adulteration of it is fearful. I have seen many instances in which, when I have recommended port wine, and it has been procured at publichouses, instead of acting as a wholesome stimulant and a restorative astringent, it has produced pain, 2028 acidity, griping, irritation, and mischief, instead of good. It is a matter of notoriety, I believe, that a composition is sold as a substitute for port wine. I believe the astringency imparted to the liquid is by alum; I believe there to be an infusion of logwood; I believe there to be sloe-juice and sugar; it is a chemical combination entirely different from port wine.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he highly approved of the object of the Bill, and would concur in any means that would put an end to the adulteration of food and drink; but after an examination of the provisions of the measure, he had reluctantly arrived at the opinion that it would not secure the object intended; and that no alteration would make it do so. It would do no more than introduce a useful principle, that it was the duty of the Government to interfere to prevent adulteration. In the interests of Ireland he should be glad to support an effective measure; the trade in Irish butter was seriously injured by the importation of foreign butter adulterated with tallow, flour, and water. Beef suet was exported from England for the purpose of adulterating foreign butter, which could be sold in this country at a lower price than the genuine Irish. The consequence has been that the importation of Irish butter had declined from 10,000 casks weekly to 3,030. The Bill provided no means of stopping this adulteration. He would suggest an effectual remedy. Instead of a parish analyst, they should have a competent board of analysts, connected with the Board of Trade, or the Board of Health, who should be empowered to enter any shop, and analyze every commodity for sale. They might take the parish beadle and churchwardens, if it was thought proper, to assist them; but they should have the power of making their visits without notice; their reports to be lodged with the chief of the Board, with marks 1, 2, 3, and 4, according to the ascertained quality of the goods; these numbers to be inserted in the London Directory every year, attached to the tradesman's name. In this way shopkeepers would soon find it their interest not only to sell unadulterated articles, but to get as high on the list of excellence as possible. To show that this scheme was not impracticable, he instanced the article of Cork butter, which, it was well known, was classified and branded according to quality No. 1 up to 6; and the various qualities 2029 were sold according to the brands, without looking at the butter.

§ MR. CAVE
said, he thought some protection was required for the poor, especially in villages where there was perhaps only one shop they could deal with; yet it was just in such cases that the provisions of this Bill would most likely become inoperative. It was requisite that the purchaser should go before a justice and complain that the article sold was adulterated. He should like to see a poor man enter the shop he had been dealing with after such a complaint. The plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cork county was rather a strong one, but it was carried out at this day in France—a country from which we had taken lessons of late. Officers went all over the country, going into every shop and analyzing every article, with summary power of destroying everything which did not come up to the standard. This was a very effectual process, as he could himself bear testimony. In one town where he had lived there was no milk one morning for breakfast; it turned out, on inquiry, that the milk was found, on application of the lacteometer by the octroi authorities, to be very much adulterated, and the cans were emptied into the gutter. There had been many complaints of the milk before, but after that its quality was very much improved. The salaries of the analysts would require to be very large, or they would be apt either on the one hand to be bribed, or to become the instruments of oppression on the other. He should be glad to see the objections he had stated to this Bill removed; but he feared it would be inoperative, so far as protection to the poor was concerned.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, he thought, although the Bill did not contain all the provisions that might be desired, the first clause was a great improvement on the present law. There was now no power to go before a magistrate and obtain a summary conviction for any of the offences set out in the first clause; it was necessary to adopt the cumbrous machinery of an indictment. There was much force in the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) that the working classes were not anxious to carry tradesmen before the magistrates; but still less were they willing to incur the inconvenience and expense of proceeding by indictment, as they were obliged to do under the present law. He thought the first clause would be rendered more efficacious by a slight change in the 2030 Phrase "pure and unadulterated." He would substitute "or" for "and;" and in this way they would make provision for cases in which articles were mixed, such as coffee with chicory, which the present law did not meet. The word "warranted" should certainly be struck out, as it would give rise to endless difficulty. This was a question of great importance, but if they passed no other clause of the Bill except the first, even in a modified form, it would be a step in the right direction. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to get into Committee.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, that he sincerely hoped some measure would pass on this subject. The Committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, had sat a year and a-half. They saw the great difficulties of the question, and this was not the least, to define what adulteration really was. He hoped in Committee that difficulty might not be found insurmountable.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he had no wish to prevent the Bill getting into Committee, although he had opposed a somewhat similar measure on a former occasion, and would still have objections to urge against some of the provisions contained in this Bill.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he feared the Bill, if enacted, instead of being found by the poor to be a protection, and used by them to prosecute tradesmen selling adulterated provisions, would eventually be a dangerous weapon in the hands of rival traders against each other. What the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. V. Scully) said as to the branding of butter, was quite correct; but there was no analogy between Cork butter and adulterated food; and the very fact of a tradesman having got the highest certificate for a cask of butter one day, might be used by him as a cloak to sell a more adulterated article the next. He had no objection to going into Committee, but he foresaw considerable difficulty in carrying out a really good principle.

§ MR. WALTER
observed, that the difficulty suggested as to the mode of enforcing the provisions of this Act, might be got over by a very simple expedient. The principle involved in this Bill appeared to be analogous to that which already existed in the law respecting false weights and measures. The Bill was intended to apply to articles, in respect of quality, securities which the law now provided in respect of measures. He saw no reason why the same 2031 machinery should not be used for remedying the grievance complained of in one case as in the other; why the inspector of measures, for instance, should not be the authorized person to procure samples of the different articles of food sold in any shop or in stock, to place them before the analyst, and, if found adulterated in quality, to lay them before the magistrates in the same way as in a case of false weights or measures—without throwing the disagreeable duty on the poor customer or rival tradesmen. The real difficulty, as already suggested, would be to define what adulteration was. His belief was, that there was, perhaps, no single article of food unadulterated, except eggs and meat. Tradesmen had not yet found out the way of getting into eggs, and butcher's meat was, no doubt, sold in a tolerably pure state. But with respect to groceries, everybody knew they were nearly all adulterated, more or less. It might be doubted, however, whether bread, not being made of flour only, might not be considered as adulterated in the eye of the law, and introduce entire confusion into the trade.

§ MR. AYRTON
expressed a hope that the House would proceed to consider the provisions of the Bill in Committee. He had himself opposed the measure which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham last Session; but he found that many of the objections he had entertained against that Bill had been removed in the one which was then under their notice. Its provisions were threefold; first it provided that it should be penal to mix with articles of food anything injurious to health. Well, no man could claim a right to sell articles injurious to health, and he could see no objection to that provision. Then there was a clause to the effect that where a tradesman undertook to guarantee articles of food as pure and unadulterated, when they were not so, he should be liable to a penalty. That provision, however, left it to a tradesman to carry on his business as he pleased. If he chose to sell his goods without a guarantee he could do so. As matters at present stood, it was not pretended that London bread, London milk, and London gin, were sold as pure and unadulterated articles. A third peculiarity of this measure was that it established a board of local analysts, instead of having recourse to Government interference. In so doing the Bill did not create a new offence, but gave the people a summary remedy for an exist- 2032 ing offence when committed to their prejudice. If the argument as to borough magistrates sitting in judgment on tradesmen were sound, it was quite time to put an end to borough magistrates altogether. Those magistrates heard cases against working men; and why should they not also administer justice where tradesmen were concerned? If subject to the jurisdiction of the bench, why should not the working man also have its protection against the misconduct of those who assumed to be his betters? It might be that the poor would not be able often to enforce this power, but it would be something gained if it were known that they possessed it. Moreover, if rival tradesmen also aided in the punishment of each other's delinquencies, the mischief might be borne for the good that would accompany it; for when rogues fell out honest men might come by their own. It had been an established principle of our jurisprudence from the earliest ages that the local authorities should take cognizance of the sale of food. The corporation of the City of London held an inspection of markets, its officers being authorized to seize and destroy all unwholesome articles. In the present day, every shop in the metropolis was a market overt, and new machinery was required in place of the ancient to put down imposition and fraud.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he was by no means opposed to going into Committee; on the contrary, he thought they should have been in Committee an hour ago.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he thought the Bill would be inoperative, inasmuch as in every case of sale in which any article of food or drink with which to the knowledge of the seller any ingredient or material calculated to injure health had been mixed, it would be necessary to prove not only that there was something injurious to life and health in the article sold, but also that the seller knew it to be so; and how was this to be done? In case of alleged adulteration, also, it would be necessary to prove not only that the commodity was adulterated, but that the vender was aware of it. The second part of the clause required that the tradesman should have given a warranty that the article was a pure one; but a mere representation that the article was of a certain character was not a warranty; and it would be unreasonable to expect that a tradesman 2033 would give a written engagement that an article was of a certain quality. Take the article of cayenne pepper, which was repeatedly sold as adulterated. It would be necessary first of all to inquire of the tradesman whether he guaranteed the article, then to analyze it; and if anything deleterious was found, to prove that the tradesman knew it was there, and knew it to be injurious. There was a peddling legislation that was more mischievous than leaving things in their original mischief. He believed if this Bill were carried into effect it would create such confusion in London that no shopkeeper would pass a quiet life. Legislation was a difficult art; there was no royal road to this science, and this had never been rendered more evident than by the provisions of this Bill.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the probability of the first part of this clause being inoperative. They were all aware of the difficulty of proving knowledge on the part of the vender; but still the offence was now cognizable by law, and he saw no objection to allow a summary conviction rather than an indictment. But he was entirely opposed to the second part of the clause which related to the furnishing of a warranty to the purchaser of an article. If that were to be a mere implied warranty it would have no force, as the difficulty of proof would be insuperable; and if an express warranty were meant, no person would give it. The whole question would therefore remain just as at present. He was afraid the first clause would tend to bring into discussion before the magistrates every transaction between man and man; and that it would produce the greatest possible irritation and uneasiness to tradesmen, without affording any protection whatever to the poorer classes, and it would be absurd to expect that an express warranty would be given in cases of that description.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he would admit that there was very great difficulty in legislating on questions of sumptuary law. The poorer classes required some protection from the system of adulteration; but the difficulty of providing that protection was demonstrated by the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. Scully) had pronounced a eulogium on Irish butler, the produce of the fat fields represented by his hon. Friend; but, first of all, this Bill did not extend to Ireland; and, in the 2034 next place, Irish butter only came in here in the form of little pats. There would therefore be great difficulty in instituting the classification recommended by his hon. Friend. The principle of the Bill no doubt was good, and he should be glad if it could be safely carried out, but it appeared to him that the effect of adopting the machinery of this measure would be to give employment to informers, and to give rise to great confusion and annoyance. It would be no easy task to bring home a guilty knowledge to the vender. Suppose the case of French wines imported under the new Treaty; the analyst might detect some article injurious to life or health, the answer of the seller would be that he knew nothing of it—he received it from France or his wine merchant as a pure and wholesome wine; he was not aware of any deleterious quality it possessed, and should not be held responsible. This not being a charge against the manufacturer, but against the seller, the difficulty of proof would be very great. Then as regarded the second part of the clause, there was great difficulty in the warranty. What was a warranty? Not a mere representation. The auctioneer who described a picture as a Canaletti and Reynolds did not warrant the picture to be painted by the artists whom he named. He thought that the word warranty as it stood in the clause was quite unwarrantable, and could not be maintained.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he thought that there was insuperable objection to the early part of the clause. It was not only very difficult to prove the scienter, because the tradesmen must be shown to have known not only that something was mixed with a given article, but that that something was injurious and deleterious, but then the scienter had to be tried, not in the ordinary way by a jury, but by the magistrates. Such a jurisdiction would be most dangerous, and as the borough justices were often tradesmen themselves the anomaly might be produced of one set of tradesmen sitting in judgment on the knowledge or intentions of their rivals. The animosities and the scandal which such a state of things would engender might be easier conceived than described. Again, the remedy provided by the Bill, such as it was, would be confined to the metropolis and the other towns of England, its machinery being inapplicable to the whole of the rural districts, as well as to Scotland and Ireland generally. More- 2035 over, where nothing was done that was positively injurious to health, why were they to make a different law for the sale of articles of food from that which extended to the sale of calico, cutlery, and similar articles? The State ought not to pretend to protect the buyer by a warranty in the one case more than in the other. Besides, if a shopkeeper sold anything noxious to health he would commit an offence under the measure introduced by the Home Secretary, for sending before a jury persons who had administered to others hurtful things knowingly and, therefore, maliciously. Useless Bills like the present were prejudicial to the progress of sound legislation.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he believed that much of the objection urged to the clause would be obviated by the omission of the words "knowledge of such persons," and also of the word "warranted." He should, therefore, propose that they be omitted. A person guilty of selling a deleterious article through negligence might be fairly subjected to a fine.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the omission of the words would make the clause wholly inoperative, and the Motion then before the Committee was that Clause I be omitted. The Bill was only explanatory of the actual state of the law; and with regard to the technical objection as to the difficulty of proving the scienter, that objection would apply equally to the whole common law of England. So, also, the objection brought to the jurisdiction of the country magistrates would equally apply to every other instance in which they were concerned. But it had always been part of the common law of England that the cognizance of the quality of articles offered for food should be submitted to local authority. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his opposition.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for the Home Department, whether he approved the clause as originally propounded. There would be no impracticability in convicting a man of selling an article that was injurious to health; the difficulty would be in proving that he knew the article to be of that nature. The objection to the clause, therefore, was not that it would be perfectly impracticable, but that it would be most unjust. Suppose a shopkeeper unwittingly sold a bottle of pickles that had been made unwholesome by sulphate of copper—per- 2036 haps even by the putting of a halfpenny into the bottle? They could not say the seller ought to have been more cautious, because the only sufficient precaution he could take would have been to eat the pickles himself. A tradesman was once accused of selling flour mixed with plaster of Paris. The man stoutly denied the charge, but the analyst proved the fact of the admixture. To test the matter further, however, the tradesman then took a bushel of the grain, put it into a mill and ground it, and still the analyst found plaster of Paris in the flour.

MR. HENLEY
said, the clause as it originally stood would be inoperative, but the Amendment would make it mischievous. What authority was to decide—not on what was injurious, but on what was "calculated" to be "injurious" to the health of the particular person buying an article? Fancy a couple of magistrates sitting in judgment on that grave question with the conflicting evidence of half-a-dozen doctors before them. Take the common article of wine. Suppose the analyst, a teetotaller—a quite possible case—found 40 per cent of proof spirit in it, or even more, owing to the doctoring it had undergone after passing through the Excise, there might be great difference of opinion whether that wine was not "calculated to be injurious" to some particular person far gone in some disease. How was the tradesman, when he looked into a man's face, to know whether or not the article was calculated to injure him. The magistrates would be equally puzzled to determine such a question. He thought if the country was to be subjected to such an ordeal as the Bill would create, their desire to remedy what no doubt was a great mischief would be leading them much too far.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, the difficulty stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was purely imaginary. Indeed he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the meaning of the clause. As it at present stood it would not be supposed to apply to the case of an individual in a particular state of health. The object was to prevent the sale of any article with which was mixed some material which was injurious to health, and following the dictates of common sense the clause would necessarily be construed as looking to the influence of the article upon the health of the community generally, and not to what might 2037 possibly be injurious to the right hon. Gentleman's ideal sick person. The question of knowledge, as in other similar cases, would have to be decided by inference, and considering that difficulties would arise under this Bill which did not arise under the present law, he thought that the word should be retained in the clause.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he must submit that they were a little splitting hairs in the matter. The wording of the clause would, however, be improved by the substitution of the words in the Nuisances Removal Act "injurious to health" for the words "calculated to injure health." He, therefore would propose that alteration. One of the commonest questions which Courts of law had to decide, even amid very conflicting evidence, was whether a particular thing was or was not detrimental to health. He would further suggest that words should be inserted extending the clause to "the manufacturer for sale" as well as to the seller. The manufacturer had often a more intimate knowledge of the adulteration than the actual seller.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, it was not necessary to mention the manufacturer specially, because, as he manufactured for sale, he would be included in the general category of sellers.

§ MR. WISE
said, he could not consent to the omission of the words "knowledge of such persons;" because those words meant a knowledge that the articles were sold for what they really were. He would call attention to an Act of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. relating to the preparing of flour and the making of bread in the metropolis. By that statute any baker might make bread of wheat, barley, oats, Indian corn, peas, beans, rice, or potatoes, or any of them; but there was an important proviso attached to that provision—namely, that in the case of wheaten flour being mixed with the other articles named, the baker was bound to put a large Roman "M" on each loaf, signifying that it was mixed. That was what he understood to be comprehended in the word "knowledge" in connection with such a matter.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, that fearing that he might endanger the passing of the Bill if he sought to make it more stringent, he would withdraw his first Amendment for expunging the words "the knowledge of such persons."

§ MR. CLIVE
repeated that he had no objection to the first portion of the clause, which was not likely to be attended with any great effect; but he could not consent to the adoption of that portion of the clause which related to the warranty.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he wished to amend the clause, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. E. James), by inserting the words "injurious to health," instead of the words "calculated to injure health."

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought it rather hard upon the House that the Government, having such a bad opinion as the Under-Secretary of State had just expressed of this legislation, should, nevertheless, permit it to go on. Sanitary questions were a fertile source of contradictory swearing on the part of medical men and other witnesses, and a notable instance of this might be found among the numerous complaints made before magistrates against the keepers of pigsties.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he hoped the Under-Secretary of State would take the sense of the Committee whether they should go on with the clause or not. If, as that hon. Gentleman thought, the clause would be useless or inoperative, it would be only wasting time to discuss it word by word.

§ MR. HANKEY
said, he trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn, because it would be quite impossible to act upon it. In innumerable shop windows in that metropolis they saw "pure unadulterated gin" advertised, and yet everybody knew that the article did not answer the description thus given of it.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he would remind the Committee that if this clause were rejected the whole Bill would fall to the ground. He thought that the Government ought really to state their intentions. If they objected to the Bill, the fairest course would have been to oppose the second reading. It was remarkable that the name of a Member of the Government (Mr. Villiers) appeared on the back of the Bill.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he did not object to the first part of the clause, because he believed it to be inoperative. He would not object, in cases where a conviction under the criminal law could now be obtained before a jury, to give power to magistrates to deal with such cases.

§ LORD EDWARD HOWARD
thought this was especially the time for such a 2039 Bill, when we were about to admit nearly all articles freely into this country. If the Bill were abandoned, it must be taken that all attempts to prevent adulteration in food in this country would fail. If this, the third Bill introduced after the labours during two years of a Committee, were rejected, he could only say, God help the poor.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he thought the argument of the Under-Secretary of State was a curious one. He would ask him whether he would permit a man to be tried for murder before a magistrate?

§ MR. HANKEY
said, that with a view to stop the further progress of a measure which he considered impracticable, he would move that the chairman should leave the Chair.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he should resist the Motion. Nearly all who had spoken had admitted that the object of the Bill was a desirable one, and the only argument against it was that it was impracticable. He believed that in nearly every other country in Europe some such law prevailed, and he could not see why that which was practicable and useful in Paris and Brussels should be impracticable in London.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, he would then propose to substitute the word "or" for "and," so as to make the clause read, "pure or unadulterated."

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, that he could not understand the distinction between pure and unadulterated.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
proposed to omit the words "to the knowledge of such person" in the clause, so as to prevent persons from sheltering themselves under an assumed ignorance that the article they sold was adulterated.

§ MR. HARDY
objected to conferring upon two magistrates the power of deciding what amounted to a breach of warranty. Why ought they to distinguish between articles of food and other articles? In ordinary cases a jury was called in to decide between parties, and upon what principle ought they to confer jurisdiction upon magistrates with respect to the articles of food?

§ MR. AYRTON
replied that no difficulty was found in conferring powers upon magistrates to punish workmen for breach of a civil engagement with their employers. It was only fair, therefore, to give the 2040 workmen a turn, and deal out to them the same measure of justice as was dealt out to tradesmen—their employers. Let them, too, have the benefit of the same summary procedure. He thought there was reason to complain of the little assistance which the Government were rendering to the passing of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State appeared in his place only for the purpose of criticising the Bill and throwing difficulties in its way, when he ought rather to be dedicating the powers of his astute mind to their solution. After the decided opinion on the part of the House last Session, with reference to the objects of this Bill, he thought it would have been becoming in the Government if they had sought to give expression to that opinion.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he wished to express a hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham would consent to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully.)

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, that the words "with the knowledge of such persons" were really introduced for the protection of tradesmen. At the same time, he thought it possible their insertion might render the Bill harmless, and consequently inoperative. On the other hand, as a tradesman would be liable to be punished for a second offence, the plea of ignorance would only avail him once, and therefore he thought the clause had better stand as it was.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
suggested that it be postponed, and inasmuch as it implied the adoption of the 3rd and 4th, by which its machinery was to be carried out.

§ MR. HARDY
said, he wanted to know why the operation of the Bill was to be confined to the metropolis and towns while the rural districts were excluded.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, the reason was very plain, that he wished to discourage opposition to the Bill, the Bill being somewhat of an experiment, and for that reason also he had omitted reference to Ireland.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, in order that the Bill should be made to ex- 2041 tend to the rural districts, he would move the insertion of the words "Courts of Quarter Session in every county" before the words "in Town Councils of every municipal borough."

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the Amendment proposed would not harmonize with the rest of the Bill as it stood.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, the words in question might be introduced in the report.

§ MR.MONSELL
thought the Amendment an excellent one.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he would bring up his Amendment on the report.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he wished to move a verbal Amendment, in order to raise a question as to the appointment of two analysts for each district, to be paid out of the rates by the vestries. This was extremely objectionable. The analysts would give their certificates ex-parte. A poor man who bought 3d. worth of ginger would have to pay 2s. 6d. for a certificate; and, moreover, the tradesman would be thereupon subject to a penalty. Besides, the Bill was merely optional with the borough or town to appoint analysts. Let offences be punished, but let them be punished in a legal and proper manner. Let there be proper evidence, and upon that evidence, but not otherwise, let the magistrates convict.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, that, according to the provisions of the clause as it stood, there was first to be a public analyst; in the next place, the parties could employ analysts themselves; and in the third place, the magistrate could employ a skilled person God help the magistrate who might have to deal with the conflicting evidence of all the analysts. He thought the clause required alteration.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
remarked that he did not think that Clause 2 was open to the various objections cited against it by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone. Analysts were not forced upon districts which did not care about eating or drinking nasty, unwholesome food. There ought to be some competent person who would give an opinion upon the quality of food. Neither would the proceedings be ex-parte, because under the second clause, notice must be given to venders so that they should have every opportunity of meeting the adverse testimony.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he had introduced the clause at the express desire of the Select Committee, who thought that the appointment of analysts was essential to the satisfactory and successful working of the Act.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, that the mode of seeking a remedy under the Bill was very roundabout. The appointment of public analysts would be an inducement to men of that profession to go about looking for business, and that would lead to vexatious proceedings against tradesmen. If, however, they were found to be desirable, they could be appointed afterwards.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he thought the clause necessary for the protection of the poor, who could not afford to have their food and drink analyzed by private chemists.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
remarked, that he objected, not to analysts, but to the proposed mode of their appointment.

§ MR. STEUART
mentioned that the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland had appointed an officer to analyze adulterated manures. He saw no reason why their example should not be followed in the case of food and drink.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the vestrymen had the matter in their own hands. It was in favour of the tradesmen of the district that the vestries and ratepayers should have the appointment of analysts. The clause was merely permissive.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
asked, for how long was the analyst to be appointed, or was he to become a fixed officer? Should they not fix a term?

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, he contemplated the appointment of an officer who would be removable at the pleasure of those who had appointed him.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
was not in favour of the appointment of analysts in the manner proposed, as public inspectors were not to be appointed. He did not see how the clauses, as they stood, could be any protection to the poor man.