SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 March 1872)

§ MR. MUNTZ
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was pleased to be able to observe that the subject had grown much in popular favour since people had begun to recognize the fact that it was not proposed to interfere with the practices of trade, but merely to put a stop to the adulteration of food by the mixture of articles poisonous or injurious to health. If anyone chose to mix beans with coffee, or water with milk, no one under this Act could say anything; but if any baker adulterated his bread with brick-dust, poison of any sort, or with plaster of Paris, the clauses of this Bill would render him liable to severe punishment. The Legislature of New Zealand had recently passed a law punishing such offences with imprisonment without the option of a fine. He was glad, however, to perceive that some of the clauses of this Bill had been incorporated in the Public Health Bill, and the further progress of his measure would, therefore, be rendered unnecessary, provided that Bill were passed. He would now, therefore, merely ask the House to allow the Bill to be read pro formâ a second time, and he intended to fix the Committee at such a date as would give ample time for the discussion of the Government Bill on the understanding that if that Bill passed he would move that the order for Committee on this Bill should be discharged.

§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL
said, that his hon. Friend deserved the greatest credit for his exertions in keeping this matter alive, and was glad that since he 1508 had first introduced the subject, some three years since, it had gained such ground as to be recognized in the Public Health Bill. The Bill which his hon. Friend had introduced was, in his opinion, not perfect, because it was too permissive in its character, and not sufficiently stringent. He was glad that a measure dealing as this one must with the interests of the poorer inhabitants of our larger towns would be brought in by the Government, and he should be prepared, in conjunction with his hon. Friend, to move at the proper time any clauses which it might be thought necessary to introduce.

§ SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN
hoped that adulteration would be defined to mean either substance added to or subtracted from the articles sold, whether they were injurious or not. If a pint of water were put into a gallon of milk, that was as much adulteration as if anything more injurious had been added. As a Commissioner to inquire into the lunatic asylums of Ireland, he found that there was deterioration in the health of the inmates in consequence of the guardians taking low contracts for the supply of skim milk, from which the cream had been subtracted. This was as much an adulteration as if some deleterious matter had been added, and this should be borne in mind when they came to consider the definitions.

§ MR. LOCKE
hoped the Public Health Bill of the Government would be compulsory, otherwise it would be ineffectual for its purpose.

§ MR. STANSFELD
trusted the second reading would be agreed to. He did not fear friendly rivalry, and readily gave his assurance that all suggestions for the improvement of the Public Health Bill would be thankfully received from all quarters. He only hoped hon. Members would not retard its progress by encumbering the Paper with unnecessary Amendments, so as to render it impracticable to pass the Bill this Session.