§ MR. ISAACasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether sub-sections 1 and 4 of Clause 6 of "The Food and Drugs Act, 1875," would not exempt from penalties persons selling Spirits reduced with water in the natural and customary course of trade, and without fraud to the purchaser; whether he is aware that prosecutions have recently taken place for reducing Gin by its admixture with water; and, whether, inasmuch as in such case no fraud has been practised or intended, and the sales of Gin so reduced have been made at a lower price, such prosecutions are in accordance with the intentions of the Act; and, whether, if there exists any doubt as to the interpretation of the Act, he is prepared to introduce an amending Bill to exempt from penalties persons who sell Gin reduced with water, and not otherwise adulterated?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHIn reply to the first Question of my hon. Friend, I may say that if the water is added for the preparation of the gin as an article of commerce in a fit state for consumption, the 1st sub-section applies and no offence is committed; and, so far as in the process of distillation a certain amount of water remains mixed with the spirit, the provisions of sub-section 4 would likewise apply in bar of a prosecution. I am aware that certain prosecutions have recently taken place, and several cases have come before the Judges. The case of "Pashler v. Stevenitt" came before the Judges of Appeal on the 27th ultimo. In that case it appeared that the Justices in Petty Sessions held that gin at 44 per cent below proof could not be considered as gin, and the Judges held that the seller was properly convicted. It appeared that gin sold by retailers varies in strength from proof to 20 per cent under proof. The Judges held that the question was 1762 one for the magistrates, who must use their discretion on the facts before them, and that they had rightly decided that a mixture of water so far as 44 per cent below proof was a fraudulent increase of the measure of the liquid. A decision reported in to-day's newspapers is to the same effect. In reply to my hon. Friend's third Question, I cannot but hope that the effect of these decided cases will be to put an end to any uncertainty as to the interpretation of the Act, if such exists, and I am certainly not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce any amending Bill on the subject.