ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 21 June 1860)

LORD TEYNHAM
said, that as this clause now stood, the Bill, which was of great importance, would become an entire nullity. In order to convict it would be necessary to prove that the article was adulterated to the knowledge of the seller. Now it would be practically impossible to prove this knowledge. Take the case of milk. It was not too much to say that the lives of many of the infants of the poor were sacrificed owing to the adulterations in this commodity; but if the vendor were allowed to say, "I know nothing about the adulteration—I sell my milk as it was given to me," it would be impossible ever to bring home the charge either as to this or other articles. At the present moment, when provisions were so dear, it was of great importance that a poor man's family should receive the whole amount of nourishment they expected for the money which they expended. It was 760 said that the vendor might really be ignorant of the adulterations; but he maintained that a shopkeeper ought to have some knowledge of the quality of the articles he was selling, and in any case the amount of the penalty inflicted might vary according to the circumstances. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Amendment, To omit all the Words to the Word ('pure') in Line 14, for the Purpose of inserting the following—namely, ('Every Person who shall sell any simple Article of Food or Drink with which any foreign Ingredient has been mixed, or any composite Article with which any Ingredient injurious to the Health of Persons eating or drinking the same has been mixed, or which, though not injurious, has been added for the Purpose of Adulteration, or any simple Substance which has been in anywise treated so that its Virtues have been extracted, shall'")

§ LORD WENSLEYDALE
said, the Committee on this subject had agreed in recommending that the Bill should be confined to adulterations which were prejudicial to health; but the Amendment would render penal any admixture of foreign ingredients in articles sold. Now, he thought it would not be right to extend the operation of the Bill so far as this. It would be rather hard, for example, to inflict a penalty upon a milkman who had poured a little water into his milk. He thought also that a guilty knowledge should be essential to any conviction. It was possible that the article adulterated might have been bought from the wholesale dealer and sold without any fraudulent intention, in which case it would hardly be right to convict.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
also opposed the Amendment. The wholesome maxim of the law was—actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, and this should not now be departed from. Proof of the scienter was essential to constitute the legal offence.