The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-03-13 00:00:00

3toarlyibge 0125crinr.

SATURDAY, MARCH 13 18C9.

ADULTERATION& SHORT WEIGHT
A discession has taken place in the House of
Coosomna est wnat we consider to be a must im-
port-tot •snhject, and we much regret that Lord
Eustace Cecil " took nothing by his motion."
The proposal which his lordship laid before the
House for its acceptance was this :—" That 'n
the opinion of this House, it is expedient that
her Majesty's Government should give their
earliest attention ti the wide-spread and most
reprehensible practices of using false weights
and measures, and of adulterating food, drink,
and drugs, with the view of amending the law as '
re.ztirtis the penalties now ins:lb:tea f ir these of-
fences, and of providing inure etli :lent Melll4
for the discovery aud prevention of fetus]." Wu
think that the mover made out, if not an wow-
'seeable, at least a very strong ease in favolle of
farther legislation on this subject. Bitt before
examining his statements, let us first look at the
lel' of adulteration is it now stands. In 1853
the late Mr, fieholetield obtained it committee
dining two sessions took evidence on the
adulteration of food. drinks, and drugs. They
found that adulteration existed to an immense
*stem, and is the report of this committee a
Lill was broug .t ia by Mr, Sholeftell, and w: s
passe I. Tot, law is simply permissive. It
ives to corporatmlis mid magistrates the power
to appoint publin analysts, Wil,Ae ditty it is to
aid in putting the Act in force if the politic tisk,
the iititiative. The Act inflicts a penalty of £3
for the first offence of adulterating food or drink,
sad for the second (deuce it taruishes not only
by tine, but by the public expos:ire of the name
of the guilty party; but the Act does not apply
to articles sod as medicine. Now the experi-
euce of every one must bear out the assertion
mat this Act is almost wholly inoperative, and
for a very sufficient reason—it throws time times
of proof and of prosecution on the public, al-
ready injured by adulteration ; through the pay-
ment of money to have an article analysed, and
the loos of time in prosecution, the Act really
inflicts an additional injury upon the public,
from which of course they can escape by letting
the original offender go scot free; and the pub-
lic, as well as the adulterators, escape according-
ly. As Lord Eustace Cecil points out, there is
not a word in the Act about the appointment of
really good inspectors or supervisors. The
main point in which the Act fails, indeed, is that
it is par.dy permissive and optional. It need
not lie put in force, and, as a rule, with scarcely
any exception, it never is.
Tee -srgaineists by which the mover of the
shove resulntion supported it were briefly' these:
that the purity of drink is of the first import-
ance to the working man; that every witness
before the Malt Tax Committee proved that
public-house beer is adulterated ; that owalits
indictis is lerg,ely employed in such adulteration,
its effect being most injurious; that lime:knee,
in its pure state the most powerful autagenist to
curvy, is greatly adulterated ; that adulteration
is common ti wit articles susceptible of it ;
that the absence of supervision fosters the evil ;
and that continental nations have far better laws
on tee subject than we have.
Mr. Pochin, while answering some of Lord
Eustace Cecil's statements, indirectly substan-
tiated others, and showed that there is a great
need for reform. He thinks that the reason
why there are not more prosecutions under the
Act is because adult-ration is " Not so general
as the House and the country had imagined."
feel convinced, however, that the real reason is,
as we have stated it, the permissive and optional
character of the Act, must the unfair burden of
prosecution which it imposes on the public.
Adulteration, he says, is of two classes—that
which redeems the commeecial value of an arti-
cle, tad that which remidrs it injurious to health,
and while he thinks there is but iittle of the lat-
ter, he considers there is " a vast amount " of
the former. TI one why not try to stop it by
so nod legislation? As to his assertion that
ada t nettion us daily d, creasing, it is not suppor-
tsoi oy a word it proof, and wit in sy take sic-hi a
statement fur what it is worth; aissi how much
It may he worth may perlseps ho judged by the
eutaininiuti statoomot that Cure is in this comb
try " au estssnre ale4tiat of a laiteration, wimisit
La a hada upon the coutaiituity," Then why
bet, we repeat. try to stop this fermi
From Mr. Bright, Presideut of the Board of
Trade. we might hare expected better things
than a semi-apology for adulteration, and a plea
to let things slice. Ailit teratidn, lie says,
"arses from the Met itahle ‘:.,11 :anima of busi-
ness, and is promoted and mutat ea by tile ig-
memo.) of custoniere." lied a rijid law at anti-

laslteration croniri Vans this competition on a
fairer basis; while as to the "ivorance of cue-
" we ought to real leelyks“,94. Mr.
Bright. we believe, exaggerate 3 the diftleniti?s
of dealing with this subject by legislation. No
hiar could, of course, entirely prevent it; hut we
might at least have the prevent law maic more
stringent, and co Aimed with a system of inspec-
tion.
'f ho law as to defective weights and measures
is also in a very unsatisfactory state ; hut all at-
tempts to improve it mast he futile till the re-
port of the Standards' Commission appears. We
have this nnfortnnate habit of shelving and hid-
ing evils by gettin,y a commission to inquire into
them, and then nothing is done for years, end
in many cases nothing is done at all. Lord
Enstace Cecil, however, has done welt to draw
public attention to it. lint he must not stop
hero, lie must persevere, session after Session,
tills much-desired reform is fleeted.