The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-23 00:00:00

ADULTERATION OF FOOD.

THE question raised by the recent Report of the
Commissioners on this subject, is as difficult as it is
interesting. The Times advocates a wholesale and
sweeping enactment against every species of adulter-
ation, harmless or otherwise. The Commissioners,
on the other band, limit their recommendations to
interference with such cases as involve either injury
to health or pecuniary fraud, the latter consisting in
selling the adulterated article at the same price as
the genuine. About the first•mentioned species,
such as the adulteration of beer and milk, and wine,
we apprehend there cannot be two opinions. All
deleterious adulterations should be checked by the
severest penalties. This point, therefore, we may
dismiss without further consideration. But in regard
to the second, the case does not stand in quite as
clear a light as could be sished. The question is—
what is pecuniary fraud ? To sell coffee and chicory
mixed for the same price as the best unmixed coffee ?
To sell a mixture of silk and cotton for the same
price as the best genuine silk? But this is a species
of fraud that can very seldom be practised, for the
simplest of all reasons. The great inducement held
out to the purchasers of adulterated goods, is the
difference of price. If it were not for this, they
would not go to the shops that advertise such goods.
We may have, therefore, legislative enactments
against this species of fraud, but they will be almost
a dead letter. We next come to the third branch of
adulterations, those, namely, which cheapen the
article sold down to the real marketable value of its
component parts ; and the practical question is, are
we to interfere with these? The one side of the ques-
tion is put with great force and ingenuity by the
Times :

The committee distinguish in the paragraph we have
quoted between simple adulteration and adulteration which
involves " pecuniary fraud," and assume that there is only
" pecuniary fraud " when the mixed or adulterated article
is sold at a higher price than the inferior substances with
which it is mixed would bring in the market,—that is to

795

say, they only allow fraud to consist in charging more for
an article than its component materials are actually worth.
But there not fraud in calling an article what it is not,
and selling it as genuine when it is really raised? It will
be said, " Oh ! the public virtually know this ; they know
that if articles were really genuine they would have to pay
more for them, and they would not like to have to pay mare ;
so they are substantially responsible for the present com-
position of these articles." But we reply, in the tint plane,
that this is certainly not true of one portion of the public.
The classes that can afford to buy the genuine article want
to have it, but the present system prevents them. However
willing they may be to pay for it, it is not to be had for
love or money. Here is an obvious injustice, then. A man
wants to buy genuine coffee, and he buys coffee mixed with
chicory, roasted wheat, beans, and mangoldwurzel. It is
very poor consolation to him to be informed that he has
got the chicory, roasted wheat, beans, and mangoldwurzel
at the proper market price of those substances ; for even
if has got them under the market price he is ill-used,
because he did not want them at any price.

But in our opinion the Times is begging the ques-
tion at least as much as the committee. We do not
believe that if a man in London wants a genuine
article he cannot get it, and we do not believe that
many persons buy mixed articles under the impres-
sion that they are genuine. The poor are not so
benighted as to suppose that they alone are per-
mitted to purchase the best goods at an inferior
price. To fancy that they buy them under this
price is an outrage on the common sense of the lower
orders which they do not in the least deserve ; while,
if any educated man choose to give tenpence for an
article which he knows no tradesman can afford to
sell under half a crown, he must take the conse-
quences—there is no one to blame but himself.
One of the crying evils of the present day is the
rage for cheapness. This we should be glad to see
checked by any means in our power which would
not be a greater evil still. But we are inclined to
believe that the perpetual interference with trades-
men which a general system of inspectors and in-
formers would produce would make the remedy
worse than the disease. A tradesman depends on
his character, and the system of competition ought
to go a great way to reform the evil complained of.
The buyers and sellers at cheap shops are not
respectively divided into knaves and dupes, as many
people may suppose. When a man can supply his im-
mediate wants by the outlay of a small sum instead of
a large one, he will often yield to the temptation,
though knowing he will suffer for it in the long run.
Against this sort of folly legislative safeguards are
preposterous.

Our notion is, then, that the interference of the
law will have practically to be limited to those cases
of adulteration by which it is certain that health is
affected, and that the remaining cases must be left
to the operation of the law of supply and demand,
however much we may pity the unfortunate people
who are victimised by the prevalent passion for a
spurious economy.

Corresponttnct.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PEERS.°

Sir,—l rejoice to see you advocating so forcibly,
logically, and powerfully the necessity of Conserva-
tive union. I trust you will persevere in the good
cause, and go on bravely and feLrlessly. It is,
indeed, high time to call the attention of Conserva-
tives to the fact that apathy and indifference must
no longer continue ; but, on the contrary, that the
period Las arrived when it becomes not only the
policy bfit the duty of all true Conservatives to rally
round the banner of their party, and firmly and
unanimously uphold, ay, and enforce, the principles
of their political creed.
Exception has been taken by a respectable con;
temporary, for many years a consistent and energetic
supporter of Conservative opinions, to the speech
made by the right hon. member for Bucks at the
close of the recent session of Parliament—and
more especially to that portion of it which gave a
definition of what a Conservative policy is and
should be—special objection was made to the
following observations of Mr. Disraeli :—" I bold
that to be a conservative principle which regards the
parliamentary settlement of 11530 as a satisfactory
settlement," the objection being the word "satrsfac•
tory "; hut let us look at the context. The right hon.
gentlemen went on to say, "I hold that to be a con-
servative principle which, without any blind or
bigoted adherence to the doctrine on all possible
occasions, believes that tampering with the suffrage
is a great evil to the State. . . . I think it is a
conservative principle which holds that in any repre-
sentative scheme the influence of landed property
ought to be sensibly felt." Surely, sir, these words
define, as concisely and clearly as worth can, the
true doctrine which Conservatives ought to maintain
with regard to the franchise as applied to perlia•
mentary• representation. At 4 it will be recollected
that Mr. Disraeli, when he was leader of the House
of Commons, brought in a bill framed entirely upon
these principles, which Shad for its object the

796

creation of two large and important constituencies
in the room of certain boroughs which had been dis-
franchised.

The speech of Mr. Disraeli on his review of the
session was worthy of him as a statesman and a
Conservative leader—it was a bold and faithful ex-
position of the principles which should govern, and
the policy which should actuate, that party which he
so ably and worthily leads in the House of
Commons. That the speech was powerful and effec-
tive was proved by the manner in which it was
handled by the Ministerial organs—and well will it
be for the country when a Government shall be in
power ready and prepared to reduce to practice the
right hon. gentleman's ample programme of Con-
servative theories !

Although " Liberals " are for ever harping upon
what they are pleased to call the disorganisation of
the "Conservative party." how is it that they say so
little of the unity of their own ? They well know
they dare not—and they cannot appeal to the events
of last session as a proof of it; for it is notorious
that although a self styled Liberal Government held
possession of the Treasury benches, yet the innu-
merable times which upon a division of the house
they were placed in a minority, and that whenever
they found themselves in a majority it was owing
mainly to the votes of their opponents, clearly prove
that, instead of taunting their adversaries with a
want of organisation, it would be far better to look
to their own differences and dissensions. The
Post, which has the credit of being the special organ
of the Premier, but a few days ago maintained that
the present Government was Conservative, and that
its policy was Conservative—how will those gentle-
men who sit behind the Treasury bench digest suel►
a statement ? However, ►f the destruction of our
hereditary peerage, and an utter contempt for the
rights of property, come under the category of con-
servative measures, then, indeed, the Palmerston
Administration is as Conservative as could be wished.
If such be Conservatism according to the Post,
what, I would ask, would be its definition of
Liberalism ?

I have often tried to fathom what is the meaning
of the term "Liberal "; but I never yet succeeded
to my own satisfaction. " Liberal," indeed !
"liberal " on the hustings, of words—" liberal " of
promises, made to be broken—"liberal " of abuse of
their political opponents—" liberal" with the purse
of the nation, as witnessed in the wanton waste of
money for the new bridge at Westminster—
" liberal " towards the Civil Service, as exemplified
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's legislation on
the superannuation question—" liberal " in creating
disturbances, by thrusting bands in the parks on
Sunlay—" liberal " in introducing legislative mea-
sures only to withdraw them—" liberal !" but here I
must stop, for your columns would fail me were I
to attempt any further exposition of the modern
political genus, " Liberal."

There can he no cause of regret for the Conserve.
tive party upon taking a calm retrospection of public
affairs during the last four years. It is just that
period since Lord Derby's Cabinet was overthrown—
a united and vigorous Administration was destroyed
to make way for a Coalition, more heterogeneous and
factions than any other Coalition which has ever been
formed. The results of that Coalition Government
were, a war with Russia—the destruction of as splen-
did an army as ever left the shores of Great
Britain—an enormous increase of taxation—a heavy
blow inflicted upon the prestige and fair tame of our
country—and a disastrous shipwreck of the reputa-
tion of many eminent public men. Order ilas turned
into chaos, and "confusion became worse con-
founded." It is for the Conservative party to refer
with pride and satisfaction to the ten months' ad-
ministration of affairs by a Cabinet of their own per-
suasion. When the political history of the last ten
years shall be impartially compiled, these ten
month• of office by Lord Derby and his party ►ill
present a cheering and favorable contrast to the
expiring throbs and internal disruption of the
Whigs under Lord John Russell, on the one side—
and to the wretched and blundering mismanagement
of affairs by the Coalition, and its ignominious end,
on the other.

The conduct of the Conservative party, also, since
it has been in opposition, especially during the war,
has been calm, dignified, and patriotic—another
favorable comparison when contrasted with the
factiousness, Sec., exhibited by the Whigs during the
Peninsular war. Let, then, the Conservatives reflect
on there things—sooner or later they will gain the
reward due to their conduct. Let those gentlemen
in Parliament who sit on the back benches on the
left hand side of the Speaker, fearlessly and unani-
mously respond to the movements of theirleaders ; and
let those gentlemen out of the house who pretend to
uphold Conservative doctrines and sentiments shake
offtheir apathy and listlessness, and the time will come,
ay, and that soon, when our glorious country shall
again be invigorated and strengthened by a firm and
nnttekl Government, who will sway the destinies of
this mighty empire by the healthy principles of

THE PRESS.

Conservative progress.—l remain, sir, your obedient

servant,
August 20, 1t36.

JUVENIS.

COLLEGE LIVINGS.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."

Sir,—Will you allow me to ask your correspondent
on the subject of venerable college tutors whether
the following propositions meet his views ? That no
fellow be eligible to a college living after he has
attained the age of fifty years, in case the living
exceed the value of 2501., or the population of the
parish number more than four hundred souls. That
when a college tutor has held his situation for a
period of at least ten years, he be permitted to marry
and still retain his fellowship for an equal period,
provided he reside in the university town during
this latter period, in the discharge of similar duties
to those imposed upon him while still unmarried.
That it he in the power of the major part of the
fellows of any college to assign to not more than
for the smaller colleges two (and for the larger in
proportion) retired tutors' pensions of a reasonable
amount, not tenable however with more than a fixed
amount of income from any other source.
Without venturing to claim the authority of one—
like your correspondent—evidently well acquainted
with the (subject, I throw out these hints fur con-
sideration. —I am, sir, your obedient servant,
R. CANYNGES.
Leicester, August 20, 1856.

THE MAYNOOTH QUESTION AND THE TORIES.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."
Sir,—Wili you permit me to allude to one point in
Mr. Perceval's letter? He has succeeded in doing
what neither Mr. Spooner on the one side nor Mr.
Maguire on the other have often achieved. He has
introduced a new feature into the discussion. After
upbraiding you and the other leading Conservatives
for the consistent support which you have given to
the Maynooth grant, he concludes by saying that he
has opposed it, and will continue to oppose it, because
he is a High Tory.
I trust Mr. Prrceval will excuse me for expressing
a doubt as to whether he knows the meaning of the
term High Tory•. If 1 may venture to judge from
the general tenor of his letter, he appears to me to
belong to a totally different party. So far from being
the letter of a Tory, it would seem, on the contrary
to be the letter of an Orangeman.
I am not one of those who fall into the error of
thinking that such a question as Maynooth has any
claim to be put forward as a test of party. Our party
tests are very few indeed; they are, in the words ot
Mr. Burke, " some great leading general principles
of Government," and they should never be confounded
with such ephemeral questions as this. No doubt
the Maynooth endowment may have a collateral re-
lation to some of those great principles on which the
political world is divided, and it may on that account
be entitled to the support of one side more than of
the other. As far as such indirect influence can be
brought to bear upon parties, it must be to win, as
it has always done, the support of the Tories.
The Whigs, recollecting how their property was
gained, have an instinctive aversion to religious en-
dowments. The Radicals, being opposed to anything
like a union between Church and State, will, as a
matter of course, vote against a grant which is a
broad recognition ot that principle. On the other
hand, the Roman Catholic religion, whatever its doc-
trinal faults may be, has much to attract the sympa-
thies of a High Tory. As we look upon the family
portraits in our old halls, as we wander in the cloisters
of Oxford, as we read the history and the struggles
of the Tory party, we cannot but feel that, in spite of
their erring faith, the Roman Catholics of England
should be, as they have been, the friends and allies
of the Tories. When, therefore, we find that the
penal laws were passed by the Whigs and repealed
by the Tories—when we find that all the measures
embodying a liberal and generous policy towards the
Roman Catholics were the measures of Tory states-
men—when we find that the founders and the friends
of Maynooth were the Pius, the Windham, and the
Castlereaghs—we only find that which, from a priori
reasoning, we must naturally have expected.
I have before me a letter from the late Knight of
Kerry, who was a model of a High Tory gentleman,
to Sir R. Peel, on the Maynooth question. Allow me
to conclude these few words with a sentence from
that letter
If Conservatiiiu, :I..willered, demands a standard under
which it can safely rally, I would require no better than
that which was wielded fifty years ago by the firm hand of
Mr. Pitt.
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant
A HIGH TORY.

London, August 19th, 1856.
PS.—As Mr. Perceval has alluded to his father's
views on the subject, perhaps he will excuse me for
taking the liberty of re,ninding him that that distin-
guished statesman frankly stated, as his reason for
not opposing the grant., that the Parliament of Great
Britain was pledged to its support by the Union.

SATURDAY,

SIR CHARLES NAPIER AND CRONSTADT.
Sin CHARLES NAPIER has returned home from his
visit to St. Petersburg, and the first result is, the
publication of his notes upon the strength of Cron-
stadt. This exposition is of as much interest as
importance, and as the gallant admiral had every op.
portunity afforded him by the Grand Duke Con-
stantine for acquiring accurate information, the
statements may be depended upon.
Sir Charles found the Russian ships in excellent
order, their gunboat flotilla numerous and heavily
armed, and the country covered with fieldworks to
prevent any advance against St. Petersburg by land.
Of the probability of success attending an attack
upon the north side of the Cronstadt of to-day, Sir
Charles writes :

.. The steam gunboats, seventy.five in number, mount two
68 pounders and one 36; they are very fine vessels and
well adapted for defensive purposes. They steam eight or
nine knots, and were all planned by fee Grand Duke. I
saw three building in floating docks. They appeared to
be too sharp. They have, besides the gunboats, fourteen
floating batteries, mounting four 68-pounders. well adapted
for defence, they are constructed with one bulwark only,
cased with iron four inches thick. I was anxious to go to
the north of Cronstadt, but no one is permitted to do so.
When I was there in ISM the passage was piled right
across. Behind the piles lay four block•ships of the line,
and four frigates; behind them again were 140 row gun-
boats, large and unwieldy, mounting two heavy guns, and
in a calm not rowing more than three knots. Seventy of
these gunboats were begun in March, 1854, and were
ready when I appeared off. Mortar-vessels, however,
could have thrown their shells into Cronstadt to the north,
and might have reached the dockyard, and would have
done great mischief, which 1 mentioned in my report.
Before Admiral I)undas came out, they had put other ob-
structions to the north, to hinder the approach of mortar-
vessels within range ; but, not content with that, they
have now run a barrier right across from Cronstadt. several
hundred feet wide, at which they employed all last winter
20,000 men. The piles are several feet under water; at
the end of each pile are iron bars, so low down that a cir-
cular saw could not be employed to saw them off under
water. Behind these piles there are fine batteries, not yet
finished, but which would have been ready, had the war
continued. To support these batteries there are seventy.
five steam gun-vessels, and about 1.20 row gunboats, and
as many block-ships as they chose to place. After this
Russia is not to be despised. Such tremendous exertions
cannot be excelled. Against such defences Admiral
Dundee, had he come out in the beginning or middle of
July, would not have accomplished a single thing, even
had he brought double the number of mortar,. As the
weather was bad the probability is that many of his ships
would have been swamped.

On the south side aie the five granite forts, " beanti•
fully built," the batteries on the two moles, and a
redoubt, in all mounting 088 guns of heavy calibre,
68 and 100 pounders; beside eleven sail of the line,
four frigates, ten large paddle steamers, twenty
small steamers, and several corvettes and brigs;
while in dock were two three-deckers, and five two-
deckers (good ships), one liner, and eight or nine
corvettes building, with four more liners and four
frigates laid up and not goad for much. "In 1854,"
writes Sir Charles, "they were all inside Fort !dens-
chikoff, in a line from it. The two three-deckers
moored across the harbour, protected by strong
booms; and I believe had an attempt been made to
force the harbour, our fleet would have been
destroyed. There was first the shallow water; then
the smoke, which would have covered everything;
and after passing the batteries (it that were pos-
sible) there were seventeen sail of the line to fight,
and lots of int', real machines."

The conclusion Sir Charles comes to, as to the
result of an attack upon Cronstadt, is as follows :

If fifty sailof the line, and 50,000 men in steamers, were
to attempt an attack, it might just be possible to succeed,
provided they did not sink ships between Menschikoff and
Cronslott, and our ships did not take the ground in going
in. It would be necessary for the leading ships to anchor
against the batteries. Those following should go in and
break the boom. If they succeeded, we would probably
overpower the fleet, and the steamers would land the troops
on the sea•wall. If we failed in breaking the boom there
would be great confusion, and there is no knowing what
would happen. It would also be necessary to have a strong
reserve to take the place of the ships against the batteries,
if they failel in silencing them, which is more than pro•
bable. If all went right, Cronstadt would be taken ; and if
all went wrong, the fleet would be lost. No one, I think,
except the Timce, would have tried Cronstadt. They said
it was not necessary to see how one was to get out; it was
only necessary to get in.

The Government have determined to build, with
as little delay as possible, two new public offices, one
for the Foreign Secretary, and the other for the War
Secretary. These buildings are to be erected on a
site between Charles-street and Downing-street.
Plans are to be sought, too, for laying out the re-
mainder of the ground lying between Whitehall on
the north, Great George-street and New Palace-yard
on the south, the Thames on the ea-4, and St.
James's-park on the west. It is intended to invite
architects of all countries to offer designs for these
undertakings, and we understand that particulars
and instructions to competitors are in course of pre-
paration.—Builder.

I