The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-08 00:00:00

had from time to time been brought before Parliament with
a view of remedying this state of things ; but, with the ex-
ception of the South Wales Act, none of these measures had
received the sanction of Parliament. The bill which he held
in his hand had been introduced by the late Government,
had been discussed in that house, and had gone through
committee with some amendments. Tinder these circum-

stances he would not detain the house with any explanation
of the principles of the measures. He had followed the form
of the late bill word for word, and he therefore wished that

he merit of the measure should be given to.th-eIWG—o-ve-rn----

meta, through one of whose members (Mr. Hardy) the
measure had been brought before the house. (Hear.) The
bill proposed to give parishes the power of forming
them-
selves into districts, and of appointing a surveyor of the dis •
trict for the purpose of keeping the roads in order.
_ _ _

ARMY ORGANISATION COMMITTEE.
On the motion of Colonel NORTH, that the name of Col.
Lindsay be added to the committee,
Mr. S. HERBERT consented that the name be substi-

tuted for that of Lord Hotham, who was unable to serve.
METROPOLIS CARRIAGE WAYS.
Mr. COWPER moved for leave to bring in a bill to re-
strict the erection of permanent structures in the carriage
ways of the metropolis. We had (he said) for some time been
under the apprehension of a French descent on our coasts,
but the fact was that a French descent had really taken place
in the great thoroughfares of the metropolis, a French corn-
panyhaving taken possession of them, and having commenced
setting up various objectionable erections, in the most con-
spicuous places. They had already commenced ()per ations at
Hyde-park Corner, where they had broken up the pavement
and proceeded to set up a grotesque and tawdry structure,
soniething between =Alhambra clock and a Chinese pagoda,
under the name of an advertising column. A pretence of
usefulness was advanced in favour of these obstructions, on
the ground of the information which was thus afforded, such
as the time for Cremorno, the names of the vestrymen who
had consented to the erection, and the time when Dr. Eady
was to be found at home—(a laugh)—but he did not think
even this information important enough to justify a posi-
tive nuisance, the more especially as these columns were
calculated to attract foot passengers at points which were
most dangerous for themselves and most inconvenient
for the circulation. ,The vestries had, he believed, granted
a concession in favour of these columns, but he thought
they had in doing so completely mistaken the scope of their
powers or duties. They never were intended to be looked
up to as the guardians of the public taste, although they
had full powers to take care of the pavements. It was further
urged in favour of these columns that they superseded the
greater nuisance of advertising vans; but advertising vans
might be got rid of by indictment if the nuisance were
proved, and it was a bad method to get rid of one nuisance
by setting up another. But an indictment would end in a
penalty, and a penalty might not abate the nuisance, as
happened in New York in the case of the celebrated Mr.
Barnum, who at one time paid four dollars a day for a fort-
night for the privilege of persevering in a proved nuisance.
As the most efficient way of meeting all cases of this de-
scription in future, he (Mr. Cowper) proposed that a veto
should be given to the Chief Commissioner of Works upon
the proposed construction of any edifice in the London
highways. (Move, move.) He feared that if something
of the kind were not done we might gradually find objec-
tionable edifices rising up in all the most frequented
thoroughfares of the metropolis. The hon. member con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
The house divided—
For the bill 165
Against it
Majority
ADULTERATION OF FOOD, &c., PREVENTION
BILL.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said that its object was to authorise governing
bodies in different districts to appoint public analysts to
detect such offences, and also to impose certain penalties:on
parties guilty of adulteration.
Mr. G. HARDY opposed the bill, which, if brought into
operation, would lead to a system of informations and
spyings-out perfectly intolerable, and to the unnecessarily
bringing parties before magisirates when there was no
.just ground of accusation. Believing the bill would act
most oppressively and unjustly, he begged to move as an
amendment that it be read a second time that day three
months.
Mr. CRAWFORD seconded the amendment.
Mr. W. COWPER supported the bill, believing some
remedy against adulteration to be absolutely necessary.
Lord R. CECIL said if the doctrine of the hon. and
learned member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) was to pre-
vail, Parliament ought not to interfere to prevent a man
having arsenic mixed with his lozenges. Tea, coffee, sugar,
and other necessary articles of consumption were adulterated
to such an extent as to affect the comfort and health of the
population, and it was quite impossible for the poor man to
protect himself from the injuries inflicted upon him.
Mr. WALTER was convinced of the necessity of legis-
lating on the subject, and trusted the house would consent
to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. BRADY supported the bill, which was founded on
the recommendation of a select committee appointed to in-
quire into the subject, and expressed his surprise that one
of the representatives of the great trading community of
the city of London should object to the passing of a measure
the object of which was to prohibit the people from being
robbed and poisoned by adulteration. (Hear.)
• Mr. E. JAMES congratulated the hon. member (Mr.
Brady) on having postponed his leave of absence, which had
enabled him to be present to advocate this bill. He (Mr.
James) believed the really honest tradesman could not object
to the bill. It was absurd to say that a poor man who bought
a pennyworth of coffee, and got more chicory than coffee,
could indict the tradesman. He thought the bill was based
on a sound principle, and should give it his hearty support.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he thought every member would
concur in supporting the principle of the bill, and every bill
that came recommended by his hon. friend the member for
Birmingham came recommended from a good source. But
after having carefully examined the clauses of this bill, with
a sincere desire to accede to them, he could not agree to
them. The great objection he had to the bill was the vague-
ness and generality of its provisions. The offences created
wore in two branches. The first clause subjected the offender
to a penalty if he sold any article of food or drink in which
there was any ingredient calculated to injure the health of
the person purchasing it. Now, when they knew the variety
of opinions entertained by medical men as to what injured
health, this provision, it would seem was very vague. There
was a school of persons who maintained that if alcohol were
mixed with any article—for instance, with water —(a laugh)
—it was injurious, and he apprehended that the selling of
alcoholic drink would come within that provision. Then the
second branch of the offence was this—any personwho should
sell or expose for sale any adulterated article of food or drink,
to the knowledge of the person so selling it, should be sub-
jecf to a penalty. It was not said that the article mixed was
to be deleterious, but merely that it was to be mixed with
and foreign to the article sold. He apprehended that the
sale of coffee mixed with chicory would come under the pro-
vision. (Hear, hear.) Then they came to the machinery
by which the bill was worked. District boards were to be
appointed to analyse food and drink, for which they were to
be paid . It was clear, therefore, that considerable expense
would be incurred. Desiringto avoid any legislation which
might be vexatious, and might create traps or pitfalls for
the honest trader, he did not think that any advantage
would arise from passing this bill.
After a few words from Mr. BARROW and Mr. D.
GRIFFITH, the house divided—
For the second reading .... ..... • 227
a. .
second ......... ....... 103-124
The
be
The Abigail iwnsas the t il .....
committed on Wednesday week.
The Court of Probate. Acquisition of Site Bill went
through committee, with the addition of a clause proposed
by Mr. Ayrton, providing that the compensation to be paid
to the College of Advocates should not be more than the
real market value of its property.
The Public Health Bill was read a second time.
The Clerk of the Council Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. HADFIELD, the Admiralty Court
bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on
Tuesday.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE moved the second reading of
this bill.
Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT hoped the right hon.
gentleman would not press the bill that night, as it was
only printed and put into members' hands that morning. '
Mr. PIGOTT seconded the amendment.
After a few words from several hon, members, the de-
bate was adjourned.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.
Mr. DILLWYN moved that this bill be referred to
select committee.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill, which would, he
said, impose for the first time a distinct disability on the
Church of England. The Church would be placed in a dif-
ferent position from all other religioira bodies holding pro-
perty in the country, because the Church alone would be
precluded from acquiring a title by long possession to any
property which might have been in her hands for a long
series of years. It would be better to refer the whole ques-
'lion, and not this bill alone, to a select committee.
Mr. HUBBARD opposed the bill, and regretted that
such a measure should have received the sanction of the
Attorney .General.
Mr. HARDY assented to the proposal that the bill
should be sent before a select committee, but reserved to
himself the right of moving on any future occasion an in-
struction to that committee.
Mr. NEWDEGATE insisted on a division being taken,
and the house was cleared for that purpose. Owing, how-
ever, to a moment's inadvertence, the hon. gentleman
' omitted to press his •demand at the right time, and, amidst
much laughter,
The SPEAKER declared the motion carried;
The house adjourned at 20 minutes before 12.