The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-02 00:00:00

us. The first thought, therefore, when they have
outraged us, always is—will England fight about
it. Thus the paper above quoted, writing on the
19th, two days later, says :—" It is the duty of
our Government to make preparations for emer-
gencies. There is little probability that England
will care to risk hostilities with us. It has too little to
gain and too much to lose by fighting with the United
States. But we ought, nevertheless, -to be fully
prepared against any contingency that may arise.
Congress is on the eve of assembling, and the Presi-
dent, in his message, should call at once for 500,000
more men, and appropriations to build, as rapidly
as possible, several hundred vessels of war."
We fear this is the general feeling in the North.
Their rule of behaviour is not what is fair, courteous,
or dignified between two great countries, but how
far they can venture, without provoking us to incur
the hazards and the expenses of war. They have
the strong conviction, too, expressed by the remark
that we have " too much to lose and too little to
get," to hazard fighting with them. Now, it
would be indeed a deplorable thing, if nothing
but actual war would convince them, that they
have more to lose and less to get by fighting with
us. That this is so, the present enormous supe-
riority of our fleet ; the fact that we should now
have half the States of America, whose battle, in
fact, we should be fighting, on our, side ; that
the opening of the Southern parts alone would go a
long way towards paying us for the first expenses
of the war; that Canada is quite as able to defend
herself as was the South when the war began ; all
combine to show.

We may hope, however, that Mr. LINCOLN when
the responsibility lies on him of deciding whether he
must add to the war which already embarrasses him
another with the mightiest naval power in the
world, and, whether he will commence that war
in vindication of what even he must own to be an
extreme interpretation of the right of search,—we
may hope that the President will shrink from such
folly. His only gain will be four prisoners,—for
the right to do the same under similar circumstances
would never be sanctioned by civilized nations.
But he would at once place England and the
South on the best of terms ; the South, through
England, would have that command of the seas
which the North now enjoys. The blockade would
be transferred to the North. All taxes must become
direct, and customs cease—and the American com-
mercial navy be swept from the seas. Surely Mr.
LINCOLIT will rather dismiss Mr. SEWARD than run
such vast and useless risks. And all, too, against
a country which has treated him and his cause
with the most honourable neutrality.

We would earnestly suggest an improvement next
session of Mr. SCHOLEFIELD'S excellent Bill for
the Prevention of the Adulteration of Food. With-

out some such emendation as the one we are here
about to explain, that otherwise admirably designed
measure proves, and must still continue to prove,
for the most part inoperative. The Hon. Mem-

ber for Birmingham's Act stands upon the Statute
Book as the 23d and 24th VICT., cap. 84. It

undertakes to put a stop to the Adulteration of
Food and Drink, by imposing a penalty of £5
and costs upon every person selling any article
of Food or Drink, knowing it to contain any in-

gredient injurious to health, or selling as pure
and unadulterated any article which is not pure,

and is adulterated. Another clause of the Ac

empowers the proper authorities, upon a second
offence, to publish the offender's name, place of

abode, and offence, at his own expense, in the
newspapers. Mr. SCEIOLEFIELD'S Act, moreover,
duly provides for the appointment of analysts.
Upon the face of all this nothing apparently could
be more judicious, nothing could be more reason-
ably calculated to prove in every way effectual.
The result has proved, however, quite the contrary.
The Act of Parliament, 23d and 24th VICT., cap. 84,
was passed, as its title intimates, in the session
of 1860. It was passed in that year, in fact, upon
the 6th of August, not long before the session came
to its close. We have had, consequently, just
about a twelvemonth's experience of its operation.
And how has it been found to operate, to the pre-
vention of that Adulteration of Food and Drink,
proved to be so disgracefully and systematically
carried on through almost every trade, when the
articles of trade after trade were scrutinised under
the microscope of the analysts of the famous Com-
mission ? Let the great medical organ answer.
Let us turn to the disclosures brought to light in
the _Lancet of Saturday. In that paper, in the
course of an elaborate and remarkable Report upon
the Adulteration of Bottled Fruits, Pickles, and
Vegetables a report of which we ourselves
gave an anticipative summary in our im-
pression of Friday evening —it appears
that the system of Adulteration flourishes
still in shameful luxuriance —in spite of
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD'S Act, its pains and penalties to
the contrary notwithstanding ! Again the lens of
inquiry is applied haphazard. And with what
results? The 'statistics given in the Lancet's
Report are, beyond doubt, sufficiently painful.
They shew that out of " seven" samples of preserved
greengages that were tested—no less than four of
these samples were found to have been coloured
with copper! They shew that out of "five"
samples of bottled gooseberries three of them were
proved to contain " that powerful and poisonous
metal!" A chance sample of rhubarb was analysed

—it also had copper in it! Again, out of " ten"
samples of pickles, including amongst them Frenc:
beans, gherkins, mixed pickles, and West India
pickles, copper was found, (in several of these in-
stances, in large amount), in seven of the samples
analysed ! Out of " five" tins of preserved peas two of
the samples proved to be impregnated with copper.
Out of "four" samples of green haricot or French
beans, three were highly-coloured with copper, as
was also a sample of mixed vegetables. Thus,
according to the Lancet's Report, out of " Thirty-
five" samples analysed, copper was proved to be
present, frequently in considerable amount, in no
less than Twenty one samples ; that is to say in very
nearly two-thirds of the whole number. What
makes the miserable reality of all this all the more
discreditable is the fact of the utter wantonness of
it. The Lancet—a competent witness, certainly—

distinctly asserts that there is no excuse for it
whatever. As it puts the matter, " Bottled and
preserved fruits and vegetables do not in their pre-
paration come in contact with copper at all, and
pickle! I may be prepared in utensils of iron. The
pickles; thus made," it is added, " are less green ;
but the fact of their being of better flavour and
much more wholesome ought to be more than suffi-
cient to counterbalance so trifling a disadvantage."
It is a lmost superfluous to say, after what has
here nee al remarked, that the addition of
Copper to • any vegetable substance used as

an article c 1 food is a violation of the recent ac'

for the Pre• rention of Adulterat:on, and exposes the
parties to i mosecution." After what has been said
of the 23d an 24th Vtar.,!cap. 84, cela ea sans dire.
But—such t Bing the case—the adulterations thus
still proved tot be rife, indicate, as plainly as any
thing could iti dieate it, that the act, as it now
stands, urgently requires emendation.
What if, instf ft;d of authorising the publication of
the nuns, reA'es, and offences at the expense