August 3, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS 
Cjic Ijjarmaceufital frantal. 
SATURDAY AUGUSTS, 1872. 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
■should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
•ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes indorsed u Pharm. Journ.” 
THE ADULTERATION OF FOOD, DRUGS, ETC., 
BILL. 
When, at tlie beginning of tlie present session, tlie 
above Bill, as printed in tlie last volume at p. 715, 
was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Muntz, it 
inaturally attracted tlie attention of persons likely to 
be affected by its provisions. While it was felt that 
tlie object sought to be attained was a good one, 
it was also known that great care and circumspection 
would be required in working out tlie details, or tlie 
hardships created by such a law would render it a 
•dead letter through the difficulty of carrying it out. 
What should constitute an adulteration under such 
an Act? The question is one that has been asked 
many times without being satisfactorily answered, 
and the Bill, as it originally stood, contributed 
nothing towards the solution of the problem. In 
fact, one part of clause 2, which provided that “ every 
■“ person who shall sell as pure and unadulterated any 
“ article of food or drink or any drug which is adulte- 
“ rated or not pure” should be liable to a penalty of 
twenty pounds and other inconveniences, was, if car¬ 
ried out, sufficient to make the words “pure and 
unadulterated” a terror to all sensible men. 
Curious evidence of the various meanings that 
might be attached to the words “ pure and unadul¬ 
terated ” was given in the slight debate which took 
place on the second reading. Mr. Muntz, himself, 
.pleading for the Bill, said, “ If one choose to mix 
41 beans with coffee, or water with milk, no one under 
“ this [Act could say anything.; but if any baker 
adulterated his bread with brickdust, or poison of 
44 any sort, or with plaster of Paris, the clauses of 
44 this Bill would render him liable to severe punisli- 
ment.” On the other hand, Sir D. Corrigan 
• objected to immunity attending such processes as 
.mixing water with milk, and said that adulteration 
meant either adding to or subtracting from an 
.article. 
With so much vagueness respecting the principal 
•object of the Bill, it is not surprising that there 
should have been a general opinion that the subject 
should be dealt with by the Government in their 
.Public Health Bill, and progress was deferred 
month after month for this purpose, until further 
hope was prevented by the mutilation of the 
•Government measure. Then, at the fag end of the 
8 D 
session, this important Bill was pushed through its 
remaining stages in the lower House, and to a 
second reading in the Plouse of Lords, with no more 
notice than could be described in six lines of a news¬ 
paper report. 
This being the case, and the danger being great 
that the Bill would pass with all its imperfections, 
and probably become a source of annoyance to che¬ 
mists and druggists, prompt action was taken by the 
Parliamentary Committee of the Council of the 
Pharmaceutical Society. A deputation, consisting 
of the President, Mr. Hills and Mr. Sandford, 
sought an interview with the Marquis of Salisbury, 
who has charge of the Bill, to urge their objections 
to certain features of it as it stood ; and, fortunately, 
the}^ succeeded in obtaining his consent to the modi¬ 
fication of one or two of its most obnoxious points. 
It will occur to many of our readers that the word 
“ pure,” in the penal clause, when applied to some 
drugs, might be so construed as virtually to prohibit 
their sale. The omission of the words 44 pure and ” 
removed this danger, but still left the difficulty as to 
what constituted an adulteration. This it was sought 
to meet by adding a clause containing a definition of 
44 adulteration,” which, especially as it is now quali¬ 
fied by the important word 44 fraudulently,” introduced 
at the request of the deputation, will have the effect 
of considerably narrowing the range of interpretation 
that might have occurred had it been left to the in¬ 
dividual opinion of judicial authorities. The follow¬ 
ing are the words of the new clause:— 
44 Any person who shall sell any article of food or 
44 drink or any drug, knowing the same to have been 
44 mixed with any other substance with intent frau- 
44 dulently to increase its weight or bulk, and who 
44 shall not declare such admixture to any purchaser 
44 thereof before delivering the same, shall be deemed 
44 to have sold an adulterated article of food or 
44 drink or drug as the case may be, under this Act.” 
There are sundry other alterations, mostly verbal, 
in the Bill; thus, the duties of the inspectors ap¬ 
pointed under it are now made compulsory, also the 
appointment of analysts, which before was left at the 
option of the local bodies, is now made compulsory 
upon the request of certain authorities; but since 
at the time of going to press the Bill has not been 
read a third time in the House of Lords, and most 
of the amendments will have to be submitted to the 
House of Commons, we refrain from reprinting it in 
extenso until next week. 
THE KEW CONTROVERSY. 
The storm which Mr. Ayrton has raised by his 
treatment of Dr. Hooker, will probably be sufficient 
to teach even him that courtesy is as absolutely 
necessary in the head of a great department as in 
the humblest functionary under his control. The 
debate in the House of Lords on Monday night 
