Decaiber 30, 1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
531 
% |){ranmtctutital Journal. 
-»- 
SA TURD A Y, DECEMBER 30, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs 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, Secritary, 17, Bloomsbury Square , W.G. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New'Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes indorsed “Pharm. Journ 
DRUGGISTS AND THE SALE OP BEER 
ADULTERANTS. 
"We believe it to be a common opinion that tlie 
Pharmacy Act of 1808 is tlie only Act which regulates 
the sale of poisons, and specifies in its schedules 
what drugs are to be regarded as poisons. From a 
question which has lately been asked by a corre¬ 
spondent, we consider it desirable to direct attention 
to another Act, which may also in a certain sense 
be considered a Poison Regulation Act,—we mean 
tlie Act 5G Geo. III. c. 58, relating to the adul¬ 
teration of beer; and, although some of the sub¬ 
stances named therein are not poisons, those who 
violate its provisions render themselves liable to 
far more severe punishment than can be inflicted 
under the Pharmacy Act for the illegal sale of poi¬ 
sons. This Act, after specifying a great number of 
substances that cannot be legally used by brewers, 
contains the following comprehensive clause:—“ Or 
any article or preparation whatsoever for or as a 
substitute for malt or hopsa clause which is suf¬ 
ficiently elastic to include all articles not enumerated 
that can be used for the purposes named. 
It will be seen from the wording of the above 
quotation that the offence does not consist in the 
addition to beer of substances deleterious to health, 
and that the prohibition of certain substances is sim¬ 
ply on account of their being substitutes for articles 
subject to duty. We may remark, in passing, that 
the law in tins, as in other instances, ignores alto¬ 
gether the public health, and has a single eye to the 
security of the revenue. However, this fact need 
occasion no surprise, for at the present time the same 
feeling exists, and no effort has been made, when 
framing very recent laws, to use language that will 
protect the public as well as the revenue. 
To return to what constitutes adulteration under 
the Act, it must be mentioned that a slight modi¬ 
fication has taken place on account of the repeal of 
the hop duty hi 1802. Since September of that year 
no Excise penalty can be imposed on the brewer, 
dealer or retailer of beer for having or using any 
“ article for or as a substitute for hops.” This alte¬ 
ration, allowing brewers to receive and use any 
bitters, such as quassia, chiretta and gentian, restricts 
adulteration to those substances only which aret 
substitutes for malt. 
Wliilst the brewer, dealer or retailer of beer who- 
breaks the law is on conviction liable to a fine of 
£200, the druggist or other person who supplies 
adulterants within the meaning of the Act to any 
brewer, dealer or retailer of beer, knowing him or 
her to be so licensed or reputed to be so licensed, or 
shall sell, send or deliver, or cause or procure to be. 
sold, sent or delivered, to any other person for or on 
account of the use of any such brewer, dealer or 
retailer, shall for every such offence forfeit .£500. 
The framers of the Act were sufficiently considerate 
not to make the selling to a brewer, dealer or re¬ 
tailer of beer, an offence in the case of a person who 
did not at the time of sale know the occupation of 
the buyer. Such consideration would doubtless be. 
of service in large towns, where brewers might with 
impunity obtain what they required from perfect 
strangers; but in country districts and small towns,, 
where an established tradesman usually knows his 
customers, even if they live several miles from his- 
place of business, there would be great difficulty in 
convincing a bench of magistrates that the vendor 
at the time of sale was ignorant of the trade of tha 
person to whom such goods were sold. 
We purposely abstained from running through 
the catalogue of prohibited substances when speak¬ 
ing of the liabilities of brewers, because we think it 
better to give the list in this place, when the pains 
and penalties attached to druggists or other dealers 
are under review. The Act especially mentions the 
following, because they are substitutes for malt, viz. 
molasses, honey, liquorice, vitriol, cocculus indicus,. 
grains of paradise, Guinea pepper, opium, or any 
extract or preparation of the before-named sub¬ 
stances. It is also stated to be an offence to sell y 
send out, or deliver to a brewer, dealer or retailer of 
beer any liquor called or known or sold as colour¬ 
ing, from whatever materials the same may have- 
been made, for the ’purpose of darkening the colour 
of worts or beer. This restriction was found neces¬ 
sary, because brewers had been allowed, before the 
passing of this Act, to receive and use “ a liquor pre¬ 
pared from sugar for colouring porter,” and through 
the use of this liquor for colouring, great frauds were 
committed on the revenue. By a subsequent Act. 
however, brewers were allowed to prepare colouring 
from sugar on their own premises, but they cannot 
now legally receive any such preparation made else¬ 
where. 
For a breach of the Pharmacy Act, as regards the. 
sale of poisons, a fine not exceeding £5 for a first 
offence can be inflicted, but under the Beer Adul¬ 
teration Act the fine is £500. Since the latter punish¬ 
ment is so severe, it might, perhaps—in the event of 
that part of Mr. Bruce’s Licensing Bill which deals, 
with beer adulteration becoming law—be a matter for 
serious consideration whether an addition should not 
