The early appointment of this committee was, without doubt, due to the influence of the late Mr. Wakley, the able and courageous editor of the Lancet. In 1850 Mr. Wakley had established, in connection with his powerful journal, "The Lancet Sanitary Commission," of which commission Dr. Hassall was the leading spirit, with Dr. Letheby as occasional coadjutor in matters purely chemical, and (what at that time was of great importance) with the assistance of an artist, who drew microscopical objects with fidelity.

The" Analytical Sanitary Commission" was commenced in the first number of the Lancet for 1851, and the scope of the inquiry, as stated by the editor, was as follows: "We propose, for the public benefit, to institute an extensive and somewhat rigorous series of investigations into the present condition of the various articles of diet supplied to the inhabitants of this great metropolis and its vicinity. . . Special features of the inquiry will be that they are all based upon actual inquiry and experiment; the microscope and the test tube will be our constant companions." Notice was also given that at the expiration of three months the names and addresses of the shopkeepers from whom purchases had been made would be given; but at the commencement the street alone was to be indicated. The promise was kept, and hazardous although the experiment most certainly was, yet in April we find the names of large firms freely published, and, so to speak, "pilloried," for having sold impure and false goods.

In 1855 Dr. Hassall collected the articles which had been published in the Lancet into a volume, entitled “Food and its Adulterations, comprising the reports of the Analytical Sanitary Commission of the Lancet for the years 1851-54. London, 1855."

In 1855"The Select Committee on the Adulteration of Food" commenced its labours, and examined as far as possible all those who were likely to have any special knowledge of the adulterations themselves, the methods necessary to detect them, and their effect on the revenue and on health. Dr. Hassall stated to the committee the results of his inquiries both for the Lancet Commission and during the course of his other labours, and gave in detail the frauds practised in regard to milk, coffee, tea, drugs, preserved fruits, &c.

Dr. Alphonse Normandy, who had also written a work on adulteration-the result of ten years' investigation-said, in giving evidence as to the aluming of bread, that he had seen alum in bread in crystals of the size of a large pea. "In the bread of one baker I found alum actually in the state of large crystals; I went to him and showed him his bread, and he said, 'I cannot help it."" In extreme instances he had found as much as from

250 grains to twice that quantity of alum in the 4lb. loaf, and in 1847 he had found magnesia carbonate in three samples of bread. In 1847 and 1848, years of great scarcity, he had discovered bean and pea meal in flour, but this he considered quite exceptional. With regard to beer, he thought that brewers often made use of cocculus indicus; and, finally, he gave evidence of the great adulteration of drugs.

Mr. Blackwell, of the firm of Crosse & Blackwell, gave some very interesting evidence as to the "coppering of preserved vegetables" practised before the food-articles appeared in the Lancet. The process in use by his firm was to boil the pickles or vinegar several times in copper boilers. After each operation they became greener, and when the proper hue was attained, the process was finished; but since the outcry on coppered vegetables, this process had been abandoned.

Another witness, Mr. O. L. Simmonds, the author of a work upon "Commercial Products," in giving evidence on the adulteration of drugs, estimated that there was a loss to the revenue from this cause of no less than £3,000,000 per annum. As an instance of the manner in which the revenue suffered, he cited the substitution of cassia for cinnamon; cassia paid 1d. per lb. duty, cinnamon 2d. The dealers sold cassia under the name of cinnamon to such an extent as to affect seriously the cinnamon trade.

§ 24. Adulteration Acts, 1860 and 1872.-Upon the report of the Select Committee, the first general Adulteration Act was drafted, and became law in 1860. The first section enacted, "That every person who shall sell any article of food or drink with which, to the knowledge of such person, any ingredient or material injurious to the health of persons eating or drinking such article, has been mixed, and every person who shall sell as pure or unadulterated any article of food or drink which is adulterated or not pure, shall for every such offence, on summary conviction of the same, pay a penalty not exceeding £5, with costs." A second offence was punishable in addition by publishing the offender's name, place of abode and offence. The Act permitted, but did not compel, the appointment of analysts. The bodies which might appoint such analysts were-in the City of London, the Commissioners of Sewers; in the metropolis generally, Vestries and District Boards; in the counties, Courts of Quarter Sessions. Section 4 provided that any purchaser of any article of food in any of the districts in which analysts existed, might have such article analysed on payment of a sum not less than 2s. 6d. and not more than 10s. 6d. ; the purchaser, on the completion of the analysis, was entitled to receive a certificate of the result of the analysis.

These appointments were at first confirmed by the Secretary of State, but afterwards the Local Government Act of 1871 transferred the regulation of the appointments to the Local Government Board. The Act existed, and was in partial operation, for twelve years, when it was entirely recast and interspersed with various sanitary considerations.

In an Act passed in the year 1872 (35 and 36 Vic., c. 74), it was enacted that "Every person who shall wilfully admix, and every person who shall order any other person or persons to admix, any ingredient or material with any drug to adulterate the same for sale, shall be liable to a penalty for the first offence not exceeding £50, with costs." The second offence was punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, with hard labour. By the second section," Every person who shall sell any article of food or drink, with which to the knowledge of such person any ingredient or material injurious to the health of persons eating or drinking such article has been mixed, and every person who shall sell as unadulterated any article of food or drink or any drug which is adulterated, shall for every such offence, on a summary conviction of the same, pay a penalty not exceeding £20, with the costs of conviction." By the third section "Any person who shall sell any article of food or drink, or any drug, knowing the same to have been mixed with any other substance with intent to fraudulently increase its weight or bulk, and who shall not declare such admixture to any purchaser thereof before delivering the same and no other, shall be deemed to have sold an adulterated article of food or drink, or drug, as the case may be, under this Act."

The Act, with doubtful advantage, also extended the right of appointing analysts to boroughs having separate police establishments. The appointment was optional, save on the direction of the Local Government Board. The sixth section provided that inspectors of nuisances or other local officers were to procure samples for analysis. Private purchasers might have articles. analysed as before, the only difference being that, under this Act, they were to hand the substance, not to the analyst, but to the inspector. There were also provisions as to the sealing and division of samples. Since the Act of 1860 remained unrepealed, the two Acts were both in force simultaneously, and under their joint operation the following offences were punishable :

*

1. Selling any article of food, drink, or medicine, that contains any ingredient injurious to health, and knowing it to contain such ingredient.

2. Selling any adulterated food, drink, or drug.

"The Law of Adulteration," by Sidney Woolf. Lond. 1874.

3. Wilfully mixing with any article of food or drink any ingredient or poisonous ingredient to adulterate the same for sale. 4. Wilfully mixing any ingredient with any drug to adulterate the same for sale.

5. Selling any article of food, drink, or any drug, knowing the same to have been mixed with other substances with intent fraudulently to increase its weight or bulk, unless such admixture be declared at the time of sale.

$25. The Select Committee, 1874.-These Acts by no means worked well. Many of the analysts were inexperienced, and even those who had considerable chemical knowledge differed widely in the conclusions they drew from their analyses. The reason of this was evident, for the standards had scarcely been settled. There was, for example, no general agreement as to the amount of "fat" and "total solids" in milk; the question of whether tea should be permitted to be faced, or not, was then (as, indeed, now) unsettled; there was no method in use which distinguished alum added to flour and alumina existing as sand. Analyst contradicted analyst. Magistrates were perplexed as to the meaning of the word "adulteration," and conflicting decisions on mere legal technicalities offered a still further obstacle to the healthy operation of the Act. The public generally were dissatisfied with an Act which on many retail dealers inflicted real hardships-e.g., tea, paid for at the highest market price, and imported direct from China, would be examined by a local analyst, and pronounced to be faced with Prussian blue, gypsum, &c.; while, from the peculiar nature of the statute, the seller, however innocent of the fraud himself, could not defend the charge on anything like equal terms. Petitions, moderate in tone, came in from most of the large towns, and the Government decided to appoint another Select Committee. A large number of witnesses-tea merchants, tea brokers, tea retailers, butter merchants, cocoa and coffee manufacturers, milk sellers, bakers, and analysts-were examined by this new Committee in 1874; and on their evidence a report was based, which stated that after having sat fourteen days, and examined fifty-seven witnesses, the Commissioners had arrived at the unanimous conclusion that, while the Act had done much good, it had, at the same time, inflicted considerable injury, and enforced heavy and undeserved penalties upon some respectable tradesmen. "This appears to have been mainly due to the want of a clear understanding as to what does, and as to what does not, constitute adulteration, and in some cases to the conflicting decisions and inexperience of the analysts. Your Committee are, however, of opinion, that the Act itself is defective and needs amendment."

The report went on to say that the adoption of the Act had been by no means general, and in many cases where it had been applied, its operation was of a very restricted character; for, even with competent analysts, if inspectors were not appointed at the same time, the Act remained a dead letter. All the London vestries had made appointments, but in only twenty-six out of seventy-one boroughs, and thirty-four out of fifty-four counties, were there at that date official analysts. The examination of tea was recommended to be made on importation by the Customs. The Committee did not consider that the exact proportion of mixtures need be stated on a label, and they wished to record that mixed mustard and prepared cocoa had been long manufactured at Deptford for the supply of the Navy. They recommended that small districts should be consolidated, and that, as a rule, the boroughs in a county should be united with the county for the purpose of appointing one analyst for the entire district; and they pointed out that the only way to secure "the services of really efficient analysts is to offer them a fair remuneration, which can hardly be done without the union of several Local Authorities in one appointment." The Committee concluded their report by remarking that the public was "cheated" rather than " poisoned."

§ 26. Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 and 1879.-On this report was based the Act of 1875, which is at the present moment, with its amendment of 1879, the existing law, and the full consideration of which will be reserved for another Section; an early defect in the Act, however, may be at once alluded to, for it had not been long in operation before its action was almost entirely stopped by legal ingenuity. The sixth section provides that "No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser;" and in a Justiciary Appeal case at Edinburgh, in which an inspector had purchased cream not for his own use but for analysis, the Scotch court discussed the "prejudice" question-three out of seven judges adopting the view that a purchase made under these conditions was not to the "prejudice" of the purchaser, and five out of the seven dismissing the summons on other grounds. The impression produced in this country, however, by the decision of the court, was that the sale, to be effectual, must be made in the ordinary way, and not merely for the purposes of analysis. The same question was raised in quite a different but equally ingenious way in a "mustard case" argued before the Court of Queen's Bench. The purchase in this case was by an officer; the defence being that, as it was well known that mustard was mixed with