THE ANALYST. 65 REDUCED SPIRITS. IN the House of Commons on the 14th of June, Xr. ISAAC asked the President of the Local Government Board whether sub-sections 1 and 4 of Clause 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, would not exempt from penalties pcrsons selling spirits reduced with water in the natural and customary course of trade, and withwt fraud to the purchaser ;66 THE ANALYST. whether hc was avare that prosecutions had reccntly been instituted for reducing gin by its admixture with water, and whether, inasmuch as in such case no fraud had been practised or intended, and the sales of gin so reduced had been made a t a lower price, such prosecutions were in accordance with the intentions of the Act ; and whether, if there existed any doubt as to the interpretation of the Act, he was prepared t o introduce an amending Bill to exempt from penalties persons who sell gin reduced with water and not otherwise adulterated. Mr.8CLATER-BOOTH.-In reply t o tho first question, I may say that if the water is added for the preparation of the gin as an article of commerce in a fit state for con- sumption, the 1st sub-section applies and no offence is committed, and, so far as in the process of distillation n certain amount of water remains mixed with the spirit, the provisions of sub-section 4 mould likewise apply i n har of a prosecution.I am aware that recently there have been prosecutions, such as are alluded to in the question, The case of “Pashler v. Steoenitt ” came before the Judges of Appeal on the 27th ult. I n that case it appeared that the Justices in Petty Sessions held that gin at 44 per cent.below proof could not be considered as gin, and the Judges held that the seller was properly convicted. I t appeared that gin sold by retailers varies in strength from proof t o 20 per cent. under proof. The Judges held thnt the question was one for the magistrates, who must use their discretion on the facts before them, and that they had rightly decided that a mixture of water so far as 44 per cent.below proof was a fraudulent increase of the measure of the liquid. A decision reported in to-day’s newspapers is t o the same effect. I n reply t o my hon. friend’s third question, I cannot bgt hope that the effect of these decided cases will be to pat an end to any uncertainty as to the interpretation of the Act, if such exists, and I am certainly not prepared, as a t present advised, to introduce any amending Bill on the subject.THE ELECTR,IC CANDLE. WE recently had the opportunity of witnessing in Paris the working of Jablochkoff’s electric candle, under circumstances which were more thctu usually favorable, t o enable a fair judgment t o be formed on the matter.The invention is, without doubt, an excellent one, and there seems no question that i t mill speedily come into use. The idea of wrapping the carbons of the electric lamp in a sheath of asbestos and placing them side by sidt: in a parallel position, insulated only by the asbestos itself, is certainly one of the most novel contrivanccs which has recently been introduced into electric apparatus. We have good authority for saying that arrangements are being made for its introduction into several large establishments in Paris. Monsieur Breguet of Paris is aIso, we believe, making nrrang~ments for further tests in England.