THE ANALYST. 22 1 HOURE O F COMMONS. 12th P e h a r y ) 1878. SALE OF FOOD AND DRUBS’ ACT. Mr. ANDERSON asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to a recent decision of the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland, concerning the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act, 1875, by which five Judges had decided that no offence could be proved on evidence taken from any article specially bought for analysis, the buyer in such case not having been prejudiced in the purpose for which he bought it ; and, further, that two of the Judges-Lords Moncrieff and Young -expressed the opinion that the sixth section did not prevent tampering with an article to the deter- ioration of its quality, if without the addition of extraneous matter; and whether he purposed taking any steps to prevent the Act in question becoming a dead letter. Nr.SCLATER-BOOTH.-My attention has been called to the decision by the Eigh Court of Justiciary in Scotland to which the hon. gentleman refers, and I regret that I have not had an opportunity of conferring with the Lord-Advocate on the subject. It seem8 that previous to the Scottiah case alluded to no question had been raised in England as to the validity of a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act by a person who purchases only with a view to analysis, and in the cases which hare occurred since the magistrates have decided against the objection when raised.I concur in that222 THE ANALYST. view, which, be it observed, is also the view of sonic of the Scottish Judges, and I cannot believe that the Bigh Court of Justice, if appealed to, mill come to any other decision.I am, therefore, not prepared, as a t present advised, t o introduce an amending Hill, though, if my anticipations were disappointed, such a step might be necessary, Times. ANALYSIS OF WINE. WE note that in Paris one of the clauses of our Sale of Food Act has been put in operation, thus showing that our Gallic neighbvurs are not above following our example when they consider it expedient to do so.The alleged adulteiation of mine by means of fuchsine, and the dangers which it may cause to public health, have given rise in Paris to new measures of repression. Fomerly, the examination was made on the premises of the wine merchant, and was conducted without, any serious control or exactitudc.Now, however, a special Commission is sent to the vendor’s premises. If a wine is suspected of sophistication, the Commissioner takes two samples, which are sealed. One of the samples is left with the merchant, who must present it intact on application. The other sample is sent to chemists, officially appointed-public analysts in fact-who are not permitted t o know the name of the vendor.The analysis is thus prepared with all sincerity, and without consideration for individuals. If the presence of fuchsine or other dangerous matter is detected, the wine merchant is called upon to produce the sample left with him; it is compared with the wine officially analysed, and identity being proved, the merchanb is punished. He is not able t o tamper with the sample left with him, and consequently, he cannot say that he did not sell the mine as analjsed. It is thought that much good will be done, in the way of repressing adulteration, by the adoption of this new system. The method of dealing with suspected samples is somewhat similar to that established by our own Sale of Food and Drugs Act.