The adulteration of coffee and cocoa is punished with heavy penalties under 43 Geo. III. c. 129. Any person who manufactures, or has in his possession, or who shall sell, burnt, scorched, or roasted peas, beans, grains, or other grain or ve getable substance prepared as substitutes for coffee or cocoa, is liable to a penalty of 100/. (§ 5). The object of § 9 of 11 Geo. IV. c. 30, is similar. Chicory has been very extensively used in the adul teration of coffee in this country. This root, which possesses a bitter and aro matic flavour, came into use on the Con tinent in consequence of Bonaparte's de crees excluding colonial produce. Coffee with which a fourth or a fifth part of chicory has been mixed, is by some per sons preferred as a beverage to coffee alone ; but in England it is used to adul terate coffee in the proportion of one-half. The Excise has for some time permitted the mixture of chicory with coffee. In 1832 a duty was laid on chicory, and this duty, which has been increased once be fore, the chancellor of the exchequer is about to raise, and subject to excise survey. But chicory itsed has been sub ject to adulteration, and the proposed in crease of duty will be likely still further to extend the practice. Besides the quantity imported, chicory is also grown in England, and it will be necessary to place the cultivation under some restric tion, or perhaps, as in the case of tobacco, to prohibit the growth of it altogether.
The manufacturer, possessor, or seller of adulterated pepper is liable to a penalty of 1001. (59 Geo. III. C. 53, § 22). The act 9 Geo. IV. c. 44, § 4, extends this provision to Ireland.
In the important article of bread, there are prohibitions against adulteration, though they are probably of very little practical importance. The act 6 & 7 Wm. IV. c. 37, which repealed the se veral acts then in force relating to bread sold beyond the city and liberties of London, and ten miles of the Royal Exchange, was also intended to prevent the adulteration of meal flour, and bread beyond these limits. No other ingre dient is to be used in making bread for sale except flour or meal of wheat, barley, rye, oats, buckwheat, Indian corn, peas, beans, rice or potatoes, mixed with com mon salt, pure water, eggs, milk, berm, leaven, potato or other yeast, in such pro portions as the bakers think fit (§ 2). Adulterating bread, by mixing other in gredients than those mentioned above, is punishable by a fine of not less than 51. nor above 10/.. or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months; and the names of the offenders are to be pub lished in a local newspaper (§ 8). Adul terating corn, meal, or flour, or selling flour of one sort of corn as flour of an other sort, subjects the ofl'ender to a penalty not exceeding 20/. and not less than 51. (§ 9). The premises of bakers may be searched, and if ingredients foe adulterating meal or flour be found de posited, the penalty for the first offence is It /. and not lees than 40s. ; for the second
offence 5/., and for every subsequent onence 101.; and the names of offenders are to be published in the newspapers (§ 12). There are penalties for obstruct, ing search (§ 13). Any miller, meal man, or baker acting as a justice under this statute incurs a penalty of 1001. (§ The above act did not apply to Ire land, where the baking trade was re gulated by an act (2 Wm. IV. c. 31), the first clause of which, relating to the ingredients to be used, was similar to the English act just quoted. In 1838 an. other act was passed (1 Viet c. 28), which repealed all former acts relating to the sale of bread in Ireland. The pre amble recited that the act 6 & 7 Wm. IV. c. 37, had been found beneficial in Great Britain. The clauses respecting adultera, tion are similar to the English act.
The several acts for regulating the making of bread within ten miles of the Royal Exchange (which district is ex cluded from the operation of 6 & 7 Wm. IV.) were consolidated by the act 3 Geo. IV. c. 106. Under this act any baker who uses alum, or any other unwhole some ingredient, is liable to the penalties mentioned in § 19 of 6 & 7 Wm. IV. e. 37. Any ingredient or mixture found within the house, mill, stall, shop, &c. of any miller, mealman, or baker, and which shall appear to have been placed there for the purpose of adulteration, ren ders him liable to similar penalties.
Other articles besides those which have been mentioned are adulterated to a great extent; but perhaps the remedy for the evil is not unwisely left to the people themselves, who probably are less likely to be imposed upon when depending on the exercise of their own discrimination, than if a commission of public func tionaries were appointed, whose duty should consist in investigating as a branch of medical jurisprudence what ever related to the subject of adultera tion. The interference of the govern ment in this country with the practice of adulteration, except in the case of bread and drugs COMPANY], has eviden y had no other object than the improvement of the revenue.
Adulteration and the deceitful making up of commodities appear to have fre quently attracted the attention of the legislature in the sixteenth century, and several acts were passed for restraining offences of this nature. The act 23 Elia. e. 8, prohibits under penalties the prac tice of mixing bees' - wax with rosin, tallow, turpentine, or other spurious ingredient. The following acts have reference chiefly to frauds in the making up of various manufactured products : 3 Hen. VIII. c. 6; 23 Hen. VIII. c. 17; 1 Eliz. c. 12; 3 & 4 Edw. VI. C. 2; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 6 ; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. a. 23.