View report page

283
[19l3
in his leathern breeches and the stickiness of the residue obtained by evaporation
afforded the evidence of purity or otiierwise of the ale, for if sugar had
been added, he adhered to the bench, and the ale was therefore looked on as
adulterated, while pure malt beer was not considered to yield an adhesive
extract.'"
A long interval then elapsed before any further English legislation is
found, and it was not until 1725 that an act relating to the adulteration of tea
was passed, which to prevent dealers in or manufacturers or dyers of tea
adulterating it with terra-japonica or with any drug or drugs, or mixing it
with any leaves other than the leaves of tea, or with any ingredients whatsoever,
on pain of forfeiting the tea so adulterated or mixed, and of a penalty
one hundred pounds.
The next enactment was passed in 1780-31 and again related to tea.
It recited that "several ill-disposed persons had freqiently dyed, fabricated, or
manufactorued very great quantities of sloe leaves, liquorice leaves and the
leaves of tea that has been before used, or the leaves of other trees, shrubs or
plants in imitation of tea, and do likewise mix, color, stain and dye such
leaves with terra-japonica, sugar, molasses, clay, logwood, and with other
ingredients, and do sell and vend the same as true and real tea to the
prejudice of the health of His Majesty's subjects, the diminution of revenue,
and to the ruin of the fair trader." The Act provided a penalty of ten pounds
for every pound of adulterated tea found in possession of any persons. This
Act, like many Acts relating to adulteration, was passed more to protect the
revenue than the health of His Majesty's subjects, or to prevent the ruin of the
fair trader.
Loss of revenue has in past times been the almost invariable lever used to
induce Governments to stop adulteration. The health of the people and the
ruin of the fair trader were nothing as compared with the loss of revenue;
for of course this must be protected, no matter what happened to the
consumer. The penalties under the Act do not, however, appear to have had
a deterrent effect, for in 1766-7 a further Act was passed increasing the penalty
to imprisonment for not less than six or more than twelve months.
Prior to the passing of these Acts one was enacted respecting coffee in
1718, because "divers ill-disposed persons" had "at the time of or soon after
the roasting of coffee made use of water, grease, butter, or such like materials
which greatly increased it in weight," for which offence there was a penalty of
£20. In 1803 another Act preventing the addition of burned, scorched or