View report page

128
London." The committee thought it desirable that the scope of the
Bill should be somewhat extended, so as to make it clear that the
Board should have power to incur any necessary expenditure in
opposing Bills relating to the supply of water in or near the
metropolis. A draft Bill was prepared accordingly, and the committee,
in submitting the same, recommended (the Board
agreeing) " that when the proper time arrives leave be sought to
bring in the Bill as a public Bill, and that the committee be
empowered to take all necessary measures for promoting its
passage through both Houses of Parliament." The Bill having
been approved by the Board, was duly introduced in the House of
Commons. It soon became manifest, however, that the government
was not disposed to give the Board facilities to acquire power
to deal with the question of water supply; the Home Secretary,
following in the wake of the Home Secretary of the preceding
Liberal Government, taking the view that the water supply of
London is a question that can be properly dealt with only by a
municipality, the creation of which, within any definable time,
appears less probable now than it was two years ago. The Bill
was thrown out upon the second reading.
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.
At the request of the Law and Parliamentary Committee, Mr.
Cassal, Public Analyst, and myself, drew up the following observations
on two Bills brought before Parliament in the current
session, both of which may be considered of more or less importance
in a public health point of view:—
Beer Adulteration (No. 2).
" The object of this Bill, of which, so far as it goes, we
approve, is to secure the imposition of a penalty for selling Beer
containing other ingredients than Malt and Hops, without giving
notice to the purchaser by a legible notice conspicuously posted in
the bar or other place of sale. The only definition of Beer which
it is possible to adopt in the present state of the law is this—that
it is ' a fermented saccharine infusion to which has been added a