Search results

In October, 1902, the Secretary of the Mineral Water Bottle Exchange and Trade Protection Society addressed a letter to the Clerk of the London County Council stating that aerated and mineral waters are, in many instances, manufactured under insanitary conditions, and suggesting that the Council should take action in the matter. The Public Health Committee of the Council thereupon directed that a number of premises where aerated waters are manufactured should be inspected, and, in February, 1903, Dr. Shirley Murphy, the Medical Officer to the Council, presented a report drawn up by Dr. Hamer, the Assistant Medical Officer, by whom the inspections ordered were carried out. Dr. Hamer came to the conclusion that it was most desirable in the interests of the consumer that the manufacture of aerated waters in London should be regulated and controlled. The quantity of aerated water sold in London is very large, and Dr. Hamer's inspection of numerous premises showed that there are many possible sources of dangerous contamination of the water used during the process of the manufacture. We are in a position to state that Dr. Hamer was thoroughly justified in drawing the conclusions which appear in his report. The enormous growth in popularity during recent years of aerated and mineral waters, while unquestionably fraught with a most important influence for good, has brought a number of firms into existence who manufacture more or less inferior and, in some instances, positively injurious and dangerous waters, and who place their products on the market at “cutting” prices, with the result that the honest and careful manufacturer on the one hand, and the public on the other, are made to suffer. Unfair “competition” of the kind referred to exists, of course, in every trade, and only by the authoritative approval of the good and, by implication, the authoritative condemnation of the bad, can such “competition” be effectively checked. But where the health of the consumer is directly threatened or affected, as it particularly is by the supply of inferior or actually injurious aerated waters, the necessity for adequate regulation and control is immediately obvious. The matter cannot be dealt with under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. It is not one involving analysis only but, so far as analysis is concerned, the provisions of the Acts make it impossible to carry out the analytical investigations that would be required. In addition to the official registration of all manufacturers of mineral and aerated waters, a combination of inspection and analysis by an authoritative bedy of some kind, or by a recognised individual authority, is necessary to supply a sufficient guarantee to the public and efficient protection to the manufacturer and vendor of pure and high‐class waters.

In either 1960 or '61, when I worked in the Acquisitions Department at the D.C Public Library, the Director killed an order for the recently‐published, unexpurgated edition of D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. The Library had stocked the abridged version, which some say is actually more suggestive—“hotter”—than the uncut edition. Professional selectors in the Fiction Department picked the new title. Nobody had objected to it, either in or outside the Library. But the Director canceled the order anyway, fearing that someone on the Congressional Committee that appropriated library funds might complain.

Previous revolutions, the Agrarian and Industrial, are examined and their features compared with the Information Revolution. Lessons are drawn from the comparison and a range of global issues identified. The nature of the Internet is considered and its pretensions argued to be inflated. The role of the state in developing an information society is discussed. A national information policy is identified as a feature and its application in and implications for Scotland are considered. Key features of an Internet culture are indicated and discussed, with lessons and conclusions for social development within the information society presented.

Britain's merchant navy dominated the international maritime trade in the 19th century. The strong ship owners' lobby imposed on the shippers the only choice to contract either under bills of lading drafted almost totally on the ship owners' terms or not to contract. The conflict between Britain and its rival the American merchant navy precipitated a movement for the use of model contracts of shipment (carriage) and towards standardisation of the liability of International liner carriers by legislative intervention. The bill of lading through its use in international trade gained the characteristic of being the document which incorporates the contractual terms. So, the orally agreed contract of carriage gave way to the contract of carriage in the form of a bill of lading.

As early as 1818 in Marseilles merchants were asking the courts to recognise the legal character of the maritime sale of goods, which was a sale of a bill of lading representing goods at sea in a ship. The courts of Marseilles found suitable to hear and decide cases in accordance with the law merchant despite the lack of authority in the French Commercial Codes. Merchants everywhere began to deal with documents representing goods without waiting to check the goods as it was the practice under the Napoleonic Code. Thus, the transition of the bill of lading from a mere receipt to a negotiable instrument developed by the practice of merchants arranging the sale of goods in transit. The success of the use of bills of lading in international trade is attributable to its negotiable character and its feature as a document of title.

Compares and contrasts the contractual role of bills of lading in the context of Greek, US and English law. Discusses the legal status and contractual roles of these lading bills in the context of the legislative provisions and associated case law in each of the three countries. Concludes that the role of these bills is unsettled and there is no uniform perception. Recommends measures involving amendments to English legislation, to consolidate the regulation of international trade.

The experimental parliamentary subsidy on knights' fees and freehold incomes from lands and rents of 1431 was the only English direct lay tax of the Middle Ages which broke down. As such, this subsidy has a clear historiographical significance, yet previous scholars have tended to overlook it on the grounds that parliament's annulment act of 1432 mandated the destruction of all fiscal administrative evidence. Many county assessments from 1431–1432 do, however, survive and are examined for the first time in this article as part of a detailed assessment of the fiscal and administrative context of the knights' fees and incomes tax. This impost constituted a royal response to excess expenditures associated with Henry VI's “Coronation Expedition” of 1429–1431, the scale of which marked a decisive break from the fiscal-military strategy of the 1420s. Widespread confusion regarding whether taxpayers ought to pay the feudal or the non-feudal component of the 1431 subsidy characterized its botched administration. Industrial scale under-assessment, moreover, emerged as a serious problem. Officials' attempts to provide a measure of fiscal compensation by unlawfully double-assessing many taxpayers served to increase administrative confusion and resulted in parliament's annulment act of 1432. This had serious consequences for the crown's finances, since the regime was saddled with budgetary and debt problems which would ultimately undermine the solvency of the Lancastrian state.