View report page

79
for selling preserved peas containing sulphate of copper, added to give
the peas a 'good colour.' The proceedings resulted in the vendors
being fined £5 with costs in one case, and £4 with costs in each of
two other cases.
"Further samples were subsequently taken in other parts of the
City, and, upon analysis, were also found to contain sulphate of copper.
"The percentage of the chemical in these particular cases not being
to such an extent as in the previous cases, the City Council refrained
from taking summary proceedings in respect thereof, but directed
cautionary letters to be addressed to the several vendors.
"The City Council have directed me to call your attention to these
facts, and to state that they have given instructions to their Inspectors
to continue to purchase samples of preserved peas in the City for
analysis, and that, should samples of such peas be so purchased at your
premises, and be found to contain sulphate of copper, the fact of this
communication having been sent to you will be adduced in evidence in
any proceedings which the City Council may think fit to institute in
respect of the offending sample."
By most of the vendors of these articles the notice was appreciated,
and a number of them took steps to have the preserved peas in stock
analysed, in order that they might know exactly how much copper they
contained; but evidently this attitude was not adopted by everyone, as
a letter was received from the Local Government Board, dated the
24th July. 1903, forwarding extract from a letter received by the Board
from the London Chamber of Commerce with reference to the use of
preservatives in peas, mentioned in the circular letter issued by the
Council on the subject in May last, and requesting the Council's
observations in the matter.
The extract referred to is as follows:—
"Botolph House, Eastcheap,
"London, E.G.
"17th July, 1903.
"Sir- ******
"I am now instructed by the Chamber to forward to you the enclosed
original of a circular letter issued by the Westminster City Council to
a number of retailers, grocers, &c., within the district under its control,
the issue and substance of which the Chamber desires specially to bring
to your notice. It is held that in the present state of uncertainty as to
the exact law governing the sale of preserved green vegetables, the issue
of such a circular by a local body is quite out of order, and is practically
an attempt to manufacture evidence for use in future cases against any
defendants to whom a copy of the circular may have been sent, and