View report page

114
therefore be glad if you will bring the circular to the notice of your
justices with a view to securing careful consideration of the adequacy of
the penalties which they may decide to impose in cases under the Sale of
Food and Drugs' Acts.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Edward Troup.
The Clerks to the Justices for the
Petty Sessional Divisions and Boroughs.
24th July, 1902.
Sir,
I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that a local
authority charged with the enforcement of the provisions of the Sale of
Food and Drugs Acts has recently called his attention to the inadequate
penalties imposed for breaches of these Statutes, and has represented that
the efforts made to suppress the abuses against which the Acts are aimed
are hereby greatly impeded. This representation is by no means the first
of the kind which has been made to the Home Office, and the Secretary
of State is informed by the Local Government Board that they have from
time to time received many similar complaints from the local authorities
entrusted with the administration of the Acts. The matter was considered
by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, which inquired into
the subject of the adulteration of food products in 1896, and their report
contains the following passage : —
" There has been a general agreement among the witnesses who
have given evidence in reference to this subject that the
penalties imposed in respect of offences under the Acts are for
the most part trifling and quite insufficent to serve as deterrents.
Your Committee have been told that fines such as 10s. with 12s.
costs are frequently inflicted."
Notwithstanding the attention, however, which was then drawn to
the matter, the Local Government Board informed the Secretary of State
that in the year 1900, out of 2673 fines imposed by Magistrates under
the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, no less than 764, or over 28½ per cent.
were of 10s. or less, while 19.3 penalties were under 5s., and 118 were Is.
or even less than that sum.
It is unnecessary to point out the injurious consequences of the
adulteration of articles of food or the large and sometimes enormous
profits that accrue from the practice ; and it is obvious that when the
penalty on detection is trifling, it not only fails to be deterrent, but may
even spread the mischievous impression that the offence is venial. The
Secretary of State does not wish to be understood as suggesting that these
considerations are lost sight of by your bench, but the figures appear to
be sufficient to show that the state of things to which the Parliamentary
Committee called attention has not yet been set right, and he will be glad if
you will bring the matter to the notice of the Justices, in order that, as