View report page

171
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 insufficient 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 inform the Secretary of State that in the
year 1900, out of 2,673 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 193 penalties were under 5s., and 118 were 1s. 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 occasion arises, they may give special consideration
to the question whether the penalties imposed in the cases that
come before them are such as are likely to deter the offenders from repeating,
and other persons from committing, the offence.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
KENELM E. DIGBY.
The Clerk to the Justices of the
Petty Sessional Division of