View report page

66
reasons: the inadequacy of the fines inflicted, and the difficulty
often experienced in reaching the really guilty
party.
Upon the first point, the Local Government Board in
their Report for the year 1889-90, make the following remarks:—
Proceedings were taken in 1691 of these cases, and fines were
imposed amounting, in the aggregate to £2,309 exclusive (in most
cases) of costs. The average penalty was thus £1 7s. 4d. In six
instances the maximum fine of £20 was imposed; and there were
18 fines of £10 each, six over £5 and under £10 and 85 of £5. If
we exclude these cases, amounting to less than seven per cent. of
the whole, we find that the average penalty was less than £1, an
amount which is quite insignificant in comparison with the profit
of adulteration.
It is more than probable that the leniency of the magistrate
in the administration of these acts is largely due to
a feeling that frequently the real offender is not before
them. There can be little doubt that the plea often
urged by small retail traders that the adulterated article is
sold by them as received from the wholesale dealer, is, in a
large number of cases, perfectly true. It is manifest that
any remedy possessed by the retailer in a small way of
business against the wholesale dealer is necessarily difficult
of enforcement, on account of their relative financial
positions, even supposing the retailer is not supplied on
credit, and thus, in some cases, dependent almost for his
existence on the forbearance of the wholesale house.
The Vestry have had under consideration a suggestion by
the Vestry of Kensington that in order to bring the wholesale
dealer within the purview of the Acts, retail traders
might, by notice or summons, join them in the proceedings