not be strictly true of an individual cake to which the label is attached.

Application of name and address of consignor.--In the case of an unsatisfactory sample taken elsewhere than at the point of origin in this country, it will be necessary to trace the consignment to its source as rapidly as possible in order that samples may be taken on the premises. This could, of course, be done, and, in the last resort, would be done, by demanding from the person on whose premises the original sample was taken the invoice received in respect of the goods; then demanding from the person who gave that invoice the invoice which he received, and so on, back to the original seller; each of the persons who had sold the goods being required to produce the invoice received from his seller in order to avoid proceedings being taken against himself for an offence against the Act.

66

Registered mark" in lieu of name and address.-All this trouble could be obviated, however, by requiring the person who applies the description or code sign to home-manufactured goods intended for consumption in this country to apply also his name and address, or, alternatively, a mark, registered with the Ministry or with the Scottish Board, to indicate the name and address. This "registered mark" might consist of the initials of the person or firm or any other suitable design, and its application would, we believe, entail no appreciable additional expense to the manufacturer.

In this one minor respect we feel that we can suggest a differentiation between goods carried by ship and those which are not, because it introduces an improvement into our general scheme without seriously disturbing the balance between the various interests.

Application of name and address in the case of goods ex ship.— As regards goods ex ship, it is as impracticable to require the application of the name and address, or a mark to correspond therewith, as to provide for the application of a description or code sign at the port. In this special case, therefore, we suggest that the application of the name and address of the consignor (i.e., the importer) should not be required.

There are, so far as we can see, only three possible ways open to the importer in disposing of the goods; one of these is to consign them direct to a farmer, the second to take them into his own store, and the third to consign them to a merchant's store for re-sale. In the first of these cases, no difficulty need be anticipated in consequence of the omission of the name and address of the consignor, since the goods, having passed direct from the ship to the farm, could easily be traced to their source in this country.

In each of the other cases, however, there will clearly be further consignment of the goods before they come into the hands of the user, and the whole of the proposed provisions should apply to such consignments in the same way as they would to consignments of home-produced goods.

(c) Worthless or Deleterious Ingredients.

We understand that some difficulties have been encountered in the administration of the provision made in the Act of 1906 against the presence in feeding stuffs of deleterious substances, or the addition to them of worthless ingredients the presence of which is not disclosed at the time of sale.

It is well known that opinion as to the value of some articles, and even as to whether or not certain substances are of a deleterious nature, has undergone considerable change within the last few years, and it is beyond dispute that further experiment may result in other modifications of the views of scientists and agriculturists.

Proposed Schedules.-While, therefore, we see no alternative to the present provision in substantially the same terms, we suggest that it might be amplified by the addition of Schedules containing the names of any articles or classes of articles as to which there may reasonably be doubt, but which are, at the moment, regarded as either worthless or deleterious, and a proviso to the effect that the articles mentioned in these Schedules are worthless or deleterious within the meaning of the

66

Section of the Act in question.

Amendment of Schedules by Regulations.-As in the case of the other Schedules that we propose should be prepared (see page 41), additions, deletions and amendments should be made by Regulations of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland acting jointly, and with the assistance of the Advisory Committee which we propose should be set up for the purpose.

(d) Time Limit for Sampling and Notice to Seller in the case of Criminal Proceedings.

One of the principal reasons why we attach great importance to the proposal to sample at traders' premises, and which, incidentally, recommends the scheme to the traders themselves, is that any prosecution instituted would be in respect of a sample from a parcel for which the owner or consignor was undoubtedly responsible. The possibility of a serious miscarriage of justice due to the mistake or carelessness of another party would be practically eliminated. At the same time, many administrative difficulties would disappear.

We have already commented on the importance attached by makers to the limitation of the statutory period allowed for sampling and the need for notice of the intention to take a sample being given to the seller. If, however, as will usually be the case, the sample is taken on the trader's own premises, it is obvious that no time limit would need to be fixed and no notice given, as no sample would be taken without the knowledge of

the seller or his agent; while, if sampling in transit is also permitted, adequate safeguards should be provided for the consignor on the lines mentioned on page 35.

(e) Question of Criminal Proceedings in respect of Samples taken on the Farm.

We have previously expressed the view that no diminution should take place in the number of samples taken from consignments actually in the hands of the consumer, and the hope that, as a result of the changes we suggest, the number will, in fact, be much increased; and, to this end, we have made proposals for facilitating sampling for civil purposes only. The further question whether a sample taken on the farm should, in any circumstances, be the foundation of criminal proceedings remains to be considered.

Whatever precautions for the discovery of fraudulent or negligent practice-short of the examination of every consignment leaving the premises of manufacturer and merchant-may be adopted, there must remain the possibility of a grossly adulterated sample being found upon a farm. This possibility decreases as the efficiency of the work of inspectors develops, but is likely never to disappear altogether. If, therefore, it were considered practicable or expedient to attempt to create a net-work of provisions which would be capable of catching up every individual case of misrepresentation, there would appear to be no alternative to prosecution in respect of unsatisfactory samples taken from the farm.

The cases for and against.-Those who have urged the necessity for retaining criminal liability in respect of samples taken on the farm seem to be agreed that proceedings need be contemplated only in exceptional cases, since the civil side of the amended Act will normally be sufficient to make minor misrepresentations unprofitable. A case in point is the inclusion of a deleterious substance in a feeding stuff. It is argued that it is contrary to the interests of a merchant to do anything that may injure or destroy cattle, and that an error of this kind must be due to accident and not to fraudulent intent. While this is undoubtedly true, it seems to amount to such gross negligence and to involve such serious consequences that an ordinary civil action is insufficient to meet the case, and a larger publicity, which can only be obtained by criminal proceedings, may be necessary. As opposed to this, a distinct difficulty arises in that the new procedure we propose for sampling at a farm, i.e., an increased time limit without notice to the trader, is not suitable for criminal proceedings, and, if an exception is admitted in one case, a separate code of regulations may be necessary which, in practice, would be highly inconvenient.

On the whole, we believe that it will be better to exclude exceptional cases, particularly as the farmer, who is the sufferer

desires only to get compensation and has nothing to gain by the punishment of the offender. In addition, the system of marking already suggested will at once connect the actual delivery with the bulk on the manufacturer's premises, or on those of the last consignor, and there should be no difficulty in fixing responsibility upon the right person.

Traders' objection. Moreover, it is necessary, if fresh legislation is to be made, that its principles should be more or less agreed, and we have reason to believe that the traders, who have shown themselves agreeable to allowing an effective power of entry and to the marking of goods-both essential parts of our scheme would not be prepared to co-operate unless they were relieved absolutely and entirely of criminal responsibility in respect of goods which have been out of their care and control for several days at least.

The basic objections. One of the main objections to prosecution in respect of samples taken on the farm appears to be that, in the past, even where fraud has been known to have been practised regularly, it has been almost impossible to discover the farmers who are receiving the adulterated goods. The other great point, on which we desire to lay particular stress, is that the connection of criminal proceedings with samples taken on the farm does, and would continue to, check the taking of samples for civil purposes, and thus prevent the full operation of the civil provisions of the Act.

We are, therefore, of opinion that it will be to the ultimate advantage of the farmer to make no provision for prosecution in respect of any sample taken on the farm, even though there may be a remote possibility that, in consequence, a case of fraud may occasionally escape punishment; and we make a recommendation accordingly.

(f) Offences by Merchants.

Adulteration by middlemen infrequent.-A good deal of attention has been paid by witnesses to the necessity for ensuring that goods which leave the factory or port in a state that accords with the description or code sign they bear do not reach the farmer in an adulterated or impoverished condition. So far as our information goes, deliberate adulteration on the part of middlemen is probably uncommon. In the case of some articles, such as cakes, it is virtually impossible; frequently the goods do not pass through the hands of any middleman; and, where only small consignments are concerned, it is doubtful whether adulteration to an extent that might be expected to pass unnoticed would be a paying proposition. Nevertheless, we quite agree that the possibility of fraud after manufacture must be guarded against, and we anticipate no appreciable difficulty in that direction.

Routine sampling.-We have already proposed that regular sampling should take place at all kinds of warehouses and stores,

L 22160

B

as well as at factories and ports, and, if a sample drawn on the premises of a middleman were found to be deficient, the next step would be to obtain a sample of the same substance from the place of its origin, if one had not already been taken by the inspector for the district from which it came in the course of his ordinary duty. If this sample, also, proved deficient, the innocence of the merchant would be established and subsequent action would be against the manufacturer or importer on whose premises the second sample had already been taken. If, however, the results of the analysis of the second sample corresponded with the description borne by the parcel from which the first sample was taken, it would be obvious that adulteration had taken place after leaving the point of manufacture or importation, and the manufacturer or importer would be called in evidence against the merchant.

It should be observed, also, that the practice of sampling goods other than those prepared for sale or consignment, which we have advocated in an earlier paragraph, would afford some indication as to whether fraud was to be looked for on any particular premises.

The fact that should not be lost sight of is that sampling on the premises of the merchant-and equally of the manufacturerwould not be dependent only upon a presumption of guilt following the discovery on farms of unsatisfactory deliveries. If it were, the dishonest seller might be able to dispose quickly of the whole of his stock of the material, leaving no trace of his action. It is contemplated, however, that sampling will be constantly proceeding, and the merchant or manufacturer-who consigns parcels of faulty goods will run a very grave risk each time he does so.

(g) Discrepances between Description and Invoice.

The proposal to separate criminal from civil proceedings in the case of a false statement in the warranty, by making the description or code sign the basis of the one and the invoice that of the other, necessitates the introduction of provisions against a new class of offence. It is obvious that the invoices given by manufacturer, wholesaler and merchant should each of them quote, for the purpose of the civil warranty, the results of analysis or the description represented by the code sign upon the goods. Unless special provision were made to prevent it, either wholesaler or merchant would be able, in selling a parcel of goods, to give an invoice with much higher figures than those warranted by the code sign, without his buyer, who would not know the precise significance of that sign, being any the wiser. The most that could befall the seller would be that a buyer who took the precaution to have the material analysed would be able to make a civil claim for the difference between the price paid and that which would have been reasonable. The official guarantee of the correctness of the invoice which should