§ LORD EUSTACE CECILasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having reference to a paragraph that appeared in the "Pall Mall Gazette" on the 17th of May, inspectors of markets, nuisances, or weights and measures, as the local authority may appoint, are not bound to prosecute under the terms of "The Adulteration Act, 1872," upon receiving a certificate from the local analyst; and, whether under such circumstances an analyst is not abusing the confidential nature of his position in sending notice of the adulteration to the seller? The paragraph to which he referred was as follows:—
Dr. Corfield has just presented his first Report as food analyst to the Vestry of St. George, Hanover Square. Of 15 samples of ground coffee only four were genuine, while nine were adulterated with chicory, caramel, &c. He had analyzed 20 samples of milk, and found five only genuine. Two or three were deteriorated, some were adulterated with water, besides having been skimmed. He proposed to send notice of the adulteration to the seller. The Report was ordered to be printed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, that of course he did not pretend to know whether the paragraph upon which the noble Lord grounded his Question was correct or not. Looking at the 6th section of 35 & 36 Vict., c. 74, it seemed to be clearly laid down that when the analyst had brought under the notice of the Inspector a case of adulteration, it was the duty of the latter to make a complaint before the magistrates, and it was their duty to issue a summons. What might be done thereupon was, of course, for the magistrates themselves to say. As to the second Question, he could give the noble Lord no authoritative opinion. There was nothing in the Act of Parliament to forbid the analyst sending notice of the adulteration to the seller, and he could 275 only say that if he were analyst he should not do it, but there were other men who might take a very different view.