Mr. RODEN BUXTONasked, in view of the facts that certain samples of feeding stuffs were recently analysed by the analyst of the Devon County Council, and reported by him to contain 40.4 per cent. of sawdust, that the County council desired to institute proceedings against the sellers under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, but that the Board of Agriculture refused to grant them leave to do so, what was the reason for such refusal; whether the samples corresponded with the analysis guaranteed by the sellers in their invoice, as provided by the above Act; and what steps the Board proposes to take to prevent farmers from being defrauded by the sale of adulterated feeding stuffs?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe Board did not consent to a prosecution, because they were advised by their legal advisers that the Report of the Chief Government Analyst was insufficient to establish the offence under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, in respect of which the county council desired to take proceedings. If the Board's consent had been given, the county council would have been involved in a long and unsuccessful law suit, entailing a heavy charge on the rates. The sample of feeding stuff forwarded to the Government Laboratory did not contain any article that could properly be described as sawdust. It did contain the substance known as cellulose, but it was essentially different in character from the crude article from which it was derived. The invoice given by the sellers was not incorrect. The Board are taking steps to investigate further the composition of this substance and its suitability as a feeding stuff.