Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts.

  • Great Britain. Committee on Coroners.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    57/232 (page 27)
    MINUTES 15 June 1909.] [ Continued. 6982. You think that it would be sufficient if, with a large consignment of material, all said to be of the same quality, a sample were taken?—Yes, I should think so. 6983. If that is so, how could the inspector see that the mark was put upon the material, because this suggested Bill, as I understand, directs that the mark shall be put at an interval of 2 yards ?—The mark is put on—I have seen it done—during the manufacture of the material. When the Bradford Dyers were making a large quantity of cloth I have seen them put the mark on as the material runs through the various processes. Probably it would be simpler, in a case of that kind, if the manufacturer who sent the material to this country put the mark on himself during the process of manufacture, and then it would have to pass through the hands of the inspector before he allowed the material to be sold in this country as proof or non- inflammable. 6984. Putting a mark, with a crown, suggests that this piece of material has passed the Government test; but now your suggestion is that the manu- facturer should himself put the mark on before there has been any test?—He might put the mark on himself after having received the permission of the inspector. 6985. Exactly — My suggestion is this: As the material goes through the various processes in this country it would be stamped. The flannelette would be stamped every two yards, for instance, and the inspector would test the material before it was sent out from a place of this kind to see whether he could allow that material to go out with that mark on it. 6986. But then one mark that may be put on the material according to the Bill is ‘“ Non-proof’’ ?— Yes. 6987. Who do you suggest should put that mark on; not the manufacturer, surely?—If it is enacted that all flannelette must be stamped, then the manu- facturer must obviously send out his material to suit the requirements of the law; he must send it out marked “Proof” or he must send it out marked *Non-proof.” The manufacturer himself must do the marking. 6988. It comes to this, then: your first proposition is that all flannelette sold or offered for sale shall be submitted to a Government test ?—Yes. 6989. And then the next suggestion is that before delivery on sale every individual two-yards piece of flannelette shall be marked to show that the material has been tested ?—Yes. 6990. That means that it has been tested by the Government ?—Yes. 6991. You cannot possibly suggest that the manu- facturer should, in anticipation of this test, put on a mark to the effect that it has passed the test, or that it has not passed the test?—I do not see where the difficulty is in that. I have noticed when I have been over large works belonging to the Bradford Dyers’ Association, that garments are stamped as they go through the process with B.D.A., the mark of the Association, on them. Then the material is tested to see whether it really comes up to that actual standard which they require by their mark. If it does not come up to the standard they do not send it out for sale. The only difference is that in the case of flannelette the inspector would pass the material instead of the Association. 6992. What do you suggest the inspector should do if he finds material stamped “ Proof,’ whereas he thinks it does not deserve that mark. He simply would not pass the material; he would not allow the man to send it out. 6993. I am afraid there is no provision for that P— I think the third section covers it. 6994. No, it only says that it must be marked ?— “ Or which has been falsely marked.” 6995. (Dr. Willcox.) But you imply there offering for sale, and the manufacturer does not offer the thing for sale. You rather have in mind there the wholesale dealer >—Yes, in so far as the marking is concerned. 6996. (Mr. Bramsdon.) The value of your suggestion is that the Government shall test the article, and that it shall not be sold unless it is so marked as tested by the Government ?>—As passed by the Government. 6997. As marked as non-inflammable, and, pre- sumably, as tested by the Government ?—Yes. 6998. That being so, if the manufacturer were to mark the article in the first place that would be transgressing the condition that you afterwards suggest ? —Not if it was understood that he was not to offer it for sale or send it out unless it passed the inspector. 6999. What about a fraudulent manufacturer P— Would it not be the same as with a fraudulent brewer who sends out material that has not passed the inspector. 7000. I do not think that is the same condition at all. A fraudulent brewer who sent out beer that had not passed the inspector would not sell his beer ? —But he might send out more beer, or whatever it might be, than had actually passed through the hands of the imspector. 7001. But in your suggestion you allow the manu- facturer to mark the article, and there is nothing to prevent a fraudulent manufacturer from sending out this marked article. There is nothing of that kind in the case of a brewer. May I take you to another point. You remember that you suggested that it would be identical with the case of gun barrels being tested by Government ?—I thought it was similar. 7002. Am I right in understanding that in those cases the actual Government mark is placed by a Government official ?—I believe so, but I am not sure. 7003. That being so, ought not the actual mark of “ Proof” to be affixed by the Government inspector in this case P—If it could be done; but such a course is hardly possible. 7004. But unless some absolutely safe conditions are imposed a fraudulent manufacturer would over- ride it, and the value of the suggestion that you make is entirely gone P—May I put it in this way : Supposing the inspector was present when this material was going to be put through the marking process, as I say is often done, and the inspector said: I have tested this eloth, and I will allow you to put that cloth through the marking process. 7005. Do not you think the actual marking ought manufacturer ?—Not necessarily. I only put forward these suggestions asa kind of basis. Supposing, for instance, a bale of flannelette stood in a manufacturer’s works, and the inspector went up and said, ‘‘ Very well, “ T will allow you to put that through your machine « which affixes the Government mark to it.” I do not see why there should be any difficulty. Or the alter- native might be for the inspector to pass material marked by the manufacturer before it was allowed to leave the works. 7006. Could it be arranged in this way, that the actual instrument which impresses the mark should be kept and retained by the Government, and should be used on the manufacturer’s machines in the presence of the inspector ?—Yes. 7007. That might get over the difficulty ?—Cer- tainly. 7008. Just now I asked you several questions bearing on the subject of the expense which this might entail. I take it that you would provide that the matter should be self-supporting, that the expense of inspecting and impressing the words that you speak of should not fall upon the Exchequer ?—Certainly. 7009. That it should be paid out of the article itself —Yes. 7010, That must increase the expense of the non- inflammable article, must it not ?—Yes, certainly ; but to a very slight extent. 7011. Taking the broad question, it must increase the expense of it; I do not say to what degree >—Yes. 7012. You also said that you would not prevent the sale of inflammable flannelette. Do you think that the public, if they had the two articles before them, even though the one was marked inflammable, and the other non-inflammable, would purchase the dearer article and not the cheaper ?—I think any mother who cared for the life of her child would certainly do so.