306 FRAUDULENT COMPETITION 



in the ballot, there has been no opportunity of proceeding 

 with it. This last-named measure meets with much opposi- 

 tion and criticism from certain Meat Purveyors' Societies, 

 but it is difficult to understand why they should object to a 

 measure which aims merely at the suppression of nefarious 

 practices. 



It is perhaps worth noting that although Mr. William Field 

 (M.P. for Dublin) has since 1901 introduced several Bills to 

 provide for marking meat in Ireland, in 1914 he blocked the 

 Chamber's Bill which applied to the United Kingdom. 



Substitutes for Wool. 



One other form of fraud which hits the British farmer and 

 robs the consumer is the sale of goods which are wholly or 

 partially made of substitutes for wool. Mr. Alfred Mansell 

 (Secretary of the Shropshire Chamber) called public attention 

 to this question in 1902, at a series of meetings of various 

 societies, and in November of that year the Council resolved, 

 with one dissentient, that legislation was needed to stop this 

 practice. Mr. Mansell estimated that in the United Kingdom 

 some 428,000.000 Ib. of wool were displaced by the use of shoddy 

 in the year 1900. A very large proportion of this was sold 

 without any notification to customers that it was not " pure 

 wool." 



In this connection it should be stated that whenever these 

 questions of fraudulent competition have been discussed by 

 the Chambers it has always been clearly pointed out that no 

 objection was being taken to the sale of shoddy, of foreign 

 meat, of margarine or of any other substitute, so long as it 

 is sold under a distinctive name and on its merits. The British 

 producer can hold his own against most competitors on equal 

 terms, but he cannot compete against fraud. 



