FOOD HOARDING

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 81, 5 April 1918, Page 6

FOOD HOARDING

FINES AND CONFISCATION

DETERMINATION OF THE , AUTHORITIES.

(PROM OCR OWN COHRESPONDBNT.) LONDON, sth February. Within a week an Admiral and an M.P; have been fined for food hoarding —the former £30' and costs,'the latter £400 and 35 guineas costs. Tea, macaroni, tapioca, rice ; cheese, and coffee berries formed the six counts against Admiral Sir R. Poore, Bt., in whose honse approximately a quarter of a ton o£ food was alleged to have been found by a local police inspector. The tea stored was sufficient to last the household for twelve months. The Bench considered the Admiral had acted inadvertently. He had been responsible for the housekeeping during the illness of his wife. In,the case of the M.P.—Mr. W. J. ■ M'G. Mac Caw, member for West Down —the summonses related to food found in his country, house, Rooksnest Park, Godstone, Surrey, including :— 4351b flour ' 100£lb biscuits ' . 1031b sugar 531b te*. 13441b rice 6441b tapioca 591b oatmeal ' : Prosecuting counsel said that the mischief struck at by the Hoarding Order was the collection of large quantities of food, even if it had been the habit previously to collect a three months' or six months' store. On sth January food inspectors visited Eooksuest and told Mr. Mac Caw that they wished to inspect the stock of food. Mr. Mac Caw said he did not think they would find any quantity in excess of the food required for such a large household.. According to Mr. MacCaw the household consisted of fifteen persons, but three of the servants were on board wages, and there were only three in family instead of four, which would reduce the household to eleven. Just as the inspectors were leaving Miss MacOaw spoke to her father, who, called to them and said that they made their own bread. But counsel said he would call a local baker, who would say that he habitually supplied bread to the household, and that in the twelve days from 24th December, when Mr. Mac Caw came into residence, to sth January, he supplied twenty-five 21b loaves for the family and fourteen ■ 21b and three lib loaves for the servants. EATON-SQUARE PANTRY. Figures had been worked out upon thd basis of the voluntary rationing scale, and assuming fifteen person*! were in the household the quantities worked out as: —Flour, 32 weeks' supply ; tea, 37 week 6 ; and sugar, 13 weeks. Rooksneet was not marooned in the .middle of a desert. It was quite, near London, and the supplies were extravagant. Mr. Mac Caw had a- town house in Eatonsquare, and on Bth January that house was searched. There were found there: —1061b rice, 5741b oatmeal, 28|lb sugar, 121b tea, 3241b tapioca, 47§lb flour. ■ Counsel submitted that in times like these a man 'who moved from house to house ought to take with him the bulk of hie food. If not, a man who owned six houses could collect an immense stock, although the amount in,any one house mighl! .not be in excess. "The authorities are, determined tliat, so far as they ar.e concerned, nothing, neither rank, position, nor wealth, shall stand between anyone and the Constitution." Pressing for a heavy penalty, Mr. Oliver said Mr. Mac Caw was obviously a wealthy man, and it was impossible to imagine a worse case than that of a> people's elected representative hoarding the people's fo6d. 1 MR. MACCAW'S .CASE. Mr. Mac Caw, giving evidence, stated that his family consisted of himself and wife,and his two daughters, with a'total staff of fifteen, of whom thirteen were at Rooksnest. When the family was at Rooksnest they frequently entertained, there being about, thirty bedrooms. Mrs. Mac Caw arranged for the food supplies^ but though he knew nothing about the matter he accepted legal responsibility. About April of last year he discussed the' food shortage with his wife. Prior to the war non-perishable stores were ordered' for about six months, but since the beginning of the war that had been altered. About the month of June last he attended a meeting of the House of Commons, which was addressed by Lord .Devonport. In reply, to a question put by a member, Lord Devonport said a person living in the country was certainly justified in keeping a reasonable supply in reserve. He (Mr. Mac Caw) asked the question : ''What do you mean by a reasonable supply?" and Lord i. Devonport replied : "The supply accus-, tomed to be kept in ordinary times." H© ! asked Lord Devonport whether anyone keeping such a supply could be accused of hoarding, and the answet was, "Certainly not." Lord Devonport farther said that the delay in getting supplies must be taken into account when ordering the stocks. " FOOD SITUATION ACUTE." Cross-examined, defendant agreed that the food situation ' was very acute. He would not admit, however, that the question was more acute in January last than in January of last year. Witness said he had no knowledge of the supplies in' the house upon sth- January. Counsel: Do you suggest that you are entitled to keep a month or two's supplies at both of your houses?—l think a reasonable supply ought to be kept. I don't think I have neglected my duty in any way. I have a large body of people dependent upon me for food. Had I been allowed to give that explanation in private there would have been no prosecution; he remarked after a further question. Counsel: Why should you be allowed to give an explanation in private? Defendant contended that ho had the right to Jceep a month- or two's reserve of food after what had been said by - Lord Rhondda. Counsel said further large quantities of food were found at—Rooksnest and .at Eaton-square, which were not included in tiie' summons, because the individual quantities were not large. After consulting in private for some considerable time, Sir Lewis Dibdin announced that the penalty in respect of the summons concerning flour would be £100, and the penalty upon each of tho other six summonses would be £50. They awarded five guineas costs on each sum-, mons in which. there was a conviction, and made an order for the confirmation of the goods in question, with,, the direction that the inspector should leave a sufficient supply of each article for the ordinary use and consumption of the household.

Cases against the Food Regulations are of daily occurrence throughout the country. Fines and confiscation are general.