Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 2, Evidence received in 1902-3, together with appendices 16 to 32, and index (Being part 2 of the Final report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink.

Great Britain. Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning

Date:: 1903

Credit: Minutes of evidence and appendices. Vol. 2, Evidence received in 1902-3, together with appendices 16 to 32, and index (Being part 2 of the Final report of the Commission) / Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Source: Wellcome Collection.

33/404 (page 21)

$Mr. . A. Smith. Mar. 1902. mples of ults used ews could t be had. ich malts epared in 00-01 1s0n, \d mainly ith local is coke. reater care ith regard » fuel this ason, ut pre- AUtions 1some | stances ight. is at this stage impossible. It is true that since June, 1901, at all the breweries except the Cross Keys publican- brewery, a few samples of malt were occasionally analysed and were stated by the analyst not to be arsenical, or else to contain a negligible quantity of arsenic. But I have no evidence that the particular malts used in the implicated brews were among these samples in any case ; and I note that at certain brewerles the chemist to whom the malt samples were submitted, Mr. Ackroyd, Borough Analyst of Halifax, was using the form of Reinsch test first recommended by the Brewers’ Expert Committee, not the more stringent method which they have subsequently put forward. The malts which entered into the brews inquired into of course could not be recovered at the date of my visit.* den, page 19), they all had been malts of the 1900-1 season, whereas, usually, the malts in use at the dates of my visit were malts of the present season. At Messrs. Webster’s, Whitaker’s, and the Yorkshire Brewery Company’s breweries, I was supplied by the brewer with samples of malt stated to be of last season, and these I have placed at the disposal of Professor Thorpe. Looking, however, to the large output of these breweries, and the quantities of malt used, and to the impro- bability that at any one of them arsenic would have been present in last season’s malt in uniform propor- tions, it would seem that results of these analyses can- not be expected of themselves to settle the question of the derivation from malt; of arsenic in the particular beers enquired into. It appears, moreover, that there is substantial reason for drawing a sharp distinction between the malts used in the brews under enquiry and malts now in use. In each instance there is evidence affording a more or less strong presumption that the fuel used to pre- pare the implicated malts was local gas coke, whereas in later malts (and particularly all those of this season, save at Messrs. Whitaker’s) no gas coke had been used. For example, in the case of the “(Cross Keys ” publican- brewery, where it was more easy to trace the malt, there appears to be no doubt that the brew in which Mr. Richardson found 1-16th grain of arsenic per gallon was made from malt delivered at the “ Cross Keys” on December 5th, and that this malt (unbrushed before using) was made by Messrs. Firth and Blackburn last season, and over Lowmoor gas coke. I have already noted that I ascertained from Mr. Firth that in April, 1901, his malt was considered by a Lancashire brewer too arsenical for use. A¢t all the breweries visited I found that most of last season’s malt was being used up at the end of last year, and this fact, together with the difference in the fuel used, tends to explain the comparative freedom from notable amounts of arsenic of samples of recently brewed beer in Halifax, which appears to be indicated by the analyses of Messrs. Richardson and Allen, given on p- 17. The advice given by the Commission in their first report that fuel used in the kiln should be carefully selected on account of freedom from arsenic has thus, as regards this season, and in a sense, been adopted at nearly all the maltings which supplied the malts to the breweries in question. Except at Messrs. Whitaker’s anthracite or oven coke, or both these fuels, have been substituted for gas coke, the liability of which (and particularly some Yorkshire gas coke) to contaminate malt has come to be generally recognised. In each instance, however, it appeared to me that the maltster was content with the fact that he had changed his fuel, and with the vendor’s statement that the new supply was “free from arsenic.” Hardly any steps seemed to have been taken at any malting to ascertain what amount of arsenic the new fuel contained, or to what extent its use could be relied upon to ensure safety as regards arsenic in the malt. I may note that at one maltster’s I observed several lumps of pyrites of large size in the heaps of anthracite ready for the kiln. I visited one malting, at Brighouse, where gas coke alone was being used as fuel in the kiln on January 30th. The maltster informed me that the whole of the malt thus made was used at his brewery in Bradford. * An exception may, perhaps, be made in the casc of Messrs. Webster, who gave me a small sample tin, which they informed me contained black and white malt made on Ist February 1901, which (along with other malt) had entered into the brew specially enquired into. This sample was sent to Professor Thorpe. 8628. You visited Halifax ou behalf of the Commie H. H. Smith. sion on January 15th, and subsequently, and inquired there about the cases mentioned in this report ?—Yes. 2] Mar. 19 2. 8629. These cases came to light in the Halifax work- - house infirmary, and public attention was called to them by inquests on two which were fatal—McNulty - and Lee ?/—Yes. 8630. We understand that the Medical Officer of Cases eise- Health of Halifax suspects other cases to be due to Where than arsenical poisoning, besides the eight which you deal 1 Halifax with? Yes. I know that he has three other cases which I™/™™ary- are not dealt with in my report at all, each of which is supposed to be arsenical. 8651. Do you know any particulars of those three cases ?—No, I have no particulars of them. Dr. Neech draws attention to them in his report. We have now a formal report from Dr. Neech. low That has just come in, and will be before us? —Yes. : 8633. Have there been any more cases in the in- Additional firmary besides those dealt with in your report ?—There suspected have been three suspected cases that I have not seen. cases in In one of them the man died very suddenly from heart infirmary. failure after being admitted, and Dr. Hodgson sus- pected that might be a case of arsenical poisoning. Then, he tells me, there are two other cases in which the symptoms are not very marked. 8644. We understand from your study of the cases you deal with, and from the observations of Dr. Hodgson and others, which you give in the report, that you are of opinion that they are attributable to arsenical poisoning ?—Yes. 8635. Does any medical man who has seen these cases Dr. Wooid- doubt that they are arsenical?—No, I do not think any- yatt’s opinion body doubts it. There was a difference of opinion at on cause of first. Dr. Woodyatt at first said that he did not think outbreak. they were, but afterwards he said he did ; but nobody, so far as I know, is of opinion that they are not arsenical; in fact, there is a letter that I should like to read to the Commission which Dr. Woodyatt wrote to the “ Halifax Evening Courier ” on March 10th, 1902. On the 8th March there had been a short report in the “ Halifax Evening Courier” of Dr. Reynolds’ examina- tion before the Commission the other day, in which it was mentioned that Dr. Reynolds visited these cases at Halifax at the request of Dr. Hodgson. On the 10th March Dr. Woodyatt writes to the same paper to this effect :— “To the Editor of the ‘ Halifax Courier.’ “Sir,—As principal Medical Officer to the Halifax Union Poor Law Hospital, I think it is my duty to correct a false impression which seems to have gained credence with regard to the arsenical cases at the hos- pital. It will, perhaps, come as a surprise to many when [I tell you that I was the first to detect these cases at our new hospital, Why Dr. Reynolds, in his evidence before the Commission, says he is not aware whether these cases had been detected by any other medical men than Mr. Hodgson, is best known to him- self. I may tell you, sir, that I wrote to Dr. Reynolds months ago and told him of these cases. J am sure he got my letter, because I have a reply to it in my pos- session. Now, sir, I do not wish to take any credit to myself for detecting these cases, for, as Dr. Reynolds says, they were well marked and ought not to be missed by anyone, but there is one gentleman who, I think, ought to come in for a little kudos, and that is Dr. Dolan. He was the first to detect arsenical cases in Halifax at the old workhouse infirmary more than twelve months ago. “ Believe me, sir, yours truly, “J. F. Woopyarr. ‘21, King Cross Road, Halifax, “March 10th, 1902.” Woodyatt nor other medical men who have studied these cases have said that they were not arsenical. 8636. You could not ascertain that any of these cases have been taking arsenic medicinally or had been ex- posed to arsenic by reason of their work ?—No, none of }_ 16th to them. I made inquiry, and I got Dr. Hodgson to in- }_39th orain quire as well. arsenic per gallon in 8637. You ascertained, however, that in some cases Goitain beers. beer from public-houses which they had frequented had been analysed in January, and amounts of arsenic from$