COLONIAL PRODUCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVIII, Issue 11334, 30 July 1897, Page 5

COLONIAL PRODUCE.

THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY. ME WINGFIELD DIGBT’S RETRACTATION. FPeb Press Association.] LONDON, July 29. Mr R. A. Cameron, the Now Zealand expert, in giving evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Bill dealing with the marking of agricultural produce, emphasised the necessity for government inspection and grading, which had ensured such high quality in New Zealand produce. Mr Wingfield Dighy, M.P., has withdrawn the statements he made reflecting on Australian frozen meat. He states that he is sorry if the colonies have felt hurt at his remarks.

It is understood that the committee intends to report in favour of the Agricultural Produce Marks Bill, and that all colonial should be marked “ colonial,” while that from other countries should he denominr nated “ foreign.” It will also favour all live or dead meat imported being marked aboard the vessel.

In his evidence Mr Cameron denounced Mr Wingfield Digby’s statements in the House of Commons as untrue. He dwelt on the absence of disease in New Zealand and the extreme pains farmers were at to produce the highest quality of mutton. He suggested that live foreign importations ought to be prohibited from being sold as British, while all colonial produce ought to bo called “colonial,” and marked with the country of origin. The evidence given by the colonial experts greatly impressed the committee.