THE MEAT AND CHEESE MARKS BILL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1262, 7 May 1896, Page 5

THE MEAT AND CHEESE MARKS BILL.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) London, March 2 1

In the main 1. have no objection whatever to retail food suppliers being compelled to distinguish between Home-grown produce and imported, for my personal experience has confirmed in me a belief that so far as the g'eat bulk of the population is concerned, the one and only consideration when marketing is price. Therefore J am not in tho least opposed to Mr Mildmay's " Agricultural Produce (Marks) Blil," the second roaring of which was agreed to, after a lively and closured debate, by 2.39 to 82. But I do most strongly object to some of tho statements made by the supporters of the measure. Firstly there was .Mr Mil imay's statement that the free/dug process "prevented the meat from giving the vitality it might '.> give," and, secondly, Sir A. Achuid 1 loud's sweeping statement (hit "a very large prop >rtion of foreign and colonial ohec,» was udu'leralod "srilll fat and other dele!"i ions ] compounds," We have a " Colonial ' Party" in the House, but Sir Aidant! Hood's libel on Australian and Now Zealand chee.so makers was allowed to pass unchallenged, so you niav know the value of your self-elected representatives in the Imperial Parliament, Not one of them took part in the debate, which, on the whole, displayed our noble army of legislators in a particularly ignorant mood. One need not enter closely into particulars thereof, for the Dill throws the entire responsibility of marking meat an! cheese upon the retailer. It is proposed that the dealer shall mark every piece of foreign meat exposed for sail as " foreign" or " colonial,''' as the case may be. Secondly, it is proposed that every person having in his possession for sale any foreign or colonial meat should at all times have exposed in a conspicuous position in his place of business the legend, " dealer in foreign and

colonial meat," and, thirdly, that every person dealing in imported meat shall register himself at an ollice kept by the local authorities. The registration would be done free of charge. Tho local authorities are given power to appoint and remunerate inspectors to see that the provisions of the Act are , carried out. j Prosecutions under the Act may be instituted by the local authorities, or by some private individuals, and upon conviction the offender may be fined L 5 for the first offence and up to L2O for a repetition. So with the cheese.

To my mind the Bill is an ill-con-sidered measure more calculated to hamper honest tradesmen than to benefit either the consumers or the English farmer. But as the enforcement of its provisions is to be left to the local authorities, it will (if it is not blocked at the third reading or mangled incommittee) mostlike.ly become more or Irss inoperative. A better Bill could be founded on the principle (hat any person marking meat, cheese, butter or bacon with I he wrong country of origin should be liable to punishment. All

articles of food would then be chiefly sold on their merits without reference to their oiigin. Mr Mildmay's Bill will not, however, injure colonial produce in any way so far as 1 can see. \n fact it is more likely to benefit your producers rattier than the English farmers.