NEW ZEALAND PRODUCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2201, 7 May 1896, Page 16

NEW ZEALAND PRODUCE.

(Fboh Ova, Own Oohbbspondbnt.) *'-■ London, March 21. The new cold store recently erected at Staitfcfield will prove "a. great convenience to the fiolonial produce trade. Its 16 chamberji bava

an aggregate of over 360,000 cubic feet of space. The system adopted is Messrs Hall's carbonic anhydride. Some of the Tooley street authorities consider that a mistake in policy was made in holding stocks of colonial butter too long, as most of the batter could have bsen cleared out at better prices some little time ago. Holders, however, were in constant expectation of colder weather setting in, and so they refused te sell, with tbe result that they had since had to quit at lower prices than they could then have obtained. " Lord Winchilsea's British Produce Supply Association in just announoed with a capital of £50,000 in £10 shares.. His object is to enable the Britith farmer to make * stand against foreign competition, and to secure ai much as possible of the £150.000,000 sterling now paid annually by Great BriUin for imports of foreign and colonial agricultural produce. A bill of much interest, to New Zealand producers has been introduced into the House of Commons by Mr Bfildm&y, and was read a jeoond time last Wednesday -night by a majority of 126. It is entitled " The Agricultural Produce (Marks) Bill," and goes in much the same direction as the recommendation of Lord Onslow's last year. Its object is of course to prevent imported produce being sold ac " Home grown." The main provisions of the bill are as follow :—lt: — It provides (1) that all imported ment shall be marked "foreign" or " colonial "; (2) that every seller of "foreign " or " oolonial" meat shall have a notice conspicuously displayed upon the front of his premises to the effect that he ia a dealer in colonial or foreign meat ; (3) auch seller is to b* registered 'in a register to be kept by a legal au'hority, the registration to be free of charge and the register to be open for general innpection free of charge ; (4) iuepectors are to be appointed by tbe legal authority *nd are to be at liberty to ent«r any place where meat is exposed for sale. There are similar provisions ia regard to cheese and other foreign and colonial produce. Failure to comply with the provisions of the act will involve a penalty of £5 for a first offence and £20, for a second. In moving the second reading of the bill, Mr Mildmay oompl&ined that a very large proportion of the meat sold as Unglisb. in many of the London shops, including even a number of. (those at' the West End, was- of foreign^ or colonial origin, meat killed at Depfcford after being- unloaded from the vessels being labelled as " prime English." He asserted, further, that f cozen meat was less nourishing than tbe Home-killed meat, and that the English agriculturist found his occupation undermined by the>e frauds, on the public. At the «ame-time, he admitted that in many cases it was almost impossible for the ordinary buyer to detect the difference between imported and Home-grown meat He disclaimed aay idea of making a sweeping charge of dishonesty against Euglish butchers. He thought their sin* were rather of omissioa than of commission Still, he contended that the purchaser was injured if he unknowingly paid a "Home-fed " price for imported meat. The hill elicited a long and animated debate, which was ultimately terminated abruptly by (the -closure. An extraordinary variety of opinions found expression. Some objected to it ,as being really a Protectionist move in disguise. Mr Parker Smith moved the rejection of the bill because ft would be of no advantage to consumers, while it would interfere ' greatly with the trade of dealers in meat. He thought the bill went much too far, and that if passed it would compel even Home-grown meat, if hong temporarily in a refrigerator, to be marked as frazea or chilled. He declared that meat killed on landing was just a« good at if it were grown in England. Mr Elliott Lees condemned the bill as tending to raise the price of meat to the working classes. Mr J. Samuel, speaking as a grocer, asserted that the bill as far as it applied to cheese was utterly impracticable. On the other hand a number of speakers supported the bill, adopting the usual familiar lines of argument, and there was undoubtedly a general consensus of opiuion in the House favourable to legislation of some kind to aid the object aimed at, and when the bill'wa6 read the second time it was understood that it would probably undergo con«idor*bls modification during its passage through Committee.