English and Colonial Meat.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7070, 16 February 1893, Page 2

English and Colonial Meat.

At the Agricultural Gonferonce, which met at London recently (writes the Sydney Morning Herald correspondent), much importance was attached to the ear-marking in some way or other of foreign and colonial dead meat, admittedly with a view of preventing unfair competition to the British meat supplies. Great complaints are made that a large proportion of the colonial product is palaied off upon the ignorant purchaser as English or j Scotch mutton, and it is said that by the deft application of flour to the joints the Dutch and New Zealand leg of mutton will readily pass as prime Welsh and fetch the prices of black faced or Southdown. Mr Boberfc Terburgh, MP. for Chester, took a somewbaat prominent part at the conference in advocating the removal of this grievance, and has since followed up his crusade by contributing a very suggestive letter on the subject to the leading country gentlemen's newspaper. It may be reroem bered that two yoora, since he introduced a Bill into the Imperial Parliament designed to redress the wrong complained of, but it met with an untimely fate. He now pronounces in favour of a scheme for licensing all butchers dealing in foreign and colonial meat, and, in fact, would go as far as to make it unlawful fo sell foreign or colonial meat as British. He considers that butchers who deal honestly with foreign or colonial meat would have nothing to fear from the system. Those who will suffer will be the men who, while disclaiming openly or tacitly any knowledge of or dealings in it, have been buying foreign or colonial meat and selling it to their customers as, and at the price of, home-grown beef or mutton. It is evident that be would like to see the system extended far beyond the meat supplies. He more than hints (bat the dairying industry is equally in need of heroic remedies of the same description. \