^3 



and Philadelphia. Now, if in Canada they caught fish 

 in June, July, and August, and froze them up, and the 

 fish dealers in New York and Boston would buy them 

 for delivery early next year, it was evident the fish could 

 not be very much deteriorated by freezing. He had eaten 

 those fish for several years past, and it was the regular 

 custom to have it on Christmas Day, when, the waters 

 being frozen, of course it was impossible to catch fresh 

 fish, but they were considered as good then as when caught 

 in June. There might possibly be a very slight difference 

 in the quality, but that was not the question. Fish could 

 be preserved in this way so as to form food for the 

 greater portion of the people, and if those who cultivated 

 more fastidious palates were not satisfied with it they 

 need not eat it. It seemed to him a burning shame that 

 so much fish should be thrown away as unfit for food 

 when there were evident means of preserving it. In 

 the Canadian Court there were specimens of fish caught in 

 June 1882, which had been kept in the frozen state up to 

 the present time. A fortnight ago one of those cases was 

 opened and some fish taken out, and they were so hard 

 they had to be sawn in slices. He took a piece home and 

 had it cooked, and it certainly was very good, but perhaps 

 to the epicure not so delicate as a piece he might have 

 bought in the market ; but it was delicious food, fit for any 

 one to eat, and he certainly thought the more frozen fish 

 they could get the better. The vote of thanks was then 

 carried. 



Mr. KiLBOURN, in reply to the remarks made, said : Mr. 

 Cornish will see, when he has an opportunity of reading 

 the Paper, that he has not in all respects rightly interpreted 

 my views as to the value of preservation by freezing. 

 Instead of protesting against the practice of absolutely 

 freezing, I most emphatically endorse it, where it is ncccs- 



