The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-03-05 00:00:00

FRAUDULENT TRADE MARKS.

On Friday the Home Secretary, accompanied by
Mr. W. 11. Smith and Mr. Stuart-Wortley, received a
deputation at the Home Office from the Federated
Trades Council of Sheffield, w hich attended to urge argu-
ments in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commis-
sion to take evidence upon the subject of fraudu-
lent trade practices. At the commencement of the
proceedings the Home Secretary referred to some
observations made by Mr. Pickard, M.P., at a recent
meeting, at which that hon. member spoke of the in-
civility of the Home Secretary in refusing to receive a
deputation of working men on this subject. He could
only say that no deputation had come to London,
and he was not aware that they wished to see
him. Mr. Broadhurst, M.P., then introduced the
deputation, which included Mr. Bernard Coleridge,
M.P., Mr. Ashrnead-Bartlett, M.P., Mr. G. Shipton,
and others. The hon. member said that the
deputation knew nothing of the remarks of Mr.
Pickard. He pointed out that the bill of the Govern-
ment clearly showed that the Government were not
in possession of evidence which would enable them to
deal satisfactorily with this matter, and such evidence
could only be obtained by a Royal Commission. A
measure to be satisfactory should contain a complete
statement of the law on the subject of trade marks
and stamps in all industries, and should not, like the
present bill, be of such a character as to produce end-
less litigation. In answer to a question by the Home
Secretary as to whether the deputation wished the
Government bill postponed, Mr. Broadhurst suggested
that the bill in an amended and improved form
might be passed this Session, and that a Royal Coin-
.mission should be appointed to take evidence, so that
in the course of a year or two a complete and
satisfactory measure might be introduced. Mr.
Bernard Coleridge and other gentlemen also
spoke. It was urged that prosecutions under the bill
should be undertaken at the initiative of the Public
Prosecutor. Mr. Broadhurst, in summing up the
arguments of the deputation, said the Act of 1862
had been a dead letter, and the Government Bill was
so woven into it that they felt there was very little
hope of its accomplishing much. He thought some
good might be done by referring the Government
Bill and the bill introduced by Mr. Mundell& to a
Select: Committee. Mr. Henry Matthews, in reply,
promised to give every attention to the suggestions of
the deputation, some of which eeemed to him quite
practicable. He was afraid, however, that if a Public
Prosecutor were appointed to deal with cases arising
under tie bill, he would be called upon to appoint
Public Prosecutors for a variety of other purposes.
The present bill had taken the shape of an amending
instead of a consolidating bill, because it was thought
extremely undesirable to re-open all the matters which
had been settled by previous legislation. He assured
the deputation of the hearty desire on the part of the
Government to meet the views of all classes upon this
question, and to do all that lay in their power to re-
store honesty and fair-dealing in the trades. He,
however, deprecated the postponement of a settle-
ment or Lou qUebLIVII, Two tivputouluis ulavia
drew.