The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-18 00:00:00

TRADE MARKS.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations had been en-
tered into with foreign powers for the purpose of devising
means to prevent the forgery of the trade marks of our
manufacturers. lie wanted to know whether any negotia-
tions were now going forward with foreign powers on this
question ?

Mr. MALINS grieved to say that they must not run
away with the idea that those offences were only committed.
by foreigners, fur Englishmen were just as great adepts at
this sort of imitation.

Mr. STIRLING asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if he would make a statement to the house explaining
why it was necessary or expedient that the fiscal arrange-
ments between Great Britain and France, proposed in the
budget, should be made the subject of a treaty, seeing that
they: existed no apparent censtitutional obstacle to the
adoption of those arrangements by the ordinary legislation
of the two countries respectively; and whether any cot res-
pondence bearing on this point existed between her Majesty's
Foreign Secretary and Earl Cowley and Mr. Cobden, or
between any other official personages who took part in the
late negotiations ; and if such correspondence could be laid
on the table of the house ? The hon. gentleman proceeded
to observe that nothing could be more opposite to the recent
policy of the Government of the noble lord the Secretary
of Stale for Foreign Affairs delivered in that house on the
22d of July last. (Hear, hear.) In that speech those who
were listeners would not fail to remember that no man could
express himself more decidedly against commercial treaties
than the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) When they found that a
Government which prided itself upon its free-trade principles
negotiated a treaty in direct violation of those principles, it
was surely time for the House of Commons to see what was
being douw. (Hear, hear.) How Gould it be explained that
that which was wrong in July WAS right in December. (Bunn,
hear.) Neither in the treaty itself, nor in the speech of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was
there the slightest solution of this difficulty. In July the noble
lord said that it was competent for each country temako suck
alterations as those subsequently proposed. The present ex-
planation was that the constitution of France required a
treaty in order to carry out the proposed changes. He (Mr.
Stirling) had looked into the treaty, and did not see any-
thing in it which bore out that assertion. The hon. gen-
tleman concluded with his question.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the opinion of the law offi-
cers had been taken on the subject, and that sufficient penal-
ties were not attached to the forging of trade marks. It
would be obvious• that the British Government could not
ask any foreign Government to do anything in the matter
until our own manufacturers had received that guarantee
against improper trade marks which they did not at present
enjoy. For this reason a bill would be shortly introduced,
in which such punishment would be enacted for the forging
of trade marks as would, he hoped, prevent the commission
of the offence. When that bill became law the Government
would apply to negotiate with foreign countries, in order to
obtain the object which his hon. and learned friend had in
view. In reply to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Stirling), he thought the hon. gentleman must see it was
a question of so large a nature that he could scarcely expect
him to answer it upon that evening. If he desired to put
forward these remarks as an argument against the commer-
cial treaty it was certainly at his option to do so, but he
(Lord J. Russell) thought he would be consulting tho wishes
of the house by not entering into this discussion at the pre-
sent moment. He despaired of convincing the hon. mem-
ber if he were net convinced by the speech of his right
hon, friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but promised
him he would take part in the discussion upon Monday
next, when the whole question of protection and free trade
would be brought before the house--(hear, hear)--and it
would be his argument on that occasion that when com-
mercial treaties were adverse to free trade he would be
against commercial treaties, but when they tended to esta-
blish the principles of free trade he would be in their favour.
(Cheers.) The Treaty of Commerce must be looked upon
as a means to an end.