HC Deb 18 February 1887 vol 311 cc44-5
MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the statements made by the Deputation from Sheffield to the President of the Board of Trade, on Saturday the 12th instant, as to the extent of the fraudulent nature of the manufacture and false marking of goods prevailing in the Sheffield industries; and, whether, as there is reason to believe that similar practices prevail in other industries to such an extent as to cause serious loss to our Foreign trade, the Government will appoint a Royal Commission, with power to take evidence on oath, to ascertain the extent of the evil, and to obtain such information as will enable effective legislation to be framed to deal with the subject?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I have read the statements made by a deputation from Sheffield to the President of the Board of Trade relative to fraudulent manufacture and false marking of goods. Her Majesty's Government have not been made aware by evidence communicated to them that these practices prevailed to such a considerable extent in other industries as would justify them in proposing to Parliament the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence on oath; but they are quite prepared to give full consideration to any information that may be brought before them. They will also press on the legislation which they have already announced to Parliament to protect the industries of this country from such a system of fraud, and without waiting for the help of a Royal Commission, which would probably cause a delay of from two to three years before effective legislation was possible. I must, however, express my surprise that, as the evils of which the hon. Gentleman complains are not alleged to be the growth of the last few months, the hon. Gentleman did not, if he was of the same mind 12 months ago, use his influence with the Government of which he was a Member to secure a Royal Commission.

MR. COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered, or would consider, the precedent set with reference to the same town in the year 1867, when Commissioners were appointed on the 23rd of May and reported on the 2nd of August; and, whether the same course might not be now pursued, the manufacturers, instead of the workmen, being now the culprits?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I would invite evidence of any practices which would justify Her Majesty's Government in proposing to Parliament a Bill of the character that the hon. Gentleman suggests; but inasmuch as no such evidence has yet been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government they do not feel justified in making that proposal.