§ 67. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Companies Registration Office at Somerset House has refused to register a company at Eastbourne called the Imperial Hotel unless it can be shown that the proposed company has justification for including such words in its title; whether this is a new regulation and, if so, when it came into force; whether there are any other hotels known as Imperial in different parts of the country; whether places provided for rest and refreshment known by such names as the Royal Oak, the King's Arms, and the British Queen are all directly under Royal patronage; and, if not, and the rule does not apply to them, why is distinction drawn in the case of the present application?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Registrar of Companies has refused to register a company with the title Imperial Hotel, Eastbourne, Limited. In the year 1898 the Board of Trade were advised that the Registrar had a discretion, and that if the title of a proposed company, when fairly read and taken in connection with the objects of the company, could be supposed to imply Royal patronage or connection with the Government, registration ought to be refused. I have no information as to whether the other hotels referred to in the question of my hon. Friend are under Royal patronage. So far as I am aware such hotels are not registered as companies.
Mr. G WYNNEIf that be the policy of the Somerset House authorities, will the hon. Gentleman say why the Imperial Tobacco Company was recently registered as such?