§ 25. Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the conviction, under the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1926, with reference to woven wire at Tower Bridge Police Court on 18th December; if he is aware that this was a private prosecution after the Board of Trade had refused to prose- 2094 cute; and if he will undertake in future that the Board will insist that the provisions of this Act are obeyed?
§ Mr W. GRAHAMI have seen a report of this case in which the summons t was dismissed on payment of costs. Certain evidence was submitted to the Board 3 of Trade, but they were advised that it was not sufficient to justify them in taking proceedings. I cannot admit the im— plication in the last part of the question s that the Board have failed to take any steps which it was their duty to take.