(NO. 170.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 26 July 1887)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, remarked that the fraudulent use of marks had been greatly detrimental to the trade of this country. Indeed, that was a fact which was only too notorious, and therefore he hoped he should be excused if he did not enter into details, and if he confined his remarks to a few explanatory words as to 13 the circumstances under which the measure had been brought forward. In 1862 an Act was passed dealing with the fraudulent use and the forgery of merchandize marks. That Art was full and complete, and might have been a useful measure but for two unfortunate defects. First of all, there was the necessity of proceeding by indictment; and, secondly, the proof of fraudulent intent was thrown to a very great degree on the prosecutor. Last year a Bill was introduced by his Predecessor in Office (Mr. Mundella), with the aid and advice of the Cutlers' Company of Sheffield, who had themselves experienced great difficulty in dealing with all the eases relating to trade marks that were brought under their notice. That Bill fell through, and when the present Government came into Office it became his duty to consider in what manner they could best deal with this subject. They introduced a Bill for amending the Act of 1862, and shortly afterwards a Bill to consolidate and amend the law, and to incorporate into one Act the Act of 1862 and the Amendment Act. In the meantime Mr. Mundella re-introduced the Bill of the previous year, and by arrangement, a strong Select Committee was appointed in "another place," and these three Bills were referred to it. This Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was accepted with hardly an alteration by the House of Commons, and in that form it came up from the other House to their Lordships. In its passage through Committee elsewhere the provisions of the Bill were made rather more stringent. The burden of proof was transferred from the shoulders of the prosecutor rather more distinctly to those of the defendant. In other words, the presumption against the defendant was considerably increased. There were some persons who might think that the measure in its present form was somewhat too stringent; but, if he might judge from the tone of the deputation he received, there, was an earnest desire on the part of all sections and classes of the various trades that this foul blot should be erased, and honest trade encouraged throughout the country. It was impossible not to sympathize with such an object as that. He ought, perhaps, to add that if the Bill passed through Parliament it was hoped and intended that similar legislation should be introduced both in India and 14 the Colonies. The Government, in fact, were already in communication with the various authorities in those countries with that object. They hoped that throughout the Dominions of Her Majesty there would be a common agreement to act upon the lines of the legislation which was now proposed to their Lordships. He did not know that it was necessary for him to enter in detail into the provisions of the Bill, but he might mention that an essential change had been made in regard to one of the provisions of the Act of 1862, for it was now proposed to do away with the cumbrous process by indictment, and to deal with these cases by summary conviction, giving, however, a right to a person aggrieved by any conviction to appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. There were also clauses in the Bill which were required to protect the watch trade. The British hall mark was looked upon by many in the trade as an indication of British origin; but that was not so. Large numbers of foreign watches were brought to the Assay Office to have the hall mark affixed, and a large trade had grown up of late years in that way. He believed that to a large number, at all events, of those engaged in the watch trade the clauses introduced into this Bill would be entirely satisfactory. In asking their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, he wished to point out what discredit had been thrown on the trade of the country owing to the use of fraudulent marks. The Government had received representations from all parts of the country that this Bill would meet the objects at which they aimed, and they believed that much might be done by its means to eradicate present frauds and to protect those who were entitled to trade marks in the legitimate use and legitimate value of those marks.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
said, he should support the Bill, but he wished to point out that it did not in its present form deal with one of the greatest frauds now perpetrated, which was injurious to the farmer and injurious to the poorer classes, and that was the practice of selling foreign imported meat as English meat. He contended that the I butcher should be compelled to mark his meat British and foreign, and to distinguish between the two. Instead 15 of putting all in together at 8d. or 10d. per lb. he ought to be compelled to put in foreign meat at 5d. or 6d., and so give the poorer classes the benefit of buying cheaply.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE,
interposing, pointed out that the noble Lord's observations had no bearing on the present Bill, which appeared, by its title and preamble, to refer to trade marks only.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
said, he had thought that it might have been possible under the Bill to deal with a practice which was doing great injury to English farmers and to the poorer classes.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said, he was extremely glad that this measure appeared likely to pass into law this Session. There could be no doubt that the kind of commercial immorality which it was intended to check had been in some places only too prevalent, and had had a most mischievous effect on trade. It was therefore essential that practices such as those dealt with in the Bill should be put down in the most effectual way possible; and it was better to run the risk of some little inconvenience from the severity of the law than to pass a Bill too weak to deal effectively with the evil. There was, however, one matter to which he desired to call attention. It had been brought to his notice by the evidence taken before the Commission which had been dealing with this subject. There was one kind of fraud so prevalent that it was admitted on all hands to be disastrous and that was the use of some mark or combination of marks for the purpose of leading people to believe that the goods were manufactured by some person other than the person who really manufactured them. He thought it was essential to put a stop to that practice, and he believed it was possible to do so by some Amendment entirely in the spirit of the Bill. If after closing the other avenues to fraud this one were left open it would be made more use of than ever. He believed that the whole of the honest exporters of Manchester would be well satisfied that the fraudulent use of trade marks should be stopped. He was sure that the observations he had made were in harmony with the desires and wishes of the noble Lord opposite, and that he would do his best by this Bill to encourage the conscientious and deter the fraudulent manufacturer.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
said, he hoped their Lordships would give every assistance to the passing of this measure, as it was intended to put an end to a great and growing evil. At the same time one could not help feeling that the Bill was rather a reversal of our whole Criminal Law in throwing the onus upon the alleged culprit of proving his innocence. No doubt it was necessary sometimes to adopt what was called coercive legislation, and the well-conducted portion of the community gladly consented to it, in order that those who were not in favour of honest and fair dealing might, be compelled to refrain; but care should be taken not to arouse sympathy in the wrong direction by going a little too far. In one or two instances the Legislature had acted as it was proposed to do by this Bill, and had thrown the onus of proving his innocence upon the alleged culprit; for instance, those found in possession of Government stores were called upon to account for the manner in which they became possessed of them. Therefore, what this Bill sought to do was not absolutely contrary to our whole I system of legislation, though he thought some safeguards must be placed upon it, and the severity of some of the sections of the measure must be moderated.