EMPIRE COMMERCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19816, 15 June 1926, Page 8

EMPIRE COMMERCE.

DISCUSSION OF MARKS BILL AN AMENDMENT WANTED. LUTON'S POINT OF VIEW. iFbom Odb Own Cobbbspon dknt. ) LONDON. May 4. A resolution advocating the investigation of proposals for the creation of an Imperial Industrial and Commerce Commonwealth in order that th e matter might be submitted to the Government was discussed at the annual meeting of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, presided over by Mr Stanley Machin. Mr J. W. Pickles (OssettJ moved a resolution urging the appointment of a special committee ot investigation. He explained that his idea was the constitution of a commonwealth somewhat on the lines of the present Overseas Trade Department, but representative of Great Britain, the colonies, dominions, and dependencies. It should include the very best industrial and commercial elements of each country, and be recruited from and supersede all the present agencies, departments, and committees now working in the interests of the development of Umpire trade and commerce. The commonwealth should set i p an Imperial Research Board, charged with dovoLping intensive scientific production, and should also form a special sales organisation, charged with the scientific organisation of distribution. It should also establish a bureau to inaugurate, finance, and superintend emigration. Mr Pickles accepted an amendment that the committee should report to a future meeting of the association before action was taken, and in this form the resolution was adopted. , Mr J. H. Chapman (Sheffield) moved a resolution urging that the Merchandise Marks Bill should be amended to enaole an order to be issued requiring the marking of goods before importation, the marking to bo as prominent and indelible as possible. He said that foreign goods were often made up to imitate British goods, and there were even cases m which foreigners had adopted a British Monomark. ’ Under the Bill, as drafted, it would bo extremely difficult to take successful action . Professor Kirknldy (Nottingham) suggested that the responsibility of disclosing whether goods were of British origin or imported should be put on the retaner. Mr E B. Tredwen (London) moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be not approved because it would be expensive in administration, would hamper trade, and add to the cost of living. WOMEN AND HATS. Mr T. Keens (Luton)_, in seconding, remarked that most women in this country thought articles from Paris or T lenna were superior to those made in Britain. This statement aroused a storm of dissent, However, Mr Keens declared that he knew from experience that if a hat made in Luton were sent to Paris or Vienna, and then brought back to London, it would fetch twice as much money as it would if it were known to have been made in Luton. Under the Bill they would be compelled to put on every article of millinery a statement that it was not French and not Viennese. Would any woman walk about with such a label on the front of her hat? This Bill would cause a considerable set-back to the trade of Luton, the prosperity of which was proved by the fact that there was no unemployment in the town. The amendment was rejected by a large majority. Sir Algernon Firth moved n further amendment approving the N general principle of the -Bill, and expressing the opinion that it should be divided into two parts, the first dealing with imported produce, where indication of origin, whether Empire or foreign, should he compulsory, and the second with manufacturd goods, which might be subject to regulation as to place and mode of marking, but strongly opposing indication of a definite foreign country of origin. This was accepted by the Sheffield representatives, and was carried.