« AnteriorContinuar »
they could not refuse to be guided by the formed, was an eminent citizen of Cork, dictates of justice; but then he argued and who said that he intended to ask that if they followed out that principle the Mayor of Cork in public meeting if the Presbyterians would get all the ad- he adopted the words relative to the vantage, and not the Established Church. assassin O'Farrell attributed to him in That was not a fair way of treating the the local papers; and if so, to call upon matter. If the Presbyterians were really him to resign his office. It was obvious entitled in justice to those endowments, that the House would wish to be in let them have them; but it was not con- complete possession of the facts before sistent for the right hon. Gentleman to proceeding with the discussion. fly off from the question, and to tell the MR. W. H. GREGORY hoped that if hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire that, he postponed his Motion, he should have even admitting his argument based on an early opportunity afforded him by the justice to be sound, the Established Government of bringing it on. Church would not be the body to profit COLONEL GILPIN said, Mr. Lyons most by their adhering to the principle might be a very important person; but, inof justice.
asmuch as the Chief Secretary for Ireland
had told them the Lord Chancellor himQuestion put, “ That those words be self could not remove the Mayor of Cork there added.”
if he declined to resign, he did not see The Committee divided :-Ayes 180; why Mr. Lyon's intention of asking the Noes 283: Majority 103.
Mayor a question should influence the
proceedings of this House. MR. GLADSTONE: On the next
MR. GLADSTONE trusted the Comclause no notice of Amendment has been mittee would not misapprehend him. given, and there is convenience in now He referred to the telegram to establish taking it, for we shall then have arrived the fact that the Mayor of Cork was to at the close of one of the divisions of the be publicly challenged to deny the words. Bill.
Whether he would deny the words or MR. VANCE moved that the Chair- not was an important matter for them man report Progress.
to consider. MR. GLADSTONE said, he should
VISCOUNT SANDON said, his hon. not resist that Motion ; but with regard Colleague (Mr. Graves) was the last to proceeding with the Bill to-morrow, person to give a Notice of so much imhe wished to say that the hon. Member portance if he did not intend to bring it
He did not think he for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and the before the House. non. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. was simply actuated by the news recently Gregory), who had Motions on the Paper, received. His Colleague was not actuhad promised to give way, with a view ated by anything like a party motive, to promoting the progress of the Bill, but by a sense of the highest duty. and he hoped that other Gentlemen
LORD JOHN MANNERS pointed out might be disposed to follow their ex- thatthe Notice of Motion had been given, ample. But the hon. Member for Liver- not in consequence of what had appeared pool (Mr. Graves) had given notice that in the papers respecting the Mayor of he would raise á discussion to-morrow Cork, but from the unsatisfactory answer on the recent occurrences in Ireland. He given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland could not say anything at present beyond to his Question respecting the condition this, that it was very possible it might be of Westmeath and Tipperary. his duty to appeal to the hon. Member on public grounds not to proceed so early Motion agreed to. with that discussion. Of course, what the hon. Member had said had reference a House resumed. good deal to the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork, which language, if Committee report Progress; to sit again really used, could not be too severely To-morrow. condemned. He (Mr. Gladstone) had received a telegram in the course of the evening, which he thought the House would be glad to hear. It was from Mr. Thomas Lyons, who, he was in
of last year.
PHARMACY ACT (1868) AMENDMENT
on, and would, therefore, withdraw his
Amendment. BILL.-(BILL 37.] (Lord Robert Montagu, Sir Graham Montgomery.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. COMMITTEE.
Main Question, " That Mr. Speaker Order for Committee read.
do now leave the Chair," put, and Motion made, and Question proposed, agreed to. “That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Bill considered in Committee. Chair."
(In the Committee.) DR. BREWER said, he had an Amend
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU expressed ment on the Paper that the Bill should his willingness to accept the Amendbe committed that day six months. The ments which had been put upon the Bill would not secure the purposes it table by the Lord Advocate. contemplated, and would raise objec
DR. BREWER trusted that they would tions of a more serious character than now report Progress. those at present entertained on the sub
MR. POCHIN said, he was sure that ject. The word “poison" was used in those who knew anything of the matter the Act of last year, which this Bill pro- would feel that neither the Bill nor the posed to amend, in a way that would Amendments met the difficulties of the lead to great inconvenience; and it was
The provisions of the present Act of the utmost importance that the wide were grossly disregarded, and if it was application of the word in that Act should to be amended it must be by some more not be permitted to remain law. The radical Amendments than any he had word as used would include paregoric seen proposed. He moved that the Comlozenges and other preparations which mittee report Progress. were of a comparatively harmless cha
THE LORD ADVOCATE said, this racter. It was highly objectionable that Bill was to amend a mistake in the Act such substances, when sold, should be
When the Act came down labelled “poison ;” and, in many cases,
from the House of Lords last year it medicines so inscribed would have
contained a clause that nothing in it was very injurious effect upon patients, to interfere with the practice of legally simply from the patient being aware qualified apothecaries. The present Act that the medicine was so described. was to remedy an error which would
otherwise be serious. Amendment proposed, to leave out MR. NEWDEGATE urged that if the from the word " That” to the end of the Royal Highland Society received power Question, in order to add the words to grant certificates, the Royal Veteri“this House will, upon this day six nary Society of Camden Town ought to months, resolve itself into the said receive similar powers. Committee," – (Dr. Brewer,) - instead
MR. WHALLEY supported the Mothereof.
tion to report Progress on the ground Question proposed, “That the words that the legislation of last year upon proposed to be left out stand part of the this subject had caused the deaths of Question."
many persons. The question before the MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the Bill death; and if it came to a vote he should
Committee was evidently one of life and was not to extend to veterinary surgeons, be quite at a loss to know whether he and a great deal of confusion would would be voting for the life or death of arise in consequence of it, especially in
a person. Scotland, because anybody, a mere farrier MR. M‘LAGAN explained that it was for instance, who called himself a veteri- only after a most careful and searchnary surgeon, would come within the ing examination the Highland Society provision. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he hoped granted certificates to veterinary sur
. the House would be allowed to go into Committee, and that his hon. Friend
Motion negatived. (Dr. Brewer) would not press his oppo)
House resumed. sition.
Bill reported ; as amended, to be conDr. BREWER said, he could not re- sidered upon Monday 10th May, and to sist anything the Government determined be printed. (Bill 99.7
MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to cause an inquiry to be made into the corrupt practices reported by Baron Fitzgerald to have existed at the last election for Cashel.
MR. VANCE said, he hoped the Motion would be postponed, as he would have to object to the names of some of the Commissioners. The three gentlemen chosen were all members of the same political party, and were all Roman Catholics. With regard to the latter point, he might observe it was notorious that three-fourths of the Irish Bar were Protestants, and therefore it was extraordinary that three gentlemen of the opposite religious opinions should have been selected.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) defended the appointment. The three gentlemen named were of the highest honour and ability. He did not inquire into the religion of the gentlemen he appointed to such offices, and in this case there was no question either of religion or party politics involved in the matter.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth :
Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Par. liament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that the Honourable Baron Fitzgerald, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons that, from the evidence at the trial before him of the Petitions relating to the last Election for Cashel, he had reason to believe that the corrupt practice of bribery did extensively prevail at the
We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of George Waters, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, Constantine Molloy, esquire, barrister at law, and William Griffin, esquire, barrister at law, as Commissiouers for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD WESTBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, that the operation of the Act of 1862-the latest statute on the subject— had been unsatisfactory. A representation had consequently been made by the Council of the Society of Arts, and a conference of nearly the whole of the artistic world had taken place, as the result of which he (Lord Westbury) introduced his Consolidation Bill last Session-not with the intention of proceeding with it at once, but of eliciting criticism and suggestions. The measure had received general approval, and a Petition in its favour had been intrusted to him for presentation, signed by thirty Royal Academicians, twenty-two Associates, and 120 other artists and persons interested in the subject. The necessity for legislation was due to the confused and defective state of the existing law,
to the imperfect protection it afforded to Act, the passing of it being entirely due the authors of works of fine art, and to to his exertions—was unfortunately so Conventions having been entered into worded as to protect only engravings in under the International Copyright Act which there was an original design-so with most of the Continental Powers, that an engraving made from another engaging to give to the artists of those work of art received no protection. This countries a protection reciprocal and cor- was probably attributable to Hogarth respondent to that which British artists being in the habit of composing as he enjoyed in them. He was sure their engraved. This restriction was afterLordships would concur with him in wards removed and the term was exholding that there was no better criterion tended to twenty-eight years. In sculpof the progress of a nation in civilization ture no attempt was made to give proand intellectual culture than the respect tection until 1798; and even now, though and protection afforded by its laws to sculpture and engraving were commonly works of literature and art-works which supposed to stand on the same footing, were the noblest possible addition to the the former enjoyed a coypright for only wealth of a country, but the production fourteen years, with a further term of of which was greatly dependent—in fourteen years contingent on the artist's modern times at least on the protection life, while the latter had an absolute given to men of genius. Such works, copyright for twenty-eight years. In moreover, as possessing the essential | 1862, protection was given to paintings, attributes of property, ought surely to engravings, and photographs for the enjoy the protection extended to other author's life, and a period of seven species of property — he could indeed years afterwards. The difference between imagine nothing which had a more com- English and Continental law was by no plete title to be considered property than means creditable to us, and although the works of imagination, for they were the Conventions professed to be based on the pure creation of mind. Now, he was principle of reciprocity we only gave a sorry to say that, if laws were taken as a French artist protection for his life and proof, these creations of mind were more seven years afterwards; whereas France valued and respected in other countries offered the British artist protection for than in England; for, whereas in this fifty years after his death. The Engravcountry works of art of a particular class ing Acts, moreover, extended only to enjoyed protection for twenty-eight years, the United Kingdom—so that piratical with a contingent extension of another copies might be imported with impunity seven years, that protection extended in from abroad, or even from the Channel France to fifty; in Germany to thirty ; | Islands; and the result was that valuin Belgium to twenty, and in Spain to able engravings were copied there and twenty-five years in excess of the author's brought over to this country, and there life: while in Italy it lasted forty years, was no power to prevent their admission. with a contingent extension of forty By the Convention with France Her years longer. In England literature and Majesty engaged that laws should, if art were protected in the most imperfect possible, be passed, conferring on French and grudging manner. No attempt was artists advantages corresponding to those made in England to give, or rather create, which France conferred on British artists, copyright until 1714, nor as regarded and one of the articles promised the works of art until 1735. In 1714, literary seizure and destruction of piratical works copyright for fourteen years was estab- stipulation which our existing laws lished; this was afterwards extended to did not permit to be carried into effect. twenty-eight years, or for the life of the The honour of the country required that author, and in 1842, thanks to Mr. Justice this state of things should continue no Talfourd and a noble Earl now present longer. We had nine or ten different (Earl Stanhope) to forty-two years or to statutes on the law of copyright; and seven years beyond the author's life, these statutes ought to be gathered towhichever happened to be the longer gether, made consistent with each other, period. In 1735 the Legislature first and embodied in one consolidated Act. turned its attention to protecting works And this had been his object in the preof art, and copyright for fifteen years paration of that Bill, which he had now was given to such works; but the Act- the honour of asking their Lordships to which was commonly known as Hogarth's read a second time. Dealing with a sub
ject full of difficulty and which the Com- ties, which, except one or two additions, mon Law did not touch, he did not pre- were taken from the Act of 1862; and tend that his Bill was perfect, and he then followed provisions directed against was quite willing to have it referred to a the common fraud of affixing names, Select Committee, that it might be tho- initials, or monograms, purporting to be roughly sifted and its language carefully those of persons who did not really exeweighed. After giving the requisite de- cute the work, as also against the disfinitions, the Bill proposed that authors posal of works of art under false repreof original works of fine art hereafter sentations. There was also a provision made or sold should have a copyright against a very ingenious mode of fraud for the term of their natural lives, and which was sometimes resorted to—that for thirty years subsequently. This of altering any work of art, and then period was not so long as that existing offering it for sale as an unaltered work in France, but it was the duration as of the author. The next provision was signed in Germany, and rather longer directed at the fraudulent practice of than the Belgian term. Then there were publishing an engraving with the stipuprovisions as to the transfer of copy- lation that the number of proof imright, it being laid down that no such pressions or copies should be limited, contract should authorize the author to and then of printing a much larger make any repetition of the work unless number; and the following provisions the right shall have been expressly stipu- prohibited the sale of impressions from lated for at the time of sale. The Bill a plate re-touched, or wrought afresh, also allowed an artist to retain his pro- as proof impressions or copies of such perty in unfinished sketches and studies engraving. The 11th clause prohibited made for and previously to the execution the importation of piratical copies of of his registered work, without prejudice copyright works, and the 12th extended to any copyright which may be subsist. to works of art the protection already ing therein at the time of the sale; and given at the Custom House to works of it provided that sketches, studies, and literature. He could see no reason why unfinished works to the value of £15 a provision, which had been so beneficial should not be subject to seizure in the in the one case, should not be applied event of the artist's bankruptcy, or of to the other. Inferior artists abroad his suffering distraint for debt. The were systematically employed in making 5th clause confirmed a decision which copies of valuable works for the English had been deemed of questionable autho- market, and to check this the 13th clause rity, exempting engravings published as applied to the importers of these pirated parts of a book, in which there shall copies the machinery of the Mercantile be a subsisting copyright, from the pro- Marks Act, obliging them to reveal the visions of the Engravings Acts. Of names of the persons from whom they engravings published separately, a proof were obtained. The succeeding clauses must be deposited at the British Mu- empowered justices to grant search warseum. The 6th clause defined how copy- rants for piratical copies, and also emright might be assigned, the Schedule powered the seizure of piratical copies in containing some short forms of instru- the possession of hawkers. The necessity ments for that purpose ; and the 7th of these provisions had been shown by the clause provided that, in any contract dis- recent statement of an eminent London posing of a copyright, it should be im- publisher that, by the aid of a powerful plied that the work was the original glass, he saw, from an adjoining builddesign of the author, which implied con- ing, persons employed in making copies tract was to run with the copyright. of his most valuable engravings, which The 8th laid down that no action should were afterwards hawked about at a few be maintainable by the proprietor of a shillings per copy. Then there were copyright until after registration--the re- 'provisions as to registration and as to gistered proprietor, under any license, legal proceedings instituted under the being nevertheless able to sue, or bé Act, with the view of giving a cheap sued, in his own name in any matter and easy remedy. The Bill was by no arising out of such contract, and the means one-sided, for it not only gave omission to register not affecting the pratection to artists, but to the publie copyright or license, but only the right against artists. A practice had prevailed to sue or proceed. Next came the penal- among some artists of selling a picture