§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)said he did not intend to move the first clause standing in his name, but the second which repealed the Act of 1902, so that everything might be in the one Bill and it would not be necessary to refer to other Acts.
§ *MR. MOUNT (Berkshire, Newbury),said if he might interrupt the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark at this point he would say the promoters were prepared to accept the first Amendment on the Paper and also the next two. They would have preferred to have a consolidation Bill, but as the hon. Member had put down these-new clauses they were prepared to accept them.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid if he understood from the observations made by the hon. Gentleman representing the promoters of the Bill that it was the bona-fide intention to carry out the clause he was quite prepared to move it, but it must be on 1373 the condition that advantage must not be taken of any proposal in the House of Commons to make an alteration in another place.
§ *MR. MOUNTsaid he could not say, of course, or make any promise, as to what would happen in another place, but he should accept this clause as consolidating the two Bills; that was the intention of the promoters.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid if this was a mere subterfuge on the part of the promoters—
§ *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member had said as plainly as he could that it was the bona-fide intention of the promoters to regard this as the consolidation of the two Bills.
§ MR. CALDWELLThat having been stated in the House, I beg to move the new clause.
§
A clause (Seizure of pirated copies).
It shall be lawful for any police constable, on the request in writing of the own-r of the copyright, or of his agent thereto authorised in writing, and on production to such constable of a copy of the entry of such copyright in the book of registry, certified and impressed as aforesaid, and at the risk of such owner, to seize without warrant any pirated copies of such musical work which, within view of such constable, and in any public place or place to which the public have access on payment or otherwise, are being hawked or carried about for purposes constituting an offence under this Act, and to bring the same before a Court of summary jurisdiction for the purpose of its being determined in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore contained, whether the same are or are hot liable to forfeiture and destruction."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ MR. CALDWELLThe next is consequential, as is also the third.
§
Another clause (Repeal of Act).
The Musical {Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
1374
§
Another clause (Definitions).
Musical copyright' means the exclusive right of the owner of such copyright, under the Copyright Acts in force for the time being, to do or to authorise another person to do all or any of the following things of a musical work:—
(1) To make copies, by writing or otherwise, of such musical work;
(2) To abridge such musical work;
(3) To make any new adaptation, arrangement, or setting of such musical work, or of the-melody thereof, in any notation or system.
Musical work' means any combination of melody and harmony, or either of them, printed, reduced to writing, or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced.
Pirated musical work ' means any musical work written, printed, or otherwise reproduced, without the consent lawfully given by the owner of the copyright in such musical work.
The expression' plates' includes any stereo type or other plates, stones, or matrixes or negatives used for the purpose of printing or reproducing copies of any pirated musical work."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid the next clause he proposed to move was the limitation of the Act. There could be no doubt as to the necessity of this.
§
Another clause (Limitation of Act).
This Act shall not apply to any musical copyright which is not registered in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and no proceedings shall be competent in respect of any offence committed prior to such registration."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)said the clause which he asked the House to insert could, he thought, be inserted without demur on the part of the promoters. It was calculated to encourage the practice of music, and was a concession which could be granted without serious difficulty to the publishers.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in moving the clause, which seemed to be to create a new obligation in the law of copyright, and not to be relevant to the purpose of the Bill.
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid on the point of order he submitted that the clause was somewhat germane to the purpose of the Bill which should condition the form on which copyright should be given. He submitted that although the clause was very near the boundary line it did not go over the boundary.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought it was more than near the boundary, it was over the boundary, and would not be in order.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid the next Amendment opened a very important question. Under the present law a copyright might be held without registration, and this clause made it necessary that before action was taken the copyright must be registered. The registration of copyright ought to be compulsory for the reason that if it was not people could not tell what was copyright and what was not. The whole state of the law was in a very flimsy condition so far as copyright was concerned. A copyright was not, as many supposed, something in the nature of a patent, something which was a title in law, and when they were creating penal offences registration should be made compulsory, because a man should know before an offence was committed exactly what was copyright and what was not. There was no compulsion at the present time; a man waited till an offence was committed because by so doing he saved the 5s. registration fee. In view of the great value of these copyrights, running as it did into hundreds of thousands of pounds, surely the least thing the owners could do was to register them within one month of the first publication. If a man delayed registration, the difficulty was increased in connection with prosecutions. Let them begin at the very foundation, so as to facilitate the task of tracing both the registration and the assignment. The certificate of entry in the register would be prima facie evidence of ownership. All that was asked for was that the owner of the copyright or the assignee of a musical work published before or after the commencement of this Act should, if he had not already registered, do so within a month either of the commencement of the Act or the publication of the work in the 1376 United Kingdom. This Act proposed to give the owner of the copyright power to arrest or to get a search warrant, and to enter the house of an Englishman, which was the Englishman's castle. If a man was to be granted such power was it too much to ask that by-registering his copyright he should place his title beyond all question of dispute? How otherwise were they to know if a man claiming a song was really the owner of the copyright?
Another important point was as to when did the copyright begin? That was one of the most essential things in connection with the matter, because on it depended the date when it expired. That point was argued before the Royal Commission on Copyright in 1878. Copyright, be it remembered, lasted during the life time of its author and seven years beyond, or for forty-two years, whichever was the longer existence. These were important matters to bear in mind when they were proposing to hand, over such drastic powers as were conferred by this Bill to the owners of musical copyrights. On what ground could they object to a clause of that kind? If the owner of a song thought he had a valuable property why should he object to pay the registration fee of 5s. at once instead of waiting to see if it should turn out a success? The next provision was that the registry book should set forth the true name and place of abode of the author and composer and the true name and abode of the owner of the copyright; otherwise the provisions of the Act should not apply. He was told there was objection to that. But why should there be? If a man was to have the privilege of securing the apprehension of another or of getting the issue of a search warrant with penal consequences, why in the world should he object to having his own name and address entered in the register as proof of his ownership? In dealing with the ownership of copyright why should a man register under a nom de plume? He would have to take legal proceedings in his own name, and surely in the case of criminal prosecutions it was only right he should use his own name. It would facilitate, too, the identification of the persons concerned; it would make their identity clear. For instance, there were hundreds of "John Smiths," but if 1377 they added the exact address identification was made easy. The real name and place of address was also essential in the matter of tracing assignments. The Copyright Commission in their Report stated that they were satisfied that registration under the present system was practically useless. Well, they could not possibly have criminal proceedings founded upon disputed titles of copyright. Then again, the Commission went on to say that great annoyance was caused to persons who were obliged to resort to the register whether for the purpose of registering works or of searching for entries on the register. It was reasonable to ask that the present system should be simplified. He took it that valuable copyrights were the very foundation of this Bill. A man was asked perhaps to buy such a copyright. Naturally he wanted to make sure that the copyright was a valid one, and he went to the register accordingly. If this clause were carried the scope of his search would be limited in area; he need only look over the register for one month from the date of the publication of the musical work and he would have a definite name and address to search for. If he did not find the entry he would know that the title was defective, thus this clause would constitute a protection for the public.
Again, the Royal Commission reported that they had been satisfied by the arguments in favour of registration that it was advisable to insist that it should be made more effective and complete, and that to this end it should be compulsory. Surely if that was the opinion in 1878, it was more than ever necessary now. What course was pursued in regard to patents and the Merchandise Marks Act? Did not this Rill follow the analogy of the latter? In the case of the Merchandise Marks Act there was compulsory registration, and as registration was to be the foundation of criminal proceedings nuder this Act, in the interests of the public the registration ought to be compulsory. In the Minority Report of the Musical Copyright Committee, he had distinctly stated that if proper safeguards for the public were provided he had no objection to the penal clauses or to the powers of appre- 1378 hension and search, but he strongly held that those powers ought not to be given if the rights and necessary protection of the public were absolutely ignored. That was his position in moving this new clause, and he hoped the owners of valuable copyrights would not play into the hands of the owners of worthless copyrights by objecting to a clause which would affect only the latter. Under the Berne Convention, holders of foreign copyrights were entitled to the same privileges and protection as the people of the country concerned, and in the proposed new clause no distinction was made. The words were, "First publication in the United Kingdom," and the foreigner had the came month in which to register his copyright. Under Clause 15, the case of the foreigner was provided for, so that before he could take action the foreigner wag obliged to register, and the proposed new clause simply put him in exactly the same position as the man in Bond Street. There would De no interference whatever with the validity of a copyright under the Act of 1842. The foreigner would have all the rights he at present enjoyed, but if he desired the benefits of the present Act he would have to comply with its requirements, and that surely was only fair. Those requirements were reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public. He begged to move.
Another clause (Registration by owner of copyright).
The owner of the copyright, or his assignee, of every musical work, whether published before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, where not already done, within one month from the commencement of this Act, or within one month of the first publication of the musical work in the United Kingdom, whichever is the longer, make entry of the copyright in the registry book of the Stationers' Company in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and in the case of all musical works first published in the United Kingdom after the commencement of this Act the entry shall, in addition to the other requirements of the said Act, set forth the true name and place of abode of the author and composer and the true name and place of abode of the owner of the copyright, and otherwise the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such copyright."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
1379§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin Universitysaid he was not in the least interested in this Bill, and intervened only because the Amendment raised a matter of public importance. Almost the whole basis of the hon. Member's argument was taken away by the fact that the House had already accepted an Amendment in the following terms —
This Act shall not apply to any musical copyright which is not registered in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and no proceedings chall be competent in respect of any offence committed prior to such registration.What was the case as the Bill stood with that Amendment? It was quite right that a person who was to be prosecuted under the Act should have some means of ascertaining whether what he was doing was really illegal. By the Amendment which had been accepted no offence could take place under the Act unless the copyright had been registered; therefore an individual had only to go to Stationers' Hall to find out whether the music he proposed printing was pirated or not. Having obtained the information he could proceed or not as he chose, but if he went on he certainly did so wilfully, and ought to come under the stringent provisions of the Act. But the hon. Member desired to go further, and to say that not only must the copyright be registered before any offence could take place, but that the copyright might be lost if it was not registered within one month of the publication of the work in this country. Why that limit should be imposed he could not understand. So far as the pirate was concerned it was quite sufficient that the registration should take place before the act of piracy was committed. There also arose the question of what constituted publication in this country, and that might be a difficult matter to determine; at any rate there would be no hardship upon the would-be pirate, because under the Amendment already accepted he would have the opportunity of ascertaining whether he was pirating or not.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that was not the case. If the copyright was not registered the man could not possibly know whether he was pirating.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONTherefore he could not be prosecuted. He wanted to point out that they were attempting in the clause as at present framed to make it applicable to a person in a foreign country who had rights under foreign treaties with this country, and who had the right of registering in his own country not in any limited time, and he registered so as to be able to get certificates at Stationers' Hall. He asked the House not to interfere with thes3 rights of foreigners; these matters had been carefully considered in the Act of 1886 which carried out the international obligations of this country. If they altered the law in this respect music might be published in this country and foreigners might have no opportunity of registering at all, and so they would be deprived of the advantages which international relations conferred upon them. Even if this clause was accepted it would certainly have to be considered carefully, as it would be impossible to interfere with those rights in an Act of this kind, which was merely to put an end to wilful piracy of a copyright of a British subject or of persons abroad who were in international relations with us and who gave us the same treatment.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N. W.)said the Solicitor-Genera) had raised two objections to the very reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. He could not understand what objection there could be either on the part of the Government or on the part of the promoters to a proposal which was familiar in the law of every other country. All they wanted was that there should be registration of the copyright within a certain period of time. The Solicitor-General had said that they had already provided for registration, because no man could commence proceedings unless his music was registered. To his mini that was not sufficient protection, because a man wanted to know before he sold a copy of music that it was not a pirated copy, and his only means of ascertaining that would be by going to a public office in which a register was kept. It was not enough that the registration should be taken out; immediately before or after the proceedings were initiated. His second 1381 objection was that the musical copyright was governed by treaty. So was the Patent Law, but that did not impair their right to make by statute such regulations as they pleased with regard to the efficacy of foreign patents in this country. The patent agents took good care that they informed the owners of foreign patents of any changes in the legislation or administration in this country, and therefore there was no difficulty in the matter. The third objection taken by the Solicitor-General was in regard to publication. What was publication? It was provided for in the Bill because it said that there must be publication, and that did not mean singing the song bat publication as evidenced by the Act. This clause seemed to him a reasonable one, because he thought that facilities should be afforded on the one hand for preventing piracy, and on the other hand there should not be an injustice inflicted on those who unwittingly sold pirated copies.
§ MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)said that during the discussion of Clause 12 in Committee an Amendment was inserted upon this very question to meet the objections of the hon. Members opposite. Clause 12 of the present Bill provided that—
The proprietor of the copyright in any musical composition first published after the commencement of this Act, or his assignee, shall print or cause to be printed upon the title page of every published copy of such musical composition the date of the first publication thereof and otherwise this Act and the Act of 1902 shall not apply.So that any person who wished to know whether he had got a pirated copy or not had only to see that it bore the date of publication. In the Grand Committee this clause was amended in accordance with the terms he had just read. The hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire had told them a good deal about the bona fides which ought to exist, and he had said that if they accepted certain things on behalf of the promoters he understood that to mean that they would not go behind his back and insert those things which had been refused, in the House of Commons. He thought that principle ought also to hold good in the House of Commons in regard to compromises arrived at in the Grand Committee.
§ MR. CALDWELLBut those words were not accepted.
§ MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)I know that there was no acceptance of those words in the Grand Committee.
§ MR. MALCOLMsaid there were one or two details in regard to this clause to which he wished to draw attention. If the owner of a copyright changed his address there might be hundreds of copies in stock, but not one of them would be valid because they would not contain the true name and address of the owner. As his right hon. friend had said, they had gone as far as they possibly could go in insisting upon compulsory registration. On behalf of the promoters he was not prepared to go any further to make it more difficult for the owners of copyright to come within the purview of this Act.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said that if it was true that thousands of pounds had been lost by the proprietors of copyright music owing to the system of piracy, all that this clause did was to insist upon them protecting themselves by going through the ordinary form of registration at Stationers' Hall. His hon. friend proposed that a month after publication the copyright should be registered. The hon. Member opposite had replied to this argument by saying that the date of publication was going to be printed on every copy. He would point out, however, that there was a very important difference. He might publish something to-day and if he had a provisional copy he could put any date on it which he liked. The House was not generally aware that at least half a dozen London newspapers were published of which they never heard anything, simply in order to protect the copyright. As to what was publication, it was decided almost every year in the Courts. It consisted in printing and publishing and selling across the counter to the public day by day or month by month. That would apply with regard to this case. If a piece of music was sold by an agent that would be publication. It seemed to him very extraordinary that a simple suggestion of this kind could not be accepted. What 1383 was the objection to it? All that was asked was that the publishers of music should be placed under what was the ordinary law in regard to copyright. If they thought they had a valuable piece of music which they desired to have copyrighted they should be obliged to send a copy of it to the Stationers' Hall and another copy to the British Museum.
§ MR. DALZIELasked what was the objection then to the proposal of his hon. friend. A period should be fixed within which the music should be formally registered. It was said that a prosecution could not take place unless the music was copyrighted. That was quite true, but it should be remembered that criminal proceedings were to take place in cases of infringement. Under the Bill as it stood, it would be possible to register and to take proceedings almost the following day. The obligation should not be put on the public of sending from day to day to the registration office to see what had been registered. He strongly urged the promoters of the Bill to adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend. They ought to do it in their own interest, and he could not see why they objected. It was of importance to publishers that the title of a song should be protected. If they did not protect it somebody else might come forward with an inferior piece of music with the same title which they themselves wished to employ.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)said he was unable to understand why the promoters of the Bill were unwilling to accept the proposal of his hon. friend. He had not heard any reason which struck him as being sufficient for refusing to accept it. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Law, but he was not sure whether he was present when the clause to which his hon. friend referred came on. The fact that a clause was accepted or rejected in Committee did not preclude a Member from raising the question in the House if he desired to do so. When they said that a clause was passed by the Standing Committee on 1384 Law it merely meant that they took the best terms they could get there, but that was not a reason why they should not try to get better terms when the Bill came before the House. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman-opposite that there was a good deal to be said for amending the new clause. It might be that the clause ought to be very considerably amended. He did not think a month was a proper time. It was too short, and he would suggest that six months ought to be inserted. There certainly should be some period of time during which the owner of copyright ought to register if he wanted to get the benefit of the Bill. The Bill imposed penalties on people who printed, distributed, or sold, or were found to be in possession of copies of music which turned out to be pirated. Suppose a man purchased a large amount of music after finding out that it was not registered, and it was registered afterwards, it seemed to him that that man was to be penalised when he was found in possession of music which was not registered at the time he bought it. That was an extraordinary position to take up. He appreciated the answer which would be made. It would be said if he proved it was not registered at the time he bought it that would be a good defence. No doubt it would, for no magistrate would say that he sold music which he knew to be pirated. But though he could not be convicted he might be seriously penalised in other ways. He might have to meet a charge brought under the provisions of the Bill, which were of a very drastic character. He would also be a loser by the transaction as well, because once it was brought home to him that the music was registered he would not be able to sell it. He was not an opponent of the Bill, but he could not help feeling that if they were going to introduce a clause of this kind hon.Members were entitled to offer observations upon it.
§ M. HARWOOD (Bolton)said the House was asked to adopt what was practically a new principle in regard to copyright. A register conducted in the way suggested by the Bill would be quite impracticable. Anyone who knew the immense number of pieces of music published knew that it would be 1385 impossible to search the register unless they were entered at the time of publication. There would be no difficulty in registration, but there would be difficulty and expense unless the pieced were entered at the time of publication. One of the peculiar features of pirated music was that it bore no date, and the consequence was that one would not be able to tell whether it was published before or after registration. The principle of the clause proposed by his hon. friend was that it would prevent the copyrighting of a lot of rubbish. A distinguished Judge said the other day it was a thousand pities that such rubbish could be copyrighted. If it was rubbish they would not spend five shillings in registering it. An infringement of the provision of the Bill would involve a criminal prosecution, and surely they had a right to ask for some practical reason against the proposal of his hon. friend.
§ *MR. MOUNTsuggested that if the hon. Member would substitute twelve months for one month the promoters would accept the proposal.
§ *MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)said he objected to any extension of the time. In his view one month was ample. Why should all this special care and attention be paid to composers of music? Let them take action at once, if they considered they had a good thing, and protect themselves.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid he understood that the Second Reading of the clause had been accepted. When the clause had been read a second time the hon. Member could move an Amendment to it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)said that in order to put matters straight he formally moved to leave out the words "one month," in order to insert "twelve months."
§
Amendment proposed to the clause—
In line 3, to leave out the words 'one month' and insert the words 'twelve months.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left outstand part of the clause.
§ *MR. WEIRsaid that if a man had what he conceived to be a valuable property, whether a musical composition or mechanical invention, he should protect himself at once by registration. If he did not care to take that trouble, then he should suffer the consequences. He thought twelve months was altogether too long. A prior usage nullified a patent; why should not prior usage nullify a musical production which had not been registered? He should vote fur one month instead of twelve.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)said he hoped his hon. friend would not press his opposition to the Motion now before the House. He was Chairman of the Committee which had considered this Bill, and had followed the discussions very closely. The question which had raised a great deal of difficulty upstairs was that of international copyright. He understood that this concession went a very long way to meet that difficulty, and that if it were not made a great deal of hardship might be inflicted on foreign composers.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Qnestion "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Amendment was consequential on the last. In the first clause he dealt with the original owner of the copyright; in this clause he was dealing with the assignee of the copyright. When the original owner of the copyright had the power of prosecution under this Act after it became law, it was equally necessary that the assignee's title to do so should be made clear. Therefore the public had a right to know who was the real owner of the copyright. Piracy meant the publication of musical works without the written consent of the owner, and therefore to whom was a man who wanted to publish a work to go in order to obtain authority to publish that music? Suppose a man wanted to act honourably and wished to say to 1387 the owner of the copyright: "Are you -willing to allow me to publish this music?" But the real owner, the assignee, was not registered at all, what happened? The object of his Amendment was that the assignee should go to the registrar and put his true name and address on the register, so that the public might know who was really the owner of the copyright. He begged to move.
§
Another clause (Registration of assignments of copyright).
The assignee of the copyright of any mnsical work first published in the United Kingdom after the commencement of this Act shall within one month of his becoming assignee of such musical copyright, cause an entry to be made in the registry book of the Stationers' Company kept in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, setting forth his true name and address, and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee, and otherwise the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such copyright.'"— (Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he quite recognised the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman had moved this Amendment. But the objection he had was to the words at the end of the clause, which, provided that in the registry book of the Stationers' Company there should be Bet, forth the true name and address of the assignee and "the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee." That would compel the publication, and therefore the putting in the hands of the public the private transactions between the publisher and the composer. The rest of the hon. Gentlemen's clause he was prepared to accept.
§ MR. HEMPHILLasked would it suffice if the name and address and the date of the deed of assignment were set forth. That would obviate the necessity of setting forth the deed itself.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he would point out that the assignment of a foreign copyright would be in the books 1388 of a foreign country. All that was now necessary under international arrangement was that the assignee would lodge a proper certificate in this country. He did not see how the proposed clause could apply.
§ *MR. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury)said that under the proposed clause, if the assignee did not register his assignment within a month, he would forever lose all right under the statute. It appeared to him that a locus penetentiœ should be given in such cases; and that the assignee should be given the benefit of the Act when he did register. Therefore the clause should end "or until he shall so register it."
§ *SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said that there was no reason for making the Bill more severe than the Copyright Act. The Act of 1842 did not enforce the statement of a date. It was very undesirable to encumber a new Bill with restrictions and difficulties of this kind.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would move to omit "one month" in order to insert "twelve months."
§
Amendment proposed to the clause—
In line 3, to leave out the words 'one month' and insert the words 'twelve months.'" —(Mr. Galloway.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would move to omit the following words: "and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee." He would take care that the arrangement which had been arrived at should be honourably carried out.
§
Amendment proposed to the clause—
In line 6, to leave out the words 'and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee.'"— (Mr. Galloway.)
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that this was a matter in which there should be no misunderstanding. All he wanted was to fix, as it were, the title under which the assignee secured the copyright. He quite accepted the hon. Gentleman's 1389 assurance, and would agree to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. HEMPHILLsaid it would be necessary to insert words in lieu of the words that had been omitted. He would suggest "the date of the deed of assignment or other instrument, if any."
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he had given the House an undertaking, and would ask the hon. Gentleman to accept his word. They were all agreed; and he would undertake that there would be no attempt to go back on the arrangement which had been arrived at.
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid that words would be inserted which would make the matter clear.
§ *MR. H. D. GREENE moved to add the following words, "until it has been so registered."
§
Amendment proposed to the clause—
At the end to add the words 'until it has been so registered.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Amendment would stultify the whole clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, added.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe first Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Durham is not in order, because it is not relevant to the present Bill, as it would merely give power to diminish in certain cases the right of the holder of a copyright. The second Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is in order.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the Amendment he would move went to the root of the Bill. It was not, however, destructive in its character, but it introduced a very material modification. The Bill, of course, had been conceived in the interests of the music publishers rather than in the interests 1390 of the public, though he did not complain of that. That objection was met because this clause was rather against the interest of the publishers than in their favour. Undoubtedly the lion's share of the profits of the music went to the trade; a very small proportion went to the composer. No one had much sympathy with publishers because of the profits made by them. Of course the profits made by the music publishers varied and they could only take an average in matters of this kind. He might point out that the average profit to the composer would be about 2d. for every copy sold, whilst it would be a very moderate computation if they said that the publishers' profit was 1s. A grievance then clearly existed. The effect of these high prices in music was that the public were not able to obtain music with that facility which they desired. There was a very strong combination among the music publishers of this country who dictated the prices to the trade. He merely wished to put this matter in an open form before those who were in charge of this Bill who, he admitted, had met in a most reasonable manner the objections which had been made to this Bill. The clause he was proposing was open to some very strong objections and in the opinion of some might seem rather harsh, but having regard to the knowledge obtained from the working of the Copyright Act of 1842, and of the Patent Acts, he thought it would work very well in practice. Inasmuch as they were satisfied that the demand of the populace for musical culture had largely increased, and that complaints were constantly being made by the people of the high prices at which music was sold, it was only right that the requirements of the poorer classes should be to some extent safeguarded by this House, and what he proposed was this: that when anyone was summoned for an offence under this Act, it should be open, not only to the party summoned but to anybody, to point out to the magistrate that the facilities for the public for obtaining this music were of an unsatisfactory character, and that the prices charged were prohibitive, and that the magistrate should then be empowered, if he thought fit, to impose a nominal fine or deal with the 1391 action as frivolous. Under the Patent Acts the practice was somewhat different. Under the Patent Acts anyone could go to the Privy Council and show that there was no proper opportunity for the public to acquire a patented article, and the Privy Council could order greater facilities to be afforded. Under the Copyright Act of 1842, it was competent for the Privy Council to proceed under somewhat analogous methods. If the proprietor of the copyright of any book, after the death of the author of that book, refused to re-publish it, and it was to the benefit of the public that it should be re-published, an application might be made to the Privy Council, who, under the circumstances, could grant a licence to the applicant to publish the book despite the provisions of the Copyright Act. He was quite sensible to the objections to which the clause was open through leaving this discretionary power in the hands of the magistrates, but it must be remembered that a magistrate had now the power to dismiss a charge he considered frivolous. He begged to move.
§
Another clause (Discretion of Court as regards fine and costs).
Where in any proceedings before a Court of summary jurisdiction under this Act, the Court is satisfied with regard to any musical work that the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to such musical work have not been satisfied, the Court in its discretion may refuse to giant a search warrant, and where an offence is proved may impose a nominal fine, and the cost in the action or proceedings shall be in the absolute discretion of the Court."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the clause be read a second time."
§ THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,) Ayrshire, N.said the objection to this clause had been stated by the hon. Member who moved it. The prices of music, like the price of other things, were not independent of the law of supply and demand. All the protection that the hon. Member wanted was given already in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, in Sections 16 and 18 of the Acts of 1879 and 1848 respectively, which declared that if at the bearing of a 1392 charge for an offence punishable by a Court of summary jurisdiction the Court thought that, though the charge was proved, the offence was of so trifling a nature that it was inexpedient to inflict any punishment the Court might dismiss the information and again, if the information were dismissed, the prosecutor might be rendered liable for costs. Under all the circumstances he did not think it would be convenient to add this clause to the Bill.
§ MR. HARWOODsaid this matter was more important than the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. The prices of music were prohibitive, and the question of supply and demand was not allowed to operate in the matter. It was all a matter of a close corporation, and those who were acquainted with its working knew that it worked in a very injurious way, with the result that preposterous prices were charged for songs. The almost invariable minimum price was 4s., and the cost of publication was about twopence. Yet anybody who desired to publish a song was bound to come into the ring or else he could not get his song published. This was a matter which this House ought to consider. They had to consider not only the rights of the publishers but also the rights of the public. The public ought not to be shut out from purchasing music by the prohibitive prices charged, Such conditions should be laid down as would ensure that if it was desirable for the public to have a piece of music they should be able to obtain it at a reasonable charge, and if they could not get it they should be able to assert their rights. The reason it was not necessary to discuss this question of piracy with regard to books was because the publishers of books were wise enough to publish them at reasonable prices. It might be said that even if accepted this clause would not be put into operation very much, but his contention was that the effect of its being in the Bill would be that such steps would be taken by the publishers as would prevent its being put into operation at all He appealed to the House that in this matter they should do something to meet the demands of the public.
§ *MR. WEIRexpressed surprise at the attitude of the Solicitor-General, who 1393 must know that an inventor in order to protect himself should take immediate steps to patent his invention and that prior use invalidated a patent. Why should so much care, consideration, and regard be bestowed on the owner and composer of a piece of music? Why should he not register his production as soon as he completed it? A month, as proposed in the Amendment, gave ample time to any author, composer, or owner to register. It was not fair to the innocent vendor of a piece of music that he should be the victim of legal proceedings, although he had adopted every means to ascertain whether the music he offered for sale was pirated. Registration was often delayed until legal proceedings had commenced. What an injustice to the enterprising trader! He came to the House to-day to support the Bill, if a good one, but after listening to the debate he had come to the conclusion it was a bad Bill. He considered it a shameful attempt to bolster up a rich and powerful combination to the detriment of the public. He was not adverse to an author, composer, or inventor securing the largest possible profit, but the fact should not be lost sight of that Parliament granted a privilege in the protection of copyright, and in doing so required that the rights of the public should also be recognised. This powerful ring in charging four shillings for a piece of music which could be sold for sixpence, at an enormous profit, Catered for the wealthy classes only. By all means let the æsthetic millionaires have costly editions, which might bear on the cover hand-painted violins, other musical instruments, and cupids, at, say, five guineas and upwards. But for the masses of the people there should be an edition at a price within their reach. Why should the jaded shop or factory girl who found a solace in music be unable to cultivate her taste? An edition at, say, sixpence a copy selling in hundreds of thousands would prove far more profitable to the composer, owner, and vendor than a limited sale at four shillings. Railway companies long since realised that their largest revenue was derived from third-class passengers. This combination of music publishers did not seem to have grasped the fact that large sales at moderate profits produced the best results. He objected to one-sided legislation in the interest of monopolists. The taste for 1394 music in this country was growing and should be encouraged.
§ *MR. H. D. GREENEsaid it was with a feeling of humiliation that he sat through a debate in which the statute law of England was bartered away by hon. Members from one side to those on the other. Hon. Members had already repealed the statute which WAS passed in 1902 after careful consideration. It was difficult to sit still while such things were going on; but he could not see the criminal law of the country reversed and upset by bargains between hon. Members. The Under-Secretary's protest was half-hearted, and if the proposed clause were not rejected or decisively challenged by anyone else he would divide the House himself. The clause proposed that where proceedings were taken before a Court of summary jurisdiction the Court might refuse to grant a search warrant, impose a merely nominal fine, and exercise absolute discretion in regard to costs, if it was satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to the musical work which was the subject of the proceedings had not been satisfied. His first observation in regard to the clause was that it was absolutely unnecessary, because under the general law and Summary Jurisdiction Act the Court already had discretion to reduce imprisonment or fine and to deal with the question of costs. That was provided for in Section 4 of the Act of 1879. Then, again, he would call attention to the fact that there was no minimum fine which the magistrates could, under the Bill, impose; it was in their power to impose any penalty they chose so long as they did not exceed the maximum. It was, therefore, an absolutely unnecessary and redundant provision to insert in the Bill.
§ The conditions of the clause were objectionable. Who was to show the justices whether the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to a musical work had not been satisfied? What were the means of investigating this question? The hon. Member who moved the clause said something about some person coming in to satisfy the 1395 justices. Did he really mean that when a man was being criminally prosecuted some third party might be introduced, possibly with not very laudable motives, to start an inquiry not as to whether the prisoner was guilty but whether or not the reasonable requirements of the public had been satisfied? How could prosecutions be conducted under such circumstances? It meant that the ordinary practices of the magistrate's Court were to be absolutely annihilated, and it certainly seemed to him to be unjust to the accused person that an element of such a disturbing kind should be introduced for the consideration of the Court while the question of his guilt or innocence was under consideration. He ventured to assert that there were no means of investigating whether or not the reasonable requirements of the public—whatever they might be—had been satisfied. The proposition that when the Court was solemnly trying whether a man was guilty or not guilty of forgery it was to stop to consider whether somebody else had or had not satisfied the public requirements should only need to be mentioned in order to be scouted. The man being tried might have all the appliances of forgery —a complete establishment, for forging musical copyrights—his guilt might have been brought home to him, and yet the magistrates were invited to let a guilty man escape because some want of the public was not satisfied. That was totally illogical. If it might be applied in the case of musical copyright, why not in other cases? Why should the justices be asked to entertain entirely extraneous considerations in these cases?
§ This position had arisen from an entire misapprehension of the Act; passed in 1886. Up to that year if a person was guilty of producing a musical piece, or singing a song, the owner of that, piece or song, if he had not given his sanction to the performance, could sue the performer in the High Court, and, if the action was successful, the offender had to pay forty shillings for every representation together with double the costs of the suit. That was a civil action but it was a harsh proceeding, because many people quite inadvertently sang copyright songs. Owing to the scandal caused by the operation of that law, 1396 Parliament interfered in 1886, and provided that in such actions the jury might only give a nominal amount of damages instead of forty shillings for each representation, and, instead of allowing double the costs of the suit, the amount of costs was to be left to the discretion of the Judge. He took it that the hon. Member opposite had forgotten that that Act only applied to civil actions, and had nothing to do with the Act of 1889.
§ *MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said, as one who supported the Bill, and who hoped it would pass through the Report Stage that afternoon, he trusted that the promoters would see their way to accept this clause, or, at any rate, some modification of it. He admitted that he did not quite like the clause as it stood at present, inasmuch as it contained a great deal of surplusage, but he wished to see some means devised which would prevent a rich man from purchasing the copyright of some newly composed piece of music, and restricting its performance to his family circle or his friends. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a man from so purchasing a piece which might be as valuable as Handel's Messiah, and thus inflicting a serious loss on the public. It might be said that when a man bought a picture the public had no means of access to inspect it, but when the day came for legislation with regard to them he would be prepared to advocate the same course to be taken in regard to pictures as in regard to music. The Bill was admittedly a new departure in legislation, and therefore, they ought to make it as perfect as possible.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said he was one of these who fully appreciated the motives of some hon. Members on the other side of the House who had endeavoured to defeat this Bill; but he could not understand that their object was altogether laudable. They had been impressed with the fact that musical publications were sold at a very high price, and acting, as they believed, in the interests of the public, they were attempting to secure facilities being given to the public to obtain cheaper music. 1397 He had a substantial interest in one of the large musical publishing firms, and he was convinced that it was not only in the interests of the public but of the shareholders of these firms that an endeavour should be made to meet the popular demand for cheap music. A good many publishers had made a strenuous effort to publish cheap music, but their efforts had been frustrated by the pirates. One firm of publishers had been good enough to send him a large number of popular songs, published at 6d., among which was "An Old Love Dream," sung by Madame Belle Cole. But it was no good publishing these songs at 6d. if a few days afterwards they were hawked about at 2d. or 3d. It had been suggested that the cost of publication was extremely small; but this was to ignore some of the heavy expenses which had to be incurred. A relative of his who used to write songs for a firm of publishers received from them £800 a year, in return for which he sent them about a dozen songs a year. He also received a royalty after a thousand copies had been sold. There was, therefore, a very large expense involved in the publication of these songs. Moreover, many songs did not take hold of the public, and the publishers had to take the risk of the songs attaining popularity. As to the Amendment, there was too much of the personal equation in it. If the matter was left entirely to the discretion of the magistrates, different standards might be established all over the country as to what were "the reasonable requirements of the public," and, therefore, he thought this proposal could not practically be carried into effect.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThose questions are not raised by this Amendment. The question is whether the magistrates in cases of this kind are to be empowered to consider the question of "the reasonable requirements of the public." It is merely a question whether that power is to be granted or not, and not what those reasonable requirements are.
§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)said he had had some experience upon this question, and he had heard many legal gentlemen plead before him, 1398 and he had always found that one good lawyer was able to reply to another. When a person applied for a search warrant he had to state the circumstances, and the magistrate must decide upon them. Under this Bill the magistrate was called upon to give a definite decision, and that was just where he could make use of this provision and use his discretion. There ought to be no politics in this question, and the object of hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to be to see that the public got as much cheap music as possible. Any proposal that would effect this object would be appreciated on both sides of the House. He thought the Amendment now before the House would have this effect, and it would make it easier to obtain better music at cheaper rates.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)said he felt that the law was at present harsh in its operation and very much restricted as regarded the public interest, and in this Bill there ought to be reasonable proposals to moderate those restrictions, and make less severe the hardships which had been felt in the operation of the present law. The provision in the proposed clause seemed to be a very reasonable one, for in a matter of this sort the discretion of the magistrates ought to play some part in guiding them to a decision. If the supporters of this Bill were desirous that the law should be made more reasonable and less oppressive, perhaps they could suggest some better proposal than this Amendment. Instead of doing this the supporters of the Bill seemed to be insisting upon having their pound of flesh in the interests of the copyright owners. He held no brief for the musical copyright owners, but under the circumstances he had no alternative but to give the hon. Member for Mid Lanark all the assistance he could in order to prevent this Bill passing into law in its present shape.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid this clause represented the rights of the public in this matter of copyright. The owners of copyright music were asking for drastic legislation of a kind which was not possessed by anyone else, and the Opposition were asking, in return for that, that they should in this Bill give some recognition to the principle 1399 that the public had some right and interest in the question of musical copyright. Like all other rights conferred by Parliament, they should be exercised reasonably and in the interests of the public. What had these copyright people done? Both before the Committee and even now, they said that they did not recognise any interest on the part of the public because copyrights were personal property. In his opinion, if copyright owners were to have these drastic powers, which were not possessed by owners of anything else in the kingdom; if they were to be given powers of obtaining search warrants, and such penalties as could be inflicted under this Bill, then at least they ought to show before the magistrates that the reasonable requirements of the public were being satisfied. The cause of piracy was the difference between the exorbitant price charged to the public and the price at which the music could be produced. Mr. D'Eyncourt, a well-known metropolitan magistrate, said he wondered why copyright owners did not reduce the price of their music, and he further stated that so long as the present price of music was; maintained they would always have this kind of thing going on. He also said that he wondered why copyright owners did not look at the matter in a; more sensible way and lower the price, Here they had the opinion of a well-known magistrate who conscientiously believed that the cause of piracy in music was due to these high prices. The magistrates would have no discretion whatever under this Bill, and they would have to grant a warrant. They wanted to put the magistrates in this position, that they would have an indication from Parliament that they would be allowed to bring their discretion to bear, and refuse to grant a search warrant where, in their opinion, the reasonable requirements of the public had not
§ been met. It had been said that they were now dealing with a new stale of things, and that nothing would meet the case but a search warrant. Look at the position of the public with regard to this Amendment. Up to this moment there had been no recognition whatever of the rights of the public as regarded their reasonable requirements. They were anxious to put into this Bill power to enable the Privy Council to determine what were the reasonable requirements of the public; but they found that they could not get such a provision into this measure. Therefore they were quite willing to take the other reasonable position, and provide that the magistrate should have the discretion provided for in this Amendment. Parliament in the year 1888 found that the owners of copyright were acting unreasonably in the matter, and consequently power was given to-modify the penalty, and the question of costs was also left to the discretion of the magistrates. They were only asking for the recognition of that principle here. They wanted the magistrates to have this power, for if they possessed such power, in his opinion, it would be sufficient to bring about a change. If the promoters of this Bill went on pressing these proposals in the face of these facts, and if they resisted the acknowledgment of the rights of the public, which were not in any way recognised in this Bill, the House would do right is coming to the conclusion that it was impossible to grant these drastic powers. If they would only recognise the rights of the public in this limited sense of giving a discretion to the magistrates, then he should certainly not oppose them being granted the extreme powers now being asked for.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes., 161. (Division List No. 144)
1403| AYES. | ||
| Austin, Sir John | Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Crombie, John William | Duncan, J. Hastings |
| Boland, John | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Edwards, Frank |
| Brigg, John | Cullman, J. | Elibank, Master of |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Dalziel, James Henry | Ellice, Capt. E. C (S Andrw's Bghs |
| Burt, Thomas | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Fenwick, Charles |
| Caldwell, James | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Ffrench, Peter |
| Cameron, Robert | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Hammond, John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Murphy, John | Slack, John Bamford |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Horniman, Frederick John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Ure, Alexander |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Partington, Oswald | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Joicey, Sir James | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Priestley, Arthur | Weir, James Galloway |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Reddy, M. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Rigg, Richard | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Roe, Sir Thomas | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Lundon, W. | Russell, T. W. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Schwann, Charles E. | |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Atherley-Jonos and Mr. Harwood. |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | |
| Murnaghan, George | Sheehy, David | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F. | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Milvain, Thomas |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmoud | Mitchell, William (Burnley) |
| Aird, Sir John | Forster, Henry William | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Fuller, J. M. F. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gardner, Ernest | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hn. Sir H | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgm & Nairn) | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Myers, William Henry |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Grant, Corrie | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bill, Charles | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gretton, John | Peraberton, John S. G. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Percy, Earl |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Gunter, Sir Robert | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Price, Robert John |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Chapman, Edward | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Charrington, Spencer | Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. | Hunt, Rowland | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Kennedy, Patrick James | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Spear, John Ward |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Leveson-Gower, Frederick NS.) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd U'niv. |
| Dunn, Sir William | Lloyd-George, David | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Macdona, John Cumming | Tuff, Charles |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W | |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Malcolm, Ian | Wallace, Robert |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Mount and Mr. Galloway. |
| Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart | |
| Wedehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. HARWOODsaid he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-west Durham. They were now discussing a very serious departure in English law which ought not to be adopted except very good causes were shown. Already music had more legal safeguards than any other productions of a similar nature. Music had all the protection afforded to books I and overproductions, and it was specially protected by the power of seizure, and the House ought to be very careful before it took a step of the kind proposed in this Bill. They ought to ask themselves the question, "Why do these people come here I for protection?" Why was the House of Commons asked to deal with this case specially, and to adopt special provisions to deal with a certain class of copyright? They were being asked in this case to go beyond the ordinary criminal law. The House ought not to do this without having sufficient cause shown. Why did this particular trade ask them to apply remedies which no other trade possessed? Those who opposed this Bill were not unreasonable, but they did maintain that a good case ought to be made out before such proposals were passed into law. There were some very serious factors in this problem. This was a disease, and the House of Commons was being asked to apply a very severe remedy. They must ask what was the cause of this disease. The real cause was that the whole trade of musical publication was rotten. It was conducted upon the principle of a close corporation, and the whole thing was in the hands of a few. It was a trust, and it was one of the most outrageous examples of a trust. Not only was the printing of music conducted upon this close corporation principle, but it was a fact that anyone who did not fall in with the lines adopted by these people had no chance at all.
The House might perhaps forget that it was being asked that afternoon to do something which ought not to be done without a great sense of responsibility. They were asked to bring in the severity of the criminal law and the power 1404 of seizure on behalf of a particular trade. Was that trade meeting the difficulty properly itself? They were asked on behalf of music publishers and music sellers to give them these powers. Had the House not a right to say to them, "Are you doing all that we can fairly expect of you to stop this disease." He agreed that piracy prevailed largely, but it was inevitable under the circumstances, and it was only the natural result of the rotten condition of the whole business. He thought the House ought to insist that the music publishers on their part should do all that could be reasonably expected of them to cure this disease. [Cries of "Oh!"] His argument was not to be answered by exclamations of that kind. They had just heard the opinion of a well-known magistrate upon this question, and he had told them that the real cause of piracy was the absurdly high price of music. Everyone knew how perfectly absurd the price of music was. Music was now published at preposterous prices and this Bill bolstered up a most ridiculous way of doing business. Whilst he acknowledged the elasticity shown by the promoters to the opponents of this Bill, all they had conceded did not meet the case. The music trade ought to be put on a sound business-like basis. But there was a deeper question. He did not know if hon. Members hid fully recognised how enormously the taste for music in recent years had developed amongst the masses of the people. They could not buy music now at a reasonable price except in a roundabout way, and they ought to be able to buy music which was now old at 1s. 4d. at 4d. and 6d.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat question cannot be discussed upon this clause.
§ MR. HARWOODsaid that by moving this Amendment he was practically moving the rejection of the Bill. The position was simply this. This House was now asked to pass more stringent legislation to protect a trade which was already well protected. Before the House passed this measure they ought at least to receive every assurance 1405 that the publishers would put their trade upon a proper footing. Because no such assurances had been given, and because he believed that if this Bill passed the evils complained of would be intensified and the masses of the people would be shut out from obtaining cheap music, he begged to move the deletion of Clause 1.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Harwood.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words of the clause to the word 'or,' in page 1, line 6, stand part of the Bill.'"
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid the hon. Member for Bolton had been good enough to say that the objections raised to this Bill had been met in a reasonable spirit.
§ MR. HARWOODHear, hear!
§ MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was glad to heir that acknowledgment. There were five clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark and they had accepted four of them, and in regard to his fifth clause the mover admitted that it was not a practical one and would not work. When the Bill was read a second time hon. Members on the other side professed that they were anxious to prevent piracy, and to enable the owners of property to have the proper use of their property. In regard to the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark the promoters of the Bill had given way a good deal—more than they might otherwise have done—because there was only one day for the discussion of the Bill. He hoped that the House would see that it was passed in some form. The only desire the promoters had was to give those who possessed property the right of enjoying it, and he hoped they would; not allow the House of Commons to suffer under the stigma of having refused a just and proper remedy for an intolerable condition of things.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid those who were promoting the Bill were promoting it from the point of view of property. Property was the word used by the hon. Member for South West Manchester. 1406 The hon. Member said, "Oh, it's like your watch."
§ MR. GALLOWAYI never said anything of the kind.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that, at any rate, the hon. Member's argument was all to that effect. Copyright was an interest conferred by Parliament for the promotion of music among the community, while at the same time giving reasonable remuneration to the composer. It was not property in the same sense as a watch which a man could use, sell, or deal with as he pleased for all eternity. A watch could be handed down on the hereditary principle. Copyright was limited in its duration and it was clogged about with restrictions. Had Parliament dealt with the question as a vested interest? In 1888, owing to the abuses on the part of the owners of copyright, Parliament stepped in and said, "We will curtail your right which you say is a right of property," and absolute discretion was given to the Judges to give nominal damages and to determine who should pay the costs of proceedings. This Bill wanted to give increased powers to the publishers of music, and it was a matter of the most vital interest that he House should consider whether those powers ought to be granted, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case. The powers asked by the musical copyright people were not granted in any of the other copyright laws of this country. Those powers were asked on account of the course pursued by the music publishers themselves. They charged such exorbitant prices for the music they published that there was a temptation to piracy in the very same way as when a Customs duty was high there was a temptation to smuggling. No better evidence of that could be found than in the action of the stipendiary magistrates. They knew the piracy existed and they knew the popular sentiment was against the music publishers on account of the high prices which they charged. That was the reason why piracy had increased. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had told them that the effect of the discussion of musical copyright was that prices were going to come down. 1407 Take the case of one publisher—the president of the Musical Copyright Association. He had brought out a sixpenny series of music exactly the same in form and substance, and everything else, as the 4s. and the 2s. pieces.
§ MR. MALCOLMHow much of that has been pirated?
§ MR. CALDWELLWell, a good deal has been pirated.
§ MR. MALCOLMOut of seventy-eight there have been thirty-nine pirated.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid it was because the songs were popular that they were pirated. If they had not been pirated the hon. Member for South-west Manchester would have got up and said that those songs which were sold at sixpence were rubbish. The publisher to whom he had referred sold the sixpenny series to the trade at twopence and that included copyright, advertising, and other expenses. The ordinary trader sold it at 4½d., and the hawker, who had another class of customers, sold it at 3d. or 3½d. That took place last October. When the music publishers came to this House asking further powers, they should remember that they would have popular sentiment to reckon with in a matter of this kind. They were already beginning to realise it. It look a long time to educate the public, but in course of time they did waken up. The musical copyright people asked power to proceed against the printers and the man who caused pirated music to be printed. Nobody would have the slightest sympathy with them, and for his part he would not modify in any way the penalty proposed so far as they were concerned. But there were other parties involved—those who had little shops, and those who hawked in the streets. It was proposed to put these people under the most drastic legislation. He had never concealed his view that, given proper recognition of the rights of the public, he did not object to the most stringent law to put down piracy. The new clauses were brought forward in the hope that proper recognition of the public rights might be placed on the Statute-book, but the publishers had not shown the smallest 1408 inclination to meet the public demand. It was impossible to carry out criminal legislation of the kind now proposed unless they had popular sentiment at the back of it. There was in the Act of 1892 a most effective law against piracy. They found that seizures of music were constantly being made under the powers conferred by that Act, and in his opinion publishers had already ample protection. There was no evidence that they had sustained any very substantial loss. The remedy for piracy was not that proposed by the Bill. The remedy lay in the hands of the publishers themselves.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)asked the hon. Member for Bolton not to press his Motion which, as had been frankly admitted, was designed to defeat the Bill. There seemed to be an impression that the object of the Bill was to benefit the publishers of music. He knew nothing of the publishers of music, but he knew something of the composers. One of the principal sufferers was a constituent of his, the composer of the best known songs throughout the English-speaking world, and the system of piracy which had grown up had involved him in the loss of thousands of pounds. For every publisher there were dozens of composers, every one of whom was a sufferer.
§ *MR. WEIRsaid he was sure every Member must sympathise with the composers, but the music publishers were to blame for the loss which they suffered. The promoters of the Bill had appealed to the House to allow it to pass. He had been in the House the greater part of the afternoon, and there had been very little of a conciliatory spirit shown by the promoters of the Bill. They had given way on one or two small points, but it was important that the interests of the public should be considered as well as those of the publishers to whom Parliament had given a privilege. He was as touch a stickler for the rights of property as any man, but they must also consider the welfare of the community. They all recognised that music should be sold at a price within the reach of the masses of the people. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 said that any person who distributed or carried about 1409 any copies of pirated music was liable to certain penalties. If he happened to have half-a-dozen copies, or even one single copy, of a piece of music in his pocket to give to a friend, it might be said that he was distributing it, although he had no knowledge whatever that the music was pirated, and he would be liable to conviction under this Bill and to all the penalties provided in it. Although he wished to give these copies of a piece of music to his friends out of the goodness of his heart, he could be attacked by this powerful organisation of music publishers, who were already amply protected under the existing law. Then Sub-section 3 said if any person "sells, or causes, or procures to be sold, or exposes, offers, or keeps for sale, or solicits orders by post, or otherwise, for any copies of any pirated musical work." How was a buyer to know that the music was pirated—
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was going through the Bill line by line, and delaying the business of the House.
§ *MR. WEIRsaid that the powers sought by the promoters of this Bill were of such an arbitrary character that he did not think the House ought to grant them for the benefit of any trading body. He knew of no law conferring on any other set of traders such powers and privileges as was proposed to be given to music publisher. The public welfare should be regarded first, and the music publishers should not have the power to treat the public in such a high-handed fashion as the Bill proposed to allow them. He sincerely trusted that the House would not pass legislation of this kind. If the promoters of the Bill had been more conciliatory more progress would have been made.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the word, 'Prints,' to insert the words 'for sale.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that in any copyright Act since 1842 the words used were "causes to be printed for sale," and the same should be adopted in this Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1410
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'or procures.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Bill violated all the other precedents in copyright legislation, and hence they were compelled to move these Amendments. No doubt it would be said that this was a frivolous Amendment, but he maintained that it was absolutely necessary. The words "or procures" were not in any other Copyright Act. The promoters of the Bill, having got a good place in the ballot, evidently thought that they could drive anything through the House as they pleased. It was the promoters themselves who had been the obstructionists. He begged to move.
§ *MR. WEIRsaid he hoped the House would accept the Amendment. These words would lead to much trouble and litigation in the future.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 0, after the word 'printed,' to insert the words 'for, sale.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR CALDWELLsaid that the words he proposed to leave out were not in the Copyright Act of 1842. They constituted another attempt on the part of the promoters of the Bill to introduce into the measure offences which were not included in that or any Copyright Act. What was the interpretation of the words "carrier about"? Suppose a man bought a piece of music, could a policeman seize him, and take it out of his hand on the ground that he was carrying it about? That was to say he was carrying it about in the same sense that he was carrying his pocket handkerchief. But that was not all; this man could be summoned to the police Court, to show cause why the music should not be destroyed, but the magistrate would say "I have nothing to do—the man has lost his piece of music, and I make no order." And no [order whatever would be made. It was a very dangerous thing to grant such powers to a body so wealthy as the Musical Copyright Association, which had thousands of pounds at their back. 1411 He had looked through all the Copyright Acts since 1842, and could discover in none of them anything in the nature of "distributing or carrying about." Sub-section 3 covered everything that was necessary to be covered, and Sub-section 2 was therefore obviously not required. It was extremely undesirable that these new offences should be created. It should not be an offence for a man to have a copy for his own personal use. A man who was distributing, but not distributing for sale, was not liable under the present Copyright Acts; and, therefore, he would move the omission of the sub-section.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 8 to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'or,' in page 1, line 9, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said he would not follow the example of the hon. Member for South-west Manchester, who spoke for two hours on the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, after the Bill had been through Grand Committee, that the House should be given some explanation as to why all those Amendments had been accepted. The Amendment was an important one; but lie did not agree with his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark in thinking that the Bill was a bad Bill. If, however, the whole of the Bill was to be eliminated, it would be better to drop it altogether. Apparently the promoters did not take any interest in what the Bill was to enact, as long as they had the name of passing it through the House in some shape. The Amendment was an important one; and the promoters ought to explain their attitude regarding it.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he regretted that the promoters did not indicate whether they were prepared to accept the Amendment or not. There was a great deal to be said for the Bill; and he regretted that private conference had not saved the House from what had happened to-day. However, the Bill was safe enough, as it was understood the Government would star it. Therefore, they could consider these matters without endanger- 1412 ing the Bill. He remembered in the Grand Committee a question of a similar character was debated the whole day, and afterwards accepted. He thought the promoters would be wise to accept the Amendment. The sub-section seemed to show how careful they ought to be in passing this Bill. He confessed he had some sympathy with the promoters; but when the former Bill was passed the music publishers closed their shops for a day in order to allow their assistants to hunt down hawkers. However much that action might have been justified, although it was subsequently not justified in law, they ought to be careful in handing over powers without understanding what they were doing. This sub-section would make it possible for a railway company or a carrying company, such as Carter Paterson, to be made a party to a prosecution because without knowledge they carried pirated music sent by one person to another. The sub-section might be interpreted in two ways; and they knew the sort of people, not very experienced, who would nave to interpret it. It was in the interests of all concerned that the law should be perfectly clear.
§ *MR. WEIRsaid he had been waiting in the hope that the hon. Member for South-west Manchester would accept the Amendment. There were ample powers given to the Publishers' Association in other sub-sections. As his hon. friend had stated, every railway company and carrying company would be liable. They would receive a parcel of music, and for carrying it they would be liable, and involved in litigation. They could stand litigation; but what about the humble individual. A person buying music and having paid for it ought not to be landed in a lawsuit. He was surprised that the promoters of the Bill did not see fit to accept the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN ELLICE (St Andrews Burghs)said that the sub-section was an entirely new sub-section, which was not to be found in former Copyright Acts. The promoters were acting in the interest of one particular class, and not in the interests of the public. They were told that they should not throw away the baby in the bath; but the promoters had 1413 accepted so many Amendments that nothing now remained except dirty water. He would support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 145.)
1415| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Myers, William Henry |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) |
| Aird, Sir John | Flower, Sir Ernest | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Asher, Alexander | Forster, Henry William | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fuller, J. M. F. | Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Gardner, Ernest | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Austin, Sir John | Garfit, William | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Grant, Corrie | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Gretton, John | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Price, Robert John |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Gunter, Sir Robert | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Hall, Edward Marshall | Rankin, Sir James |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bill, Charles | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Boseawen, Arthur Griffith | Hay, Hon, Claude George | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Helme, Norval Watson | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Bryee, Rt. Hon. James | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Hunt, Rowland | Sasssoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Chapman, Edward | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Kimber, Henry | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kitson, Sir James | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Legge, Col Hon. Heneage | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R. | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Stirling-Max well, Sir John M. |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lloyd-George, David | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Crombie, John William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lowe, Francis William | Tomkinson, James |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tuff, Charles |
| Dalkieth, Earl of | Macdona, John Cumming | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | MaeIver, David (Liverpool) | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Denny, Colonel | Malcolm, Ian | Wallace, Robert |
| Dickson, Carles Scott | Manners, Lord Cecil | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Dixon-Hartland, sir F. Dixon | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Donglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Milvain, Thomas | Wilson J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Mitchell, William (Burnley) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Edwards, Frank | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Emmott, Alfred | Morpeth, Viscount | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Moulton, John Fletcher | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mount and Mr. Galloway. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Reddy, M. |
| Boland, John | Horniman, Frederick John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Joicey, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rigg, Richard |
| Burt, Thomas | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Cameron, Robert | Joyce, Michael | Russell, T. W. |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Kearley, Hudson E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kilbride, Denis | Sheehy, David |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Lambert, George | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lundon, W. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sullivan, Donal |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Delany, William | Murnaghan, George | Ure, Alexander |
| Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Murphy, John | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Elibank, Master of | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Caldwell and Captain Ellice. |
| Hammond, John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Malley, William | |
| Harwood, George | Partington, Oswald |
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid he desired to move in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, to leave out from "sale" to the end of the subsection. They were new words, and there was no precedent for them in any of the previous Bills on the subject which had been brought in. They did not appear in the Bill which was brought down from the House of Lords, or in the previous Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South-west Manchester. When the hon. Member for South-west Manchester was about to bring in his Bill at the beginning of the session, he said it was substantially in the form to which he himself had agreed in the previous session. Having, however, obtained the benefit of the ballot, the hon. Member did not introduce the Bill in the form in which the hon. Member knew he would accept it. The hon. Member brought in a more drastic Bill. If a private Member loaded his Bill and made it as contentious as he possibly could, simply because he got first place in the ballot, and considered his Bill was through, he made a great mistake. The hon. Member told him after the ballot that he would beat him now.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI would ask the hon. Member during the few remaining minutes to endeavour to be relevant.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid as he thought that no useful purpose would be served during the next few minutes, he would utilise the time to teach a lesson which might be useful to other promoters. 1416 What was the meaning of the words, "purposes of sale" in the sub-section? The hon. Member had taken the words from the Merchandise Marks Act in his endeavour to find the most drastic provisions he possibly could. The House had been given no explanation as to the meaning of the words.
§ And it being half-past Five of the clock further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.