ment, were prepared to take any such | be to lead to the introduction of enterstep. At the same time, the question of tainments not so interesting as the amendment was one likely to lead to Brighton Aquarium, had done the best protracted discussion which they were that could be done at the present late equally unwilling to ask the House to time of the Session in bringing in the go through at that stage of the Session. measure now under consideration; but There remained, therefore, only two it must be clearly understood that it was courses open to them-namely, first, to only a temporary compromise. After require the fiat of the Attorney General the course taken by the Home Secretary to authorize the informer to bring those on the Labour Laws the whole country civil actions; and, secondly, to bring in could trust him with the temporary exera Bill giving increased power to the cise of these powers, in the hope that Crown to remit the penalties which, and in the early part of next year more a regulation as to costs, would, he hoped, satisfactory action would be taken. operate to discourage informers and prevent those actions. Those were the reasons which induced his right hon. Friend to bring in the Bill-a temporary measure it might be-and he hoped and believed it would have the effect of preventing those vexatious prosecutions, and that the powers vested in the Judge under the new Judicature Act would equally prevent the vexatious infliction of costs. SIR HENRY HAVELOCK said, he thought in every point of view the proposed settlement of the question was unsatisfactory, except in as far as the Bill might be regarded as a temporary measure, to operate during the Recess, and to be dealt with in a future Session in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The legislation of this country had for many years recognized the Sabbath Day as a day of rest, as well as of religious observance. He was prepared to recognize the rights of conscience, and therefore he recognized, on the one hand, the right of the people to visit places of innocent and instructive amusement on Sundays; but, on the other hand, he recognized the right of religious persons to express their religious feelings. It, however, seemed to him that there was at that moment, and had been for some time, a movement by a certain set of persons in this country who thought Sunday should be a day of amusement here as it was on the Continent, but he thought that did not by any means represent the feelings of the people of the country. There was another class who, not caring for the feelings of either of the classes alluded to, came in and put the law in motion for their own objects, as in the case of the Brighton Aquarium; and the Government, apprehensive that if the Act of 1781 were abolished, the effect might MR. LOWE said, although he had regarded the measure as a temporary one, and that was the only excuse that could be offered for it, still he did not look upon it as altogether satisfactory, because it was not limited to matters which arose from opening those places on the Sabbath. The Bill was general in its terms, and would change the law in regard to all qui tam actions, because a temporary difficulty had arisen with regard to this particular case of the Brighton Aquarium. He, however, must say he objected to being asked to pass legislation which was very much wider in its scope, amounting, as it did, to an entire alteration of the law. That was a most important subject, and one which should not be dealt with hastily or without the greatest care. Surely, it could not be right that by a temporary Bill, brought in alio intuitu, the power should be taken away of bringing those actions under any circumstances whatever. That seemed to be an immense innovation in the law, without the attention of the House having been drawn to it. It indicated a levity of legislation, and almost took away one's breath to think of the vast extent and great number of circumstances to which it was applicable. The Bill took away, as far as he could see, the remedy, whether good or bad, for enforcing the statute, and the Under Secretary of State when he spoke could not have been aware that it was a temporary measure. But, if this were the case, even then he might consent to strike out the words in the 2nd clause "or under any Act of Parliament," because that was a matter of enormous consequence. If the Act had been frequently put in force for the purpose of extorting money, he could understand the course that had been taken. But the House should be reminded that this THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he hoped the House would not agree to the suggestion, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) seemed to have mistaken the effect and extent of the Bill. It would not have the effect of doing away with the qui tam actions, and it would not establish so great an alteration of the law as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. An Act was passed in 1859 which gave Her Majesty power to remit certain penalties imposed upon the conviction of an statute had not been heard of for years. the end of the Question, in order to add That being the case, they ought to make the word "re-committed,"-(Sir Charles the Attorney General a kind of grand W. Dilke,)—instead thereof. jury, and thus prevent unnecessary annoyance being given to the public. Instead of doing this, they allowed these actions to be brought, with the chance of whether or not the Home Secretary would deprive those who took action of the fruit of their trouble. Surely, in a temporary and suspensory Bill, power should not be given to alter the law as proposed. A most important provision, too, had been introduced in the Actnamely, that while the Act would allow penalties to be inflicted, it would also give to the Crown increased power to remit them. That was a most unreason-offender, although they might be partly able course. The law as it stood re- payable to private persons, and there lated to all cases of bribery, but at one were a great many Acts under which blow this temporary measure would alter penalties could be enforced, and which the whole course of the existing state of might be covered by this Act. The prethe law relating to such actions. It was sent Bill would only very slightly inmost strange legislation. At any rate, crease that power. [Mr. Lowe said, as he had before observed, he thought that Act only applied to cases in which they ought to strike out the second the Crown was plaintiff.] This was not clause, after the word "Act," in the the case, and the difficulty which arose second line. As to the course taken, it in cases like that of the Brighton seemed to him to be the very worst that Aquarium, or the Botanical Gardens, could be. The Act had only been re- was, that they could not be regarded cently resuscitated, and the best course technically as prosecutions which would would have been to repeal it altogether. come within the Act of 1859, but had to Nobody cared for it, and nobody wanted be treated as civil actions for the reit; but the Government could not screw covery of penalties, for which at present their courage up to that point, and they there was no power of remittal. Hence invited low people to bring actions on the necessity for the Bill, which he conall sorts of subjects connected with the sidered to be, although a very slight, question, and it then proposed to give still a very desirable and proper alterathe Crown power to remit the penalties. tion of the law. He could not imagine any course more undignified than that taken by the Government, and although he knew that it was of no use to protest, yet as one who for a short time had held the office of Home Secretary, he felt it his duty to point out that they were violating every rule and principle on which Government ought to act in a matter of this kind. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), he would move the re-committal of the Bill, with the object of inserting a clause providing that the Act should expire on the 1st of June next. Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "be" to SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON appealed to the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) not to press his Amendment, because, so far as he could see, the Bill under discussion would only be a temporary one. The suggestion he had made should be brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. He would also remind the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that it would be possible to carry out the views he had expressed in "another place." SIR HENRY JAMES said, he thought it too serious a matter to pass over. The accidental absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought not to prevent the wishes of the majority from being carried out. The House might well take the responsibility of making the measure a temporary one, and, as that could | fied with the promise. The statement easily be done, he hoped the Amend-made by the right hon. Gentleman the ment would be agreed to. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he would assent to the Amend ment. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Word added. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) was certainly erroneous, because he (Mr. Charley) knew the persons who prompted the Brighton action, and he could assure the Committee that they did not do it from any motives of cupidity, or to get the penalty. They did not touch it, and did not get a farthing; therefore, it could not be said that they acted from the motives that Main Question, as amended, put, and had been imputed to them. They were agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. SIR HENRY JAMES proposed the re-insertion of Clause 1, which had been struck out when the Bill was in Committee previously. THE CHAIRMAN said, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should bring on his posal after the clauses had been gone through. pro Clause 2 (Power of crown to remit penalties). MR. LOWE moved, in page 2, line 2, after the word "Act" to leave out "or under any Act of Parliament passed before or after the passing of this Act." The object was to limit the present measure to the Sunday Observance Act, 24 Geo. III. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON opposed the Amendment. SIR HENRY JAMES supported the Amendment, and said he thought the Bill ought to be confined to the particular cases it was intended to meet. SIR EARDLEY WILMOT hoped the Bill would be limited as proposed. He appealed to the Government whether at this period of the Session it would not be better to withdraw the measure. The present was not the way in which legislation of the kind should be passed. The House had not been fairly dealt with in that particular instance, and he asked his hon. and learned Friend to consider whether at that late period of the Session it would not be well to withdraw the Bill and bring it on next Session. MR. CHARLEY said, that if the Bill was to be a temporary one, it could not matter much what its precise terms were. He thought if Government gave way on the point, and consented that the measure should be only a temporary one, hon. Gentlemen opposite would be satis actuated by a desire to vindicate the great principle of Sunday rest. As for the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), he recommended him to go to the Continent, where there was little observance of the Sunday. In this country the working classes were of a different way of thinking from the working classes on the Continent, and they be given either to amusement or to work were of opinion that the day should not "Order!"] THE CHAIRMAN said, he must call the hon. and learned Member's attention to the fact that he was out of Order, the Question being, as to whether the Act should apply to other Acts besides the Sunday Observance Act. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the whole question was, was it desirable to give Her Majesty power to remit penalties for acts done when these penalties were recoverable by action, and that only. The law had already given to the Crown power to remit penalties when the persons against whom the penalties were obtained were committed. There was no real difference between the two cases, he submitted, and there was no reason why Her Majesty should not have the power of remitting the penalties in the one case as she had in the other. And why should not this Bill be one of general application? This particular case of the Brighton Aquarium was tried under an old obsolete Act which many persons, no doubt, would like to see go on to the end of time. It had given rise to the necessity for the alteration in the law; but because that particular case had happened, and had given rise to the necessity of the revision of the law, it did not seem to him that that alteration should be restricted, and made applicable to one Act of Parliament merely, when others existed to which it might well be applied. He did not think the Bill | his position, as he could pretty well would give rise to a conflict between imagine what kind of life he would have the authorities. MR. LOCKE considered that it would be advisable to repeal the particular Act in question. He did not know, until the Aquarium case came on, that there was such an Act, and no one else seemed to know it. According, however, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), it was the most delightful Act of Parliament that was ever passed, so that they had all been for so many years past living in a state of happiness without being aware of it. He believed that the great majority of hon. Members did not like to offend a certain class of people, but would be very happy if the Act were repealed. Hon. Members said to the managers of these aquariums and such institutions-"Don't take money on Sundays;" and the persons in authority were willing not to do that; and as to the views taken by the legal faculty of the case tried, the Judges in both the Courts said it was highly improper, or words to that effect, that proceedings should be taken under that Act. No one had spoken in favour of it; and, on the whole, instead of taking the course the Government were now adopting, he considered it would be much better to repeal the Act. ["Order!"] THE CHAIRMAN said, the hon. and learned Member was not in Order, inasmuch as he was dealing with the first part of a clause not before the Committee. SIR HENRY JAMES said, it seemed to be the feeling of the House that the measure should only be a temporary one. Whilst the Opposition made no objection to the Government bringing forward a Bill to meet the necessities of the time, surely the Act should only be a temporary one. The powers should apply to the Act which had been referred to, and to that alone. If necessary, let Parliament alter the several laws, but let it be done permanently and after mature consideration, and not in such a Bill as that before the House. MR. HENLEY said, he should be glad to see the Bill restricted in its operation to one Act of Parliament. Should the Bill pass in its present form he believed it would prove a great curse to any Government that had to carry it out. He would not envy the Home Secretary between the saints upon the one side and the sinners on the other. The country had not had time to consider the Bill in a more extended sense, and on these questions, between sinners and saints, it was not easy for anybody to come to a conclusion. MR. MUNTZ urged upon the Government to accept the Amendment. He could not see what object could be gained by the words extending the operation of the Bill to penalties levied under any other Act than this obsolete one of the reign of George III. They ought not to repeal by a vote of this kind provisions of several Acts of which they knew nothing whatever. Dealing summarily as it did with cases such as that before the House, its provisions ought to be carefully considered. The whole Sunday question must soon be carefully considered in an enlightened manner; it could not be shunted much longer. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that as he had stated the other day, no one could look upon this measure as a satisfactory way of dealing with the question. The whole question of Sunday was a great and important matter, and it was one in which the public took great interest. There were large masses of the people strongly in favour of the observance of Sunday. At the same time, many of the persons who held this view very strongly had not the slightest wish to interfere with the innocent recreation of the masses of the people, always provided that it did not entail compulsory service or work on the part of other persons. The opinions of the highest authorities had been taken to see how the penalties could be legally commuted. The Act had been enforced in one instance, and cases under its provisions were still pending in other instances, connected with places which no person could possibly think were disorderly houses. He could assure the House that he had not the slightest wish that the places should be shut up during the Sunday, and it was because he wished to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions from taking place during the Recess that he ventured to bring forward the present Bill. He did not wish, however, to take more responsibility on his shoulders than he had need to take, and, as his object was to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecu- | tation and another in reference to registions from taking place, he had no ob- tration. He really thought it would be jection to accept the suggestion now better for purposes of registration not made. He should not like to put in the to undertake the difficult task of definiBill that this should be as Act for one tion, but to simply use the term "trade year only. This would tie them down marks" and leave the definition to the too much, and he would, therefore, ordinary Courts of Law. He recognized oppose any limitation as to time. He the exertions which had been made by would also strongly oppose the re-intro- the President and Vice President of the duction into the Bill of a clause already Board of Trade with a view to settling struck out. In conclusion, he expressed the question; but he wished to point a strong hope that the Bill would be out some difficulties which ought to be allowed to pass. before the mind of the House in dealing with it, and urged that the greatest care should be taken not to prejudice valuable rights or to inconvenience the complicated and extensive operations of trade. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he hoped that before long they might have a system established based on the principle of public prosecution. Clause agreed to. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that, after the explanation they had just heard and the debate which had taken place, he would not move the Amendment he had intimated. Bill reported; as amended, considered; Amendments made:-Bill read the third time, and passed. REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS (re-committed) BILL.-[BILL 276.]-[Lords.] (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said, the opposition arose upon points of detail which would be considered in Committee. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill considered in Committee. Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to. Clauses 8, 9, and 10 verbally amended, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Definitions). On the Motion of Mr. ALFRED MARTEN, Amendment made in page 5, line 24, after the word "mark," by inserting "motto, or printed or woven heading." MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK tion of the previous Act. The Bill with the present Amendment would, he thought, put an end to the practice of pirating trade marks, by giving a property in them to the owner on registration. Motion made, and Question proposed, moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the line 28, after "distinctive," insert "deChair."-(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.) vice, mark, heading." It had been deemed undesirable by the Select ComMR. ALFRED MARTEN (for Mr.mittee to take the unworkable definiHERMON), in moving as an Amendment, "That this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, he wished to call attention to the difficulty of getting a proper definition of the term "trade mark." There had been proposed various definitions, but none which would be effectual and comprehensive for the purposes of a statutory registration of trade marks. The definition in the Act of 1862 in reference to the fraudulent imitation of trade marks was a most extensive one; but in the Bill it was proposed that there should be a far less extensive definition. A good deal of difficulty must arise from having one definition in reference to fraudulent imi Amendment agreed to; words inserted. MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK moved, at the end of the clause, the addition of the words "But the provisions of this Act conferring a special jurisdiction on the Court as above defined shall, not excepting so far as such jurisdiction extends, affect the jurisdiction of any Court in Scotland and Ireland in causes, actions, suits, or proceedings relating to trade marks; and, if the register requires to be rectified in consequence of any proceedings in any such Court in |