The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-19 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 1875.

public place within the Act. Take, for instance, Kew-
gardens. But lam not driven to anything like this,
because the decision of the Queen's Bench relates to
this very Aquarium. The only possible question is
whether it ceases to be within the Act because there
are no band and no newspapers.
Baron Bramwell: The Act mentions a conductor or
manager. Does that imply the necessity of a con-
ductor? Would inanimate creatures require such a
conductor?

The Solicitor-General: That is governed by the next
section. A place and room must be under manage-
ment; but it does not follow. the entertainment must
be so.

Baron Bramwell: Is there a manager of the amuse-
ment or entertainment?

Baron Cleasby : Except the keeper of the two seals
whom you have mentioned.
- The Solicitor-General: The programme mentions a
receiver and general manager. By the Act there are
distinct penalties for the keeper of the house and the
manager of the entertainment.
Baron Bramwell: I may not have made myself
quite clear. It may be argued that the entertainment
makes the place disorderly by reason of being an en-
tertainment that requires a manager.
The Solicitor-General: There are plenty of exhibi-
tions that require no conductor—as, for instance,
stuffed mermaids in a show at a fair. The general
manager hoz an office in the place; and there must be
a manager of the entertainment to superintend the
fee(ling of the fishes.

Mr. Manisty, for the defendants, said, nothing could
be more amusing and entertaining than the argument
of his learned friend. He was afraid, however, he
could not conduct an entertainment like the Solicitor-
General. What was the purpose for which the Aqua-
rium was constructed? It was by Act of Parliament;
for the utility of the public, and as a place of agreeable
resort and recreation. If it was conducted now since
the decision of the Queen's Bench on such principles,
it was not within the statute of George 111. The learned
counsel referred to the history of that Act, which was
passed in consequence of the religious riots excited by
Lord George Gordon. He could not now contend that
the preamble limited the Act to the Metropolis. The
manager was never in the Aquarium on Sunday, and the
company had advisedly abstained from doing anything
on that day either to amuse or to entertain. On week-
days it was professedly a place for both the above
purposes; but on Sunday the very things that made
it amusing were dropped. There was no music, no
performing seals, and nothing, in fact, was said, done,
cr acted which in any shape or way could be said to in-
fringe the Act. What could be better or more ele-
vating than to look en these works of the Almighty?
It was an agreeable resort certainly, to use the words
of its own Act; but to call it amusing was to put nuon
it an extreme interpretation, and, in effect, to bring in
a number of other places, such as Hampton-court.
There one penny was paid for entering the maze on
Sunday.
The Lord Chief Baron: Is that so.
Mr. Manisty, adverting to the Horticultural.
gardens, said they ought to be within the Penal Act,
as the tickets used on Sundays had, in the first
instance, been paid for. Would it be contended that
if he went to see on Sunday at those gardens such a
show as the Rhododendron Show or any other exhibi-
tion of flowers, by means of one of those tickets, that
he was going to a place of public amusement within
the Act?

I The Lord Chief Baron: It has never been held that
these gardens are not within the Act.
' Mr. Manisty : The Solicitor-General says they are.
How can you get out of it.
Baron Bramwell pointed out that the public could
not get acoess to these gardens by payment. The
privilege was in the hands of an extensive society, but
still a private one. Suppose any one published of the
Aquarium that it was a very dull place, and the pay-
ments fell off in consequence, could not the Aquarium
bring an action for libel?
Mr. Manisty : No; and if they could it would
apply to the Horticultural gardens as well, or Bat-
tersea-park.
Baron Cleasby : Am I right in supposing the café
can only be entered by paying is. to enter the build-
ing?
Mr. Manisty said Yes.

The Solicitor-General was not called on by the Court
to reply.
The Lord Chief Baron said the matter we not a
res integra now raised for the first time. He felt
himself bound, looking at the facts before the Court of
Queen's Bench, to say that the defendants were guilty
under the statute. He arrived at this conclusion,
however, not merely with reluctance, but with a de-
gree of repugnance beyond his power to express. He
hoped that their decision, following that of the Queen's
Bench, would lead to a great and salutary Imeasure of
reform in the law, to enhance the comfort of great
masses of the people. Coming to the case, it we
simple in the extreme. After reviewing the facts, his
Lordship said that, putting the most innocent and
beneficial construction on the word "amusement,"
without going into the question of "entertainment,"
which might be ambiguous, it was difficult to hold that
this was not a place for public amusement. Except
for the hope he had just expressed, he should feel con-
siderable alarm for the Horticultural Gardens and
grounds, where the principle of "amusement "would
apply.

Baron Bramwell said he thought at first he ought
not to hear the case, and he thought so still; but his
brothers being of the contrary opinion, he pronounced
his judgment that the plaintiff was right. The ques-
tion was one whitill was called one of law, and, un-
doubtedly, no facts were in dispute but no legal
principle was involved. There were no words of art
in the Act which a layman could not interpret as well
as a lawyer, except, perhaps, for the greater practice
of the latter. Everybody knew the Aquarium was a
place of amusement. The company would consider
themselves very much maligned and insulted if anyone
expressed a contrary opinion. It was a matter of com-
mon sense, but, independently of that, he was per-
fectly satisfied with the judgment of the Queen's
Bench. The present case could only be distinguished
by showing that the place had not ceased to amuse,
but was only less amusing. As to the policy of the
Act he said nothing, as his judgment was not biased
by his inclination.

Baron Cleasby concurred. He would only add that,
considering the general question whether it was a place
of public amusement, he could not leave out the fact
that the restaurant was open to those who paid is.

Baron Amphlett also agreed. His judgment was
chiefly founded on the decision of the Queen's Bench.
He could not see that any difference was between that
case and the present by the exclusion of music and
newspapers. It was difficult to suppose the Legisla-
ture intended to include the Aquarium, as the Act was
aimed at places of religious meetings, and could scarcely
apply to tanks and fishes.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

am correct, I think that paper has been in existence betwe,6?„
50 and c 0 years, which, at all events, proves to me that n‘r.
able management as editor of that paper will not sop'
forgotten. I may be allowed to say also that wh.ile
resided in your midst he was the Publisher and editor u:
the Etonian and Knight's Quarterly 211agazine, and all,
the names of his contributors were some of the mos„st n.d
tinguished men of this century—viz., Macaulay, rr:w
Moultrie, Derwent Coleridge, Sidney Walker, and Mal
—and I have no doubt these gentlemen were forilluatelit,
having a publisher with such kindred tivughts and forth,
tions. Mr. Mayor and Gentlemeo,—l need not troilLt.
you with the names of the numerous and important Or'
that Charles Knight published, as they are well knoll;
After his death those who loved and honoured him au,.
scribed a sum amounting to upwards of £l,loo—and
contributed by more than 200 persons—' to keep the g°'
man's memory green.' In addition to presenting 314
Durham's excellent marble bust to the Corporation °
tolar'
Windsor, we have thought it wise to found two i'.2o „.
ships in connexion with the excellent school of the Des.
tionera' Company, bearing the name of Charles Knie t
Well, then, Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, can you wonder tu°'
we come here to-day into his native town to offer yeti
gift, and to ask you to preserve it in honour of his meracli„,
The bust d.'as then unveiled, and the Mayor,
eulogizing the character of Mr. Knight, thanked Air'
Routledge and his colleagues, in the name of the C°r:
poration and of the people of this town, for the 1311.0 b•
The members of the Committee afterwards dined vll2
the mayor and Corporation and others in the Coup
Ohamber.

Itlisallaitenns