The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-12-25 00:00:00

DEATH OF MR. FRANK BUCKLAND

The death of Mr. Frank Buckland, Her Majesty's
Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, which took place at his
residence, 37, Albany-street, at five o'clock on Sunday
mornVg, will be keenly felt by many throughout the
country. The event was not unexpected. Those
nearest and dearest to the gifted naturalist, as they
watched over the progress of his protracted illness,
were conscious during the last few weeks that the end
was approaching. To the very last Mr. Buckland
preserved the full power of his mental faculties, and,
notwithstanding upwards of two years' almost constant
suffering, the indomitable energy of his character
never forsook him.—The Times, in recording the death
of Mr. Buckland, gives the following brief biographical
outline :

Mr. Francis Trevelyan Buckland was the eldest son
of the Very Rev. William Buckland, D.D., Dean of
Westminster. He was born op the 17th of December,
1826, and was educated at Winchester and at Christ
Church, Oxford. The son of the celebrated Dean
Buckland, whose famous Bridgewater Treatise laid
the foundation of the new school of geologists, he
inherited much of his father's originality and keen
powers of observation, and from boyhood developed
a strong bias towards natural history and physical
science. Curiously enough, he never pursued his
father's favourite study of geology but applied himself
to the medical profession. Having studied medi-
cine in Paris and London, and served as house surgeon
to St. George's Hospital, he entered the 2nd Life
Guards in 1854 as assistant surgeon. Mr. Buckland's
passion for natural history, and especially the pisci-
cultural branches of the science, soon absorbed all his
thoughts. He left the Life Guards in 1863, and for
a time was a constant contributor to the Field news-
paper and other periodicals. In 1866, with the late
Mr. W. Pfennell, the first Inspector of English
Salmon Fisheries, Mr. Buckland projected and started
Land and Water. He conducted its intelligence in re-
gard to sea and river fisheries and practical natural
history, and contributed to it up to the very day
before his death.

In 1867 Mr. Buckland was appointed Inspector of
English Salmon Fisheries, and since then his labours
as a public servant have been unremitting. No one
has dope more to popularise the subject of fishery cul-
tivation and preservation, not only in England, hut
throughout the civilised world. His advice was sought
by the Governments of Russia, Germany, France,
America, &c., as well as by our colonies. His efforts
for the introduction of salmon and trout into th
Australian and New Zealand waters are well known.
In 1870 Mr. Buckland was appointed special com-
missioner for the salmon fisheries of Scolland. He
published a report on the Norfolk fisheries which led
to the Norfolk aud Suffolk Fisheries Act of 1877. In
the same year he was one of a commission to inquire
into the crab and lobster fisheries of England and
Scotland, which resulted in an Act of Parliament
for the protection of those molluscs. In 1877 he also
served on a commission of inquiry into the herring
fisheries. In the next year he was engaged upon the
Commission relative to the sea fisheries around Eng-
land and Wales, an admirable report upon which was
published last year by Mr. Frank Buckland and Mr.
Spencer Walpole. Mr. Buckland's researches into
mysterious salmon disease have attracted much atten-
tion. But it would be impossible Logive a full list of
his contributions towards the deverTment and pre-
servation of our fisheries, salt water and fresh. .His
fishery museum at South Kensington collected labor-
iously for years, at his own expense is a monument of
the unflagging industry with which he sought by all
means to gather facts and information in connection
with the fisheries for the public benefit.
As one of the most charming of popular writers on
natural history, Mr. Buckland has endeared himself to
thousands who never saw him. His four series of
"Curiosities of Natural History" were first published
in 1857. Several editions have since appeared. A
" Familiar History of British Fishes " appeared in
1873, the "Logbook of a Fisherman and Zoologist"
in 1876, and a magnificent edition of Gilbert White's
Selborne, largely annotated, was published last year.
Mr. Buckland's delightful weekly contributions to
natural history descriptive of every strange animal,
bird, or fish found in the United Kingdom and for-
warded to him will be missed for the future, and his
death-Will leave a blank not easily filled up. Mr.
Buckland was not a follower of the new school of
'naturalists, and frequently announced his dissent from
the views and conclusions of Mr. Darwin.

• It is stated that in consequence of the condition of
the country Lord Lansdowne has abandoned his intention of
spending the winter in Ireland.
Mr. McLaren, M.P., in addressing a meeting of
his constituents in Edinburgh, said he thought the rejection
of the Irish Disturbance Bill was one of the great causes of
the present state of demoralization in Ireland. Apart from
theoretical questions, there was one important view of the
state of things in that country which, in his opinion, the
public should bear constantly in mind, and that was the
great subdivision of land. It appeared from public docu-
ments that in all Euzland and Scotland taken together there
were only 80,000 farms, but in Ireland there were 56:3,000.
It was clear that the population of Ireland in certain aim-
tricts where these small holdings were could be very advan-
tageously reduced if the people were willing voluntarily to
emigrate to more favourable countries. He objected to any
forcible plans for emigration, butqf the people were helped •
to emigrate and if they were willing to do so he thought it
would be very advantageous.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. THE
EDISON TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Judgment was delivered on Monday morning in the
Exchequer Division in the action brought on behalf of
the Government to compel the payment of a licenoe
on the use of the telephone, on the ground that the
employment of the instrument was an infringement of
the Postmaster-General's monopsly over the telegraphs
in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Justice Stephen read the judgment of the
court, and was occupied an hour in doing so. Having
referred to the circumstances in connection with
the formation of the company to work Mr. Edison's
invention, his lordship described the construction and
mode of working the telephone, and the terms on
which and the method by which messages were trans-
mitted from ane customer of the company to another.
He then proceeded to point out that by the 4th section
of the 3rd and 4th Vic., cap. 73, the Postmaster-
General was given the exclusive privilege of transmit-
ting telegrams within the United Kingdom, and by the
3rd section the word "telegram "was defined as mean-
ing any message or other communication transmitted
by telegraph; the term " telegraph " was, in addition,
described as including "any apparatus for transmitting
messages or other communications by means of electric
signals." By these enactments, as well as by the
Telegraph Act of 1873, the Postmaster-General was in-
vested with the exclusive privilege of transmitting mes-
sages or other communications intended for trans-
mission by any wires used for the purpose of tele-
graphic communication, or by any apparatus for
transmitting messages or other communications by
means of electric signals. The result of definitions laid
down seemed to be that any apparatus used for trans-
mitting messages by electric signal was a telegraph,
whether wires were used or not, and that any appa-
ratus using wire was a telegraph, whether the com-
munication was made by electricity or not. The case
for the Crown was that every conversation held be-
tween A and B, who were customers of the company
and used their apparatus, was "a message or other
communication transmitted 17 a wire used for the pur-
pose of telegraphic communications, and that every
communication was a transmitting a telegram within
the meaning of the Act. His lordship having referred
to the arguments put forth fir the defendant. and
having read the opinions of several eminent scientific
men as to the difference between telephonic communi-
cation and the ordinary telegraph, said that he did
not consider it necessary to express any opinion on
the controversy, which was more scientific than legal.
His opinion was that an apparatus connected by wires
for the purpose of transmitting communications was
a telegraph within the definition laid down in the
Act of 1863, and the wording of the Act was
wide enough to cover further instruments which
were not then invented which involved the use of
electricity conveyed by wires for the purposes of cop-
munication. In looking at what was the real meaning
and intention of the various enactments relating to.the
subject, it was difficult to believe that the Legislature
in passing them intended to grant a monopoly in tele-
graphic cimmunication to the Postmaster-General
which was liable to be defeated, and the language of
the statutes was to be so construed as to be limited to
the then state of the most progressive of all the sciences,
and he therefore held that the telephone was a tele-
graph within the meaning of the Acts of 1869 and 1863.
The conversation held through a telephone was
either a message or communication transmitted by tele-
graph, that there was no doubt the Legislature meant
to prohibit private communication, ad that every
conversation through the telephone was an infringe-
ment of the Postmaster-General's exclusive privilege.
He therefore gave judgment for the Crown, with
costs. •

Mr. Webster prayed that the operation of the in-
junction might be stayed pending an appeal; the
company were under terms to keep an account.
Mr. Baron Pollock: I dare say the Attorney-
General will not oppose that.
The Attorney-General: My Lord, the Postmaster-
General is quite alive to the advantage arising to the
public from the invention, and care shall be taken
that no step shall be taken to stop it; but there must
be some terms imposed. First the appeal must be in-
stituted at once, as soon as the order is drawn up.
(Mr. Webster assented to this.) Then the question
arises how far the company should be in the meantime
allowed to increase its operation by getting fresh
subscribers and establishing fresh offices.

Mr. Webster: This Company have been the
pioneers of telephonic communication, and no one sug-
gests that they have done any moral wrong, or that
they have been guilty of any improper conduct. They
do great good to the public, and the Postmaster-
General's interests will not suffer if there is an increase
in the number of telephones. . *
Air. Baron Pollock: You will have no difficulty in
giving an undertaking or in finding security for the
Crown's royalties.
Mr. Webster: Your Lordship will see that it will
work an immense hardship on this company if, should
this judgment be reversed, the sphere of their opera-
tions has been curtailed and narrowed. If the appeal
were unreasonable, no doubt the company ought not
to go on doing what: your Lordship has decided now
is an illegal act. We are keeping the best account we
can as to the nnmber of communications made daily
by the subscribers.

Mr. Justice Stephen : I do not see how the Post-
master-General's interests can suffer by this course.!
The Attorney-General : The Postmaster-General
wishes to leave himself entirely in your Lordships'
hands.

Mr. Baron Pollock: Our impression on the general
view of the case is that no harm can be done to the
Postmaster-General or the public in allowing the com-
pany to continue their operations; but I think the
matter should be provided for in the order.
• -

Mr. Justice Stephen: Every one wishes to treat the
company as proprietors of a beautiful invention used
entirely for the public benefit, and all one can say is
that they have been wrong in their view of the con-
struction of an Act of Parliament.
Judgment for the Crown.

The Times of Tuesday comments upon the above
judgment in a leader, from which we make the follow-
ing extracts : •

The judgment of the Exchequer Division of the High Court
of Judicature in favour of the Government against the
Edison Telephone Company can be a surprise to no one who
has followed the arguments in the case. There can be no
doubt that the framers of the Telegraphs Bill, and Parliament
in assenting to its provisions, had in .view the enormous sums
of money which had been or were to be paid to the telegraph
companies for the purchase of their rights, and were deter-
mined, so far as verbal ingenuity could accomplish the pur-
pose, to prevent that which had been so costly from being
rendered practically worthless by new inventions. Regarded
in this light, the comprehensive wording of the Act was only
a matter of common prudence ; for if it had failed to em-
brace every probable improvement in what was then an
infant science, it would almost certainly have happened that
some new form of telegraph would before long have super-
seded the old, and would have left the Post Office with a pro-
perty in wires and instruments as the sole fruits of its pur-
chase. However clear may be the difference between a tele-
phone and a telegraph, it is equally clear that this differ-
ence is not sufficient to evade the definitions of the Act;
and the contention that the wires are the private property
of the users is one which, except as a mere legal quibble, can
hardly be seriously entertained. The officials of the Post
Office, intrusted with the discharge of functions which they
render subservient to the collection of revenue, are plainly
bound to enforce their statutory rights to the letter; and
they could not have suffered the establishment of Inde-
pendent telephonic communication without a grave depar-
ture from duty. . . .

It must not be forgotten, in the first place, that, although
the legal right of the Government to control the telephone
Is probably incontestable, the moral right stands upon a
totally different basis. The foundation of the Post Office
monopoly was something which was sold by the telegraph
companies; and these companies could only sell what they
possessed. Scientifically speaking, the telegraph and the
telephone are absolutely distinct depending upon different
principles, and the latter upon principles, which were not
known when the former was in daily use. That wires are
required for both instruments is scarcely a stronger ground
of resemblance than any of those familiar ones which exist
between Macedon and Monmouth. The Government bought
the monopoly of a particular means of holding communica-
tion between distant persons; and then, in order to legalize
the purchase, they framed a Bill in such a manner that 4
gives them a like monopoly of evCry means of holding such
communication which may hereafter be iivented. When
this was done, it was no doubt regarded by the Parliamentary
draftsman as rather a clever stroke of business ; and, at all
events, it is the law. But the payment of money to the
telegraph companies could not convey any moral right
over Profesor Graham Bell's or Mr. Edison 's Inven-
tions,andwetdhebyaseseerriteiouns otie
i legal w hri
icghht theniis
n not unlikely
nl
iok
el existence;y t
e beol followed
in-
convenience to those whom it is the business, and pre-
sumably the intention, of the Government to protect The
stock argument of the counsel for the Crown, that the
Government were bound to fight for its monopoly because
ten millions sterling had been paid for it, does not, in one
sense, bear examination. The Government is, or ought to be,
in such a matter, only another name for the people; and the
least mischievous result which can flow from the recent de-
cision will be that the telephone companies will be permitted
to continue their operations, subject to the payment of
certain royalties, which must 'necessarily increase the cost of
telephonic messages. In other words, everybody who sends
a message by the existing companies will be compelled to
pay more for it than he would do if the Government mono-
poly did not exist; and this increased charge will be sup-
posed to be made in his own interests, and in defence
of the property which he, as a taxpayer, has in
the telegraphs he has contributed to purchase. It
is much as ii' a householder who had given a high price for
a saddle horse which only imperfectly fulfilled his require-
ments were compelled, on that account, to pay a tax upon
the hire of a better one. The case is even worse than this;
for the high price was paid, or at least agreed to, by the
very people who now seek to levy the tax. Because a foolish
and improvident bargain was made with the telegraph
companies—a bargain which would be better forgotten than
recalled—the cost of telephonic communication must be
enhanced. . . .