The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-10 00:00:00

of £3,000. They had more permanent and extra clerks
employed now than when the country was at war.
Col. LINDSAY rt minded the hon. gentleman that the
number of clerks must always increase in proportion to the
number of men in the army, because the correspondence was
necessarily greater. Indeed, on the subject of clothing there
were more letters written now to the Horse Guards than
had ever been known at any former period.
Mr. T. G. BARING explained that the increase in
the number of clerks was owing principally to the cor-
respondence with the Indian Government since the
amalgamation of the two armies, and the large
number of troops employed in India.

The amendment was then put that the item of £95,485 be
reduced by a sum of £3,000.

The committee divided—
For the amendment
Against
Majority

The amendment was accordingly lost.

Mr. AYRTON said it was most unfortunate that they
were not successful in reducing the items of the'vote, which
hon. members considered unnecesarily high. It was, how..
ever, the duty of the committee to take care that while there
was no increase of the army for the present year, there
should be no additional expenditure for the administrative
military department. He should, therefore, propose to re-
duce the vote before the committee to the amount at which
it stood last year, namely, £196,000, a sum which he con-
sidered quite sufficient for administrating the affairs of the
army.

Col. DICKSON supported the reduction. He regretted,
however, that the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had
not proposed even a greater diminution of the vote, as he
believed that, without in the slightest • degree affecting the
public service, no less than £50,000 could be knocked off that
vote. The appointment of the precis writer and compiler
of statistics he considered altogether unnecessary.
Mr. BARING pointed out that the expenditure of the
higher appointments in the War Office in the present
year was considerably less than in the year 1856. The
higher appointments in 1856 in the War Office cost the
country £36,924 ; whereas in 1860-61 they only cost
£33,070. The increase was in the item for the junior
clerks, and arose from the increase, of business caused by
the additional troops serving in India. There had also
been an increase of the comforts of the soldiers, which oc-
casioned an increase of work in keeping the accounts and
in correspondence. The amount of the present vote was
not more than was absolutely necessary for the service of
the year.

The committee then divided,-and there appeared—
For the amendment .. 103
Against
Majority —2l
The amendment was therefore lost.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the chairman report pro-
gress.

The motion was agreed to and the house resumed.
EDINBURGH ASSESSMENTS BILL.
Mr. MUIR moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. DUNLOP said he had presented three petitions
against this bill, but the petitions did not object to a bill
which would effectually meet the evil of assessment to
which this bill referred, and which they did not think this
bill would accomplish. He begged to move a resolution to
the effect that no alteration of the annuity tax act of last
session would be satisfactory that would extend the assess-
ment in question beyond the area of the burgh of Edin-
burgh.

Mr. BLACK said he was sorry that his hon. friend had
deemed it necessary to move this resolution, as this bill was
merely to get rid of a grie% ance which the citizens of Edin-
burgh complained of.

Mr. lIADFIELD moved the adjournment of the debate,
and the house was cleared for a division, but the hon.
member did not press his motion.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—

For the amendment
Against
Majority against the amendment-84
The bill was then read a second time.
ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be
referred t) a select committee.
HARBOURS BILL.

On the motion that this bill be committed pro forma,
Sir J. FERGUSON expressed a hope that a proper op-
portunity would be given to consider the provisions of the
bill.

The house then went into committee, when the bill passed
through pro forma.

CORK INFIRMARY BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Mr.
LONGFORD opposed the second reading, and moved that
it be read a second time that day six months.
The house then divided on the second reading, when the
numbers were—

For the second reading 5O
Against it
Majority —l9
Captain CLIVE brought in a bill to amend the law
relating to the drainage of land for agricultural purposes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
in the bill embodying the resolutions on income-tax ; for
the renewal of the tea and sugar duty ; and the repeal of
the paper duty, which was read a first time and ordered to
be read a second time on Monday next.
The house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

LA TV IiIiTELLIGENCE.—May 9.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

READE V. CONQUEST-DRAMATIC COPYRIGHT.

This was an action to recover penalties for an in-
fringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the drama
of " Gold ;" and the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Coryton appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Lush and Mr. T. Chitty for the
defendant.

It was stated in the opening speech that the
plaintiff, Mr. Charles Reade, was the author of
several favourite and popular dramas, and also of
the novel " Never Too Late to Mend;" and Mr.
Conquest was the proprietor of the Grecian Theatre.
In 1853 Mr. Reade produced the drama of " Gold"
at Drury-lane, and afterwards founded upon it the
novel " Never Too Late to Mend." In October,
1858, Mr. Conquest brought out the play of
" Never Too Late to Mend," which purported to be
written from the novel, but which it was contended
was so like the play of " Gold" as to be an infringe-
ment of the plaintiff's copyright. The Dramatic
Copyright Act said that if any person should repre-
sent a drama without the consent of the author or
proprietor he should be liable to a penalty of 40s. a
❑ight, or pay the amount of profit realised by the
performance. The present action was to recover
the 40s. penalty.
His Lordship inquired what question there was
for the jury.
Mr. Lush said his case was, that the gentleman,
who wrote their play had done so by dramatising
the novel, and that he at that time had never seen
" Gold."

Mr. Hawkins contended that whether this was
or not the statute had given Mr Reade a copyright
in " Gold," and that even if by accident any other
person who wrote another play which was in sub-
stance the same, the performance of this would be
an infringement of copyright.
Mr. Lush—That was the question of law, and
not one of fact.
Mr. Hawkins read various passages from the two
dramas to show the similiarity betwee❑ them.
Mr. George Augustus Conquest, the son of the
defendant said—l was the author of the drama
" Never Too Late to Mend," which 'compiled from
the novel of that name. I had never heard *hen I
wrote it of the play of " Gold." There are some
characters and scenes which are in " Gold," but
in my play.
It was admitted that the piece had been per.
formed 80 nights, and his lordship directed a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £l6O, subject to the opi-
nion of the court upon a special case.

COURT OP EXCHEQUER.

CUMBERLAND V. COPELAND.-A DRAMA IN COURT,

This was an action for the recovery of penalties
for using dramatic copyright without license, to
which the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Charles Pollock were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Murray for the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in stating the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. John Cumberland, said he was the proprietor
of a large number of dramatic copyrights, and the
defendant was the lessee of two theatres—the
Theatre Royal and the Royal Amphitheatre, at
Liverpool. By the 3d and 4th William IV., c. 315,
passed in 1833, the sole right in the representation
of dramatic pieces was secured to the author, or
his assignee, for 28 years, and this action was
brought against the defendant for having acted at
his theatres a burletta by Mr. Fitzball, called " The
Pilot," assigned to the plaintiff in September, 1828,
and also another piece, written by Mr. Buckatone.
entitled "The Happiest Day of my Life." The two
pieces had been performed at the defendant's
theatre, the one for eight and the other for five
nights, making thirteen representations, and under
,the act the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of 40s.
for each representation, and that sum he now
claimed. _ _

The following evidence was then adduced
Mr. John Cumberland examined—l was formerly
a bookseller and publisher at Ludgate-hill. I bought
the copyright of " The Pilot" in 1828, with other
pieces, for £l9. I purchased " The Happiest Day,
of my Life," and other pieces, eight in all, from Mr.
Buckstone, for £37 18s.

Mr. Pollock—We will put in the assignment, DV
lord.

Mr. Baron Martin—lt is not stamped.
Mr. Pollock—We will pay the penalty.
The Associate said the penalty was £ll 2s. 6d.,
which was paid, and the assignment received in
evidence. _ .

Examination continued—An _application was
made by my agent to Mr. Copeland for the amount
due fur playing my pieces some years ago? but be ,