contrary is the fact. Although it may not be to the full as every applicant declares that his invention is one of "great public utility,"-yet, on the whole, either directly or indirectly, public advantage accrues from their use.

But for the manufactures of England (Lord J. Manners to the contrary notwithstanding), its inhabitants would probably be as impoverished as the peasants in Connaught, who, because there are no trades, are fleeing with an unparalleled exodus to other more favoured lands. The manufactures of the country are the offspring of inventions, growing, for the most part, out of the brains of laborious and studious men, whose days and years have been spent in perfecting the creations of their intellect or ingenuity.

There is scarcely a comfort we enjoy in our houses, our dress, our locomotion, but, some time or another, has been the subject of a patent from the insignificant but very useful baby's safety pin, to the locomotive wheel, or the screw propeller of the mighty Great Eastern.

If the eye is better pleased, the musical ear more gratified, the poor man better clad, the rich man's elegancies cheapened, the gas burned purer and with less waste, the lock on the door more secure, as samples of the result of the benefit arising by means of patents to inventors, then, we contend, the interest of the public and the protection to inventors are not opposed to each other, but are mutually beneficial.

Previous to 1852, the charges attending the obtaining of a patent were exceedingly high; for the whole of Great Britain, not far short of £400; consequently, not more than 500 were taken out a year. Altogether, not more in two centuries than 15,000 or 16,000. The law of 1852 reduced the fees to £25 for three years, £75 for seven years, and £175 for fourteen years. Provisional protection can be obtained for six months for £5. Upwards of 3,000 are now granted yearly, and afford an annual surplus of £30,000 to £50,000. Of these 3,000, however, one-third lapse at the end of six months; about 500 are continued for seven years, and not more than 150 to 200 live out the whole term they are permitted to exist. In a very small number of cases, an extension of the period is granted, but only by permission of the Law Lords-part of the Privy Council. The largest number of patents in the provinces are taken out in Birmingham. One in twenty-five of the whole number belonged to Birmingham in 1861, and one in seventy to Liverpool, with a much larger population.*

*The following statistics upon this subject may be useful to our readers; they are undoubtedly interesting in themselves:- The number of patents applied for in 1863 was 3,309, against 3,490 in 1862, 3,276 in 1861, 3,196 in 1860, 3,000 in 1859, and 3,009 in 1858. These figures display a curious regularity in the efforts of the inventive talent of the country. Of the patents applied for last year, 34 referred to sewing machines; 59 to wearing apparel and fastenings for the same; 33 to dressing and finishing woollen cloth and other woollen fabrics; 103 to warping and weaving machinery; 325 to balling, cleaning, and preparing cotton and other

We gather from Mr. G. Shaw's list that about 300 patents in 1862 were relative to steam machinery, about 200 for instruments of death or ammunition, 100 for ship and boat building, nearly as many for telegraphic purposes, some 10 for buttons, and half as many for pins and needles.

Doubtless the present law is capable of considerable improvement, and a Royal Commission, appointed in the session of 1861, has taken a large amount of evidence, which, in a short time, they will lay before Parliament. J. S. W.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

"Strict justice to individual citizens is the true means of advancing public interests, and regard to individual right the source of public good."

We take issue on this question upon two widely different grounds, and although each is, to some extent, antagonistic to the other, we consider either is conclusive, logically, in condemnation of the patent laws. In the first place, the patent laws, as written upon our statute-books, and as applied in our courts of law, are perfect absurdities. The written laws require the person applying for letters patent, to declare that he is the inventor of that which is new and of public benefit; that his invention has never been made nor used before. This is an absurdity, because no person is in a position to say with absolute truthfulness, that what he considers his own invention has not been made and in use before. Whilst the courts, having seen the absurdity of this condition of the laws,

fibres; 20 to brakes, drags, and retarding apparatus; 20 to axletrees and axleboxes; 30 to wheel-carriages; 20 to rudders and steering apparatus; 32 to sheathing and preserving ships' bottoms; 75 to ship and boat building, ships' fastenings, bolts, and pins; 50 to power obtained from undefined and sundry elements and sources; 43 to furnaces and furnace-feeders, saving fuel, and consuming smoke; 118 to railways, locomotive engines, and carriages; 47 to marine engines and propelling machinery; 82 to steam boilers and generators; 93 to steam engines; 29 to anti-friction, composition, and arrangements; 53 to shot and projectiles, shot and powder cases, and fireworks; 43 to ordnance and gun carriages; 82 to firearms; 28 to locks, latches, and fastenings for doors; 31 to nails, bolts, screws, nuts, and rivets for machinery; 21 to metallurgical operations; 46 to sawing, planing, turning, and boring metals and wood; 38 to punching, diesinking, stamping, carving, and ornamenting metals; 24 for tinning, casting, and plating metals; 26 for reaping and mowing machines; 23 for thrashing, separating, winnowing, and dressing grain, &c.; 32 for distilling apparatus; 30 for pumps; 29 for pipes and tubes for water, steain, and gas, and joints for ditto; 45 for cocks, taps, and valves; 65 for lamps, lanterns, chandeliers, and candlesticks; 30 for the generation of gas; 39 for warming and ventilating buildings, ships, carriages, &c.; 32 for stoves, grates, fireplaces, and kitchen ranges; 58 for tunnels, bridges, arches, portable and other buildings; 23 for letterpress printing machinery, setting up and distributing type, &c.; 20 for barometers, pressure gauges,; thermometers, and hygrometers; 53 for telegraphs and making signals, cables, &c.; 40 for working mines and raising minerals; 22 for reducing and smelting ores; 33 for iron manufactures; 25 for steel manufactures, &c.

have committed a still greater absurdity by omitting the whole parade of words in the laws about first invention and use of that which is the subject of the patent, to mean exactly the reverse of what they would indicate, according to the ordinary rules of grammar, for, say they, that is the fit subject for letters patent which is made profitable to the person producing it for use by the public. Thus, A may have made or used the same thing, or employed the same process, and have spent a fortune in bringing it before the public. He may have originated a grand "idea," and after a life spent in trying to induce the public to appreciate his “idea,” he may die a pauper. But B, possessed with more boldness, or impudence, or reckless charlatanry, obtains for his own behoof the monopoly of letters patent. A, if living, is restrained by injunction from the further making, or using, or selling of his grand "idea;" B profits by the publicity A has purchased through his life of labour; B trumpets forth his own ability and philanthropy; is received by the public as a benefactor; the courts assist him in his earnest endeavours to satisfy the public gullibility; and that which was freely made, bought, and sold, is now protectedcreated a monopoly, and B is enriched. This is no fictitious, highly drawn picture, but a matter of daily occurrence. It is not only in a coup d'état that success makes un fait accompli legal, but in the every-day concerns of the life of an inventor, beset as he is so constantly by the harpies who steal his brains to gorge themselves, and fatten upon his ruin. The laws as written say, Declare you are the inventor;" the courts administering the law say, "Show you can make a fortune out of it, and we will give you letters patent, and protect your monopoly." Can absurdity be more absurd than this?

66

In the second place, all patent laws are formed upon the principle of protecting the few at the cost of the many, that is, they are opposed to free trade, as they tend to create a system of petty monopolies. In these days of free trade he must be possessed of no ordinary degree of hardihood who will face the wisdom and prejudice of the world of city life, run counter to its laws, or cherish the bare thought of opposition to the present laws of letters patent. Yet such is the fact, that if the same principles were transferred to any other laws, facts, or commercial rules, an outcry would be immediately raised against them; free trade would become the watchword of opposition, and the native-born free rights of the Englishman would be the staple commodity of their market. No candidate for public favour dare neglect these interests; it would be the shibboleth of political party, and necessary to the existence of the nation; yet the words, "patent laws," lull all these "Gorgons dire" into fatal sleep and security, from which no effort, no argument, no interest, can ever allure into a truer, nobler, more dignified path,-the patent laws being, in fact, a gilded pill which the law courts force down the throats of a willingly gullible people.

It must not for one moment be supposed that we would object to

all protection of the inventor and the use of his invention. We think this is possible with the least degree of infringement of the principles of free trade, but the unrestricted and unprincipled creation of monopolies by the existing patent laws and the practice of our law courts, is most glaringly prejudicial to the interests of the nation.

That which is productive of public benefit, in a commercial sense, must be more useful and less costly than previous productions; but the patent laws and courts permit old things to become the subjects of letters patent, thus increasing the cost to the user. the patent laws are not productive of public benefit.

Hence

The patent laws, by creating an unrestricted monopoly of the thing protected, increase the cost to the public beyond what is desirable, and therefore they are not beneficial to the nation, although the thing may be new and useful, the extra or unreasonable cost being so far injurious to the nation.

The general question of all patent laws would necessarily open up all kindred subjects, such as the law of copyright in all its aspects; and although it may not be conducive to the prosperity of the country to abolish all laws which protect originality of thought, design, or adaptation, the present laws and practice are fraught with so much of anomaly and absurdity, with which all are familiar who have any practical acquaintance with them, as to practically deprive the true inventor of all protection, while giving every facility to wrong-doers to obtain all advantages and emoluments accruing from worthy inventions. The cost of letters patent, and the expenses of protecting the subject of patent from infringement, together with the necessary cost of placing it before the public, either increase the cost to the public beyond the value of the production in the estimation of the public, or arouse the cupidity of some unprincipled trader to produce a colourable imitation (which the law permits) at a much lower cost, and thus the true inventor is deprived of the fruits of his labour, and the public is defrauded by the imitation; in fact, such is the condition of the laws and the practice, that he who has plenty of money can infringe any patent he pleases, can resist any law proceedings, and, by continuing his opposition until the term of the patent has expired, may plead there is no action, because the patent has expired. When the action is at an end, the poor inventor is mulcted in his own costs, has no redress, and has been defrauded of his just and legal rights, the profit arising from the use of his patent having been enjoyed by his opponent during the whole term. Is this conducive to the public benefit? We think not.

The strange mass of injustice included in the expression, the patent laws of Great Britain, needs only to be well understood by the people of England, to be erased from the statute-book as one of the blackest spots it contains. For these reasons we ask the reader to agree with us in asserting that the existing patent laws are not productive of public benefit. DELTA.

Religion.

CAN MEMBERS OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES CONSISTENTLY TAKE PART IN THE

CENTENARY MOVEMENT?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

SHAKSPERE TER

WE have examined the articles on the negative of this question with that thoughtful attention which the importance of the subject, and the literary abilities of the writers, alike demand. In so doing we have been struck with the conviction that the writers are thoroughly conscientious, well-meaning, Christian men; but that they are at the same time persons whose religious views are very narrow and rigid, and as a consequence very much biassed against all whose creed differs in the least particular from their own. They seem to think that because the Christian is commanded not to be of the world, that therefore he is to keep himself aloof from everything and everybody in the world; and that if a worldly man takes part in any movement whatever, that alone should be a sufficient reason for a Christian withholding his countenance from it. We hope to make this plainer as we proceed, and to that end shall begin at once with the examination of the arguments adduced by these gentlemen in support of their view of the question.

We demur to the sweeping condemnation of the Christianity of the present day, which, according to S. S., must be at a very low ebb to admit of the question being ripe for discussion. The argu ment is quite as forcible, and perhaps nearer the truth, when stated conversely; and we assert that the fact of Christians or others inquiring "whether members of Christian churches can consistently take part in the Shakspere demonstration," is a proof that they are not dead to the real import and responsibility of their position; but wish to be assured whether such participation will be in opposition to their professed principles and recognized standard of morality.

In noticing the scriptural definitions of a Christian, S. S. is accurate enough so far as mere quotation goes, but he should have gone a little farther. These are negative qualities in the Christian's character, and to know when to act upon them it is necessary to ascertain exactly what is meant by the "world," and what by not conforming to it, or "keeping himself unspotted from it." S. S., in assuming that all who have already signified their intention of taking part in the tercentenary demonstration are worldly, is acting not only most uncharitably towards them, but also begging the whole questio at issue, which is whether a Christian can take part in the demonstration, and still deserve the name. The Christian is commanded