He did not concede, as was sometimes the patentee power to levy a toll upon
said, that every man had a right to every person who used his invention, but
take out a patent, because it was a also enabled him absolutely to shut out the
monopoly, and was a matter of conces- rest of the world from his invention for a
sion; but for the interest of inventors, certain term of years, if he thought that
and of the public, he was convinced that that was a more profitable course than al-
the object which Parliament had in view lowing the use of it for a consideration.
would best be obtained by allowing per- The remedy suggested was, that instead of
sons to get patents easily, simply, and allowing the patentee the sole use of his
cheaply, at the same time affording an invention, he should be compelled to give
equally easy, simple, and cheap mode licences to such persons as required them
of subsequently disputing the grant to on payment of a fair and reasonable con-
every person who was interested in so sideration. He did not say that there were
doing. The first of those objects had not difficulties in the way of practically
been effected by the Act of 1852: the carrying out such a suggestion. For ex-
second had not. Still, the Act of 1852 ample, there was the difficulty of deciding
had effected a great reform. Former- on what should be an adequate consider-
ly patents were very costly for the great ation; but if that and other questions
mass of inventors. Now, he thought in- of detail could be satisfactorily dealt with,
ventors had no cause of complaint on that the result would be to get rid of one of
head; for, though the total amount paid the greatest objections to the Patent
was considerable, the greater portion of it Laws as they stood. These were points
was not paid till it had been proved that which deserved inquiry. It was not his
the patent was of value to the inventor. wish, or that of his hon. and learned
The expenses, in the first instance, were Friend, to prejudge the case; but, inas-
not heavy. An objection was, how much as ten years had passed since the
ever, taken to the state of the law on the existing Patent Laws were introduced, as
ground that a large number of patents that period had been one of great me-
were taken out, not by inventors intending chanical activity, and a large number of
to make a legitimate use of them, but by patents had been taken out, he thought
persons whose object was merely to specu- a case had been established for a revi-
late on patents, by making them a means sion of the law, an inquiry into its
of annoyance to persons in trade-manu- working, and an attempt to ascertain in
facturers and tradesmen often preferring to what respects it had answered its pur-
pay a sum down, even though not satisfied poses, and in what it was susceptible of
of the justice of the claim, rather than in- further improvement.
eur the trouble and expense of a costly liti-
gation. If, as was generally alleged, that
practice was resorted to, it afforded strong
reasons for a change in the law. His hon.
and learned Friend had pointed out, not only
the expense, but the difficulty, lying in the
way of those who wanted to test a patent.
Again, he believed, that if any one wanted
to ascertain the validity of a patent, the
only practical method of doing so was
to begin by infringing it. That was not
a satisfactory state of things. Besides the
question of the frivolous use of patents and
the mode of procedure, there were others
deserving of inquiry. He would only men-
tion one.
Those who on principle were
most opposed to patents, and who thought,
as many did, that when they gave a man a
monopoly of an invention, they were deal-
ing hardly by half a dozen other men, who,
if he had not secured the patent, would
have hit upon the same invention not very
much later, founded their strongest objec-
tion upon this fact-that you not only gave

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the question raised by his hon. and learned Friend and the noble Lord was one which would be of importance in any country, but which was of especial importance in a country like England, where manufac turing industry was so largely developed and the inventive genius of the people was so great. Ten years had elapsed since the last Patent Act was passed; and as considerable diversity of opinion existed upon the subject, the Government were of opinion that a fair case had been made out for inquiry, and it was to be hoped that the result of the inquiry would be such as to render the future working of the law entirely satisfactory. His hon. and learned Friend said very truly that it was matter of just complaint that recourse was had to the machinery of the Patent Law, in too many cases for the purpose of obtaining protection for comparatively trivial inventions. Inquiry might be made as to the best remedy for this evil, At the same

more at the end of three years, and £100 additional at the end of seven years. It sometimes happened that there was a considerable surplus arising from patents, and it was a matter deserving of con

time it was not easy to suggest one. It might, perhaps, be desirable by express legislation to add to the authority of the law officers as investigators of these patents, giving inventors a right of appeal in case of an adverse decision. Another point sideration how that surplus should be was the inconvenience and cost attending dealt with. He sincerely hoped the rethe trial of what were called patent causes.sult of the appointment of the CommisThere again it was not easy to devise a sion would be to bring about as great remedy or to suggest a more satisfactory an improvement in the present law as tribunal. At present these cases were the Act of 1852 produced in the law generally decided by a jury under the di- before that date. rection of a judge. It had been suggested that experts sitting as assessors, in analogy to the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House sitting in the Court of Admiralty, should be associated with the judge in the trial of these causes. That suggestion pre-supposed the absence of a jury; and that being so, he was afraid that the decision of such a tribunal would be more unsatisfactory than that of a jury to those against whom it was given. In this country, as to all matters of fact, there was a strong preference for the intervention of a jury, and the losing party was generally satisfied that he had had his chance and a fair trial. He was afraid, however, that no such satisfaction would result if the decision proceeded from experts sitting as assessors. On the other hand, it was impossible to deny, that though in the north of England and in London competent juries were sometimes impannelled, juries too frequently failed to bring to the trial of these patent causes a sufficient amount of knowledge or intelligence. He, therefore, admitted it would be a subject well worth the consideration of the Commission, whether it would not be possible to constitute some tribunal better adapted for trying these cases than a jury. He doubted whether some of the evils complained of could be effectually got rid of. The great cost of the litigation in patent cases was often caused by incidental circumstances rather than the state of the law, and both the cases referred to by his hon. and learned Friend had, he believed, passed through both courts of law and equity. Of course, if a tribunal could be found, competent to decide these cases in a manner satisfactory to the public and the parties, the necessity for appeals and new trials would be to a very great extent avoided. Complaints had been made as to the expense of obtaining patents; but that expense did not fall very heavy, for it was distributed over a considerable period, £25 being paid within the first six months, £50 The Attorney General

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH said, that he was glad to find that his hon. and learned Friend was willing to assent to the appointment of the Commission. He considered that its labours would be well employed if the only inquiry which it instituted was into the mode of trying patent cases. He had had some experience of juries in patent cases; and, with all the respect for that tribunal, he thought it was utterly inadequate to the task of deciding in a great number of them. Juries might be competent to deal with easy cases, but not with those that were difficult and complicated. As science progressed, every improvement was a step in advance of what had been done before; the cases became more complicated, and it was very difficult for twelve men taken at random as a jury to decide between the different scientific witnesses, and to understand the intricate models that were often produced in court. A present learned judge had assured him, that when practis ing in Chancery, it once took him a week to understand the model of a lace-machine, that he might be able to explain it to the Court. They could not expect a satisfactory decision from a jury in cases involving novelties in intricate machinery, when they saw the models of machines for the first time on the floor of the court, and had no opportunity of mastering their details, even if they had the capacity from previous education to do so. He thought the time had arrived when, for the trial of difficult cases, some tribunal should be created better adapted for deciding them than the juries at present selected. He thought, also, though the judicial staff of the country might be sufficient for its ordinary wants, if patent cases were left to be tried at the ordinary sittings and assizes, it would be impossible for the judges to get through all the business. It would be impossible to get through the heavy mercantile cases that arose in London, if the jurors summoned had to try patent cases that might take a week or more to dispose of. In the

case of "Betts v. Menzies," the Chief the Commissioners could consider the operation of the patent laws without extending their inquiries further, and throwing some light upon the general question as to the advisability of having any such laws at all. He concurred in the view of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. that the patentee of a useless invention obtained no reward; indeed, he not only received no reward, but he was induced by the patent laws to spend his time very uselessly, and to incur expenses for which there was no return. But he did not agree with the other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition, that a patentee of a valuable invention obtained a proportionate reward. Whenever a man was the patentee of an invention of great

Justice of the Common Pleas, then a judge of the Queen's Bench, was engaged six long days, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on Saturday night, adding to it a few words which induced the judge to remark he was afraid all their week's work had gone for nothing. The manner in which that case was litigated was alone a sufficient reason for inquiring into the state of the law. After the verdict in favour of the patentee, the case was taken to the Queen's Bench, where the patent was defeated on the ground that an old patent had been discovered in the office by which the invention had been anticipated. The Court considered that the discovery was fatal to the patentee, after going through sevcral courts. Finally, the case was car-national importance, it seemed to invariably ried by appeal to the House of Lords, happen that some ingenious person started where it was still pending. He was glad up and took out a patent for a slight imthere was to be an inquiry by a Commis-provement upon it. They were thus placed sion; without saying that in all cases in this difficulty-they must either refuse juries should be dispensed with, or what patents for improvements on previous should be the constitution of a new tribunal, inventions, or, allowing them, deprive the he thought the principle of the Admiralty real inventor of his reward. The conseCourt might be adopted. There a judge satquence generally was, that inventors were with the assistance of two Trinity masters, led into disastrous lawsuits in order to deand the decisions, he believed, generally fend their rights, and it was remarkable gave satisfaction. So for the trial of patent to see, in reading the history of some of cases, a judge might sit with two experts, the greatest inventors, how their lives as assessors; persons might be selected were harassed by such litigation. There for the duty having special knowledge of was the case of Mr. Cort, the inventor of the subject to which the patent related. puddling iron. He was led into litigation In conclusion, he would congratulate the and died a poor man, and his son, in a House and the country on the probability petition to Parliament, stated that his of an Amendment of the present state of father had never received any benefit from the law, which was not conducive to the his great discovery. Mr. Watt, too, was attainment of truth, and was often the involved in some of the longest lawsuits cause of scandal to the administration of on record, and Mr. Fulton, of whom the justice. Americans were justly proud, died at the age of forty-five, his health having been impaired by the worry of perpetual legal disputes about his invention, in which he became involved. It was matter for consideration whether there was not something inherent in inventions which prevented their being the property of man and precluded any one person obtaining the reward. The speeches which had been delivered that night had told as much against the system as against the existing law; and although remedies had been suggested, he did not believe in their being effectual. He should support the Motion, but he regretted that the inquiry was not to be more extensive.

MR. LEVESON GOWER said, he could not but express his regret at the very limited field of inquiry upon which the Commission was to enter. Some disappointment would be experienced by the public at finding that the policy, as well as the operation of the present law, was not to be a subject of inquiry. In 1851 men who were most competent to pronounce a sound judgment expressed their opinion that patents practically did more harm than good to inventors as well as to the public; and, although some surprise was excited at the time, it was an opinion which had year by year become more and more general. It was very desirable that the doubts which the weight of these opinions had necessarily created should be set at rest, and he really did not see how

MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he agreed that, in the majority of cases, the patent laws inflicted greater injury than