the patentee power to levy a toll upon every person who used his invention, but also enabled him absolutely to shut out the rest of the world from his invention for a certain term of years, if he thought that that was a more profitable course than allowing the use of it for a consideration. The remedy suggested was, that instead of allowing the patentee the sole use of his invention, he should be compelled to give licences to such persons as required them on payment of a fair and reasonable consideration. He did not say that there were not difficulties in the way of practically carrying ont such a suggestion. For example, there was the difficulty of deciding on what should be an adequate consideration; but if that and other questions of detail could be satisfactorily dealt with, the result would be to get rid of one of the greatest objections to the Patent Laws as they stood. These were points which deserved inquiry. It was not his wish, or that of his hon. and learned Friend, to prejudge the case; but, inas He did not concede, as was sometimes said, that every man had a right to take out a patent, because it was a monopoly, and was a matter of concession; but for the interest of inventors, and of the public, he was convinced that the object which Parliament had in view would best be obtained by allowing persons to get patents easily, simply, and cheaply, at the same time affording an equally easy, simple, and cheap mode of subsequently disputing the grant to every person who was interested in so doing. The first of those objects had been effected by the Act of 1852: the second had not. Still, the Act of 1852 had effected a great reform. Former ly patents were very costly for the great mass of inventors. Now, he thought inventors had no cause of complaint on that head; for, though the total amount paid was considerable, the greater portion of it was not paid till it had been proved that the patent was of value to the inventor. The expenses, in the first instance, were not heavy. An objection was, how-much as ten years had passed since the ever, taken to the state of the law on the ground that a large number of patents were taken out, not by inventors intending to make a legitimate use of them, but by persons whose object was merely to speculate on patents, by making them a means of annoyance to persons in trade-manufacturers and tradesmen often preferring to pay a sum down, even though not satisfied of the justice of the claim, rather than incur the trouble and expense of a costly litigation. 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 mention 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 dealing 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 objection upon this fact-that you not only gave existing Patent Laws were introduced, as that period had been one of great mechanical activity, and a large number of patents had been taken out, he thought à case had been established for a revision of the law, an inquiry into its working, and an attempt to ascertain in what respects it had answered its purposes, and in what it was susceptible of further improvement. 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 consideration how that surplus should be dealt with. He sincerely hoped the result of the appointment of the Commission would be to bring about as great an improvement in the present law as the Act of 1852 produced in the law before that date. He 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 was the inconvenience and cost attending the trial of what were called patent causes. There again it was not easy to devise a remedy or to suggest a more satisfactory tribunal. At present these cases were generally decided by a jury under the direction of a judge. It had been suggested MR. MONTAGUE SMITH said, that that experts sitting as assessors, in analogy he was glad to find that his hon. and to the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House learned Friend was willing to assent to the sitting in the Court of Admiralty, should appointment of the Commission. be associated with the judge in the trial of sidered that its labours would be well emthese causes. That suggestion pre-sup- ployed if the only inquiry which it instituted posed the absence of a jury; and that being was into the mode of trying patent cases. so, he was afraid that the decision of such He had had some experience of juries in a tribunal would be more unsatisfactory patent cases; and, with all the respect for than that of a jury to those against whom that tribunal, he thought it was utterly init was given. In this country, as to all adequate to the task of deciding in a great matters of fact, there was a strong prefe- number of them. Juries might be comperence for the intervention of a jury, and tent to deal with easy cases, but not with the losing party was generally satisfied those that were difficult and complicated. that he had had his chance and a fair As science progressed, every improvement trial. He was afraid, however, that no was a step in advance of what had been such satisfaction would result if the deci- done before; the cases became more comsion proceeded from experts sitting as as- plicated, and it was very difficult for twelve sessors. On the other hand, it was im- men taken at random as a jury to decide bepossible to deny, that though in the north tween the different scientific witnesses, and of England and in London competent jurics to understand the intricate models that were were sometimes impannelled, juries too often produced in court. A present learned frequently failed to bring to the trial of judge had assured him, that when practisthese patent causes a sufficient amount of ing in Chancery, it once took him a week knowledge or intelligence. He, therefore, to understand the model of a lace-machine, admitted it would be a subject well worth that he might be able to explain it to the the consideration of the Commission, whe- Court. They could not expect a satisfacther it would not be possible to constitute tory decision from a jury in cases insome tribunal better adapted for trying volving novelties in intricate machinery, these cases than a jury. He doubted whe- when they saw the models of machines for ther some of the evils complained of could the first time on the floor of the court, and be effectually got rid of. The great cost had no opportunity of mastering their deof the litigation in patent cases was often tails, even if they had the capacity from caused by incidental circumstances rather previous education to do so. He thought than the state of the law, and both the the time had arrived when, for the trial of cases referred to by his hon. and learned difficult cases, some tribunal should be Friend had, he believed, passed through created better adapted for deciding them both courts of law and equity. Of course, than the jurics at present selected. He if a tribunal could be found, competent to thought, also, though the judicial staff of the decide these cases in a manner satisfac- country might be sufficient for its ordinary tory to the public and the parties, the wants, if patent cases were left to be tried necessity for appeals and new trials would at the ordinary sittings and assizes, it would be to a very great extent avoided. Com- be impossible for the judges to get through plaints had been made as to the expense all the business. It would be impossible to of obtaining patents; but that expense get through the heavy mercantile cases did not fall very heavy, for it was dis- that arose in London, if the jurors sumtributed over a considerable period, £25 moned had to try patent cases that might being paid within the first six months, £50 | take a week or more to dispose of. In the case of "Betts v. Menzies," the Chief the Commissioners could consider the Justice of the Common Pleas, then a judge operation of the patent laws without exof the Queen's Bench, was engaged six tending their inquiries further, and throwlong days, the jury returned a verdict for ing some light upon the general question the plaintiff on Saturday night, adding to as to the advisability of having any such it a few words which induced the judge to laws at all. He concurred in the view of remark he was afraid all their week's work the hon. and learned Member for Belfast had gone for nothing. The manner in that the patentee of a useless invention which that case was litigated was alone a obtained no reward; indeed, he not only sufficient reason for inquiring into the state received no reward, but he was induced of the law. After the verdict in favour of the by the patent laws to spend his time very patentee, the case was taken to the Queen's uselessly, and to incur expenses for which Bench, where the patent was defeated on there was no return. But he did not the ground that an old patent had been agree with the other part of the hon. and discovered in the office by which the inven- learned Gentleman's proposition, that a tion had been anticipated. The Court patentee of a valuable invention obtained considered that the discovery was fatal a proportionate reward. Whenever a man to the patentee, after going through seve- was the patentee of an invention of great ral 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 juries should be dispensed with, or what should be the constitution of a new tribunal, he thought the principle of the Admiralty Court might be adopted. There a judge sat with the assistance of two Trinity masters, and the decisions, he believed, generally gave satisfaction. So for the trial of patent cases, a judge might sit with two experts, as assessors; persons might be selected for the duty having special knowledge of the subject to which the patent related. In conclusion, he would congratulate the House and the country on the probability of an Amendment of the present state of the law, which was not conducive to the attainment of truth, and was often the cause of scandal to the administration of justice. 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 in this difficulty-they must either refuse patents for improvements on previous inventions, or, allowing them, deprive the real inventor of his reward. The consequence generally was, that inventors were led into disastrous lawsuits in order to defend their rights, and it was remarkable to see, in reading the history of some of the greatest inventors, how their lives were harassed by such litigation. There was the case of Mr. Cort, the inventor of puddling iron. He was led into litigation and died a poor man, and his son, in a petition to Parliament, stated that his father had never received any benefit from his great discovery. Mr. Watt, too, was involved in some of the longest lawsuits on record, and Mr. Fulton, of whom the 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. VINCENT SCULLY said, he agreed that, in the majority of cases, the patent laws inflicted greater injury than benefit on inventors; and, if possible, some means ought to be devised to protect them from such injury. There was no class of men who were so much entitled to the protection of the law as inventors, and there was nothing so peculiarly the property of a man as the labour of his brains. The patent laws were improved in 1852, and they now required further improvement. One great evil was the expense attending legal proceedings in these cases. He did not think a jury a fit tribunal, and he would suggest that such cases should be tried by a judge, assisted or not by a scientific assessor or assistant, leaving it to the option of the parties to have a jury if they preferred one. He believed, that if the option were given, the parties in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred would not withdraw the consideration of the question from a qualified judge. Some restraint ought to be placed on the granting of patents which were neither novel nor useful. It would also be a great bless ing to inventors if there were some person to whom they could apply for correct information before throwing away their money, which, as poor men, they found it difficult to scrape together. Any man could set set up as a patent agent, there being no certificate required; but a patent agency required as much skill as any profession. It would be a great protection to inventors if they had some scientific tribunal before which they could go in the first instance, and ascertain whether their inventions were worthy of being followed up or not. To do away altogether with protection for inventions would be not only an injustice to inventors, but a disadvantage to the public. The hon. and learned Gentleman had done much good by bringing forward the subject, and he hoped the result of the Commission would be to introduce some improvement in the present law; but he feared it was too much to expect that it would lead to a perfect legal system upon so complicated a subject. MR. FRANK CROSSLEY said, that, as a manufacturer, he had some experience on the subject, and could state that the body to which he belonged were becoming more and more impressed, not with the worthlessness, but with the importance of patents. The Act of 1852 effected a great reform in enabling men of small means to procure patents, not so much because the expense was reduced, as because it was distributed in several instalments over a number of years. In spite of the strong feeling in favour of juries, there was a growing belief that patent causes ought not to be tried by ordinary juries. Inventions now followed inventions so rapidly that a very small distinction between one machine and another became a matter of the greatest possible importance, and it was very difficult to understand the difference. Jurymen ought at least to be allowed to leave the box and examine the models produced in court. He thought the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had taken a very sound view of this question. If the proposed inquiry led to as valuable reforms in regard to the protection of inventions as the last Act did in regard to the cost of patents, inventors would have every reason to be satisfied. PUBLIC WORKS.-RESOLUTION. MR. DILLWYN said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice in regard to Estimates for Public Works. The House had so long shown its indiffer ence with regard to questions of financial reform, that if he had been bringing forward his Motion at the beginning of the Session, or even within the last month, he should have felt it necessary to have detained them longer than he now intended to do. The House, however, was at length awakening to the importance of taking some steps towards retrenchment. Many hon. Members had done their best to awaken the country to a sense of its increasing expenditure. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was a convert to, and had advocated a large measure of, retrenchment, and he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman among financial reformers, and wished that he had spoken from that side of the House, where he would have been more heartily cheered than he was by his usual supporters. He could not agree with all the right hon. Gentleman said in depreciation of "bloated armaments,' but he would point out a mode in which he thought the expenditure might be reduced. He believed that the expenditure in the War Department, and in other departments, more economical road, which served every purpose, had been opened. He did not mean to charge either the present or any previous Government with wilfully misleading the Ilouse in these matters, or endeavouring to get in the thin end of the wedge. An hon. MEMBER moved that the House should be counted; but notice being taken that 40 Members were present might be reduced without any sacrifice | House that the road could not be made in of efficiency; and he hoped he should time to be of any service, and the propohave the assistance of the right hon.sition was rejected, the result being that a Gentleman in asking the Government to take a practical step towards retrenchment. He took the division the other night on the British Museum Bill as an indication that the House was thoroughly awake to the subject, and was determined to carry out a system of retrenchment in some way. He knew that other considerations affected that decision, but he believed it was influenced to the extent of many votes by that consideration. The question was how independent Members could best effect a reduction of the Estimates when the House saw that they could be safely and properly reduced. In the discussions upon the Estimates it was a matter of common occurence that objections to items were met with the objection that the expenditure had already been sanctioned by a vote of the House, and that the refusal to continue it would inflict hardship upon persons who had accepted office on the faith of such a vote; or that it was for the completion of works which had been already commenced, and the money spent upon which would be wasted if a further sum was not expended. No doubt those were strong arguments as far as they went, and the House, frequently for those reasons, rejected a Motion of which in the abstract it approved. Had many of the works which had consumed so large a portion of the public money been fairly and fully explained to the House in the first instance, it was very likely that they never would have been consented to. He might quote as an illustration of this the case of the fortifications at Alderney, which were defended by the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the ground that they were a continuation of works begun by a former Government. And so with the South Kensington Museum. At first they were only asked for the money for a shed; then the shed was enlarged; then they were asked for a corrugated iron shed, on the plea that there were articles spoiling for want of room; and so they went on until at length an enormous establishment had grown up, which cost the country some £20,000 or £30,000 a year besides the expense of the building. As showing how the public money might be saved by the House paying proper attention to the subject in the first instance, he might cite the case of the proposed road across Hyde Park to the Exhibition. It was shown by a high authority in the MR. DILLWYN said, the Motion he had the honour to move pointed, as he thought, to a simple method of checking the continual demands upon the public purse of an unnecessary description. He believed, that if there was a distinct class of Estimates for Votes which were proposed for the first time, hon. Members would think it worth their while to be present when such Votes were taken, and to examine them more fully than they cared to do in the case of Votes which had already in some way or other received the sanction of Parliament. Why should not the House of Commons deal with the Estimates in the same manner as a private gentleman regulated his own expenditure? No private gentleman or man of business would consent to his agent undertaking new buildings without carefully considering the subject, nor would he allow items for such expenditure to be passed under his review as if they were a portion of his ordinary annual outgoings. They had been told over and over again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government were responsible to the House for the expendi ture which they proposed; but in reality that responsibility was very slight, because the change of Governments enabled them to shift the blame to the shoulders of their predecessors. By the alteration which he sought to introduce, more direct responsi bility would be created, and at the same time the passing of the ordinary Estimates would be facilitated. He would therefore conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice. MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is de sirable that, in all cases in which Her Majesty's Government propose to construct Works or to erect Fortifications or Public Buildings distinct and separate from those already existin or sanc |