HC Deb 25 July 1851 vol 118 cc1534-48

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

, in moving the Second Reading of the Patent Law-Amendment Bill, said, that for some time past complaints had been made, as to the delay, the uncertainty, and the expense attendant upon the granting of patents, and it was impossible to deny that those complaints had considerable foundation. The consequence was that much inquiry and discussion on the subject had taken place. A Committee had been recently appointed by the other House of Parliament, and, in pursuit of its labours, the matter had been fully canvassed, and the result was that a Bill had been sent to them by that House for their adoption. That Bill adopted as its fundamental principle that patents for inventions should be granted to persons who contributed useful inventions and discoveries for the benefit of society. He was aware that an opinion had been expressed by individuals whose opinions were entitled to considerable weight, but who still formed only a small minority amongst those whose attention had been directed to the subject, that patents might be altogether dispensed with: in that opinion, however, he (the Attorney General) for one could not concur. Every person must admit that it should be the object of legislation to develop to the utmost possible extent the discoveries of those inventors that were calculated to contribute to the wants, comforts, and enjoyments of mankind; and though it might be true that the desire of benefiting their species, and obtaining the praise and approbation of their fellow-men, would be a strong motive and incentive towards inventing that which they required, still any person having an acquaintance with human nature must admit that such motives and inducements would be less efficacious than the hope and desire of individual reward. It seldom happened that those discoveries were made by the possession of great and scientific knowledge, or by a happy inspiration alone; they were generally the results of much labour, long experience, and were often accompanied with great expense. When, by time, labour, and experiments, inventions were brought to maturity, they still required a large outlay of capital, and a long period of time, to introduce them amongst the public, for whose benefit they were intended. If there was no inducement held out to a discoverer but that his invention would be useful to society, and if he were to look solely to motives of a disinterested character, it was quite clear they would not have one-half of the discoveries that were now constantly brought forward. This Bill proceeded upon this principle, namely, that where persons invented things that were new and useful to society, they should have the reward which the Patent Laws gave. As an inducement to others to invent, it was considered that the most appropriate mode of giving that reward, would be by giving them a monopoly for a limited period, in the invention they had made. Thus, without drawing on the public purse (except in a modified mode, by which the patent would enable the patentee to derive a benefit), the reward would become commensurate to the value of the invention. This Bill dealt with the mode in which the object of granting patents should be carried out. Some persons had lately started the notion that there should be no inquiry as to whether a man should have a patent or not. It was said they should allow a man to claim an invention as novel, and that on registering that invention he should without inquiry be entitled to the patent rights, and to maintain them against the rest of mankind. It seemed to him (the Attorney General) that they ought to pursue a different course. They ought to guard the public against the assumption of rights to which the individual was not entitled in case his invention was neither new nor useful; they should guard other inventors that had preceded him, and protect them by a cheap process, without driving them into expensive litigation for the protection of their rights. Now, that being so, he came to the next question. By what mode or system were they to determine the question whether or not a person was entitled to the rights which he would have under a patent? They were all agreed that the present system was bad. Its great vice was its costliness. As the matter now stood, every application for a patent must pass through seven different stages, or go through so many different public offices. Every applicant petitioning for a patent had his petition, in the first instance, referred to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by whom it was submitted to the law officers of the Crown. The law officers then referred it back to the Secretary of State for what was called the Queen's Warrant. Having obtained that, the applicant was then referred to the Patent Office, for the Queen's Bill; thence he was sent to the Signet Office, for the Signet Bill; thence to the Privy Council Office, for the Privy Council Bill; and thence to the office of the Great Seal, where the warrant was eventually made out for the issue of the patent. In passing through each of those seven different stages, a certain amount of fees were to be paid; and yet five at least of those stages were wholly useless. The cost of taking out an ordinary patent in England at present amounted to 94l. 15s. In addition to that, if a man wanted to extend his patent to Scotland, he had to go through five other offices in Scotland, at an additional expense of 63l. If, again, he was desirous of applying his patent to Ireland, he had five other offices to through in that country, involving a further outlay of 119l.; making the whole cost of taking out his patent in England, Scotland, and Ireland, no less than 276l. 15s. If there happened to he two persons interested in the patent, the additional fees consequent upon that circumstance, raised the sum on the whole to very nearly 300l. Now, by the present Bill, it was proposed to sweep away the greater part of those fees, and to have one common patent for the three Kingdoms, by which means the trouble and expense consequent upon taking out a patent hereafter would be most materially reduced. The Bill also proposed to give an inventor this additional advantage, namely, to divide the sum total which he would have to pay on taking out his patent into three separate payments, of which the smallest would be made on the granting of the patent, the next at the end of three years, and the last and largest at the end of seven years. This would give poor men an opportunity which they did not at present possess, of protecting inventions till such time as they might be able to derive advantage from them, and at a cost adapted to their means. At present the great majority of patents taken out fell to the ground, and produced no fruit to the patentee. By this Bill it was proposed, in the first instance, that the cost of the patent should be limited to 20l., with an additional 5l. for stamp duty. At the end of three years—the interval being spent by the patentee in testing the value of his invention in public, or in obtaining the assistance of capitalists in carrying it into operation, he might have a renewal for four years more, on payment of 40l. and 10l. stamp duty. He then obtained a patent for seven years. At the end of that period, if the patent was calculated to be beneficial to the public, and therefore beneficial to the patentee, he could extend his right for seven other years, by paying an additional sum of 80l., and a further stamp duty of 20l. Therefore the cost of obtaining the patent would be lowered from 300l. to 175l., the payment of which would be distributed over a period of seven years; but in the course of time they would be able, after that compensation had been got rid of, to lower the expense of taking out a patent considerably further than they felt warranted in doing in the first instance. The next consideration was with respect to the tribunal which was to determine whether a party was entitled to a patent or not. The House was aware that hitherto the solution of that question had rested entirely with the law officers of the Crown. Two great objections had been taken to the existing tribunal, and he thought those objections were well founded, constituted as that tribunal was at present. It was said, in the first place, that that tribunal was a secret one. That was a great objection, but the secrecy did not arise from the will or inclination of the law officers, but from the necessity of the case. It arose in this way. The rights which were acquired under a patent dated from the period when the patent was granted. The report of the law officers on the merits of the invention was made at an early stage of the proceedings. It was the object, therefore, of the inventor that, until his patent was sealed, no one but himself should know what was the nature of his invention. On the other hand, a party opposing the invention on the ground of want of novelty, or that he had a prior claim to its discovery, had a right to appear before the law officers and state his case. The unavoidable result was that the law officers were obliged to hear each of the parties separately with closed doors, lest, in the event of the inventions turning out to be dissimilar, the principle of each man's invention might be discovered to the other, or to the world. Nothing could exceed the anxiety' shown by the rival applicants on those occasions lest the tribunal should disclose, by the questions which they put, their respective inventions. As they were about to abolish five out of the seven stages through which applicants must now pass, there would be compensation to be given to certain parties; and this obliged them to take a large margin at starting. To remedy that state of things, the Bill proposed to enable a man, at the same time that he applied for a patent, to lodge in the office of the Commissioners to be appointed under its provisions a provisional specification; that was to say, a statement corresponding with that which was now required by the law officers—which provisional specification was to state the precise nature and the general features of the invention. As soon as he had deposited that provisional specification, it was proposed to give him protection for six months, or in certain cases for nine months. He would then be at liberty to use his invention before the public during that time. Whether that would be a desirable thing, he (the Attorney General) would then not stop to inquire. It was also proposed to require a man objecting to a patent to lodge his objection with the Commissioners beforehand, There would likewise be an open tribunal, and the parties would be heard before one another, by which arrangement all secrecy would be done away with. There was another objection to the existing tribunal, namely, the incompetency, the almost unavoidable incompetency, of the law officers to decide questions involving intricate and nice points in mechanics, chemistry, and general science. It appeared to the Government that the best mode of proceeding would be to constitute a board of examiners, consisting of persons having a reputation for scientific knowledge, to whom, in the first place, the provisional specification should be referred, and who would be required to report as to its propriety, and on the question of conflicting rights, in cases where such should arise, to the law officers of the Crown. He was happy to say that on that point the expenses would not be increased. The law officers of the Crown were perfectly willing to make a personal sacrifice in that respect, in order that the public might obtain the full benefit of the proposed arrangement. With regard to the provisional specification, the six or nine months' protection which would be afforded to the patentee would enable him to take his invention into the market with a view to obtain the assistance of capitalists in carrying it into practical operation—a benefit which under the present system was wholly impossible. The Bill also provided for the proper classification of all patents, for the transcription and publication of all specifications, and for a register of patents and of proprietors, which might be inspected by the public from time to time. At present it often happened that when a man had devoted his time, his patience, and his money to an invention, and imagined that he was on the eve of reaping the fruits of his labours, he found that some one else had anticipated him, that a patent was already in force for the particular invention he had made, and that therefore all his labour and expense went for nought. Now, in order to avoid this, two provisions were introduced into the Bill; and it was also provided that when recourse was had to a court of law, the court entertaining the question should be invested with an equitable jurisdiction, so that a court once seized of the matter would be entitled to decide it on equitable principles, without putting the parties to the expense of further litigation. There was another clause, with respect to which he had some doubt, namely, one which provided, where an invention had been practised in a foreign country, that that circumstance should be fatal to any patent right with regard to it in this country. As the law now stood, it did seem inconsistent that a man who discovered that in some foreign country a particular invention had been brought into use, by bringing that invention to England should acquire the same rights as if he had been the original inventor; and that, if the latter should come to this country to obtain a patent, his right should be defeated by the fact that some person had come here before him, and taken out a patent in respect to it. The provision to which he had referred would remedy that injustice. For his part, he should have preferred that a man who brought to this country an invention which had been practised abroad, should acquire some right, but not a right equal to that which ought to be given to the original inventor. The object of any patent law ought to be to introduce for the benefit of this country all inventions which could possibly be had, whether they had originated in this or any other country. He had now stated the general principles of the Bill; and although it might be said there was still more to be done for the patentee, and that the Government was now only dealing with the mode in which the law regarding patents was administered, he could not help thinking the House would agree with him that they were making progress in the right direction—that the law would be greatly improved—and that the expense now attendant upon obtaining patents would be materially diminished.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

MR. J. L. RICARDO

said, the House had some reason to complain of the manner in which this subject had been treated by the Government. He submitted that there ought to have been no legislation on the subject of the Patent Law until they had thoroughly investigated the question in all its complicated bearings. Hon. Members were called upon to affirm its principle before they had time to digest the evidence on which it professed to be founded. In another place two Bills had been introduced on the subject, one by an independent Member of the Legislature, and another by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Those Bills were referred to a Select Committee, and the result was, that another Bill, quite distinct from those two, had been submitted to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) said that the fundamental principle of this Bill was to encourage that which the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had stated to be a principle to which he was opposed, namely, the affording facilities for obtaining patents. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the fundamental principle of the Bill was to give a stimulus to inventions; and the way in which he gave a stimulus to inventions was by granting a monopoly for a certain number of years, to the prejudice of the public. The hon. and learned Gentleman pretended to reward the inventor by means of a monopoly; but he (Mr. Ricardo) contended that no monopoly was granted to the inventor at all, for not only was he to encounter as great a competition as before, but he was liable to be attacked on every side by his competitors, and subjected to immense expense in defending his patent. He (Mr. Ricardo) did not mean to defend the present system at all. From the Attorney General down to the official denominated "Chaff-wax," the whole system was an abomination which ought to be done away with. He was supported in those opinions by Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Brunel, and the present right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, who all agreed with him in thinking that the whole principle of the patent system was bad, and ought to be abolished. All the great inventions and discoveries by such men as Liebig, Brunei, and Stephenson, were made without any encouragement from patents; and it was only small inventions in the making of sealing-wax, great coats, or paletots, that seemed to require the protection of a patent. Such inventions as those of paper, of glass, of printing, were all made without the stimulus of patents. A great deal had been said in that House about the monopoly of landowners; but he thought they should carry out the principle a great deal further, and apply it to the question now before the House.

MR. MACGREGOR

would vote for the second reading of the Bill, reserving his objections to the details for the Committee. It was disgraceful to this as a commercial country that its patent laws were so cumbrous, and that the expenses of procuring patents were so enormous. In this respect we contrasted unfavourably with the legislation of France and of the United States. He differed altogether with the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ricardo) as to the principle of patents. He denied altogether that a patentee was a monopolist. A man had as perfect a right to ownership in the production of his own intellect as to any other property which he might be possessed of. He further believed that society would be a great loser by the abolition of the whole principle of patents.

MR. LABOUCHERE

would not have interfered in this discussion, after the full and lucid statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, but for the observations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent. His hon. Friend had complained of the delay in the introduction of this Bill. He was afraid, looking back to the manner in which the Session had been passed, that it would have received but a scanty consideration at any earlier period. But in his opinion the delay had been advantageous; for there never was a measure which had been marked by more care in its preparation and arrangement. A most unobjectionable Committee of the other House had gone into a most complete inquiry in regard to it, and had examined those witnesses who were the most capable of affording extensive and accurate information on the subject. It was true that some members of that Committee, among others his noble Friend and Colleague (Lord Granville), had come to the same conclusion as that at which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ricardo) had arrived, namely, that, as an abstract question, the whole principle of the Patent Laws was false and erroneous; but, after a full investigation, the decision of the Committee was, that in the present state of opinion in Parliament on the matter, and in the present condition of the patent laws, inflicting serious practical evils upon the community, it was expedient to have this Bill passed into law with the utmost speed. He (Mr. Labouchere) would express no opinion upon the abstract question. He entertained a high respect for the views of his hon. Friend, backed as those views were by such eminent authorities as Mr. Brunei, Mr. Cubitt, and his right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls. But, our present Patent Laws being a reproach to the legislature, it would be the grossest injustice to the public not to attempt an alteration, and to wait until public opinion was ripe for such a sweeping alteration as that which his hon. Friend proposed. There were particular reasons to be found in the events of the present year in favour of this measure. It was well known that there was a large number of valuable inventions displayed in the Great Exhibition—that these inventions had been provisionally registered by their proprietors for one year—and that, in order that they might be fully protected, they would have to be again registered next year, as the law-stood, at a very great expense. He thought that every Member of the House would agree with him that it was but fair to provide economical facilities for the protection of these parties. There was another merit in the Bill, which ought greatly to recommend it. It took the Colonies altogether out of the scope of our patent laws. At present colonial legislatures could grant patents, and the consequence was, that patents were procured in England and the colonies for the same thing, leading to a double system, and to extreme litigation and confusion. A remedy for this evil had long been wanted, and was now supplied. He hoped that the House would remember the outcry which was raised for such a Bill as this at the beginning of the Session. This Bill might be defective, but at any rate it was a practical step in the right direction, and would be attended with immense benefits. It had received the approbation of many hundreds of persons interested in patents, and such of the details as were objectionable could easily be remedied in Committee. The introduction of this Bill came with peculiar grace from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who would be deprived of a considerable portion of his emoluments by it.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

gave his sanction to the principle of the Bill, and would therefore vote for the second reading. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent as to the evil arising from patents; and as his hon. Friend was the proprietor of about thirty-seven patents, he ought, in consistency with the argument he had addressed to the House, to throw them all up and present them to the public.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

thought that the House would have approached the consideration of this measure under more favourable circumstances if it had been more accurately informed as to the exact views of the parties by whom it was introduced, upon the principle of the patent laws. The hon. and learned Attorney General had intimated an opinion that the principle was a good one; but the right lion. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in more cautious language than that used by a noble Lord (Earl Granville) in another place, had suggested a disbelief in the value of the principle. It was, therefore, impossible to say upon what ground the Government went in this measure. He (Mr. Palmer) dissented from the views of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ricardo), and assented to the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. It was as complete a fallacy as ever was uttered to say, that the grant of a patent was the concession of a monopoly for a certain number of years, to the prejudice of the public. The public was only asked to pay fairly for fourteen years for an invention which they could never have got but for the inducement of the patent, the whole of the public at the end of the fourteen years being enabled to compete on equal terms with the inventor. The class who contributed by their ingenuity and their inventive genius to the happiness of mankind were a special class, and they would never apply their minds to the arts and sciences, but for the assurance which they saw in the patent law of an eventual remuneration. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had mentioned eminent persons who had been distinguished for great inventions, but who had not sought the protection of patents. The hon. Member said that the inventors of small things required patents, but that the inventors of great and useful things never needed patents. The hon. Member went very far back, instancing old inventions, such as those of paper and glass. But let the House look practically at modern examples. Was Arkwright a useful and great inventor, and did not he possess a patent? Did not Wheatstone claim to be placed among the great inventors? The steam-engine and the electric telegraph were patented inventions, and the steam-engine patents had been productive of great profits to the patentees, while no one would combat the advantages derived by the public. They might look to matters of a much smaller character. Macintosh, who applied India rubber to the arts and conveniences of life, was a patentee. The invention of gutta percha was patented. The steam screw propeller was a patented invention. He might, indeed, say that nearly all the useful inventions of later times had been patented inventions, most of them having owed their origin to men who had devoted their whole lives to the discoveries, and who were entitled to the most ample remuneration through their patents. The exceptions confirmed the rule. One instance of an unpatented invention, whereby undue loss had accrued to the inventor, he could mention. The lightning rods for ships, from which the public had derived enormous benefit, wore invented by a certain constituent of his (Mr. Palmer's) Sir William Snow Harris. He was happy to say that the noble Lord opposite had recognised the merits of William Snow Harris, even before the invention to which he alluded. But he did trust that his merits would be taken into consideration, and receive a just reward; but as yet he had obtained no remuneration commensurate with the advantage he had conferred upon the community by the application of lightning conductors to ships. Such men as these required the security of the patent laws as a stimulus, and without that stimulus the arts and sciences would be without the impulses which now attended them. These being his opinions in favour of the principle of patents, he thought that the Bill before the House did not go half far enough. If the principle was good, why not grapple with it in the most straightforward way, and carry it out legitimately? He felt no alarm at a probable multiplicity of patents. He did not see why they were not to deal with patents as with copyrights. The author of a literary work got in a simple way all the advantages of his book, holding exclusive copyright of it. The inventor of a design for manufacturing purposes registered his design for 5s.; and if the design was new, he had all the benefit of the novelty for a certain period. This some persons called monopoly; but it was nothing more than a simple equivalent for the exercise of ingenuity. Copyright of the same kind was extended to music, and to works of art of every description. Why not deal in the same way with specifications of inventions for which "patents" were required? Why could not specifications be registered for 5s. as well as designs? Nothing was gained by the process which this Bill, after all, would only modify; and he was indeed ashamed that the proposal was still to compel an expense of 175l. to an inventor, for a protection for fourteen years. The principle was that the inventor had a right to his patent—it was not a bargain; and why was he not permitted to claim this right in the shortest and simplest way? A patent was so much waste paper if the thing patented was not an absolute novelty. All the expense might be incurred; and if the invention was not new, the law could be resorted to by previous patentees. An invention, at last, must stand upon its own merits; and he wanted to know why it might not stand on its own merits at first, to the avoidance of all this cost? There might be frivolous patents if the cost were done away with. But the principle of the law was not to inquire whether the patent was frivolous, but whether it was new and useful in its degree. He came, therefore, to the conclusion that this Bill might have safely gone much farther; but under the circum- stances he would not offer any opposition to the second reading.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

wished to know from what source the Commissioners who were to award compensation under this Bill were to be paid? As to the necessity of the present measure, no doubt could be entertained about it. He understood there were not less than 700 persons waiting to take out patents under the cheaper plan to be established by this Bill.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he had been for some twenty years engaged in litigation on the subject of inventions; he felt therefore competent to give an opinion upon this subject. He did not consider the Patent Law to have any connnexion whatever with a monopoly. It was a sort of recompense to a man for his ingenuity. No greater blow could be struck against the inventive genius of this country than by the abolition of the law of patents.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, that one would have thought from the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General that they were giving up a large proportion of their fees. Now, he did not think that in the year 1852 there would be fewer patents taken out than there were in 1847. And in the latter year he found that the number of patents taken out in England was 498, in Scotland 168, and in Ireland 76, which gave a gross sum of 87,640l. In the improved state of the law he expected that at least the same number of patents would be taken out next year, and assuming that they were to be had at the reduced cost proposed by this measure, the amount would be not 87,640l., but, when complete, 129,850l. In Committee he would be prepared to move amendments which would greatly modify the fees. He thought it a great hardship that an inventor should have to pay 175l. for a patent for the three kingdoms for fourteen years, when on the Continent it could be had at a very diminished rate of cost; and when the patent was given on the Continent, the patentee was thoroughly protected, and was not, as here, obliged in many cases to defend his patent, generally at a ruinous expense, in a Court of Law. He objected also to the clause which prohibited patents for inventions brought from abroad, and thought that that clause would require, at least, to be modified in Committee.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the hon. Alderman had misunderstood the operation of the proposed Bill, and had not adverted to the fact that the new scale of patents was to be a graduated one. The present law required an expense of upwards of 300l. for a patent for the United Kingdom for fourteen years; but the present Bill proposed that a patent for three years for the three kingdoms should be granted for 25l. He believed there would be a greatly increased number of patents taken out at that sum; and the advantage of fixing such a period for a patent was, that in the course of three years the inventor would be enabled to ascertain whether his patent was worth keeping, or whether by that time it had not been superseded by some other invention. He believed that a great number of these patents, however useful they might be at first, would be practically useless at the end of three years; and that a considerably diminished number of patents would be renewed for another period of years, which the Bill allowed at a cost of 50l., thus making a cost of 75l. for a patent for seven years. As they thus proceeded sifting the chaff, as he might say, from the wheat, it would be found that at the end of seven years a very small number of patents, and those only the really important ones, would be renewed for another period of seven years; and it was on these that the heavy expenses fell. Something had been said about the emoluments reaped by the law officers of the Crown from the conferring of patents; and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Alderman Sidney) had talked as if the whole of the 80,000l. or 90,000l. that was received from patentees went to the law officers; but he must state that a large proportion of the expenses went for stamps, and a large portion to the Consolidated Fund; and out of the 109l. that was now exacted as the price of an English patent, not more than 9l. or 10l. went to the law officers. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) stated, that patents might be granted like copyrights or the registration of designs, on a fee of five shillings, or ten shillings; but he must state, as the result of his inquiries, that it was not desirable to make patents cheap, or to pass them without examination; and he might mention, as an instance of the evil effects of doing so, the case of a person who took out a patent respecting hack cabs, not because he had really made any positive invention, but that he might afterwards go about annoying the unfortunate cab-drivers, telling them that they had pirated his invention, and so extorting from them ten to twenty shillings a head.

He hoped the House would pass this Bill with as little delay as possible, as he had received daily communications from patent agents, stating that their business was entirely at a standstill till they saw how the House disposed of this measure. He might state that 500 persons had taken advantage of the Act passed last year for the protection of inventions placed in the Great Exhibition. Of course all these persons would not apply for patents. They would have learned from the Exhibition itself, that, in many cases, what they supposed were their own inventions had already been anticipated by others; and that, he thought, was an important advantage, not only of the Exhibition, but of the provisions of this Bill, which protected inventions for six months after the specifications were published before the patent was secured.

MR. WAKLEY

was not quite satisfied that the law here proposed would be the best that could be adopted. He agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that it was most important to protect inventions, as it would tend to give a stimulus to inventors. He thought the law of copyright and of patent ought to be the same. He could not understand the difference between the two cases. He saw no reason why a man who invented a piece of machinery should not be protected for the same term as a man who had written a work. This Bill was by no means simple. He trembled at the words "a Board of Examiners." They carried on their proceedings in secret, and he thought it would be better to refer the thing to one man, who should give his decision and his reasons for it in public. The Board might be divided into departments, and the head of each department give his decision and his reasons for that decision in public. Unless this were done, the greatest injustice would ensue. In this matter there was no stauncher protectionist in the House than himself. What did the public do for inventors? They often treated them with scandalous neglect. What was done for Harvey or for Jenner, in his own profession? Jenner's family were absolutely in want; there were no monuments to his memory, and his name was almost unknown in this country. The inventor was entitled to a vested right in his invention.

Bill read 2°.