§ COLONEL MAKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps were taken by the Board of Trade when they were informed that Mr. R. H. Patterson, one of the gas referees appointed by them under the Act of 1868, had taken out a patent for improvements in the purification of coal gas on the 9th of March 1872, while he held the office of a gas referee; if he would ex- 1111 plain to the House for what reasons Messrs. Patterson and Peirce, two of the referees, were superseded in their office in August 1872, and Dr. Tyndall and Mr. A. G. Vernon Harcourt appointed in their places, the said office of gas referee not being abolished or reconstructed in any way; the powers remaining the same as heretofore, but the emolument only being diminished; and, whether he is aware that in the recent action "Patterson v. The Gaslight and Coke Company," the Lords Justices of Appeal condemned in strong terms the withholding of the Gas Referees' Report, dated 31st January 1872, but which the Board of Trade did not receive till the 26th March 1872, between which dates Mr. R. H. Patterson obtained his patent of the 9th March 1872, for the system of purification recommended and suggested in that report and, as stated in evidence, with the sanction and approval of the other two referees; and, if so, what steps he has taken to ascertain the truth of this statement?
§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYThe Board of Trade first saw in The Journal of Gaslighting of March 26, 1872, notice of a patent taken out by Mr. Patterson, one of the Gas Referees. On the 23rd of April the Board wrote to Mr. Patterson inquiring whether he was the person referred to in the notice, and, if so, what was the nature of his patent. Mr. Patterson explained that it was not his intention to make any substantial charge for his patent to the companies with which he was officially concerned. The Board of Trade said it was questionable whether a public officer ought to make use of knowledge and experience acquired by him in the discharge of his public duties to establish a claim to a patent. When the patent, if successful, was one which could or might be purchased by manufacturers whom it was the duty of the officer to control, to be used by them for the purposes of a process which he was appointed to regulate, there could be no doubt that the holding of such a patent by such an officer was inconsistent with his public duties. Messrs. Patterson and Peirce were informed on the 23rd of April, 1872, that they would not be re-appointed after the expiration of their annual appointment, in August, 1872; but the circumstances are too 1112 long to be stated in answer to a Question. I am aware of the language of the Lords Justices of Appeal in the recent case of "Patterson v. the Gas light and Coke Company," but as the referees referred to ceased to be the servants of the Board of Trade in 1872, I do not find it necessary to take any further steps in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman will move for the Correspondence on this subject, it shall be laid on the Table.