Lords Sitting of 25 February 1887

MINUTES.
—PUBLIC BILL —Committee—Solicitors (Ireland) (12.)

POTTER'S PATENT BILL. SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to revive a patent which had lapsed owing to the fees for renewal not having been paid within the statutory period of three months. This was the first case that had occurred under the Patent Act of 1883. The default was purely an accident on the part of the patentee, who had no wish whatever to evade the law; it arose entirely from his illness, his inability to transact business, and his not having given proper instructions to his clerk to pay within the time prescribed. The Comptroller had stated that the only means of remedying the omission was for the patentee to resort to a private Act of Parliament. He (the Earl De La Warr) hoped the Bill would not be opposed.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl De la Warr.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that the case was one of considerable hardship. £23,000 had been invested in the purchase of plant for the purposes of the patent. This was the first Bill asking for the revival of a lapsed patent since the passing of the Act, which required that the fees for renewal should be paid within three months. He hoped, if their Lordships should read the Bill a second time, they would give an intimation that this was not to be a precedent, and that such Bills would not be received in a future Session by the House.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that when the Act of 1883 was passed, it was hoped and expected that the enlarged time given for the payment of fees to keep the patent alive would in all cases be sufficient to prevent inconvenience and hardship. Those engaged in preparing the Act were of opinion that three months would be sufficient. The provisions, however, of the Statute could not take away from the Legislature the power of passing special legislation. This was the first case of the kind which had come before their Lordships since the passing of the Act of 1883; but he thought it ought to be understood that Parliament would not intervene in the case of persons who had failed to make payment at the proper time. Undoubtedly, the present case seemed to be one in which hardship would be inflicted if the patent were allowed to lapse, as large sums had been paid by the patentee, for which, if the patent lapsed, he would get no return. He would not oppose the Bill; but he agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) that it should be known that Parliament would not readily relieve patentees in this manner.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that without offering any opposition to the Bill, he thought it right to say that there was something in the nature of an understanding that since the time had been enlarged, Bills of this kind which, before had been frequent, should not be entertained for the future. There were two sides to the question of reviving patents. After the patent had expired, other persons had a right to invest their money in what might be regarded as the property of the public. It was only fair that the rights of persons who had invested capital on the faith that the patent had become public property should be regarded.

559
He desired to say that by way of additional warning.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, he was glad that this discussion had arisen on the Bill, as it would be of great use in guiding legislation. This was not the only Bill of the kind under the Act of 1883 which was likely to be brought before Parliament. There were, he believed, three persons likely to be applicants for the same indulgence if this Bill were read a second time. One of the parties had been already before him. There was a provision in the Act of 1883 which ought not to be overlooked in considering this question; and that was, that the Patent Office of the Board of Trade, under the Act of 1883, published a journal in which patents that had become void were duly published, so that intimation was given to the public that certain patents had become void. They were now at the end of February, and in September notice was given to the public that Potter's patent had become void.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARMY—INSANITARY CONDITION OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE AND DUBLIN BARRACKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDE, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, As to the state of the drainage of the Knightsbridge Barracks; and whether the death that occurred last week of an officer of the Royal Horse Guards was in any way attributable to the defective drainage of the officers' house? said, he had been induced to bring this matter forward in consequence of the many complaints he had heard in various quarters as to the insanitary state of the barracks at Knightsbridge. Over and over again officers quartered at the barracks had reported a state of things that pointed directly to defective drainage, and it was advisable that an inquiry should be made into the matter. There had been complaints also as to the condition of other barracks in London—the Horse Guards, and particularly of Dublin Barracks, which were in a most lamentable and disgraceful state, and where several cases of typhoid fever had occurred. A well - known and gallant
  560
  officer contracted typhoid fever in the barracks but a few months ago, and died of the disease. That such a state of things should exist as was said to be the case at Knightsbridge Barracks, which had been built only seven or eight years, was most unsatisfactory, and demanded some explanation. It should be ascertained who was responsible for building the barracks with insufficient sanitary arrangements. Surely this trifling with the health of Her Majesty's troops was not to be dealt with lightly; and he would express the hope that the matter might be made one of strict investigation, not by Boards composed of Royal Engineers and barrack-masters, but by thoroughly competent sanitary engineers. The noble Marquess concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he was not surprised if the sanitary arrangements of the barracks had been overlooked, and agreed that similar matters were treated too lightly in the past, if not with carelessness; but he was not surprised if the sanitary arrangements at the barracks were defective, since, instead of having the Hospital in the immediate neighbourhood of the Barracks at Knightsbridge, it was not so; but on a less healthy site, at an inconvenient distance from the barracks—namely, at the Regent's Park. These facts were placed before the Authorities at the proper time by the Medical Officers concerned—namely, those of the Household Brigade of Cavalry.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS), in reply, said, he feared he must confine himself to the Question on the Paper. Had he received Notice that the noble Marquess intended to refer to Dublin Barracks, he would have been prepared to answer his noble Friend's Question on that point; but he was not now in a position to do so. With reference to the Hyde Park Barracks, he was happy to assure the noble Lord that there was no suspicion whatever that the drainage was defective. He had himself examined the half-yearly reports of the principal medical officer for the Home district made in October and February last, and in that document it was stated that the Hyde Park Barracks were in good sanitary order. He had also examined the

  561
  quarterly report of the regimental medical officer in charge, and the weekly reports of the same officer, and all those reports were to the same effect—that the sanitary condition and the drainage of the barracks and officers' quarters were good. It was quite true that previous to June last there were complaints, but in that month a very important improvement was carried out in connection with the officers' quarters, by which all the soil-pipes were placed on the exterior of the walls; and since that time there had been no complaints from the troops or from the officers whose business it was to inspect the buildings. With regard to the last part of the Question, although he had not received an official report on the matter, he had received private information to the effect that the medical officer who was in attendance had no reason whatever to suspect that the death of the officer referred to was attributable to defective drainage.
  THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDE: Will the noble Lord inform the House whether the death was from typhoid fever or not?
  LORD HARRISsaid, he had given his noble Friend the best answer in his power. He would, however, add that, in the last weekly report of the regimental medical officer, it was stated that the case in question had typhoidal symptoms; but he understood that since the death the medical officer was quite satisfied that this was not a case of typhoid fever.
  THE EARL OE FEVERSHAMsuggested that the reply of the noble Lord (Lord Harris) was not quite satisfactory, and he asked whether it would not be better to have the buildings inspected by a competent sanitary engineer.
  LORD HARRISsaid, he would mention the matter to the Secretary of State for War; but he might inform their Lordships that, since the death of the officer in question, there had been an examination of the buildings by the Royal Engineer commanding the district and the regimental medical officer, and they were unable to detect any symptoms of defective drainage.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.