Sitting of 22 March 1826

PATENT RIGHTS—PETITION OF C. BRODERIP, FOR BETTER SECURITY OF.
Lord Palmerstonpresented a petition from Charles Broderip, esq. of the city of Westminster, setting forth,
"That the petitioner is the author of various inventions and improvements relative to the commercial and naval interests of the empire, the result of much study and expense, and from which he has hitherto derived no benefit, in consequence chiefly of the short duration of the exclusive privilege granted by letters patent, the limited number of persons who are permitted to embark as partners in an invention, and the publicity given to the descriptions thereof; the petitioner begs to state that his inventions are such as require a long period to mature and render profitable, and require a greater capital to bring into extensive operation, than the above limited number of individuals can be found to contribute; also, that the previous publicity of the descriptions might enable other persons to put his inventions into effect in foreign countries before, or

71
as soon as, the petitioner could bring them into operation in the British empire; that the great expense of obtaining letters patent, and the necessity of taking out many patents for any invention which combines several improvements, amount almost to a prohibition of the pursuit of any invention requiring long-continued study, with expensive and laborious experiment; that the French laws relative to inventions offer considerable inducement to their authors, in consequence of the trifling expense of obtaining patents, which amounts only to one-fifth part of the expense in England, and also from the greater security arising from the non-publication of the descriptions which can in no manner be communicated but by the author, or with his consent; great facility is also given in that country to the establishment of companies for the purpose of working such inventions; in the United States of America the property of inventors is also much more secure than in England, and the petitioner hopes that it will not be deemed irregular or improper that he should refer to the message of the president of the United States to Congress on the opening of its present session, in which it is recommended to pass a law for the purpose of giving still greater security and value to inventions in those states, the enacting of which law, the petitioner submits, will be the means of engaging many British authors to give the benefit of their inventions exclusively to the United States, if an alteration is not at the same time made in their favour by parliament, for, in consequence of the publication of inventions in this country, no such author will take out a patent here which might by such disclosure endanger his rights in America; the petitioner submits that an undue pre-Judice exists against patentees, from a notion that they are monopolists, the only legal provision in their favour having been made upwards of two hundred years since, in the act of king James the 1st against monopolies, and by which the Crown is enabled to grant patents for inventions, but only for the limited term of fourteen years; at the period in question little or no application had been made of science to manufactures in this country, and the inventions then in use were, for the most part, imported from foreign countries, where, having been brought to considerable perfection, they required only capital to render them immediately available and
72
profitable in this country, and the knowledge thereof was common to all British subjects, who, by travel or communication with foreigners, became possessed of it, without the necessity of study, invention, loss of time, or expense; when a few individuals were thus allowed the exclusive privilege of manufacturing such inventions, they might be considered as monopolists, although such monopolies might have been useful for a time; but the petitioner humbly submits, that the first authors of inventions or discoveries can in no case be considered as monopolists, inasmuch as their inventions would not have been discovered but for the peculiar talent and study of such authors, and would even then remain unknown, if not communicated by them to the public; the petitioner humbly submits, that no statute law protects inventors in the British empire, as it is entirely in the pleasure of the Crown to grant even the limited protection of a patent; while, on the contrary, in other countries, it is imperative on their governments so to do; but that ample security and protection is given in this country to every other kind of property, and particularly to that of literary authors and artists, by various acts of parliament passed in the course of the last one hundred and twenty years; also, that it is only within a century that any great application of scientific knowledge has been applied to commerce and manufactures, and that to some of those inventions this country is avowedly indebted for its great wealth and extensive commerce; that inventions of magnitude, such as Mr. Watt's steam-engine, the cotton machinery of Arkwright, and others, and Harrison's time-keeper, have never been brought to profitable use but after several years of labour, study, and expense, and not even then until the patents which had been granted were about to expire, thus leaving the authors of such inventions without remuneration or reward; such, in particular, would have been the case with the three distinguished inventors above named, had not the two first become themselves the manufacturers of their own inventions, and the last individual obtained a parliamentary reward; that the petitioner also submits that no invention of magnitude has ever been effected by persons in the trade or profession to which such invention applies, but always by those of a different profession or occupation; that

73
such inventions require, in general, extensive and various attainments, together with great study and leisure to bring to perfection, circumstances seldom compatible with the employments, education, and habits of practical men; those who possess the requisite qualifications can only be induced to devote themselves to such pursuits by the hope of deriving therefrom those honours and benefits which are attainable in the liberal professions, neither will capitalists furnish the requisite funds for carrying inventions into effect, but with the prospect of gains adequate to the risk; the petitioner humbly submits that scientific authors are not less entitled to consideration and reward than those of literature or the arts, and that their claims are often greater, inasmuch as considerable expense, and even many dangers, are frequently incurred, which the latter pursuits do not require; that the privileges enjoyed by literary authors and artists are principally, 1st, the entire property for twenty-eight years, and for life; 2nd, the right to register their works without material expense; 3rd, the division of such property among an unlimited number of partners; the petitioner therefore humbly prays, that the House will be pleased to take this subject into consideration, and to pass such law or laws as will give to him, in common with other authors of inventions and discoveries, the same rights and security as are now enjoyed by literary authors and artists, or such other relief as to the House shall seem meet."
The noble lord said, that he thought the subject was one which was fairly entitled to the consideration of the House, and hoped that his learned friend, the attorney-general, would adopt the views of the petitioner, and afford some further advantage to the meritorious class of persons to whose interests the petition related.
The Attorney-Generalallowed, that it was of great importance that any defects in the law relating to patent rights should be remedied, and that it was the duty of the House, as far as was consistent with policy and sound reason, to afford every protection and facility of operation to those who devoted their time, their fortune, and their talents, to improvements which were likely to become useful to their country, and beneficial to mankind. He did not, however, agree that all the
74
complaints of the petitioner, in the present instance, could be borne out by the facts, or that patentees laboured under any peculiar disadvantages, as compared with the possessor of copy-rights. One ground of complaint, that relating to the provision against more than six persons being the holders of a patent, had arisen out of the provisions of the 6th Geo. 1., called the Bubble act, and might be removed immediately. The second ground of complaint—that patentees had not a sufficient protection or reward from the present term of fourteen years, to which the exclusive right extended; that they were not in so good a situation as the holders of copy-rights; and that other countries, particularly France, had adopted a better and more equitable system with regard to patentees—seemed to him not supported by the real state of the facts. He had looked into the state of the law with regard to patents in France, and found that patents were granted for five, ten, but never longer than for fifteen years. Now, as the patentee in this country held his exclusive right for fourteen years, it could not be said that there was any great difference upon that point. He could, however, very well understand that there were particular cases in which the term of fourteen years might be found insufficient; such as inventions in which the machinery to be employed was so complicated, the capital required to bring it to perfection so extensive and so much beyond the ordinary calculations of cost, that the time afforded by law might be found scarcely sufficient to bring the work to any kind of perfection; leaving out of the question all views to an adequate remuneration. He admitted that it might be a matter of right and justice to extend the time usually allowed for the protection of patentees in that situation; and he believed that in several instances, parties had actually applied to the House, and obtained by bill such an extension of their exclusive right, as was deemed necessary to afford them that time for remuneration to which the ordinary state of the law was considered inadequate. Now, he preferred that parties should be still left to make these applications in extraordinary cases, and that it should be left to the discretion of the Crown and the legislature, to determine how far they were entitled to any unusual protection. Upon the next point, the expense of obtaining a patent, he allowed

75
that it was matter of proper consideration how far all unnecessary expenses, connected with new inventions, should be so reduced as to form no impediment to the obtaining that reward which they merited; but it was a mistake to suppose that the expense attendant upon taking out a patent was so much more in this country than in others. In France it was about 70 l., and here it was about 100 l.; so that the difference could not be considered as producing any very injurious effect. The petitioner complained that copy-rights were in a better condition than patents. In copy-rights, it should be recollected, that the protection was granted to the individual work, and not to the ideas, inventions, or principles contained in it; but in patents there was a protection for several years, during which they were not called upon to give such a particular description of their invention, as would enable other persons to avail themselves of it for the purpose of imitation. But it was totally different with respect to copy-rights, where any man might pirate the whole or part of a work the very day after it issued from the press, and that, too, with very little difficulty or danger of detection; whereas, if he violated the substance of a patent in any particular, he would be liable to an immediate prosecution. The assertion, therefore, that patentees were not placed on as favourable grounds as authors, seemed to be totally unfounded. He did not, however, mean to say that every protection which might be necessary, ought not to be afforded to works of complicated labour, expensive machinery, or extraordinary outlay of capital; and he agreed with the noble lord, that the subject was of the grreatest importance, and deserved the most earnest consideration of the House.
Mr. Maberly,while he admitted in its fullest extent the importance of the subject, could not agree that the protection ought to be held inviolable in every instance to the extent which the patentees considered likely to remunerate them. On the contrary, he believed that, in many cases, patents had a most pernicious effect upon the trade and enterprise of the country, and that improvement had been cramped or wholly stayed by the consequences of their exclusive and inviolable privileges being granted for so long a period. If the cases were submitted to a committee above stairs, he was convinced
76
he should be able to show that the time of the duration of some patents was longer than was necessary for any beneficial purpose.
Ordered to lie on the table.

WELCH MINING COMPANY BILL.
Mr. Peter Moorebrought up the report of the committee upon this bill. On moving, that the amendments be now read,
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had a few observations to offer upon this bill. It purposed, as he perceived, to enable the Welch Iron and Coal Company, to sue and be sued in the name of their Secretary. Now, he thought the House should recollect, that if they gave this bill their consent, they at the same time granted a kind of parliamentary sanction and authority to the purposes for which the company had been formed, and to the manner in which they proposed to carry their intentions into execution. Now, as he did not conceive that the House meant to give any such sanction or approbation to the companies which had been applying in this manner for the powers of an act of parliament, he thought the present a very fit opportunity to check such applications in future. He drew a very great distinction between companies formed to do what nothing but great companies could do—such as working the mines containing precious minerals in other countries, and various other undertakings, which required the hazard of immense capital, without the fear of great individual loss—and those companies which were created for undertakings of a mere ordinary description, and which were likely to prove ruinously injurious by competition with meritorious individuals, whose properties were invested in those branches of trade to which they proposed to apply their joint-stock capital and powers. Some of his constituents fearing such consequences from this company, and feeling they could prove it was not likely to be productive of any of the advantages, either to particular districts, or to the country at large, which it promised, had incurred a very serious expense last session in opposing the bill in the committee, and he, finding that the hon. member who was endeavouring to carry it through the House this session, and who had chiefly interested himself in its success, was never, on any occasion, present at that committee, and that there was no probability of the bill being

77
brought in in that session, came down to the House and moved, "That the order for the committee be discharged," and it was discharged accordingly. Seeing no better reasons for the bill this year than he had been able to discover last year, he would now move, "That instead of the amendments being read now, they should be read upon that day six months."
Mr. Peter Moore,after explaining the reason for the postponement of the bill, and his absence from the committee, observed that he hoped to be able so to convince the hon. member for Staffordshire of the propriety and importance of the bill, as to induce him to withdraw his opposition to it. The company had purchased mines at a cost of 100,000 l.; they had expended 100,000 l. more in machinery and preparations for working them; and they would probably lay out 2 or 300,000 l. more in the progress of their operations. They had incurred debts, and they had debtors; and it was for the purpose of legalising their actions, so as to protect the property they had invested already, as well as to secure the public in all their future contracts, that they now applied for leave to sue and to be sued. In the present state of the law, no man could recover any sum, however small, from the company, without filing a bill in Chancery, containing the names of all the directors, officers, and proprietors; and if any one of them should happen to die before a decision was pronounced, the whole of the proceedings must be commenced anew, with the same formalities. The bill, therefore, was not more a security to the proprietors than an accommodation to the public; and as there had not been a more respectable body of men associated together for half a century, he trusted the hon. member would see the propriety of withdrawing his opposition.
Colonel Woodhoped, that his hon. friend would not be induced to relax in his opposition to the bill. Every body who knew the mining counties of Wales, knew that this company was not at all necessary. Instead of there not being enough, there was too much iron there, and the great evil of this bill would be, that it would increase the competition to a mischievous extent.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the reasons given by the two hon. members for their opposition was very extraordinary. They alleged no public grounds. They did not say that it was likely to prove
78
delusive, but they only alleged that it would be opposed to the interests of the iron-masters with whom they were connected, in that part of the country where the bill would be carried into operation. He could not understand why, if such a company were to exist, their creditors was to be deprived of the power which it was now proposed to give them in all legal proceedings; since it was clear that if they had not that power, they would be without any adequate remedy.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, his objection to the bill was, that it gave the sanction of parliament to a company only for the purpose of enabling them to come into the market upon better terms than other persons. Every allegation in the preamble of the bill was false. It alleged, that the prosperity of Wales had been solely owing to mining companies of this sort, which he denied; and he would refuse, therefore, to put them upon a better footing than other individuals.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that the object of the bill was to raise the price of the company's shares in the market, and not to benefit Wales, or the iron trade. He had always stood up for individuals embarked in trade, against these overwhelming efforts of capital, and he would do so on this occasion. The object of the bill was, he repeated to give additional value to the shares, that they might become objects of gambling speculation.
Mr. Baringwas afraid that the House was inclined to proceed too hastily on the subject. Last year they passed all bills relating to companies of the most trumpery description, and now they seemed indisposed to pass any which was at all connected with a company. It became the House to be more consistent with their legislation. They ought to decide upon a general principle, and not with reference to the merits of particular companies. It was true that the sanction of parliament was, in some instances, sought for the purpose of giving facility to the circulation of shares, and of catching the unwary; but it should be understood, that although parliament should pass a bill to facilitate the operations of the company, and to free it from the inconveniences to which it might be otherwise legally subjected, it by no means pledged itself to an approval of the enterprise in favour of which the bill was required.
Lord Palmerstonconcurred in the opinion, that the passing of the bill in par-

79
liament by no means gave a sanction to the objects which the bill proposed to carry into effect. It was only intended by parliament to remedy the imperfections of the law, which would otherwise subject the partners of those companies to great delay and difficulties. A difference should be made between companies which were not proceeded in, and which deserved to be denominated wild speculations, and those which had an actual existence, and on which the shares were either paid, or likely to be paid up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he knew nothing of the particular company, the bill in favour of which was now before the House. Whether it would be beneficial or not to the principality of Wales, he would not say; but he thought it would have been well, if the parties, before they applied to parliament, had availed themselves of a bill which passed towards the close of the last session. He alluded to an act empowering the king in council to grant limited charters. An opportunity would have then presented itself of discussing the grounds on which this company sought the relief required by this bill. The House had first a right to inquire if the allegations of the parties requiring this relief were true; and, secondly, if true, why they had not first adopted the easy course of applying for the limited charter, which, by the act of last session, the Crown had the power to grant?
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that joint-stock companies came to that House to obtain bills of the nature of that before the House, in order to gain a character out of doors, and to enable them to sell their shares to advantage. The House ought to proceed with extreme caution on the subject, after the dishonest practices which had been committed by many of the companies who obtained charters last year.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was not aware that any notorious bubble companies had obtained sanction from that House. The number of applications made last year for acts of parliament, on the part of joint-stock companies, first called the attention of the House to the subject, and they almost came to a resolution not to entertain, as a matter of course, an application from any number of persons associated in partnership for permission to sue and be sued through their secretary. Towards the close of last year, parliament
80
made an alteration in the act of Geo. 1st, the effect of which was to enable the Crown to grant limited charters to joint-stock companies. When that legislative measure was adopted, the fever of speculation had abated, but was not altogether subsided. A great number of applications were made to the king in council for charters. Whilst those applications were under consideration, many of them were withdrawn, and he believed that the parties who had withdrawn them, were now very glad that they had not been put to the expense of procuring a charter. The company to which the present bill referred was instituted, he understood, for the purpose of working mines and minerals in Wales. One of the applications made to the privy council for a charter was by a company for working mines and minerals in Scotland, and the application was backed by the recommendation of the first people in Scotland. He was one of those who did not think it proper to advise the Crown to grant any privilege to a company which, by the general description of their object, might work any thing from a slate-quarry to a gold mine, if they could find any. The application of the Scotch company was therefore rejected. In acceding to such applications, it was necessary to exercise great circumspection, as he remembered last year the effect of sanctioning the formation of so many companies to work mines, was to raise the demand for wages, and to encourage combinations among the workmen throughout Staffordshire, and the other mining districts. The House should therefore be slow and jealous in giving countenance to these schemes; and he could not forbear from thinking, that this application would be more likely to be fairly entertained, and an impartial decision formed upon it, by hearing council before the privy council, than by having the preamble of the bill read in that House. He would avail himself of that opportunity of stating his anxiety, that the law of partnerships, in which applications of this kind were mainly concerned, and which was in many instances the ground of making them, should undergo some material alteration. The law upon this subject was extremely inconvenient and defective; and he should be most happy to see the alteration and improvement of it undertaken by some person more competent than himself to such a task. What could be more inconvenient than, in pro-

81
ceeding against a company, if any member of the partnership were absent, the proceeding must be staid until a writ of outlawry was executed against the absent person, and the execution of it sometimes occupied a twelvemonth. Whilst this writ was executing, another member of the partnership might be absent, and it would be necessary to adopt a similar legal course respecting him. Then it was necessary that the names of all the partners should be entered in the proceedings; and if the christian name of any of the parties was wrongly inserted, or he was otherwise improperly described, a plea of abatement was entered up, and the plaintiff must abide the issue of that plea, before he could take any further step. If the issue were against him, he would be obliged to bear all the foregoing expenses, to which, in prosecuting his suit, he had been liable, and to begin de novo. Many other inconveniences attended the present law, which he would be most happy to see remedied. Besides, great difficulty often presented itself in ascertaining who were all the partners, as this could only be ascertained from the partners themselves, who were also defendants, and who could not therefore give testimony in the case. Whether this could be remedied by having a registry of the number of partnerships, or whether in actions of this kind it would not suffice to have an action brought against a member of a partnership, and oblige the other members to abide the result, he was not at that moment prepared to say; but the interests of commerce and manufactures, and a due protection of the interests of the public, materially required an amendment of the law of partnerships.
The amendment was agreed to, and the further consideration of the report put off for six months.

EDUCATION OF THE POOR OF IRELAND.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 25,000 l. be granted to defray the expense of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland for the year 1826,"
Mr. Humesaid, that the society for which the present vote was claimed was totally unworthy of the attention of the House, for it had made statements relative to its services which were altogether false. He must observe, moreover, that the rich bishops and wealthy clergy of
82
the establishment of Ireland had contributed to this society only the paltry sums of 400 l. and 200 l. But the society had represented, that they educated 102,000 pupils, whereas it turned out that they educated only 52,000 l. What confidence could be placed in the bishops and clergy who belonged to this society, when they could make such false returns? When the pupils were more numerous, the House had voted only 22,000 l. On what pretence could they be now called upon to increase the vote by 3,000 l.? The society had stated the number of their schools, and of their scholars, and it would be found that, in all the four districts of Ireland, they had fixed upon a round average of seventy pupils to each school. When the public money was voted on the basis of the number of these scholars, such a system of taking the averages was most scandalous. But the society had charged at the rate of 400 l. a year for the salary of their registrar and his assistant, and 120 l. per annum for the salary of a corresponding clerk, and there were charges for twelve additional clerks, making in all 1,174 l. There was likewise a charge of 2,350 l. for the travelling expenses of ten inspectors. What would they think of no less than 9,400 l. being charged for gratuities to teachers; they being also paid their regular salaries? A committee was now sitting on the subject, and he should therefore move that 22,000 l. should be substituted for the proposed vote of 25,000 l.
Lord Miltonsaid, that his hon. friend might have gone much further than stating that the number of scholars in the four districts averaged at the rate of seventy for each school; for he would find that in every county in Ireland the comparison between the number of scholars and schools would produce precisely the same result. And yet, upon such a statement was the committee called upon to vote away the public money. Unless these returns of the society could be explained, he should consider them utterly disgraceful to those who published them.
Mr. Butterworthsaid, that the Kildare-street schools had done more good for Ireland than the hon. member was likely to do in twenty years, should his life be spared so long. He could not readily explain how the returns had been made out to tally with a particular number of scholars. Perhaps some general average had been taken. At any rate, he was

83
ready to repeat what he had said on a former evening, that it was not possible to conceive that so respectable a body would lend themselves to any fabrications, or that they would be parties to telling stories. They were men of the highest character; not clergymen of the church of England only, but of other Christian persuasions. There were several Quakers in it; there was a physician, Dr. Burroughs, a man of unimpeachable character and eminence in his profession; and Mr. Jackson, a respectable barrister, was secretary. Surely he might believe in the honour and integrity of these persons, at least as readily as he could trust to the representations of the hon. gentleman. Let the hon. member, however, put his allegations in black and white, and send them to Dublin, and no doubt they would be refuted. As to any sudden diminution of the numbers, that was readily accounted for by those who knew the state of the country. There were continual altercations arising between the Roman Catholic clergy and the managers of the schools, as to the propriety of using the bible as a school-book. A most respectable friend of his in Ireland had supported several schools for the education of the children of the Roman Catholic poor at his own expense. A disagreement took place upon the ordinary subject, and, through the influence of the Catholic priests, there were 500 children withdrawn from them in one week. It was quite possible that 50,000 children might be withdrawn from the Kildare-street schools almost all at one time; so great was Roman Catholic influence.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he wished to know whence the hon. member for Aberdeen derived his calculation relative to the average of seventy scholars.
Mr. Humesaid, he had taken it from the report of the society itself, for 1824.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he could not answer the statement, as he had not seen the document; but he was surprised that the hon. member should animadvert upon the conduct of the clergy and prelates, when he ought to have seen from the report, that not one of that profession had anything to do with the management of the society. The salary of the secretary was not 400 l., as the hon. member had stated, but 184 l. per annum.
Mr. Brightsaid, that from the suspicious circumstances connected with the proceedings of the Kildare-street Society,
84
he wished the vote should stand over until some gentleman connected with Ireland had explained those circumstances to the satisfaction of the House.
Mr. Frankland Lewisexpressed his regret that the committee of inquiry had not been able to lay their additional report before the House at an earlier period. It was however in preparation, and would shortly be produced, and the House would find, that it was a work of no small labour. The hon. member, adverting to what had been said as to the number of scholars, observed, that it was difficult to ascertain the number on the rolls, for three months together. The committee had taken the number at 61,000; and when it was stated at 70,000, it was not, perhaps, too high. When the parties more immediately concerned made their report amount to 100,000 children, they did it not with a view to deceive; for they candidly admitted that they had taken into account schools not at present in operation, but which were likely to be so in a short time. Although it might be wrong to make such a return, he begged to bear testimony to the high respectability of the managers of the Kildare-street Society. The honour and integrity of those gentlemen had been most unfairly attacked, and it was but justice to vindicate their characters from the stigma attempted to be fixed upon them.
Mr. Humedid not wish to cast any reflection on those gentlemen individually; but, in their collective capacity, they had certainly committed errors. How were those errors attempted to be reconciled? According to the report of the society, the number of children educated by them was 100,000, while, in point of fact, it was little more than half that amount. The report of the managers was, therefore, at variance with truth. It was in fact an unfounded statement. With respect to the share which the Roman Catholics had in the management of the society, it appeared that there had been only two gentlemen of that persuasion who were connected with it, one of whom was since dead. Was it therefore to be expected that the Roman Catholic population of Ireland would suffer their children to attend those schools, the managers of which were, with one exception, Protestants? An alteration in the system was loudly called for, and he hoped it would take place at no distant day.

NATIONAL PICTURE GALLERY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "that 9,000 l. be granted to his majesty for the purchase of Pictures for the National Gallery for the year 1826." In so doing he wished to explain to the House the circumstances under which the purchase had been effected. Having heard that three paintings of some of the most renowned of the old masters were on sale, and wishing to add them to the national collection, his majesty's government were fortunate enough in having agreed for their purchase; and, when the House was aware of their value he was sure there could be but one opinion on the subject. One of the pictures was by Poussin, another by Carracci, and the third was the production of that celebrated master, Titian. The three paintings were admirable specimens of their respective masters. The picture by Carracci was admitted to be one of the very best of that great master. It was a singularly beautiful painting, both with respect to its design and the exquisite felicity of its colouring. The picture by Titian had been some time in this country. Its subject was Bacchus and Ariadne, and it was confessedly the finest specimen of that great master. It was not a large picture, but its beauty was unequalled. He was quite certain that no person would grudge the sum of 9,000 l. which had been given for these pictures. Artists and persons of the first taste and judgment had concurred in praising their beauty. The late Mr. Angerstein had offered 5,000 l. for the Titian alone, so that the three pictures could not be considered dear at the price which they cost the country. They were now in the National Gallery, which was open to the inspection of the public.
The resolution was agreed to.