Sitting of 6 August 1851

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Limerick City, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ports and Harbours.
3° Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No. 2).

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthen moved for a Select Committee to settle the order in which Members shall accompany Mr. Speaker on all occasions when Her Majesty shall command the House to attend Her Majesty in the House of Peers; to consist of Lord John Russell, Sir Charles Wood, Sir James Graham, Mr. Henley, Mr. Goulburn, Sir J. Y. Buller, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Bernal, Sir J. Duckworth, Sir Joshua Walmsley, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Brotherton, Lord Marcus Hill, and Mr. Greene; three to be a quorum. His Lordship remarked, that on previous occasions there had been some want of decorum, and considerable inconvenience, and even danger, to Members, in obeying the summons of Her Majesty to attend Her in the House of Lords.
Committee agreed to.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that all the further consideration which he had been able to given to this Bill, had only confirmed the opinion which he had expressed in the first instance, that (however paradoxical it might appear) this was a measure which would
1906
work injuriously both to the Church and the great body of the lessees. He believed that, under it, good bargains would be made by certain rich parties in the Church; but then, as a drawback to the advantage which the Church might derive from such transactions as these, must be considered the risk that she would run from having to reinvest the money thus realised in land; and, in fact, independent of the great expense that must attend it, it was hardly possible for such a transaction to take place without the Church selling at a low rate and buying at a dear one. But the great body of lessees of Church property were persons who could not afford to buy out the land they held; and as the tendency of this Bill would be to prevent the renewal of leases, the poorer classes of lessees would inevitably lose all the benefit of their holdings. It was quite clear that if, under the operation of the Bill, worked by the richer classes, a sum of money was placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would be armed with a power that they must, and would, use in refusing to renew to the poorer lessees; and when these parties hereafter pressed for some legislation respecting renewals, the answer would be, "You have the opportunity of enfranchising, why don't you?" There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the Solicitor General. When a renewal took place, there must be a surrender of the old lease; and this being a surrender of the property, he doubted whether, whatever terms might be made, it would not be brought under the operation of this Bill. He objected to this Bill on account of the little time which had been given for its consideration. He did not believe that the parties who took charge of the interests of the Church could be exactly aware of what the Bill would do; and he was sure that the great body of the lessees had no idea of the position in which they stood, or of the effect which the great amendments which had been introduced into this Bill in that House would have upon their interests. Considering, then, the vast amount of property concerned in this matter, and that it was not fair, wise, or decent that, after not a fortnight's consideration of this measure in both Houses, Parliament should proceed to legislate upon so important a matter, he should move that the Bill be read a Third Time that day Three Months.
COLONEL SIBTHORPseconded the Motion, expressing his opinion that the Bill

1907
had been pressed through the House with so much haste, because it contained some underhand proceedings which the Government were afraid to submit to the fair consideration of the parties interested in it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Three Months."
MR. J. A. SMITHhoped the House would agree to the third reading. He was not insensible to the truth of the remarks that had been made with regard to the haste with which the measure had been got up, and the lateness of the period at which it bad been presented to the House; but he believed that the lessees, as a body, were greatly interested in the Bill becoming law. They had been suffering most unjustly for years from the consequences of legislation. As long as they had only to deal with the Church, they were satisfied that the interests of lessors would lead them to continue the practice of renewal; but when the Legislature vested a large portion of church property in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the lessees were placed in a position of the greatest difficulty and embarrassment. In fact, the lessees of that property had been unable to deal with it in any way; they could neither sell it nor mortgage it, and existing mortgages had been called in. This Bill might not entirely remove the difficulty, but it gave the parties a chance of dealing with the property in some way or other. It fell very far short of meeting the full necessities of the case, and he hoped it was only a prelude to legislation whi.ch would make a settlement in regard to the leasehold interests of the Church compulsory; but the present state of uncertainty so seriously embarrassed the lessees, and they had been so unfairly dealt with by recent legislation, that it was desirable that the Session should not close without giving them a chance of making some use of their property. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn) had declined to answer the question he put to him the other day, and which he should have repeated if the right hon. Gentleman had been present now, in reference to the property now in the hands and under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commission—whether it would be dealt with in the manner in which they would have to deal with property under this Bill? There was a general impression that the Commis-
1908
sioners had refused to renew all leases; and it was notorious that they had proposed terms of enfranchisement with which it was impossible to comply. Surely it was no more than justice that the holders of this property should know the principles upon which the Church Estates Commission intended to proceed. However, believing that, upon the whole, the Government were doing great good to the lessees by this Bill, and indeed had done their best, and were not responsible for the errors and omissions in the measure, he should support the third reading.
MR. ALCOCKbegged to say, in reference to the interests of the sub-lessees, for whose protection the Solicitor General had prepared a clause, that he was perfectly satisfied with the clause.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwould vote for the third reading, though he did not quite like the Bill, and must say, he thought the House ought to know what was the principle upon which the property that was falling into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission was now being dealt with. The urgency of the Bill very much depended upon that. Was it the fact, or not, that they were refusing to renew? Were the lessees checkmated? Were they to be compelled to enfranchise at all hazards? Surely some broad principles, some more strict and definite rule or rules, might be laid down as to the right of renewal; it was a very awkward and unsatisfactory position for the lessee to have to rely upon the vague words introduced into the Bill, and which appeared rather directed to the good feeling of the Church Estates Commissioners.
MR. AGLIONBYwas gratified to find that all those who had now addressed the House seemed agreed with regard to what was honest and fair dealing, and were not disposed to sacrifice long-established interests. They admitted the fair, and reasonable, and equitable claims of those who had had this property so long, and would not support the monstrous proposition (it would be supported by very few in that House, however it might be entertained by some in another place), that the lessees had nothing but a bare common right, the same as an ordinary tenant from year to year. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) seemed, upon the whole, to be holding the scales pretty even, and doing justice to both parties. If anything, the preponderance was rather against the lessees; but the advantage preponderated over the danger.

1909
A compulsory system might be ultimately necessary, but some good would arise out of this permissive one. It had been suggested that an ecclesiastical body, under a permissive measure, might say to a lessee applying as to terms, "No, we will neither sell nor buy; we will run out your lease;" but he (Mr. Aglionby) did not believe that any ecclesiastical body would dare to do that, which would be such a palpable evasion of the intentions of the Legislature. Higher terms than the lessee would give might be required; but still there would be some good gained, for it would be ascertained what arrangements had been attempted, and what terms asked; and if it should be found that the ecclesiastical body were not dealing fairly, Parliament would interfere and see that justice was done. He (Mr. Aglionby) had great doubt once whether the lessees would not he sacrificed by this Bill; but he thought it impossible for any one to get out of the words now introduced by the Government. The recognition was plain and decided, that the long-continued course of renewal had given a right; and he believed the Commission would carry out the words honestly and fairly. The lessees could not be justly deprived of a right—he would not call it a legal right, but one based upon the practice of centuries; indeed, he could point to statutes that might be thought to favour a claim in point of law, but he would not go upon that, but upon the moral right. They bad been induced to lay out their money and build; whole streets and towns had been built upon the moral certainty of renewal. Would any one say that was to be disturbed and swept away? The country would not stand it, and he did not believe the Church would attempt it. The words introduced into the Bill placed the matter upon a fair footing, and he was for passing the Bill.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERshould have felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment if he could believe that the House was agreeing to a Bill committing it to the views of the hon. Members for Cockermouth and Chichester; but he should abstain from voting for the rejection of the Bill, because he was sure that, according to its honest and its legal construction, it could not have the effect of pledging any ecclesiastical corporation to those views. The claim of the lessees was a claim by private individuals, for their private interests, against the public; a claim founded on no legal or equitable right—
1910
founded on nothing but this, that a course of mismanagement by those intrusted with the administration of the public interests in respect of church property had existed for a considerable period, from which the lessees, as a body, had derived large benefits, and they, to a certain extent, had the expectation of continuing to derive those benefits. A similar course of mismanagement might have existed with respect to Crown lands and lands in Ireland, where tenants expected renewals, because the landlords had been in the practice of renewing. But a man could not acquire a vested interest in the mismanagement of public property. He knew it to be public property; he knew that no contract could give him a right to the continuance of the advantages he thus derived; he knew that he was dealing with public bodies, with bodies responsible to the public, and who might be controlled and set right in the management of the property by Parliament at any time. No doubt there might be some degree of consideration which it would he fair and right, and consistent with a due regard to the public interests, for the Church Commissioners to give to the expectations lessees had been induced under particular circumstances to entertain; but to say that the expectations founded on such abuses had been encouraged by the law or the Legislature, and had grown up and existed in such a shape as to make an unalterable custom, with which Parliament could not interfere, was to state a proposition totally unfounded in fact. It must have been well known to the lessees that as long ago as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when there were alienations of church property going on, which the Legislature thought it right to interfere to prevent, an Act was passed putting it out of the power of any ecclesiastical corporation to bind the property of the Church for more than twenty-one years, or three lives. The lessees must have been fully aware that their expectations were precarious. Whatever moral obligation the Church might have contracted in particular cases towards individuals, should be taken into account; but it was a thing too nice to admit of measurement by Act of Parliament. There had been no course of dealing which warranted the lessees as a body in reckoning on perpetual renewal. The terms had been altered from time to time. The Church had imposed varying terms as to fine and rent upon successive renewals.

1911
That was inconsistent with anything but dominion over the property. The Church, too, had been placed in a very different position with regard to its property in recent times; formerly it could come to Parliament and obtain grants for church extension, but now it had become a settled rule that church extension must be provided for out of church property. The spiritual wants of the people were admitted, and the inadequacy of church property to provide for them, and an address had been carried to the foot of the Throne, praying for the adoption of measures by which the church property would be made more available for those wants: the House had shown their deep sympathy for the spiritual wants of the people, and their desire that church property should, as far as possible, be made available for the supply of those wants. The public interest must predominate over the rights of any lessees, and the Legislature should not wantonly sacrifice the church property to the claims of any individuals, unless they found that these claims rested upon a solid basis of law or equity, or that some adjustment could take place which might at the same time be beneficial to the Church, and recognise as far as was reasonable any moral claims on the part of lessees. He would, vote in favour of the third reading of this Bill, because he thought it went no further than that, and involved no pledge whatever that there should be any future legislation on the subject that would recognise any greater rights on the part of lessees than he had referred to.
MR. HEADLAMwas of opinion that the Commissioners ought to pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of parties arising from the practice of renewal. It had been argued that no one could acquire rights through the mismanagement of public property; but from that proposition he must express his dissent, reminding the House of the case of copyholders; he should refer also to what had occurred in regard to Crown lands, for the purpose of showing that the view which he impugned was utterly inconsistent with the public law. The fact was, that Parliament by its legislation, and ecclesiastical bodies by their practice, had promoted the growth of such rights; a particular mode of dealing with reversions grew up which conferred a right on lessees; and now that the House had taken from the lessees the right of renewal which they had undoubtedly had, care ought to be taken
1912
that, by the alteration of the law, the moral right which they had under the circumstances should suffer no prejudice.
MR. BARROWthought that the episcopal body would be enabled to deal more effectually with spiritual destitution by the sale of reversions, than they could by waiting thirty or forty years till leases ran out. With reference to the claims of lessees, he challenged any one to show that one shilling had been invested in building, drainage, or enclosure by the Church; and the annual value of the property held by lessees was owing to the investment of capital by those lessees from time to time. When Parliament enabled the Church to grant such leases, it enabled the Church to hold out inducements to lessees to invest money in the improvement of the property.
SIR MONTAGUE CHOLMELYexpressed his intention of voting against the third reading of the Bill. It had been much improved; but having been proceeded with when the House was so thin, he thought it was not desirable to persist in a measure which, under such circumstances, would be said to have been smuggled.
MR. HENLEYwithdrew his Amendment.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to; Bill read 3°; Two Clauses added; Amendments made; Bill passed, with Amendments.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 18.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it had been alleged that great disappointment would be felt if this Act were not passed; but though not opposed to the amendment of the Patent Law, he thought a Bill of so great importance ought not to be forced through the House at so late a period of the Session. The property in the Crystal Palace was sufficiently protected already; but if he were assured that no portion of the public money would be required to carry the Bill into execution, he should not be disposed to persist in his opposition.
MR. LABOUCHEREbegged to remind the hon. Member that the protection granted to the exhibitors at the Great Exhibition lasted only one year; but it was not on their account only that the Government

1913
thought it desirable that this Bill should pass into a law. He (Mr. Labouchere) pressed this Bill on behalf of the great body of inventors in this country, and on behalf of the public, who were interested in the carrying it into practical effect; for the object of the Bill was to substitute a simple system of obtaining patents for the complicated one which now existed. He greatly regretted that the Committee had been called upon to consider a Bill of that importance at that advanced period of the Session; but it was not his fault that it had not come earlier before them. He might remind the Committee at the same time that the Bill had been sent down late from the House of Lords, where an able Committee sat upon it, and gave to the measure as much consideration as had ever been bestowed upon any other that had come before Parliament. He might also state that the Bill was substantially the same as that which came from the other House of Parliament.
MR. BROTHERTONtook that occasion to say he regarded the Bill as an immense improvement on the existing law, under which many poor men had been deprived of all interest in the discoveries and inventions which they had given to the world, in consequence of not having at their disposal the means of procuring a patent. His constituents would greatly regret if the Bill were not passed.
MR. J. GREENEthought a Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament at the eleventh hour, ought to be considered with very great care by the popular branch of the Legislature. He felt it his duty to offer all the opposition in his power to the present Bill, though he admitted in some respects it was an improvement on the existing law. The most objectionable part of the Bill, to his mind, was the vesting in the Examiner a power of disclosing to others, possibly without intention, the secrets of an invention, which would do away with its value to the person seeking to make it the subject of a patent.
In reply to a question from Mr. HENLEY,
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the existing law, as applicable to patents in the Colonies, was to remain as at present, leaving the question of altering it, as regarded the Colonies, to be discussed on a future occasion. He proposed to insert words into the present Bill which would still enable the Crown to grant patents in the Colonies.
In answer to Mr. J. BELL,
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the owner of a patent which under the existing law applied only to England, would be empowered by the present Bill to extend it to another part of the United Kingdom on payment of one-third of the fees.
MR. J. L. RICARDOasked if he was to understand that an inventor taking out a patent for one of the three parts of the United Kingdom would only have to pay one-third of the fees enumerated in the schedule to the Bill?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the provision respecting the payment of one-third of the fees only related to patents already in existence, which it might be wished to extend to any other of the three parts of the United Kingdom to which the patent at present did not apply.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he found that, so far from the Bill having a tendency to cheapen patents, it would greatly add to the expense attendant on their procurement. In 1846, there were 494 patents granted for England, at a cost of 93 l. each; 178 were granted for Scotland, at a cost of 63 l. each; and 90 were granted for Ireland, at a cost of 119 l. each. He found that the cost of taking out a patent under the present Bill, which patent would extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, would be 175 l. The aggregate cost of the 762 patents taken out for England, Scotland, and Ireland, in 1846, was 67,866 l.; whilst, if they had been taken out under the present Bill, their aggregate cost would have been 133,350 l. He wanted to know from the Attorney General if the Bill provided any means by which the evil of patents costing more under it than under the existing law, could be avoided? In other words, whether, under the Bill, a person might take out a patent for only one of the three parts, instead of the whole, of the United Kingdom?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was a fallacy in the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ricardo). The hon. Gentleman assumed that every patent for which an application might be made, would proceed to its last stage, and that the applicant would be called upon to pay the three sums chargeable at the three different stages of the patent. But experience had shown it was not fair in the hon. Gentleman to assume that every patent applied for under this Bill would proceed

1915
to its last stage; for, of the patents which were now annually taken out, a very large proportion indeed—he (the Attorney General) believed he might safely say nine-tenths—ended in nothing, and produced no benefit either to the public or to the parties taking out the patents. By the law, as it stood at present, a man seeking to obtain a patent was obliged to pay the whole charge of procuring the patent at once, before he had an opportunity afforded him of putting his invention to the test of experience. But the Bill before the Committee proceeded on this principle, that, although there would be the same number of patents taken out for the first stage of three years as at present, yet, by the expiration of that term, the number of patents would be so weeded of all those which were not likely to produce benefit to the public or to the parties, that a comparatively small proportion would proceed to their final stage. Few of the original number would be renewed at the end of the first three years, and fewer still at the end of the first seven years. The Government had thought, on that view of the case, that it would be desirable to charge only a comparatively small sum for the granting of a patent in the first instance, in order that if the patentee, after a trial of three years, found his invention not likely to he advantageous to himself or the public, he might be at liberty to abandon it, and to do that without being subject to the serious expense to which he was at present liable.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Attorney General had assumed that nine-tenths of the patents taken out would prove worthless. If that were so, the remaining one-tenth would be in a worse position under the new than the old law, because the patentees would pay a higher price for their patents (being obliged to extend them to the three parts of the United Kingdom) than they had paid for extending them to England alone under the old law. When the Committee came to consider the compensation clause, the division of nine-tenths which had been assumed by the Attorney General would lead to some considerable discussion. He (Mr. Henley) would take the liberty of asking what prospect there was of this Bill becoming law? It was understood that Parliament was to be prorogued on Friday. Supposing the Bill passed through Committee that day, it might be read a third time to-morrow, and, as amended, it
1916
would have to he sent up to the Lords on the next day, who would have to consider fifty-four clauses, thirty of which had originated or been recast in the Lower House. Was it worth while, he would ask, to take up the time of the Committee with this Bill under those circumstances?
MR. LABOUCHEREwould repeat that he attached great importance to this Bill, and had done all in his power to induce the House to proceed with it. He was not ignorant, however, that it was in the power of even a very few Members, who were determined to obstruct the passing of a Bill, to do so by getting up repeated discussions, and going over again and again the same arguments. He could only appeal in such a case to what he was satisfied was the public feeling out of doors, and to the fact that a large majority in that House were exceedingly desirous to see the Bill pass; while at the same time, he had no right to complain of Gentlemen following the line of conduct which they thought in accordance with their duty. The Bill had received, in the other House, the most attentive consideration; and he firmly believed that there was a general concurrence in its favour. With regard to the other House, it would be for them to consider whether or not they would consent to the Amendments which had been made; but, knowing that a vast majority of the other House attached great importance to the measure passing during the present Session, and as the Amendments did not alter materially the provisions of the Bill as originally introduced, he believed they would have no great difficulty in agreeing to the adoption of those Amendments. The Government had done their duty in pressing forward the measure, and it would not be their fault if it did not pass during the present Session.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, his right hon. Friend appeared to be satisfied that the Government had done its duty; but that was no reason why Members of that House should neglect theirs. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed a tone which would lead hon. Members to believe that he conceived there was an unfair desire on the part of the Committee to obstruct the passing of the Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) was not aware that anything like unfair obstruction or vexatious opposition had hitherto been shown to this Bill. He thought it the duty of hon. Members in that House to canvass the details of this Bill, quite as much as it was the duty of

1917
the Executive to push it; and he was not I aware that hon. Members would discharge their duty if they were to take this Bill wholesale, without discussion and without investigation, considering the great importance of the subject they had then under their deliberation. He, for one, would not be a party to any vexatious opposition to the Bill; but he could not understand that hon. Members would discharge their duty by refraining from making such observations or objections as occurred to them during the progress of this Bill. The Bill could only pass through Committee that day; it must be reported to-morrow with large Amendments, and it could not be read a third time before Friday. The House of Lords must consider the Commons' Amendments, and the Commons must have a conference with them, unless the Lords approved of those Amendments without a conference with the Commons. The right hon. Gentleman said, this Bill had been most carefully considered elsewhere. What became of that very careful consideration when hon. Members were now talking of recasting the measure? The Bill, as introduced by Her Majesty's Government, was altered in the other House of Parliament as regarded the Colonies. The clause they were then debating was introduced omitting the Colonies; a disposition had been manifested by that House to deal with that point, and then after a quarter of an hour's discussion, the Government told the Committee that the Colonies were nothing compared with the great urgency of passing this Bill. Then came the extraordinary announcement on the part of the Attorney General, that nine-tenths of all the patents hitherto granted were utterly useless to the public and to the parties by whom they were obtained; and yet the Committee was then asked to make provision for the continuance of a system which had been so represented. That was no answer to the statement of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) as to the remaining one-tenth. It was presumed that only that one-tenth of the patents which might be granted would be carried through all their stages. If that were so, that one-tenth would be rendered more expensive, so far as this Bill was concerned, than at present. That, he (Sir J. Graham) said, was an irresistible argument. The argument was only persuasive on the part of the Attorney General, as applied to the nine-tenths of the whole which the hon.
1918
and learned Gentleman said would be useless. Hon. Members were not to be mere mutes as respected this Bill; they must discuss the Bill. If they were not to discuss the Bill, it had better be left in the possession of the Government, to be dealt with as they pleased.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had told them they were not to be mutes on the occasion of passing so important a Bill; considering, however, that they had discussed the Bill at two consecutive sittings in Committee, he thought Gentlemen opposite could hardly be regarded as mutes, unless it was in the sense understood in Eastern countries, where mutes were employed to strangle. The last time they discussed the measure, that right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) urged upon the Government whether it would not be well to leave out the Colonies—doing so, as he believed, not in an obstructive, but in a friendly spirit, on the ground that it was part of the measure which was to simplify the patent law of this country. In the simplicity of his heart, he (Mr. Labouchere) adopted his advice—hoping that he would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman; but now the right hon. Gentleman fiercely attacked him for having left out the Colonies, and made it a charge against the Government. He had nothing more to say upon the point, and he hoped the Committee would proceed at once to consider the clause.
SIR DE LACY EVANSasked if there did not appear to be something like a factious opposition to this measure? It was important that the public should know why this Bill was stopped in its progress, two or three divisions having already taken place upon it. He very much deplored the course taken by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should tell them distinctly whether he was opposed to the Bill or not. If the Bill was lost, the responsibility would be upon the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would not shrink from demanding on behalf of the public an ample discussion of the whole details of this Bill; and with regard to the frankness with which he had expressed his opinion, in consequence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), he (Sir J. Graham) did not address the observations which he had done to the Committee, until the right hon. Gentleman had, in very distinct terms,

1919
charged him with offering a vexatious opposition to this Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) altogether denied that charge. With regard to the question of the omission of the Colonies, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) said, he (Sir J. Graham) had expressed himself adverse to the inclusion of the Colonies, and that he had desired that they should be omitted; but that now he was desirous that the Colonies should be reinserted in the Bill. He had not expressed any such opinion. He was disposed to believe that it was wholly inexpedient, when the Government had declared that it was not their intention to change the statute law of the Colonies in regard to patents. In the Crown colonies, the Secretary for the Colonies would still exercise his discretion in directing the law officers to grant patents; and the Committee knew that the noble Lord was against extending the law of patents; and in the representative colonies they must proceed by legislation, and they could not pass any statute with reference to patents which the Secretary of State had not the power of suspending. Of course, the Secretary of State would be uniform in his opinion, and would exercise that power of suspending the extension of the law of patents to those representative colonies. He (Sir J. Graham) was asked, if he was favourable to the patent law as it now existed? That question had never been debated. It was not debated on the second reading of the Bill; and he repeated the observation he made before—that they were in an extraordinary position as respected the manufactures and the commerce of this country. If they were to take the Government as their guide, they had the President of the Board of Trade pressing this Bill forward in the House of Commons; and they had the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in the other House declaring that he was altogether opposed to the principle of the law of patents. Then they had the Secretary for the Colonies declaring against the extension of patents by the law officers of the Crown to the Colonies; and the Attorney General agreeing with the right' hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in charging hon. Members with offering a vexatious opposition to this Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) said, if they looked to the principle of the Bill, so far from there being anything like united counsel on the part of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the great question of principle, it was quite clear there was a palpable di-
1920
vision of opinion; and, while that opinion was so divided, he did not think it was at all unfair on the part of independent Members to ask, either directly or indirectly, that the principle of patents should not be altered at so late a period of the Session.
The ATTORNEY GENERALbegged to say, with regard to the noble Lord the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, that while the right hon. Gentleman had represented him as opposed to the principle of the law of patents, he forgot to state that the present Bill was introduced to the other House by that noble Lord, and that he took care at the time he introduced the Bill to say, that though he did entertain views opposed to the principle of a patent law, he was conscious that he was in a minority upon the question, and that the country was not prepared to adopt the views which he held. The whole of the hon. Members in that House who had taken any part in that discussion had affirmed the principle that patents should continue. Then, if it was advisable to continue patents, the present state of the law being defective, it was necessary to change that law. The right hon. Member for Ripon, and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. L. Ricardo), said, the present Bill would have a tendency to make patents more costly than under the old system, inasmuch as a man would now be obliged to take out a patent, for the three parts of the United Kingdom. But the difference was this—the patents which at present were not taken out for Scotland or Ireland were those of a less valuable character. The really good patents were those which were taken out for the whole of the United Kingdom. Then a patent, instead of costing, as it did at present, above 300 l., would cost only 175 l. Again, the inferior patents would not only extend to the whole United Kingdom instead of a part of it, but they would be had at a cost of 25 l. for the first three years for the whole United Kingdom, instead of 96 l. for one single division of it, as at present. He could not but think, therefore, that in point of economy there would be a great advantage to all classes of patentees. With reference to the charge of vexatious opposition to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had entirely misconceived what fell from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere). His right hon. Friend had merely called the attention of the Committee to this circumstance, that it they persisted in going again and again

1921
into clauses which had been already discussed on a former occasion, the consequence would be the loss of the measure for the present Session. The Bill only aimed at a simplification of the process by which patents were obtained; and as respected the questions whether patents should be extended to the Colonies, and whether the publication of a patent abroad would vitiate a patent taken out in this country, as these were matters not necessarily involved in the more immediate objects and advantages of this Bill, the Government had relinquished them; but they sought to achieve that which was the object of every one, namely, the cheapening of the process by which a patent might be obtained. He could not but think that was an object in achieving which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon might have lent the Government his assistance.
MR. J. GREENEdid not see how legislation at the eleventh hour of the Session was likely to remedy the serious inconveniences alleged to attach to the existing law relating to patents. He had given the existing law a very deep consideration, and although he had never taken out a patent himself, he was connected with persons who had, and he was prepared to state, that though there were some evils incident to the present law, it was infinitely less objectionable than the proposed one.
MR. ROCHEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, that the patent laws should be abolished altogether. They might depend upon it that nine-tenths of the patent inventions under any law that could be passed, would be nothing less than so many stumbling-blocks in the way of improvement. The best thing the Government could do would be to withdraw the Bill altogether. They evidently were not agreed on the subject of patents. For himself he could say, that while he perfectly concurred with the Vice-President of the Board of Trade on the subject, he was entirely at variance with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he certainly thought it a most disorderly proceeding, that when they were considering the 18th clause of a Bill in Committee, they should be called upon to discuss a general question involving the principle of the Bill. On that point the House, he hoped, would allow him to say a few words. His hon. Friend who had just spoken was
1922
of opinion, as his words would import, that the law of patents ought to be abolished; and the conclusion his hon. Friend therefore drew was, that they ought to withdraw the Bill. If the rejection of the Bill would have the effect of abolishing the patent law, he could understand that argument; but if the only effect would be to leave the law as it was without the improvement which the present Bill was intended to make, he could not comprehend it. He appealed to the House whether they would not be acting more in accordance with order by going on with the discussion of the clauses of the Bill; and if it should appear that that discussion would occupy more time than the Session would afford, then the Bill must of course be postponed; but he certainly was of opinion that if they would at once proceed with the consideration of the clauses, the Bill still might pass this Session.
After some discussion on the opposition offered to the present progress of the Bill,
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive.
Clause 24, with amendments, agreed to.
Clause 25 struck out. Clauses 26 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49, providing for compensation to present officers out of the Consolidated Fund.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMasked if the Government could form any estimate of the number of persons who would claim compensation under the clause, and of the amount of that compensation? There had been a most formidable return made to the House relative to the expense of patents, from which it appeared there were four offices—the Home Office, the Signet Office, the Great Seal Patent Office, and the Office of the Lord Chancellor. He would read to the House a few of the persons in those offices who received fees. In the Signet Office there was the first clerk and his deputy, the second clerk and his deputy, the third clerk and his deputy. In the Great Seal Patent Office, there was the patent clerk, the clerk of the haniper, the deputy clerk of the haniper, deputy-seals, and his (Sir J. Graham's) intimate friend, chaffwax, who had since disappeared. In the Lord Chancellor's Office, there was the sealer, the gentleman of the chamber, and the great seal clerk. These officers all received fees, and he believed it was contemplated to give them compensation. He wished to know whether the Government had formed any estimate of

1923
the gross amount of compensation which would be given, and whether they were prepared to state the number of persons who would have claims for compensation? Really, this was a matter of the gravest importance. The compensation to the Six Clerks in Chancery (for which he took great blame to himself) arose very much in this way. He might entertain a wrong opinion, but he entertained a very strong opinion, that the days of the patent law in this country were numbered. He did not think the law of patent would be long maintained, and assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was right, there would then be a statutable recognition of the claims of all these recipients of fees for compensation, not out of the fund from whence they drew their incomes, but out of the public purse. The patent law might he repealed, and they might have a recent statutable claim for compensation in perpetuity. He had erred in this particular in the. case of the Six Clerks in Chancery, and he was anxious that the error should not be repeated. The offices which were about to be abolished only received fees from the voluntary will of the people, and could have no claim against the public purse. They had not had a very amicable discussion this morning, but he did throw out this suggestion in an amicable spirit for the consideration of the Government.
The ATTORNEY GENERALbegged the House to listen to the figures, which had been calculated on very good authority. The total cost of an English patent was 94 l. 6s., divided into two parts, that of public payments and private payments. The private proportion of the gross amount was 22 l. 14 s. 4d., of which 9l. went to the law officers, and might, therefore, be thrown out of consideration. Even then, he was told, they would be able to absorb at least one-half of that reduced amount by taking into the service of the present Commission some of the old officers, and of course they would not give compensation to any officers who were still made available. The officers in the Home Office discharged other duties, and were paid by salary, and, of course, being paid by salary, they would continue to receive their salaries, and would have no claim for compensation. Very few of the present officers had the fees; they might take them, but they were carried to the public account in all cases in which the officers received salaries. In the Secretary of State's, in the Signet, and in the Great
1924
Seal Patent Offices, the officers generally, having other duties to perform, were paid by salary, and would therefore receive no compensation. He really believed, taking away those who were paid already by salary, those who were otherwise employed and were paid by salary, and those who would be employed under the new system, a very small amount of compensation would be necessary.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMwished to know how many would have claims for compensation, and what was the estimated amount of that compensation? He still thought that the Attorney General had not noticed the observation he had made, that if they adopted this clause they would place these persons in a new position, giving them a claim on the public purse, and not on the fees received. Now, they derived their incomes from patents taken up voluntarily, and had no collateral claim whatever on the public purse. For the first time it was proposed they should have a claim on the Consolidated Fund, and being the first time, he thought the claim ought to be viewed with jealousy and caution.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, the only persons who would be entitled to compensation would be the clerks in the Signet Office, who were paid fees on their own account. It was impossible to state precisely, but the House might reckon with great confidence there would not be a very large amount of compensation.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought a more distinct answer ought to be given by the Government to the question of the right hon. Baronet.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that to show he did not wish to impede the progress of the measure, if the suggestion he had made was worthy of consideration, the clause might he agreed to, the Bill might be reported to-morrow, and the alteration might be included by arrangement on the report. He admitted that the amount of fees, particularly whilst the law was in a state of change, must be uncertain; but he could see no injustice in placing the compensation for fees received at the will of the public upon the fee-fund arising from patents hereafter to be granted. That fund might be kept distinct, and whatever the Treasury might award as compensation to the present officers, might be made receivable from it. He thought that would be a strictly equitable arrangement. The charge on the public purse would be avoid-

1925
ed, and compensation would be dependent on the fees henceforth received, just as the income now derived by the persons claiming compensation was dependent on the amount of fees received. It would be quite possible to keep the fee fund distinct, and he wished the House to take till tomorrow to consider the suggestion he had made.
MR. LABOUCHEREwas much obliged to the right hon. Baronet, and his suggestion should be considered on the Report.
MR. VERNON SMITHwished the Government to state the maximum amount of compensation that could be required.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaw some difficulty in making an exception to the general system of bringing all the fees into the Consolidated Fund. It might be provided that compensation should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, not exceeding the amount of fees payable in respect of patents.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMwould rather not raise a charge on the Consolidated Fund. That was the very thing he wished to provide against. The Attorney General had told the House that many of the officers were paid by salary, or would be made available under the new Commission, in both of which cases they would not be entitled to compensation. He went on to say that the amount of compensation would be small. If then the surplus amount of fees, after paying the expenses of the Commission, would be small, those having claims would not be numerous. He (Sir J. Graham) saw no difficulty in having all the fees received for patents kept in a distinct fund, to he chargeable with all the expenses of the new machinery; and, if there was sufficient, to be available for compensation; if there was not sufficient, then the whole surplus might be applied as far as it would go. That would be an equitable arrangement, and would steer clear of the evil which he foresaw, and was anxious to avoid, of constituting, in the shape of compensation (a claim which, to say the least, was very doubtful), a perpetual charge on the Consolidated Fund.
MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that the hon. Baronet had set out by asking the Government to give time to the consideration of this suggestion. He could assure the hon. Baronet it would he fairly considered. The Attorney General would consult with the Treasury how far it was possible to meet the wishes of the right hon. Baronet.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the amount of private payments for patents was very small.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMhad quoted from a return made in the year 1849, giving the greatest possible detail on the subject of fees for patents. Unless there had been some change since 1849 in the Signet, the Great Seal Patent, and the Lord Chancellor's Offices, fees were paid to a great number of officers. If his suggestions should be worth the consideration of the Government at all, it would be necessary to revise the 44th clause, which they had already passed, and which provided for the payment of all fees into the Consolidated Fund.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought the officers would have some equitable claim for compensation, even if there was no surplus from fees after paying the expenses of the new machinery, because there being no surplus would he owing to the fees having been abolished for the benefit of the public.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that raised the difficulty which he wished to avoid. He did not wish to argue the question of contingent injury consequent upon a diminished amount of fees. It was precisely that view of a contingent equitable claim on the public purse which had given rise to a great variety of compensations of a most unjust and most inexpedient character. This was not the time, however, to argue the question.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to; Schedule agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT BILL—MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
"That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement Bill, without Amendment; and agree to one of the Amendments with an Amendment, and disagree to others of the Amendments; for which disagreements they assign Reasons."
Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Amendments considered:—House agree to the Amendment made by their Lordships to the Amendments made by this House; and do not insist on the Amendments to which their Lordships have disagreed.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL—MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
"That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Law of Evidence Amendment Bill without Amendment, and agree to one of the Amendments with Amendments, and disagree to another of the Amendments; for which disagreement they assign Reasons."
Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Amendments considered:—House agree to the Amendments made by their Lordships to the Amendments made by this House; and do not insist on the Amendment to which their Lordships have disagreed.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLbrought up the following Report of the Select Committee appointed to settle the order in which Members of the House of Commons should accompany the Speaker in all cases where Her Majesty commanded the attendance of that House at the House of Peers:—
"The Select Committee appointed to settle the order in which Members shall accompany Mr. Speaker on all occasions when Her Majesty shall command the House to attend Her Majesty in the House of Peers have considered the matter to them referred, and have come to the following Resolutions, which they have agreed to Report to the House:—'Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, in order to insure regularity in the order of proceeding from this House to the House of Lords, on occasions of opening or proroguing Parliament, every Member desirous of attending Mr. Speaker do communicate his intention in writing to the clerk of the House, in case the House be not sitting, before the hour of five in the afternoon of the day preceding, and, if the House be sitting, between the hour of three in the afternoon and the rising of the House on the day preceding. That, on the House being summoned to attend Her Majesty, the Cabinet Ministers present do immediately follow the Speaker. That, on the day of meeting or prorogation, before any other business be entered upon, the names of the Members so sent to the clerk be put into a glass, and arranged according to the order in which they shall be drawn forth there from. When the House is summoned to attend Her Majesty, the Members now so arranged shall be called over by the clerk, and the Members shall proceed in such order to the House of Lords, in ranks of four. That, after the House has been summoned to attend Her Majesty, no Member of this House do remain in, or cross, or pass through, any of the lobbies or passages leading from the door of this House to the door of the House of Lords, and the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do keep the said passages clear of Members.'"
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmoved, that the Report he printed, and said that tomorrow he should move that the House
1928
agree to the Report of the Committee. It was very desirable, in order to prevent the confusion and scramble that was so frequently witnessed upon such occasions, that some order should be agreed to. The Committee considered this the best mode they could adopt: but hereafter, if they found any inconvenience to result from it, there would be an opportunity of making any alterations that should be thought necessary.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that although it was desirable to prevent the scramble which sometimes took place on proceeding from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, it should be borne in mind that what was now recommended was an innovation on former practice. He begged also to observe that, according to the plan now recommended, Members arriving in town on the day preceding the opening or proroguing Parliament, would not have an opportunity of putting down their names for the ballot next day. It was also quite new that Cabinet Ministers should take precedence of all other Members of the House. He had always understood that the words "Cabinet Minister" were a conventional term utterly unknown to the constitution or the House. The distinction of Privy Councillor was known to the constitution, but not that of Cabinet Minister. If his recollection served him right, when he attended the coronation of William IV. he walked side by side with Lord Althorp, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader of the House of Commons. They took their places there merely as representatives of the people, and without any other official distinction whatever.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLwished to know how a Member who arrived in town on the day of the opening or proroguing Parliament, could not get his name placed on the list of those who desired to accompany the Speaker?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the distinction of Cabinet Minister was sufficiently well known to warrant the suggestion of the Committee on that point. With respect to the usage of the coronation, it had been considered by the Committee; but there was an obvious distinction between the occasions now referred to, and the occasion of a coronation, because at the coronation it was not necessary for Members to go in any particular order, there being seats for all when they arrived at their destination; but it was different in

1929
the case of going to the House of Lords, where it was impossible to find room for all the Members. With respect to the case of Members who were out of town, but who wished to attend the Speaker, there need be no difficulty, because they could write to the clerk to that effect.
Report brought up, and read; to be taken into consideration To-morrow.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—General Board of Health (No. 3).
3a Canterbúry Association; Coalwhippers (Port of London); Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Petty Sessions (Ireland); Collection of Fines, &c. (Ireland); Metropolitan Interment; Crown Estate Paving; General Board of Health (No. 2A); Emigration Advances (Distressed Districts, Scotland); New Zealand Settlements; Constabulary Force (Ireland).

Summary of Day
Their Lordships met, and having gone through the business on the Paper, the House adjourned till To-morrow.