House of
Lords.

duced.

that act of 1835, as to the power of disclaiming and of extending the term of the patent; and the importance of supplying the omissions referred to in the discussions on that measure when in the House of Commons (n) was brought prominently before the committee.

The result of this inquiry, coupled with the general feeling on the part of the public as to the necessity of the revision of the whole patent system, Two Patent led to the introduction into the House of Lords of Bills introtwo Bills-the one on the 24th day of March by Lord Brougham, the other on the 10th day of April by Earl Granville-both founded on the same general principles, differing only in minor details. The two Bills so introduced, with petitions to the House of Lords praying for the reform of the patent laws, were referred to a select committee, and numerous witnesses, representing various interests, and almost every class in this country and in other countries, were examined, and the evidence was directed to the question of the general policy or impolicy of patents, as well as to the details of the specific measures before the committee (0). The general effect of the evidence being in favour of some of the provisions of each Bill, and suggestive of provisions not contained in either Bill, a third Bill amalgamating the two, and containing such provisions, was introduced by the Earl Granville on the 23rd day of June, and having passed the House of Lords was sent down to the House of Commons on the 4th day of July.

The advocates of the existing system, and oppo

(n) See ante 3.

(0) It may be necessary to warn the unprofessional reader of that evidence not to be misled by the form of questions and answers; many of the witnesses were wholly unaware of the particular views which suggested the questions, and the result has been that several of the witnesses have been surprised on perusing their evidence in print, at the coun

tenance which some of their answers appear to give to the views against the policy of patents which suggested many of the questions. The print of the evidence presents a curious confirmation of the well-known rule of practice before our legal tribunals, that a witness is not to be led or as it were cross-examined by his own counsel,

nents of all reform and of patents generally, were Proceedings in not idle during the successive stages of the Bill in the House of House of Commons; alterations were made in the Commons. form of the Bill, and a clause found its way into the altered Bill which would have defeated one of the main provisions of the measure, by letting in opposition before obtaining provisional protection, and thus the beneficial operation of immediate provisional protection, which had been practically tried with the most satisfactory results under the Protection of Inventions Act during the pendency of the Patent Bill in the House of Lords, and which had been the subject of evidence before that committee, would have been virtually defeated. The Bill, as amended by the House of Commons, was returned to the House of Lords only the evening of the day before the close of the session, and it being impossible to reprint the amendments for the consideration of their lordships, the measure was necessarily postponed.

Offices Bill.

Concurrent with the Patent Bills, there was Appointpending in parliament a measure for simplifying the ment to appointment to offices and the manner of passing grants under the Great Seal, introduced in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of 1848 on the signet and privy seal offices; the subject of patents for inventions was expressly excepted from its operation, but when it appeared that the Patent Bill would be lost for want of time to carry it through the House of Lords, the exception was struck out, and three of the useless stages of the old system were thereby abolished (p); but the other inherent defects in the system, which it was the object of the Patent Bill to obviate-as, the want of any protection until the actual sealing of the patent; the inadequate power and tribunal of the law officers; the caveat system; the delay and obstruction by interested opponents to the

(p) See 14 and 15 Vict., c. 82; Law and Practice of Patents, p. 211.

Bills of 1852.

progress of grants; the triplication of fees for distinct proceedings and patents for the three countries; the impossibility of obtaining information as to the subject of patents in progress or not specified-were wholly unprovided for.

The small modicum of reform effected by the above Act was represented by the opponents of the comprehensive scheme of reform which had been lost under the circumstances just stated, as sufficient, coupled with the general jurisdiction of the law officers in the three countries, to effect all that was necessary, and various propositions were made and rules suggested with this view; but the law officers were not thus diverted from prosecuting the comprehensive measure which had been so fully explained and strongly recommended by the Attorney-General, Sir A. E. Cockburn, on moving in the House of Commons the second reading of the Bill (r).

In the session of 1852, Lord Brougham, on the 13th of February, and Lord Colchester, on the 30th of March, introduced a Bill, in form substantially the same as the Bill returned from the House of Commons at the close of the preceding session; with the exception of two important clauses (s) which had been deliberately rejected or adopted by the House of Lords or Commons in the preceding session. The two Bills were referred to a Select Committee; the Bill of Lord Colchester was sent down to the House of Commons, and referred to a Select Committee to consider its provisions; some amendments were made in Committee; the House of Commons adhered to their former decision, and after a conference between the two Houses, the Bill, as returned from the House of Commons, was agreed

(r) On the 25th July, 1851. See 118 Hansard, p. 1534, and post.

(s) The House of Lords was of opinion that the publication or use of an invention in foreign parts should have the same effect on the validity of a

patent as prior publication or use in this country; also, that the colonies should not be included in the grant for the United Kingdom. The House of Commons resisted both these alterations in the existing law and practice.

to by the House of Lords, and the measure received the royal assent on the last day of the session.

Such is a general outline of the history of Patent Law Reform in this country, and of the circumstances which led to the passing of the Patent Law Amendment Act, a measure which will probably bring to issue the question of the policy and existence of such privileges in this country; for if abuses and dissatisfaction, such as existed under the old system, are essentially inherent in any system whereby property in inventions in the arts and manufactures is created and protected, it will be difficult hereafter to maintain such property, however great the merit of the invention.

SECTION II.

OBJECTS AND PROVISIONS.

The Patent Law Amendment Act does not in terms repeal the existing systems; the preamble affirms the expediency of amending the law; the clauses provide for the establishment of a system which in superseding the existing system enabled pending applications to be prosecuted and completed-otherwise various difficulties might have occurred in the transition to the new system. It must not be supposed that with every precaution such transition can take place without some difficulty; but the objects with which the several clauses were framed being understood, the applicants for patents and administrators of the new system will be enabled to concur in giving effect to its provisions.

The Act constitutes the Lord Chancellor, the Master Commisof the Rolls, and six Law Officers of the three sioners, s. 1. countries, with such person or persons as the Crown may think fit to appoint, Commissioners of Patents for Inventions, with general power for the management

C

Want of conjoint action.

at reform.

and regulation of all matters not specially provided for by the Act.

Under the old system no community of action existed; each of the above named Commissioners had an independent and generally a distinct authority and jurisdiction, and the result was that the most obvious reforms were omitted by reason of the want of communication with each other as an authorised Board. The repeated attempts to correct abuses and introduce improvements would furnish many illustrations of this. The Law Officers have struggled repeatedly against the vague and general titles under which applications were made; the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Campbell) when Attorney-General introduced a rule as to deposits in opposed cases; this led to oppositions taking place as a system, and increased the abuse of caveats; then an open patent, or one which had passed the Law Officers without a deposit, was at a Attempts premium, so to speak; and such patents would occasionally lie at the stage prior to the sealing ready to receive any matters within the scope of its title; persons having caveats found patents sealed for inventions of which they had received no notice, patents which had passed the Law Officer months or years before; the Master of the Rolls (Sir J. Romilly) when Attorney-General required deposits in all cases; Lord Truro, when Lord Chancellor, made an order that no patent should be sealed without a certificate of the Law Officer that a deposit had been made; but no such rule as to deposits existed in Scotland or Ireland, and the spirit of the rule as to deposits was shamefully evaded by the unscrupulous, so that many of the deposits are little better than blank paper; the co-operation of the Master of the Rolls as the keeper of the specifications would be necessary for any efficient comparison between the deposits and the specifications. The late Lord Langdale, after several attempts, found that the system must be dealt with