powered to order the provisional specifications to be open to the inspection of the public at such times, after the date of the record thereof respectively, as they may direct.

If the intentions of the legislature as to the provisional specification were fully carried out, and the provisional specifications were open to inspection after their sufficiency had been certified, inventors would have the means not only of protecting themselves against the conflict which is constantly occurring between subsequent and preceding patents relating to inventions substantially the same, but also of avoiding expensive future litigation; and the "secret tribunals," so strongly condemned by the reformers of the Patent Law and by the Attorney General (post 42) on moving the second reading of the Bill of 1851 in the House of Commons, would be rendered unnecessary.

The Commissioners have now the power of carrying out substantially all the objects contemplated by the Bills of 1851; the further reforms which were advisedly omitted from the Bills of 1851 relate to the following objects :

1. The administration of the law so as to render property in patents more secure.

2. The law and practice as to disclaimers and memorandum of alterations, confirmations and extensions.

3. The remunerating the authors of meritorious and beneficial inventions by money compensation, in lieu of confirmation or extension of their patents.

Also, the reform of the laws relating to Copyright, now presenting many anomalies, and the assimilating in some respects the law and practice of Designs to that of inventions in the Arts and Manufactures, have claims on the early consideration of the legislature.

The rules and regulations of the Commissioners now in force will be found in the following pages.

2, Pump Court, Temple,

Jan, 1854.

T. W.

THE NEW PATENT LAW,

&c., &c.

distinct

LETTERS patent for inventions, prior to the com- Three mencement of the new law, were granted according systems. to three distinct systems; each of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, having its own peculiar practice for the creation of such exclusive privileges within that part of the United Kingdom; the Channel Islands, Colonies and Plantations abroad were usually included in the patent for England, though sometimes the subject of a distinct grant made according to the practice for that country. These three distinct systems of England, Scotland, and Ireland, now superseded by one system for the United Kingdom under "The Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852," have continued to subsist notwithstanding the unqualified condemnation of every disinterested person of any experience in the subject (a). For the last quarter of a century men of science, inventors, and professional men more peculiarly engaged in patent business, have laboured for the abolition of a vicious and the establishment of a rational system of creating and protecting property in inventions in the arts and manufactures; but the inherent difficulty of the subject, the conflicting opinions of reformers, a want

(a) No language can convey any adequate idea of the general dissatisfaction and distrust which existed in reference to this subject amongst men of science, persons holding or having held the highest judicial situations, law officers, and every class of professional men. has been represented that patent agents,

It

and other professional men more immediately engaged in obtaining patents, in preparing specifications, or in litigation thereon, and in advising on inventions generally, were opposed to reform in the patent system; such, however, is not the fact; Mr. Wyatt, the editor of the "Repertory," Mr. Newton, the editor of

B

attempts at reform.

Failure of of sympathy on the part of the public with the compa ratively small class of scientific and ingenious men the mistaken jealousy of some capitalists, and othe causes, gave power and effect to the obstructiveness or opposition of the numerous persons in the three countries directly or indirectly interested in the official fees levied under the existing systems, and many well-intentioned efforts either failed or produced temporary expedients of little value. The history of the growth of abuses in the patent system is curious and instructive, counterparts of which may be found in other branches of our jurisprudence: it presents a striking instance of a system trained and fostered by private interests, until the accumulation of abuses had paved the way for the extinction of the whole system, and induced many persons well affected towards inventors to doubt the policy of maintaining property in the productions of ingenuity in the arts and manufactures. The history of the struggles for the reform of that system is equally curious and instructive; but

"The London Journal of Arts and Sciences," Mr. Robertson, the projector and editor of the "Mechanic's Magazine," and Mr. Barlow in the "Patent Journal," and others, have written and given evidence against the system during the last quarter of a century. The testimony of Mr. Newton and of the late Mr. Robertson, two of the oldest and most successful patent agents, is supported by almost every other patent agent and professional person examined before any of the Committees of 1829, 1848, or 1851. The Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1829 examined twenty-four witnesses-persons of the greatest experience in the practical and applied sciences and in patents, as Davies Gilbert, M.P., John Taylor, Mark Isambard Brunel, Arthur Aikin, Samuel Clegg, Isaac Hawkins, J. Millington, and A. H. Holdsworth, M.P.; also, persons professionally connected with patents, as B. Rotch, Charles Few, W. H. Wyatt, J. Farey, and W. Newton-all of whom condemned the existing system. The Committee on the Signet and Privy Seal Offices, in 1848,

received evidence from C. Barlow, F. W Campin, W. Newton, J. C. Robertson, W Spence, and B. Woodcroft, all profession persons of experience, in exposition an condemnation of the abuses necessaril incident to the existing system; severa of the same witnesses, with many other of great attainments and experience, gave evidence to the same effect before the two Select Committees of the House of Lords on the Designs and Patent Bills in 1851. On those last occasions the system was described as exhibiting "dodging" (482), "all sorts of manoeuvres understood by racing" (884), "giving advantage to an unscrupulous over a scrupulous agent, and presenting a sort of strife degrading to be connected with" (886); as affording no security, and as bad as horse jockeying (211) (See evidence before Selec Committee of House of Lords, 1851, o Patent and Designs Bills). These wit nesses differed as to the nature and ex tent of the remedy to be applied, bu were of accord as to the existence and character of the disease.

it would be foreign to our present purpose to dwell more on this part of the subject than to present a simple record of the past as introductory to and explanatory of the new system.

A.D. 1829.

In 1829, a Select Committee of the House of Former Commons was appointed to inquire into the state of attempts. the law and practice relative to the granting of Patents for Inventions; numerous witnesses were examined; the committee reported the evidence, and recommended the resumption of the inquiry early in the next session. The inquiry was not resumed; indeed little necessity existed for further inquiry; the witnesses were almost unanimous in condemning the existing system, and were agreed on many material points as to the remedies to be applied; the leading features of which were the same as of the system now superseded.

In 1833 a bill, introduced by the late Mr. Godson, A.D. 1833. passed the House of Commons; but arriving at the House of Lords at a late period of the Session, its further consideration was postponed until the next Session; the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham), Lord Wynford, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Plunket), speaking strongly on the necessity and importance of the subject.

In 1835 a bill, introduced by Lord Brougham, A.D. 1835. passed the House of Lords; the second reading was moved in the House of Commons by Mr. W. Tooke: several members expressed great regret at the measure not being more comprehensive; the Lord Advocate and other members commented on the following evils as untouched by the measure :— -1. The amount of fees and expenses. 2. The existence of distinct patents for England, Scotland, and Ireland. 3. The interval between the application and the grant, during which the applicant was without any protection, and subjected to opposition. The measure however

c. 83.

Power to disclaim.

tion and ex

tension of

term.

passed the House of Commons by a small majority, 5 & 6 W. 4, and became the law of the land. By this act power was given to disclaim part of an invention, and to amend the letters patent and specification; also, the Confirma- Crown was empowered to confirm existing patents, and to grant new letters patent for an extended term, on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in cases in which there had been a limited prior user unknown to the patentee, and in which adequate remuneration had not been obtained from the invention. This act has been a great boon to inventors, and has, it is conceived, more than realised the anticipations of its noble author (b).

Access to specifica

tions.

The late Lord Langdale, under the provisions of an Act (c) for keeping safely the Public Records, passed in 1838, gave the public, at the cost of one shilling, the privilege of reading and copying any specification at the Rolls Chapel, one of the three offices at which specifications were then enrolled; interests, however, existed inimical to the cheapening and facilitating access to these documents, and the result was a great diminution in the proportion of the specifications enrolled at the Rolls Chapel, and a great increase in the proportion enrolled at the other two offices from which the public were practically excluded. In 1848 his lordship introduced a clause, in an Act (d) relating to the Court of Chancery, requiring all specifications and disclaimers enrolled after the 1st of January, 1849, to be enrolled in one office, and further concessions were made for the convenience of the public; but fears of a diminution of fees prevented the privilege of copying a single extract being conceded to the public, and at the present day the public are not permitted to make an extract even in pencil

(¿) Some of the provisions of this act have been extended and amended by subsequent acts, viz. 2 & 3 Vic., c. 67; 7 & 8 Vic., c. 69. See Webster's Law and Practice of Patents, 3rd edit., p. 166.

(c) 1 & 2 Vic., c. 94. See Law and Practice of Patents, 3rd edit., p. 173. (d) See 11 & 12 Vic., c. 94; 12 & 13 Vic., c. 109; Law and Pr., 184.