The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-26 00:00:00

MESSRS. FOURDRINIER'S CLAIMS.

Mr. I'. ATTWOOD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham, in favour of claims of Messrs. Fourdrinier,
who had saved the country 80,0001., but had ruined
themselves.

Similar petitions were presented by the O'CoNoR
DON and Mr. G. W. WOOD.

Mr. MA CKINNON regretted that it had fallen to his
lot to come forward on the present occasion, and wished
the question had been in the hands of some one of
greater experience, but he thought it right w state to
the House that the position in which he was placed had
forced him to bring this question forward. In
1836 a Committee had been appointed to investi-
gate the claims of Messrs. Fourdrinier. He had been
placed on that Committee by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which
Committee he had been appointed Chairman. He was
utterly unacquainted with the subject at the time, and
had never heard of the names of Messrs. Fourdrinier.
The Committee met, and drew up a Report, which
was presented to the House, to which the Speaker took an
objection because the word compensation was used in that
Report. He would call the attention of the House to
this point, because, in a Report which was presented to
the House in the year 1832, not only the word " com-
pensation," but the expression " pecuniary compensa-
tion" was made use of. He mentioned this to show,
that if the Report of 1836 was objectionable it was no
fault of his—that it was so because there had been a
precedent previously established for pursuing such a
course. It might be said that Messrs. Fourdririer
were not the inventors of this plan, but
although they were not the inventors, yet it had
been brought by them to such a degree of perfection
as to enable the country to benefit by the discovery.
The merits of an invention, it was admitted, did not
belong so much to the individual by whom the discovery
was originally made as to the party by whom it was
applied to the advantage of the community. The
House was probably aware that, previously to the dis
covery in question, paper was made by the hand,
and the process was both tedious and expensive.
The machinery invented by Messrs. Froudrinier
was of a very complicated nature, but by it paper
could be made, without manual intervention of
any length, to the extent of several thousand yards
in one continuous piece. It might be asked how had
they lost the benefit of this patent? It appeared that
they had expended a great portion of their capital in
bringing the machine to perfection. Many attempt*
were made to pirate it, and they were involved
in litigation. An action was brought by the Messrs.
Fourdrinier, and they obtained a verdict ; but on
an application to the Court of King's Bench,
Lord Tenter den granted a new trial, merely
because the word" machine" instead of " machines" was
inserted in the patent. Their funds were by that
time exhausted, having expended upwards of forty
thousand pounds in the invention, and they
ere unable to defend their rights any longer.
It was the opinion of the Counsel of Messrs. Fourdrinier,
that ifitbey had had funds they would have succeeded in
obtaining a new trial, but for want of them they lost it.
The boon to the public by the invention had been
immense. Every trade and every department of
science and the arts had been benefited by it.
In the Potteries it had been shown that but for
the invention of Messrs. Fourdrinier it would have been
nnpossibie to have brought china to such perfection as I

it had been. Mr. Brunel, the eminent engineer, con-
sidered the invention one of the most splendid of the
present age ; and Me. Lawson, of the Times news-
paper, had given similar testimony. TLe invention
of Messrs. Fourdrinier was such, that all risk and
labour was avoided by it. In 1800 there were
no machines • in existence, and the duty then
received amounted to only 193,533/. In 1821 the
amount of duty had risen to 579,8671., and in
1835 the duty had risen to 833,8321. He did not mean
for a moment to say, that had machinery not been in-
vented the duty would not have increased progressively,
but he would say that, without the aid of the machines,
it would have been perfectly impossible that it could
hive risen in the extraordinary manner that it had.
From 1830 to 1835, the absolute gain to the com-
munity amounted to 6,000,000/., and the increase
in the Revenue not less than 500,000/. a-year.
Ile hoped that he would not be opposed on this occa-
sion by the Government of her Majesty. They could not
refuse to remunerate Messrs. Fourdrinier, otherwise they
must refuse to remunerate any inventor in future,
which. would be a great detriment to the community
generally, and upon the same principle the country had
been injured to the amount which had been paid to
former inventors. He did not wish to occupy the time
of the House upon that question. He would, there-
fore, move that the report of the Committee on
Messrs. Foudrinier's Bill be taken into consideration.

Mr. HUME apprehended that the Hon. Member
ought to move that the House go into Committee of
the whole House upon the question on an Addrov, or
something of that sort. The House could not come to
a resolution on that motion.
The SPEAKER considered that it would be neces-
sary to move the House into Committee previous to any
step being taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
had certainly understood from those who had waited
upon him that no money vote was to be asked for on the
present occasion. He fully concurred in the suggestion
of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. MACKINNON said that he would adopt the
suggestion, and move for a Committee of the whole
House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was not there to deny in any shape the merits of the in-
vention of Messrs. Fourdrinier which had been of great
benefit to the public at large, and also to the revenue
of the country—(Hear, hear)—but it by no means
followed that he was entitled to pecuniary compensa-
tion from that House. There was no subject upon
which the House was bound to:exercise a greater discre-
tion than in money grants. The mere question of
the ingenuity of the invention would not give the
party the claim upon the bounty of that House,
and he did not think the present case formed
any exception to the general rule upon that subject.
He was one who thought it right that rewards should
be given for merit, but it behoved the House to exer-
cise the power they had to give those rewards with cau-
tion, otherwise they would give a premium to applica-
tions for pecuniary grants. He was willing to consent
to the present motion, and after the opinion of the
House had been expressed upon this subject, he would
state what course her Majesty's Ministers intended to
pursue.
Lord F. EGERTON thought that Government gene-
rally had drawn the lire of reward for merits with great
severity. The circumstances of the case presented a con-
siderable ground for the indulgence of this House in this
particular instance. The petitions he had received from
his neighbourhood in favour of the present claim were
very numerous. He thought the liberality of the Govern-
ment ought to be extended to it, and he should have
great satisfaction in taking his share of the responsibility
of any measure %%bleb might be brought forward fur the
purpose.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS would do all in his power on
all occasions, to protect the public purse against any in-
cursions of private feeling or private friendship ; but
having been a Member of the Committee to which the
case of Messrs. Fourdrinier was referred, he must say
he never saw a stronger case made out for the indulgent
liberality of the Government. The improvement in the
manufacture of paper by this invention was very ana-
logous to the improvement that had taken place in
calico printing. The invention had afforded a great

EVE' NT( VD IT I 0
_

benefit to all the community, and his constituents as cumstances to grant a compensation.
well as himself had taken a great interest in it. The Mr. PRYME, as a Member of the Committee,
circumstances of the case were most peculiar, and he sidered these gentlemen as martyrs to the Patent !Ltd
did not think this commercial country would do its duty which he hoped to see soon altered. No one ohJecwee
to talented individuals, if it did not render assistance on to this vote but the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, per
this occasion. took an unfair opportunity of attacking the G°,,lciibt
Mr. WARBURTON perceived, from the papers ment. In alluding to soldiers and sailors, the 'ilee
which had been circulated on this subject, that this Honourable Baronet had forgotten the case °I
to
patent had fallen into the hands of the assignees of Duke of Wellington, who received a specific grant en.
Messrs. Fourdrinicr, who bad become bankrupt. The that House for professional services. He should aur
inventor had not been a gainer, it was true, by the port the grant.
patent ; but then the proprietors, the assignees, had Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, although entirelYgsir
igubt
been losers ; and was it equitable that compensation scribing to the general doctrine laid down by the ;..e s
should be granted to the inventor, no part of which Hon. Bart„ thought these gentlemen had establiPLidi
Ebould go to the assignees. He thought that in this in- legitimate claim to compensation, the refusal of
stance there was a divided interest between Messrs. would not be economy but ingratitude.
Fourdrinier and their assignees, and he doubted much Mr. MACKINNON would ask whether this dilletlx9.,
whether Messrs. Fourdrinicr could come forward and sion was to go on, or whether the Chancellor of the e.
claim compensation for themselves. chequer would yield to the general wish of the 11111,
Mr. BAINES said that the Hon. Gentleman who The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ'an
had just sat down had omitted to mention that it was would appeal to his conduct for the last four years as,
by prosecuting this invention that Messrs. Fourdrinier answer to the accusations that bad been brought aga`l3"4
had become bankrupts. They had, however, paid 20s. him, but he thought this a peculiar case, tie'a
in. the pound to every creditor except one, and the as- wished to hear not only what could be urgesslgnees could have no merit in the invention. This had by deputations in Downing-street, which '
fo,
been incomparably the most important invention that all party deputations, but in the House of Coun—iit
had ever been applied to the makir'e of paper, and by where every thing was urged on both sides ; lie thouger
which paper was made cheaper and cheaper every day, the object would be best attained by leaving the °te
while the inventors had been overthrown by the expense tion in the hands of the Government, and befereeeiild
of working the invention. end of the Session he would take care the House s""
Mr. HUME entirely concurred with the Chancellor be informed that had been done in this matter.it
of the Exclieque rin the necessity there existed to guard Mr. 'MACKINNON would now admit that-
against such applications as this for remuneration. No would not be the most respectful course to te°s tee
man came forward with a plan which he did not believe to Committee of the whole House, and then consiaer tee
be of the first importance both to himself and to the propriety of addressing her Majesty to grailtfectly
State. What his Hon. Friend behind him (Mr. War- Messrs. Fourdrinier compensation. He was Per Ger
burton) had observed deserved consideration. On more satisfied with the assurance of the Right 11°°' Go'
occasions, however, than one, this House had sane- tlemen, that the case should be taken into his °or
tioned pensions for inventions—(Hear)—and this deration, and that a proper remuneration from the fie
claim was better supported by evidence than any he vernment might be expected for those gentlernenfi• or,)
bad ever recollected to have seen. There was not a therefore should at once withdraw his motion.---(11
great consumer of paper who did not testify to the Motion withdrawn. TS•
great advantage derived from this invention, and when INFERIOR ECCLESIASTICAL COUR' die
the individuals who were the authors of it were in Mr. HAWES rase pursuant to notice to dt33o:eee
poverty, sonic relaxation of rules might be admissable. attention of the House to the petition of Daniel to
This was a case in which the Government, be thought, now iu Carmarthen gaol, and to move that, accorna,
might very fairly take into consideration the claim the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commiss:ont; iO
for ingenuity, and if that were to be in the shape of the jurisdiction of the Minor Ecclesiastical Csiur and
a pension, from the information he bad received there England and Wales be abolished without delt,aY'vess)
would be no great prospect of that pension having to transfered to the inferior tribunals. He (Mr. P, it'
be continued for any great length of time. was about to make some statements involving °eer
Sir ROBERT PEEL regretted the course that bad meter of individuals in high stations. He should, th
ol-
been pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the fore, be careful that his opinions should rest on facts :ifilr
present occasion. The Constitution bad wisely en- lected as carefully as possible. If he were correc
trusted the determination of such a question as this to formed, a more flagrant case of oppression had Sea 1
; the
the Government of the country, and it would have been ever come before the House than that detailed ,'" JO'i
much better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad petitioner ; and though it would be most difficult "'offer
said either that upon an enlarged view of this question with the individual hardships of the petitioner, orPheeo
he cculd not consent to the claim, or that, on the other compensation for the wrong and injury that haueetice
hand, from the extraordinary nature or merits of the inflicted on him, at least it was likely that thelbis
case it was an instance in which some reward should be now about to be taken of the facts of the case I"fieed
given. Instead of that the Right Hon. Gentleman House, would induce the public to keep their eYests,sod
had said he would hear the preliminary discussion first, on the proceedingsof the Minor Ecclesiastical Court tbef
and then he would reserve to himself the right of con- if !heir jurisdiction were not altogether abolisheuto
the
sidering its merits. Why he (Sir R. Peel) would von- might at least be prevented from exercising thenjooot°
lure to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman would find cruel extent of which the petitioner had so muchfe'etter
a very large majority of that House in favour of the complain. First, he (Mr. H.) would direct the 00e
;
claim, as he would of every large public assembly. tion of the House to the petition of David Jones'o °I:
This was no party question, and on all occasions to a similar case of oppression inflicted by the se-eart to
the feeling of' a public assembly was in favour of fending party on another, and then he would rt,
sympathy for the suffering, especially when that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissiotieo;lce•
suffering was connected with talent.—(Hear.) order to justify him in the motion he intended to boar
Every one would therefore feel the extremely painful The petitioner, David Jones, was a man in a cerY 'll or
feeling that he had on rising to oppose this claim. All ble station. He had not the influence of r
the dictates of humanity were in favour of relieving the name to back him against his oppressors. lie lixair.
distressed. But why had not the Chancellor of the the sympathy of the House to look to, and he ('ooe et
Exchequer consulted the legal advisers and others in his hoped and trusted that there were now present she lest
confidence upon this subject, and made up his own mind the Hon. Members who supported him when vO4,
upon it, before the discussion was entered upon in the mentioned this subject in the House.—(Heare'riso aee:
House ? If there was a large majority against him, it David Jones, the petitioner, was now a Ed 0:
would very much embarrass him ; and if he was to have in Carmarthen gaol. He was a weaver, tit, etas
the full power reserved to him of considering whether belonged to a religious persuasion, whic,"erisile"
the claim ought to be granted or not afterwards, why, exceedingly obnoxious to persons who
1r
man
then, the time of the HouSe had been thrown away. what they called orthodox opinions—he was a Pe:ieete
d
Besides, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should and an independent one. In 1837 lie w3es. abarg.
afterwards reject the claim, that would have the appear- churchwarden for a parish near Carmarthen ("311. v;
ance of being very hard upon the claimant. It would we understood), and a person of wealth, Mriejeer
be a bad precedent, and a course calculated very much Thomas, was elected at the same time by the_ 00r
to embarrass the Right Honourable Gentleman's situa- his churchwarden. He begged the House tulfereetll
tion. Upon looking to the facts of the case, he found that, her those facts, as he would show them how d!_e
in 1800, this invention yielded a profit of 14,0001.; in justice was dealt to the poor man and the oceLlat,
1801,a profit of 14,000/. and afraction ; and then, in 1802, The Rev. Ebenezer Morris was the Vicar oriel:: eee,
the profits were reduced to 4,0001, in consequence, it non. Mr. Thomas never attended the Chytted out el
was said, of their withdrawal of their capital to improve never did the duties of churchwarden. fleeiveeleslas;
their invention. Well, he deeply regretted that they the parish, yet he was never cited before t:J-2 make
had not continued to realize the handsome profits which tical Court for neglect of duty. When the tralse
they had been realizing by following the conduct they time came the petitioner called a vestry t 0 ear
had originally adopted. That was one cause assigned Church-rate—but an adjournment was movee!or`iraei!3B_
of their failure ; and the other was their failure upon an ried by a majority, and thuS Mr. Jones failed
.0 make
an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a re- a rate, though he did his duty in endeavouring tot
Ore
newel of their patent. If the Messrs Fourdrinier had one. Now let the House observe the steps t_heeitr'r;
applied to the Court of King's Bench, and in conse- taken by the Vicar—a minister of peace and ue by tors
quence of any neglect on the part of their advisers, against the poor man. The first thing d°„(l,hose
lapd
or of any unforeseen circumstance, they hod been minister of peace and charity—or if not tot.`
unsuccessful, no man could regret such an unfortu- toes, at least a minister of the Church Feigned
nate occurrence more than he (Sir Robert Peel) did ; and a pluralist—was to write to the_ bPeead 1113;
to e
but this was no reason for their calling upon the House on the 25th of May, ordering him have
lth °f jujs,
to grant them compensation. The proper rule for the wine for the Sacrament provided by the dno fue
_e
House to lay down was this, to say to all inventors you following. The petitioner replied that be hado
must look for a reward entirely to your own skill, and and that he was too poor individually teeed: pro'
to the exertion of your own ingenuity. . The law grants bread and wine. Mr. Morris then col!!!
,e Court
you the protection of a patent, and although we are ceedings against Mr. Jones in the Ecclesia
ntld;aey ;
rich enough to afford to grant you compensation, yet of the district. He was condemned for eo
‘tus issued
we object to do so, because we will not establish a pre- process from the Court of Queen's Benenhd"
eco_stoss; an
ccdent. He could mention many cases of peculiar against him ; he was arrested for debt a
hardship. Suppose the case of a surgeon possessing the incarcerated in Carmarthen gaol,
greatest genius, and who by his discoveries had sue- rnained, and whence he petitioned the 101 tvo
ceeded in mitigating human suffering to a consider- (Mr. H.) had procured the opinions
,L 5 end
able extent, yet in consequence of some peculiarity in his eminent civilian lawyers, namely Dr. Adoa"'
f' his Preceenr
where_hous:.
ost
manners, or from his too great devotion to abstruse Haggard, on the justice and legality 0- t
studies, or from some other circumstance which could ing He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman.e ,
not be imputed to him as a fault, he did not meet with ber.for the Tower Hamlets was present to.n.ialn;sitatea.
that success which his merit deserved ;no man could re- (Heel-, hear, from Dr. Lushington.) Dr. Ad.s°ory coo
Bret the position in which such an individual that the articles exhibited iu the Cops' .