The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-26 00:00:00

to each of the King's scholars during last century,
of 21. 13s. 4d., had always been paid, and still continued
t) be paid; and that the Dean ot Worcester had nothing
t) do with the money ot the King's scholars, their money
a' ways pawing through the hands of the treasurer for the
time being. Another allegation, that daring the time
the Bishop of Rochester was Dean of Worcester the
school fell into decay, was also unfounded; for when he
became dean he found 40 scholars, and that number
still remained. The Hon. Member for Penrhyu, he
hoped, would find that he had been led into error, and
had made a statement which was unjust towards the
Bishop of Rochester.
Mr. MOWATT replied that if he had made a state-
ment reflecting unjustly on any one, it would not only
be his duty to retract, but to apologise. But he re-
gretted that, with the single exception of the last point,
on which he could conscientiously state that he had not
meant to say the cathedral school at Worcester had fal-
len into decay, he must adhere to his statement. His
authority for the allegation that the Bishop of Roches-
ter, when Dean of Worcester, had cut down the stipends
of the scholars, was a work entitled " Cathedral Trusts
and their Fulfilment," by the Rev. Mr. Weistoe, which
had gone through four large editions—which had been
criticised publicly by various parties affected by its
statements—among others by canons both of Rochester and
Canterbury; and it was a remarkable circumstance, it
that statement to which he had referred were not correct,
that it had never been openly impugned by any writer
who had attacked the work. He had, since the Hon.
Baronet had communicated with him, gone through the
papers written by these canons, and found the statement
was not itnpugned. Ho was not aware that it had been
publicly impugned at all, and therefore it would have
been more to the purpose bud the Hon. Baronet applied
his remarks to that work. The Hon. Member concluded
by reading from Mr.Whiston's work (p. 180) a pragraph,
from which it appeared that the author said he had dis-
covered that at Worcester, where the Bishop was for
five years dean, 40 foundation scholars did not receive
even 21. 13s. 4d., but only ss. 10d. Whether the state-
ment he read were strictly correct or not, he (Mr.
Mowatt) had made the statement, as he thought, on
ample authority, giving the source from which he had
received his information.
Mr. BRIGHT inquired why the report furnished by
the Board of Health on what were called the prelimi-
nary proceedings relating to the subject of metropoli-
tan interment was not signed by the Noble Lord who
was chairman ot the Board of Health, as well as by the
Earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. Chadwick, and Dr. Southwood
Smith.

Lord SEYMOUR replied, that all these inquirits
were instituted before he was a member of the noard.
He had not heard the evidence, and could not, therefore,
be responsible for the result of the inquiry.
Mr. BRIGHT remarked, that the report related to
what took place after August last.
Mr. REYNOLDS then withdrew his motion, at the
same time giving notice that he would, early next ses-
sion. move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish minis-
ters' money in Ireland.
Sir 3. PAKINGTON inquired when an opportunity
would be given to consider the subject of refining sugar
in bond?

Lord J. RUSSELL—On Friday next.
PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving the se-
cond reading of this Bill, said that for a long time past
complaints had been made of the delay, uncertainty, and
expense of granting patents, and it was impossible to
deny that these complaints had considerable founda-
tion. The consequence was that much inquiry and dis-
cussion had taken place upon the subject, a Committee
of the other House of Parliament had been appointed to
consider it, the matter had been fully canvassed, and the
result was, the Bill now before the House, which had
come down to them from the House of Lords. The Bill
proceeded upon the principle that patents for inventions
should be granted to persons who contributed useful in-
ventions, or made discoveries to the benefit of society,
Some persons had lately started the notion that there
should be no inquiry as to whether a man should have
a patent or not, but that any man should be allowed to
claim the merit of his invention, register it, and then,
without further inquiry, be entitled to the patent
rights, and maintain the invention against the rest of
mankind. But, in his opinion, they ought to pursue a
totally different course. They ought to guard the public
against the assumption of rights to which an individual
was not entitled; and in case his invention was
neither now nor useful, to guard other inventors who
had preceded him, and acquired prior rights; and
these rights should be protected without driving the
parties to an expensive investigation for that purpose.
The next question was, by what mode they should de-
termine as to whether a person was entitled to the rights
which would accrue to him under a patent. All were
agreed the present system was a bad one, and its costli-
ness was a great objection. In the application for a
patent, seven different stages at seven different offices
were gone through. The first application was sent to
the Home-office, from which it was referred to the law
officers of the Crown, who made a report to the Secre-
tary of State for the purpose of the Queen's warrant
being granted. Next, the applicant was referred to the
Patent-office for the Queen's bill ; then to the Signet-
office for the signet bill ; afterwards to the Privy Seal-
office for the Privy Seal bill ; and ultimately to the
Great Seal Patent-office, where, at length, the warrant
for the patent was issued. At each of these stages
different fees were to be paid, five out of the seven stages
being absolutely useless and mere matters of form, and
the amount disbursed was 94/. Gs. If the patentee
wished to take out a patent for the same invention in
Scotland, five other offices there were to be in like man-
ner applied to, at a cost of 63/. ss. 7d. ; and if ho took
out a patent in Ireland also, five offices there likewise
were to be had rscourse to, at a cost of 1191., making
a total for the United Kingdom of 276/. ss. 7d. If two
persons were joined in a patent additional fees were
paid, which brought the expense very nearly up to 3001.
Ile proposed to sweep away the greater part of that ex-
pense, and make one common system of patent for ths
three kingdoms, giving at the same time the inventor
the advantage of dividing the sum total of the expense
into three separate payments, the smallest of which
should be made upon the patent being granted; the next
payment should be made at the end of three years, and
the last and largest at the end of seven years. The
ground of this division of payment was that the great
majority of patents which were taken out produced no
benefit to the patentees, the inventions falling to
.the
ground. The first cost of the patent should be limited
to 201., with an additional 51. stamp duty. At the end
of the three years which would be given to a patentee
for bringing his invention before the public and testing
its value by experience, the patentee should obtain a re•
newal of his patent for four years longer on payment of
401. and 10/. stamp duty, in all 50/. At the end of
these seven years, during which he had had sufficient
time to test the value and advantage of his
patent, the inventor should obtain a monopoly
of his patent for seven years more on payment of 801.,
and a stamp duty of 201. Thus the whole cost of a
patent would be reduced from nearly 300/. to 175/. This
change of system would cause the abolition of a great
amount of fees, and give rise to the necessity for large
compensation being made, and hence they must begin
with changes which would leave a sufficient margin for
that purpose. But as the new system developed itself
they expected to be able to lower the cost of taking out
a patent considerably further than the present proposed
amount. Next arose the question by what tribunal
should it be determined whether a party was entitled to
a patent? Hitherto that was left entirely to the law
officers of the Crown—a tribunal to which well-found d
objections were taken both on the ground of its secrecy
and other defects. The secrecy at present arose from
the law officers making their report at the early stages
of the invention to be patented, and when it was a
primary object
with the inventor to keep secret the
nature of his invention until the patent was sealed.
On the other hand, the party who denied the novelty
.of the invention or objected to its being patented,
endeavoured to show that he had some invention
which would range under the title of the patent
sued for, and he also desired secrecy. The result
was the law officers were obliged. to hear both parties
in turn with closed doors. The Bill proposed to remech
this by enabling the applicant for a patent to lodge in
the office of the Commissioners a provisonal specification,
Which was something analogous to the deposit at pre-
sent required. This document would set forth the nature
of the invention and its general features; and
.they pro-
posed to give him a provisional protection of six, or, if
necessary, nine months, to use hisinvention
and make
it known to the public without apprehension of its being
'pirated with impunity. When a party objected to a
'patent he would have to lodge the particulars of his ob-
jection, and then the law officers' court would be made
an open tribunal, to hear both parties on the question at
the same time. Another objection to the present tri-
bunal was that the law officers of the Crown were
in-
competent to deal with questions of science involved in
inventions, which was to a great extent a true objection;
hut those questions were so mixed up with matters of
Jaw, in the case of patents, that it was desirable to have
Persons of judicial habits to decide, and, therefore, a
board of examiners would be constituted, consisting of
ttien of scientific knowledge, to whom the scientific
questions should be referred, and they should report
to the law officers whether the provisional specifica-
tion properly described the nature of the invention;
also on the question of novelty. And in case of opposis
Lion to the patent, the law officers should act on their
report in questions involving conflicting rights; and, if
necessary, they should call in the board of examiners to
their assistance; but the ultimate decision iihould be left
with the law officers. This proceeding would not in-
eirease the expense of the patent. He should mention
that one great advantage of the provisional specification
would be the opportunity it would afford poor inventors,
Who were not able to take out a patent from its ex-
pense, to make known, in security, the nature of their
inventions to capitalists, and thereby obtain their as-
aistance to take out a patent. The next point for con-
sideration was the proper classification of patents, and
rrng and keeping of specifications, their publication
th°T.n time to time, and the registering of patents and
'" Proprietors. From the want of any office to book
records of inventions, it constantly happened that a man
devoted time, patience, energy, and money to bringing
Octr discovery, and when he fancied he was about to
!al) the reward of his pains he found that somebody,
ene.had anticipated him. This evil would be now re-
°method. Another provision of the Bill gave to the
purts of law an equity jurisdiction in actions on pa-
tents, 50 that recourse to the equity courts would not be
necessary as at present. There was another clause, to
which. there were some objections entertained. It pro
'i.ded that if an invention was practised in foreign coun-
tries
it would be fatal to any right claimed on account
of it in this country. A man might at present acquire
a, patent right in this country, and a man might obtain
% patent for an invention which he merely introduced
here from abroad ; and if the original inventor subse-
quently applied for a patent in this country, he would
be defeated on account of the patent originally granted
to the introducer of it. That was an objectionable op-