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

to each of the King's aeholars during last ceiling,
of 21. l3s. 4d., had always been paid, and still contined
t) be paid; and that the Dean of Worcester had nothing
t) do with the money of the King's scholars, their money
always passing through the hands of the treasurer for the
time being. Another allegation, that during 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 Penrhyn, 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. MO WATT replied that if he had made a state-
Mont 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. Whiston, 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, if
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 impugned. He was not aware that it had been
Publicly impugned at all, and therefore it would have
been more to the purpose had 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-
anent 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 of the Board of Health, as well as by the
Earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. Chadwick, and Dr. Southwood
Smith.

Lord SEYMOUR replied, that all these inquiries
were instituted before he was a member of the uoard.
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 J. 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.

--a.—
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
len), that these complaints had considerable founda-
tlon. 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
tights, 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 new 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 shouldsde-
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 944 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-
lier applied to, at a cost of 631. ss. 7d. ; and if ho took
;ilt a patent in Ireland also, five offices there likewise
Were to be had recourse to, at a cost of 1191., making
a total for the United Kingdom of 2761. ss. 7d. If two
Persons, were joined in a patent additional fees were
fir, which brought the expense very nearly up to 3001.
e proposed to sweep away the greater part of that ex-
e, and make one common system of patent for the
tee kingdoms, giving at the same time the inventor
e advantage of dividing the sum total of the expense
'nto three separate payments, the smallest of which
should be made upon the patent being granted; thenext
iti,c_tYinent should be made at the end of three years, and
ue last and largest at the end of seven years. The
ground
of this division of payment was that the great
benefit
of patents which were taken out produced no
uenefit to the patentees, the inventions falling to the
goound. The first Lost of the patent shoald be limited
ler 201 e with an additional 51. stamp duty. At the end
.0 t e
he three yars which woul be given to a patentee
f, r bringing his invention befodre the public and testing
17 value by experience, the patentee should obtain a re-
4nal of his patent for four years longer on payment of
tn and 101. stamp duty, in all 501. At the end of
ese seven years, during which he had had sufficient
timeh to test the value and advantage of his
Patent, the inventor should obtain a monopoly
O andpatent for seven years more on payment of 801.,
4..11E1 a stamp duty of 201. Thus the whole cost of a
change
would be reduced from nearly 300/. to 1751. This
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
thatchanges which would leave a sufficient margin for
4st purpose. But as the new system developed itself
they expected to be able to lower the cost of taking out
.4 Patent considerably further than the present proposed
:aount. 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
nEd.cers of the,' Crown—a tribunal to which well-founded
Objections were taken both on the ground of its secrecy
The secrecy at present arose from
titlother defects.
of° law officers making their report at the early stages
aa the invention to be patented, and when it was a
warlmary object with the inventor to keep secret the
'64_tilre of his invention until the patent was sealed.
the other hand, the party who denied the novelty
(3f t patented,
eea he invention or objected to its being
Ir'Lut.eavoured to show that he had some invention
filch Would range under the title of the patent
alieri or, and he also desired secrecy. The result
le the law officers were obliged to hear both parties
thewith closed doors. The Bill proposed to remedy
by. enabling the applicant for a patent to lodge in
Isaiaethce of the Commissioners a provisonal specification,
ss ' Was something analogous to the deposit at pre-
efltk hrequired. This document would set forth the nature
1)%„.? uivention and its general features; and they proi
heeve: to give him a provisional protection of six, or,
it k sarY, nine months, to use his invention and make
pirltil°,a to the public without apprehension of its being
te
like u with impunity. When a party objected to a
n
Jseti,t he would have to lodge the particulars of his ob-
an and then the law officers' court would be made '
the lien tribunal, to hear both parties on the question at
beeline time. Another objection to the present trie
ocean ,was that the law officers of the Crown were hi-
ke ,reret to deal with questions of science involved in
134%11'305, which was to a great extent a true objection
ho questions were so mixed up with matters of
pe,3oLo the case of patents, that it was desirable to have
boaraus of judicial habits to decide, and, therefore, a
mend examiners would be constituted, consisting of
glz,lit?t scientific knowledge, to whom the scientific
to thlnr,ls should be referred, and they should report
tine alaw officers whether the provisional specifics-
also Properly described the nature of the invention;
tieti en the question of novelty. And in case of opposi-
ept”he patent, the law officers shoald act on their
neeee;B"o questions involving conflicting rights; and, if
their 17, they should call in the board of examiners to
seit4 assistance; but the ultimate decision should be left
eseas_the law officers. This proceeding would not in-
that v the expense of the patent. He should mention
Wool one great advantage of the provisional specification
sehe the opportunity it would afford poor inventors,
peaeewne not able to take out a patent from its ex-
itieeeiioe make known, in security, the nature of their
silt us to capitalists, and thereby obtain their as-
(ince to take
eideration out a patent. The next point for con-
sling and was the proper classification of patents, and
riet tic"'
of
from time Zepieg
theiree or records °oPt: specifications, their publication
and the registering of patents and
ors. Prom the want of any office to book
devoted inve •
ntions it constantly happened that a man
cut a time, ,
t' "elm), energy, and money to bringing
reap the discovery, and when he fancied ho was about to
elan had reward of his pains he found that somebody
Media& anticipated him. This evil would be now re-
ticnrta Another provision of the Bill gave to the
tents of law an • . . . •
ee equity jurisdiction in actions on pa-
' that recourse to the equity courts would not be
WhicOtrY as at present. There was another clause, to
v: 4 there were some objections entertained. It pro-
-44. ed. that if an invention was
tee
is country.
Of • Would be fatal practised in foreign coun-
tt to any right claimed on account
a this
A man might at present acquire
patent right in *
roaandinvention which he merely introduced
man might obtain
Le Patentre et forab . this country, and a
; and if the original inventor eubse-
be ,Y applied for a patent in this country, ho would
tro_
introducerzeated account of the patent originally granted
of it. What was au objectionable us-