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

THE SUN,

tern. On the other hand, it was likewise objectionable
that a man who was at the trouble of introducing a useful
I invention into this country should have no reward. A
middle course, he thought, might be taken in the
matter. However, that could be settled in Committee.
These were the main provisions of the Bill, and he
thought the House would agree with him that it con-
stituted a great improvement on the present law of
patents.
Mr. L. RICARDO thought that the House, before
being called on to give their assent to the principle of
the Bill, ought to have some time allowed them to in-
vestigate the difficulties of the subject, and to make
themselves acquainted with the evidence that had been
adduced before the Select Committee. He did
not defend the present system of patent law. But many,
and amongst the leading scientific men of the country,
Mr. Brunel, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cubitt, and othere,
doubted the usefulnetq; or advantage of patents at all.
Mr. MACGREGOR supported the M. He con-
sidered that a man had as fair a right to the productions
of his intellect as to any other property whatever.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he believed there never
was a measure which had received a more careful and
attentive consideration than that Bill had received from
a Committee of the other House of Parliament. The
present state of the law upon that subject was full of ad-
mitted defects; and Parliament had no alternative but
either to sweep away the patent law system altogether,
or to adopt some improvement of that system. He
would not attempt upon that occasion to pronounce an
opinion upon the propriety or the impropriety of abolish-
ing the protection given by the patent laws; but he
should state that he believed public opinion was not pre-
pared for such a change; so that he did not see how Par-
liament could then escape from the duty of amending
the existing system. There were many valuable inven-
tions to be seen at the Great Exhibition, which had been
registered provisionally for a year, and the owners of
which would be compelled to register them anew next
year if they wished to avail themselves of the protection
of the patent laws; and it would not be fair to compel
those parties to obtain that protection through the pre-
sent cumbersome and expensive system when a much
better and cheaper one could be created. He hoped the
House would give a second reading to the Bill, with a
view to enable them to consider its details in Committee.
Sir DE LACY EVANS supported the Bill.
Mr. R. PALMER said he was sorry to find that they
had not obtained from the Right Hon. Gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade a distinct assurance as
to whether or not he approved of the protection given by
a system of patent laws. For his part he totally
denied that the protection given to patentees was any
wrong to the public, for it merely deprived the public,
for a period of fourteen years, of that which, without
the inventor, they never would have enjoyed. Without
patent laws the most useful inventors could derive no re-
turn for the time and labour they had devoted to the
accomplishment of objects most beneficial to mankind.
Let him give as an instance the invention of lightning
conductors for ships, by Sir W. Snow Harris—an inven-
tion which had saved a large amount of life and pro-
perty, but which had been productive of little or no
benefit to its author, because it had not been patented
by him. He should support the second reading of the
Bill as an improvement of the existing system, although
he hardly thought that it carried far enough the prin-
ciples of protection to inventors.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he did not mean to oppose
the second reading of the Bill, although he believed that
an extension of the patent system might greatly cripple
the industrial enterprise of the country.
Mr. MUNTZ said he believed that no greater blow
could be struck at the inventive genius of the country
than by the abolition of the patent .law system.
Alderman SIDNEY thought that there were many
clauses in the Bill which required modification, and it
was his intention to submit some amendments when they
went into Committee.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that under
the proposed measure there would be a much greater
number of patents taken out than before, as the expense
would be considerably reduced, and greater security
given to the proprietors of them. A large proportion of
the payments went in stamps, and another proportio❑
went to the Consolidated Fund. It was most dangerous
to allow too great a facility for taking out patents, He
knew the case of a person taking out a patent for a sup-
posed new kind of cab, and the person used his power
in the way of extracting different sums of money from
other cab proprietors, by threatening them with law
proceedings for pirating his invention. He believed that
there were a vast number of exhibitors in the Great Ex-
hibition looking most anxiously for the passing of this
measure, in order that they might apply for patents.
Mr. WAKLEY was disposed to think that it was im-
possible at the present advanced stage of tho session to
discuss this measure satisfactorily. He was of opinion
that the principle which should govern legislation in re-
ference to patents and copyright should be the same.
They were, in reality, identical. He could not under-
stand why the simple manner in which the question of
copyright was treated by the law could not be equally
well applied to inventions. He objected to the creation
of the board that was proposed by this Bill. He would
prefer that the responsibility should be thrown upon one
man, who would be bound to inquire fully into the mat-
ter, and to give his reasons publicly for his decisions.
He complained of the unjust and ungrateful manner in
which many great mon had been treated by the Govern-
ment and the public. He instanced the cases of Harvey,
who discovered the circulation of the blood, and Jenner,
who discovered a remedy for one of the greatest plagues
with which mankind had ever been visited.
Toe Bill was then read a second time.
EMIGRATION ADVANCES DISTRESSED DIS-

TRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This Bill went into Committee.

Oa the first clause being proposed,

Mr. S. CRAWFORD wished to know whether it was
the intention of the Government to apply a similar mea-
sure to Ireland, as the position of the two countries in
respect to such legislation was the same.

Sir. J. STUARTe said that though the observations of
the Hon. Member for Rochdale deserved much attention,
he did not think that that was the proper time to enter
upon such a subject. Ho regretted that this Bill had not
been introduced at an earlier period of the session, when
the advantage to accrue from it would hare been con-
siderably greater. He thought that the benefits of the
measure should be extended to the larger tenants as well
as to the owners.

Mr. Fi'AKLEY said that the remedy provided by the
Bill would be partial and inefficient. It would afford
temporary relief, but he apprehended that it would also
lay the foundation for still greater distress.
Mr. HENLEY suggested the insertion of words in one
of the clauses to define the extent to which encumbrances
of estates would be affected by the Bill.
The several clauses were then agreed to, the Bill
passed through Committee, and the House resumed.
METROPOLITAN INTERMENT (ADVANCES)

LONDON,

a ion, determine on placing a large sum of money at the
cisposm.l of the Board of Health, for the purpose of pur-
chasing cemeteries.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to hear some Hon.
Gentleman point out a practical mode of getting quit
of the difficulty-. The House should bear in mind the
possibility of some serious epidemic coming upon them,
when it would be necessary, as a matter of safety-, to
close many of the graveyards. In that case, unless
some other and convenient burying-places were within
ordinary reach, the consquences to the poor would be
very serious. It might be no inconvenience to the rich,
who could afford to go to a great distance, or in the
case of paupers buried at the expense of the parish;
but what would become of the poorer portions of the
community, belonging to neither of these classes?—
(Hear, hear.) The Metropolitan Interment Act pro-
vided, that when any graveyard was closed by orders
in Council, there should be some other cemetery put in
possession of the hoard. It was clear, therefore, that
they could not shut up the present graveyards, whatever
might be the evils arising from them, unless that part
of the Act was followed out. With regard to the Board
of Health, the original proposal was that there should
be a new board constituted for the pnrpose of carrying the
Act into effect. But the Government did not think it

right to make such new board, with new machinery,
and therefore they proposed that the Board of Health
should be entrusted with the execution of the Act. This
wai agreed to, but previously the House was of opinion
that a separate board ought to have been established for

that purpose.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said, the Noble Lord spoke of the pos-
sibility of an epidemic coming upon them, and then
asked what the poor would do when interments had to
take place at a great distance from towns? But the
Noble Lord forgot that the Board of Health's grave-
yards would be more distant than any now in existence.
—(Hear, hear.) The Bill before the House gave power
to buy all the cemeteries in and about London, and to
leave the management in the hands of the Board of
Health; but he hoped Parliament would hesitate before
it granted any such powers. It would be much better
to pay the forfeit incurred by not concluding the nego-
tiations, than to vote away this large sum of 130,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) It was quite ridiculous to leave the work-
ing out of a great scheme like this in the hands of the
Board of Health, which was composed of Lord Shaftes-
bury, Mr. Chadwick, and Dr. Southwood Smith. Men
like these might make very valuable suggestions on sa-
nitary subjects, but it did not follow that they had the
qualifications requisite for carrying them out.—(Hear,
near.) Enthusiasts on the subject of sanitary reform
were not exactly the men best fitted to work out their
own suggestions.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord,
therefore, should adopt some mode by which these sani-
tary schemes would be placed under representative con-
trol.—(Hear, hear.) There was no end to the expense
of boards like the present, and they uniformly led to all
kinds of jobbing. He suggested that they should leave
matters as they now were, and that next year the Go-
vernment should come forward with some fitting and
comprehensive scheme of management.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FORSTER was understood to support the Bill.
H e had lived 40 years in London, and nothing had given
him more paia or disgust than the state of the grave-
yards.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY asked what advantage they Lad got
from the Bill so hastily passed last session, when the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to come down
and ask for 130,0001. It was quite evident that nobody
had any confidence in the management now going on;
then what was the harry for so much money ?—(Hear,
hear.) What was to prevent the Board of Health
renting sufficient ground for interment purposes, should
we, unfortunately, be afflicted with cholera or some other
epidemic ?—(Hear, hear.) He saw no necessity, there-
fore, for the present advance.

Lord SEYMOUR said, if the Act of last year was to
be carried ont, it was necessary that burying-grounds
should be provided. If, however, the House did not
wish to carry out the Act of last session, then, of course,
they would come to the conclusion that additional places
of interment were not necessary.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, there was so great a desire
in the metropclis to close the graveyards, that there
would be no objection to voting any sum of money to
purchase ground provided a proper syitem was adopted.
No necessity bad been shown for purchasing tbe two
cemeteries mentioned by the Ghancellor of the Exche-
quer, and he must characterize it as a job. What they
wanted was a comprehensive scheme for closing all the
graveyards.

Tht; CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
the Hon. Gentleman was ready to vote any sum of money
to close the graveyards. He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) proposed to buy two cemeteries in order to
carry out that object, and the Hon. Gentleman refused
the money.—(Hear.)
Mr. B. DENISON thought the proposition of the Go-
vernment exceedingly fair and reasonable. It was clear
that the graveyards could not be closed without money.
Mr. D'EYNECOURT had received communications
from his constituents within these few days, in which
they expressed apprehensions lest the measure of last
year had been abandoned; and he feared that if the House
negatived the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer that' impression would be strengthened.—(Hear.)
Mr. LOCKE said, they had been told, that the plan
of last year was abandoned, and• the object of this
money seemed to be to get the Government out of a
difficulty into which they had been led by the Board of
Health. He thought the most prudent course was to
postpone the vote.

. .
Lord J. RUSSELL said the difficulty was how to close
any of the graveyards without an arrangement of this
kind. The Government had not, as the Hon. Gentleman
stated, abandoned the scheme, though they did not see
the propriety of carrying it out to the extent proposed
by the Boarn of Health.

Mr. W. J. FOX did not see why so large an amount
of money should be wanted for what the Board of Health
itself declared to be a temporary purpose.
Mr. BRIGHT would recommend that, instead of pur-
chasing the cemeteries, they should lease them for a
year, and in the meanwhile consider what course should
be finally adopted. He could not but regard this pro-
ceeding on the part of the Government as an arrant
job, and, believing that Government would be glad to
get rid of it, he should oppose it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
they could not pass a Bill for closing churchyards with-
out giving compensation.
Mr. WAKLEY observed that a year ago full power
was given to raise money to provide extramural inter-
ments, but, notwithstanding, nothing had yet been done,
and he thought the best way would be to move that the
chairman should report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that the Hon. Member
had objected that nothing had yet been done in this mat-
ter for a year, and so, in order to satisfy the public mind,
he proposed hat nothing should be done for a year to
come.—(dear, and laughter.)
The motion for adjournment being withdrawn, the
Committee divided on the original motion, when there
appeared—
For the motion
Against it ... ... 26
Majority ... —24
Mr. REYNOLDS complained of the vote, as particu-
larly profligate. They had voted 130,0001. to buy certain
cemeteries for the richest city in the world, when they re-
fused a few thousands to aid the hospitals in Dublin, one
of the poorest cities in the empire. He complained of
Irish Members supporting this vote.
The resolution was then reported to the House.