moved the second reading of the Letters Patent Bill. He thought the only objection that could be made to the Bill would be on the ground of its scantiness. He was certainly aware that a great deal more was required to complete the Law of Patents. It was a subject upon which two Committees had already sat, but it was so embarrassed with technical difficulties, that no measure had been brought forward on it. The fact was, that there existed at present no Law of Patents, and this Bill might form a nucleus for legislation on the subject to be constructed. The Bill was essential as far as it went for the protection of patentees. That great evils existed at present, and that too great expense encumbered the taking out of Patents, which all required remedy, he was aware; but this Bill would afford a good foundation for legislation hereafter.

could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Tooke), the Member for Truro, in thinking the present Bill was in any way desirable. The Law of Patents was most obnoxious as it at present stood, and ought to be abrogated entirely, and remodelled on a new system. The chief objection which he entertained to the law as it now stood was the expense incurred by those gifted individuals who were obliged to apply for a patent to secure to themselves the fruits of their labours. Formerly the Kings of England had the power of granting monopolies for almost every article required by the people. The gross abuse of this privilege led to a correction of it by the 21st of James 1st, c. 3; and it was then enacted, that the power of granting a monopoly for new discoveries should be the only remnant of the power to grant monopolies which the Sovereigns of these realms formerly enjoyed. At the present time, although the rights of the patentee were well guarded, yet he was obliged to undergo such an expense in procuring a patent as to make it scarcely a favour when obtained. Let the House bear in mind that almost all the community at present enjoyed the benefits of education; instead, therefore, of having, as formerly, only two or three thousand educated persons to compete with, an inventor might now expect nearly the same number of millions. Now, it so turned out that the human mind was more likely, with a parity of talent and powers of invention, to make discoveries, if it was exercised and stimulated, than if the party who was possessed of the same talent enjoyed also great affluence. Let A and B have equal powers of mind, one in moderate circumstances, the other wealthy, it was more likely that A, the poor man, might be induced to turn his thoughts to tome invention than B, the rich one. He (Mr. Mackinnon) spoke only generally. Now, supposing that A, after years of toil in encompassing some discovery, after spending, perhaps, the whole of his small fortune in the pursuit, found his endeavours crowned with success, but without the means to obtain a patent; in such a case A must have recourse to some capitalist, who might only advance him money sufficent to obtain a patent on the condition of receiving one-half or more of the profits arising from the invention. Now, was this as it ought to be? Was this just or right, or such a state of things as the country would approve? Why not, therefore, abolish at once all the laws regarding patents, keep the same machinery as to the establishing the right of the patent, and secure it to the inventor? Let the record of the patent be entered at the Excise, and let every article the patentee sold have the stamp of the Excise, to counterfeit which should be felony; and let, besides, all the penal enactments continue against any one who counterfeited the patent in any manner. By this simple expedient no expense would be incurred, and yet ample protection to the patentee be afforded. As to the present Bill, he (Mr. Mackinnon) could only wonder that such a man as Lord Brougham and as his hon. friend could countenance and bring forth such a miserable, bungling piece of legislation.

said the subject was one of great importance to the numerous constituency which he represented. It was a great hardship upon a man that he should devote his time and ingenuity to some useful invention, and be afterwards, in consequence of the defects of the Patent Law, deprived of the just rewards of his labour and talents. Though there were some useful provisions in the Bill, it did not go far enough. He should like to see some provision for granting short patents, as was the case in Franee. This would operate as a protection and encouragement to manufacturers.

concurred in the observation of the hon. Member, that patents for short periods would be of great use. This point was under the consideration of the Committee on arts and manufactures. The present Patent Law was a great bar to their manufacturers, and disabled them in many cases from rivalling the French. Some better system of protection was necessary to encourage men of ingenuity. He trusted the subject would be again taken up early next Session.

said, the Bill would do good as far as it went. Patents ought to be cheapened. The money arising from them went into the pockets of officers of the Crown, or was expended in fees, in place of being spread beneficially over the country.

was greatly disappointed by the Bill under discussion, but he would not oppose the second reading. It was true that the Bill would do some good, and, therefore, he thought it ought not to be opposed; but it fell very far short of what he believed to have been the hopes and expectations of the public. As a measure of Reform the Bill was one of the most scanty he had ever seen; and he was the more disappointed at its being so, because a Bill introduced two or three years ago by Mr. Godson, although much more extensive and useful than the present Bill, had been thrown out in the House of Lords on the ground of its being better to wait till a more comprehensive measure, which was then promised, could be brought forward. Most of the evils of the present system were wholly overlooked by the Bill now before the House. One of the great complaints made by inventors was of the loss of time, and of the trouble incurred in suing out a patent. A person desirous of obtaining a patent had to apply first at the office of the Secretary of State, then at the office of the Attorney or Solicitor-General, then again at the Secretary of State's office, from whence he is sent to the Attorney-General, then he has to go to the Signet Office then to the Keeper of the Privy Seal, and at last to the Lord Chancellor. Much time, amounting sometimes to many months, was consumed in this process, and during all this time, if any person happened to fall on the same invention, the real inventor lost his patent. Again he considered it a hardship that an inventor could not sell his invention to a third party, so as to enable that third party to take out a patent, because it was held that no person is entitled to a patent unless he would swear that he is himself the inventor of that for which he claims the patent. The hardship of this was the more manifest, when it was considered that a man might bring an invention from abroad, and obtain a patent for it, although he might not obtain it if he had obtained the idea of the invention from a person in this country. It was a hardship, too, that having obtained a patent, he was not allowed to sell that patent to a company, consisting formerly of more than five, but now of twelve persons. Why should there be any limit as to the number of persons who might unite together, for the purpose of purchasing a patent? He thought, too, that one patent should comprehend the whole of the United Kingdom; whereas it was necessary to take out one patent for England, another for Scotland, and a third for Ireland. The only effect of this was very greatly to increase the expense and trouble of obtaining a patent, and to create an opinion that the present system was only kept up for the sake of the fees which were produced by it. He had mentioned these as a few of the points overlooked in the present Bill. He ventured to hope that his hon. Friend who had the care of the Bill would endeavour to improve it, by introducing Clauses to remedy those evils. He should be very glad, too, if his hon. Friend would attempt to define or to describe what should be the subject of a patent, and still more if he would enable inventors, if they thought fit, to take out patents for very short periods.

thought they might make this measure comprehensive in Committee as they had some weeks yet before them to sit.

said, that this was a most improtant subject, and that they should not reject this Bill, though it did not do all that they might wish. As to defining patents, that was a matter that might defy the ingenuity of the most acute lawyer. With regard to the limited patents suggested by the hon. Member for Boston, such as patents for three months or for two years, for the protection of discoveries and improvements in manufactures, he agreed with him in thinking that they would be productive of great good, while the limitation of the period would prevent them, in any case, from doing any harm. A measure for that purpose would in fact do immense good, and he trusted that the hon. Member for Boston, or some other hon. Member would bring forward a measure of the kind next Session. As to lessening the expense incurred in taking out patents, though this Bill did not touch that point, he certainly agreed that it was far too great, and that all fees connected with the taking out of patents, though he was himself a person engaged in passing patents, should be reduced. Besides, what expense was incurred should be paid over for the benefit of the country. He recommended the House to pass this Bill, as it would form a foundation for more comprehensive and necessary measures next Session.

would not oppose the second reading, though he was desirous that the Bill should have gone much further. The thing most wanted was a tribunal, before which questions of right might be decided speedily, and without much expense. In France and other parts of Europe there were tribunals of this kind, composed one half of masters, the other half of workmen, and, so far as he could learn, they operated beneficially. There were many inventions of such a nature as required but a limited protection of six months, a year, or two, and for this many ingenious workmen were robbed of the benefit of their inventions. What was most wanted was a cheap protection to inventors.

said, it was too late in the session for a more general and more comprehensive Bill than this, which, however afforded great additional protection to patentees. It protected them against losing the benefits of their invention in consequence of an erroneous use of terms. Secondly, it protected the man who was a bona fide inventor, though it might turn out that at some distant period his invention was not unknown. He knew a case, for instance, in which a man having made some discovery in the mode of working the eye of a needle was defeated because it was shown that a similar process was known in the time of Elizabeth, of which however, he had never heard. Thirdly, it enabled the Privy Council to prolong the term of protection while an invention was in progress, such as that of the steam-engine, which was not brought by Mr. Watt to its present state until after many trials and great expense.

said, they ought to give to useful inventors all the protection in their power, and at the least expense. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Mackinnon) would not persevere in opposing a second reading, but contribute his aid to improve the Bill as much as he could.

said, his object was to do away with the whole Patent Law as it now stood, with a view to a new and general law. Partial Amendments, such as those in the present Bill would not satisfy the object he had in view. As the House, however, seemed favourable to the second reading he would not oppose it, in the hope that a far more extensive measure would be introduced next Session. He must say, that he had looked for something more upon this subject from Lord Brougham than was effected in this Bill.

called the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Printed Papers, in pursuance of which Report he, as Chairman of the Committee, proposed to move certain Resolutions, with a view to carry the scheme upon which they had agreed into effect. It was proposed that the statutes should be printed of one uniform size, that they should be distributed to Members by the Vote-office free of expense, and that copies should be sent to Courts, and public offices exclusively for public use. Some difference of opinion occurred in the Committee as to whether port folio or royal octavo would be the better form in which to promulgate Acts of Parliament. It would be for the House to determine whether the octavo size, which was that mentioned in the Resolution, was the best. He concluded by moving the first Resolution, "that the Resolutions of the 7th of May, 1801, with respect to printed papers, be rescinded, and that the recommendations of the Committee be adopted in their stead."

could not pledge the Government to the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee without further consideration and examination of the evidence. What was the advantage of tying the House down strictly to those recommendations at the present period of the Session, when no practical result could immediately arise from them? Government was ready to look into those recommendations with a view to the adoption, in the next Session, of a scheme founded on the Report of the Committee.

was of opinion that the immediate adoption of the Resolutions would be the best course.

said, that the Government could have no other object than to promote the public advantage and the convenience of the House, and in order to do this in the most effective manner they asked time for deliberation.

was ready to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, which would, no doubt, exercise a sound discretion on the subject.

was ready to modify his first Resolution, in order to meet the views of the Government; trusting that, if he did so, there would be no objection to agree to those which he should afterwards propose. He would substitute for the Resolution originally proposed, the following:—"That it is the opinion of the House that the Resolutions of May 7, 1801, with respect to printed papers, be rescinded, and that a new 'scheme of distribution, founded on the recommendations of the Committee, be adopted.

moved that the words "printed with smaller type" be omitted from the Resolution.

said, he did not see any authority in the Act by which interest was payable on the amount of the grant from August, 1834. It did not appear to him that the public ought to be saddled with such an addition as this. It was well known that the planters would be enormous gainers by the grant; in most instances, though compensation was granted, the slaves would work for wages. Under these circumstances he gave notice that he should move to leave out the sixth Clause.

thought that he could satisfy the hon. Member, in a few words, of the propriety of the Clause and that his proposition was not consistent with the contract which had been made. The act proposed to take from the slave-owners a great portion of the labour of their slaves, for which compensation was voted them in 1833. The question then arose, at what period was the interest to commence? Was it from the time when the Government chose to raise the money? That could not be, because they might, under such an arrangement, have postponed to raise it indefinitely. Was it from the period when the conduct of the colonies was satisfactory? That would defer it till the time when the compensation was issued. The period from which the grant ought to bear interest was surely that from which the planters suffered loss and their losses commenced at the time when the Act came into operation. This was no proposition of his; it was Lord Althorp's; it was communicated to all the colonies, and it would be a violation of one of the most sacred contracts ever entered into, if the proposition of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, which was, that one of the contracting parties should make an alteration in the terms, without the other party having been heard on the subject.

moved an Amendment, to the effect, "That in cities, which were cities of counties, the right of franchise for Municipal Officers should be upon the same footing as the right of franchise for Members of Parliament." The hon. Member observed, that the class of voters that would be created by his Amendment were most unjustly excluded by the present Bill. He knew them to be a most independent and incorruptible class; and he knew, moreover, that they paid a larger proportion of the municipal taxes than the inhabitants of the towns, in the suburbs of which for the most part they resided. They were in every respect as much entitled to vote for Municipal Officers as for Members of Parliament; and by the Reform Bill a numerous class entitled to vote, the latter were denied by this Bill the right of electing their own Officers.

opposed the Amendment, the effect of which, he said, would be to extend the right of suffrage to a suburban constituency of 2l. and 3l. householders. The introduction of a constituency so numerous, and so low in the scale of society, would defeat the best provisions of the measure. He must, therefore, vote against the Amendment, which he thought had no better foundation than the principle of Universal Suffrage.

said, that all they contended for was, that the municipal suffrage should be upon the same footing that the Parliamentary suffrage was; that it should be co-equal with it. Why should it not? In Scotland it was co-equal. In England it was even greater. In Ireland alone it was less. He could assure his Majesty's Government that the Irish Members had thought much of this distinction, and it had given them great dissatisfaction. The very words of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend were taken out of the Reform Bill, and why there should be a line of distinction drawn he could not make out. It might be all very well to make the difference, if the class proposed as the new constituency did not pay the municipal taxes. The fact was, they paid in the proportion of three to one what the inhabitants of the towns paid. They paid the paving and lighting, and other ordinary imposts of the town. He hoped the opposition to the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, that the object of the Bill was to establish a good municipal constituency. The Amendment of the hon. Member would let in the inhabitants of mud cabins—not that he meant to say anything against the tenants of mud cabins, they were no doubt very respectable, good, and loyal people in their way, but he would put it to the hon. Member, whether this Amendment would not have the effect of defeating the object proposed by the Government—namely, to provide a respectable municipal constituency.

moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.

felt compelled to oppose this Bill. He knew that it was founded on the Report of a Committee of that House, but what he complained of was this—that there were other provisions recommended in that Report besides those which were incorporated in this Bill. For instance, there was a recommendation for a provision for guarding ejected tenants from the consequences of wanton ejectments, and also a recommendation for a provision for the helpless and unemployed poor. He objected to this Bill, because it selected those recommendations of the Report which provided punishment for the people, and omitted those which recommended protection, support, and employment. He contended that coercive measures had been rendered necessary in Ireland, because the Legislature had not given to the poor of that country that Charter which they enjoyed in England. The hon. Member quoted several extracts from Sir Frederick Eden's History of the English Poor Laws to prove, that the state of England as to crime, and as to the moral habits of the peasantry, was much worse before the Act of the 43rd of Elizabeth than the state of Ireland was at present. What peasantry in the world could now be compared with that of England? and yet how demoralized and ruffianly were they before the passing of the Poor-laws. He argued, that as the introduction of Poor-laws into England had been attended with effects so beneficial to England, there was every reason to believe that the introduction of a similar system into Ireland would be productive of results in that country equally advantageous. The preamble of this Bill recited that tumults existed in Ireland. Now there were no tumults in that country at present. But there was great distress; and yet the House was on the point of passing a Coercive Bill for Ireland, without giving the Lord-lieutenant power to relieve that distress? What was it that had excited all the disturbance and agrarian violence of Ireland? Distress. Why, then, did not the Government, even at this late period of the Session, introduce measures to relieve that distress? It was also proposed to continue the duration of this Bill for five years. He thought that it would be better to limit its duration to one year, for then Ministers would have to come forward every year to obtain its re-enactment on their own responsibility. It was impossible to tell into the hands of what Ministry the powers of this Act might fall before the close of the next five years. He also objected to the summary convictions under this Bill, and to those clauses in it which compelled a man to prove his innocence even where the evidence for the prosecution did not establish his guilt. He therefore called upon the House not to enact such a law as this. If, however, they were determined to legislate in this manner, let them make some provision for the helpless poor and the ejected tenant. If this Bill went into Committee, he should certainly move Clauses to that effect. In the mean time, he protested against the Bill as unnecessary. Never in his recollection was Ireland more free from agrarian disturbances than at present. He therefore called upon the House to pause before it passed such a measure, or if it would not pause, to mingle remedial with its coercive enactments.

hoped that the hon. Member would not consider that he treated him discourteously, if he did not follow him into the arguments which he had advanced in favour of introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. The House would, he hoped, go at once into a Committee on the Bill.

did not approve of this Bill, though he should not divide the House upon it. He doubted the necessity for it. He should propose in the Committee a Clause limiting its duration to two years instead of five.

thought, that this Bill would be of advantage to Ireland. During the discussions on the Coercion Bill, he had suggested the propriety of trying such a Bill as the present, as the best means of checking disturbances in the outset. He therefore could not vote with his hon. Friend, the Member for Dundalk, on this occasion. He should support the Motion, that the Bill be committed.

Smith O'Brien moved a Clause limiting the duration of the Bill to two years.