forces it up without fracture. For still further security the Patentee directs part of a leaf of a checque book to be employed, from which designs can be cut, bearing a corresponding one in the margin, in order to prevent the substitution or removal of the paper placed in the lock.

To JOHN SMITH, of Bradford, in the county of York, Corn Miller, for certain Improvements in Machinery for dressing Flour.-[Sealed June 4, 1829.]

THE improvements under this Patent, consist, first, in using iron ribs for forming the frame of the dressing cylinder; secondly, in a method of fixing the wire-work thereto; and lastly, in using an external brush to cleanse it. The iron ribs are formed of two semicircular pieces of iron joined together by screws and nuts, and kept firm by two bars at opposite sides passing through transverse perforations made in each rib; through the latter, in a contrary direction, are also formed numerous other perforations for the admission of screws which pass through the wire-work and the holes prepared for them, and are then screwed firmly in their place by finger nuts, whilst the heads of the screws fit into a groove or channel formed along the inner circumference. The brush is to be placed above the cylinder, and both are caused to revolve, though with different degrees of swiftness, by means of gear properly arranged for this purpose: the axis of the brush turns in a two armed lever, which latter is caused to move easily on a pivot at certain intervals, being acted upon by a second lever attached to part of the gear, in order to raise it when the connecting bars, in passing, would otherwise come in contact with it, and prevent its working. An internal brush is also used, as in the usual machines.

REPORT

Of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Laws of Patents.

(Continued from page 309.)

Benjamin Rotch, Esq. called in; and Examined.

HAVE the goodness to give the Committee any information you can upon the subject of the present inconveniences of the patent laws, and any remedies you think might be applied to them? -I am of opinion, from the experience that I have had in that particular branch, and to which I should say I have directed particular attention, that I certainly think the difficulty and'uncertainty attending patents and their specifications, is a cause why the government do not receive at least three or fourfold the amount they would, of revenue from that particular department: but I am not at all of opinion that the uncertainty of patents, and of their being maintained, depends particularly upon the faulty mode in which the description of the invention is often set forth in the specification; I know there is a very strong opinion abroad, by the public at large, that it would be desirable, if a commission was appointed, to examine into every specification, and that that commission having decided that a specification is good, the patentee should be absolved from all responsibility on that head. To that I think there are a great many serious objections, and particularly for this reason,—as a perfect description of the specification, is the only thing the public get in return for the monopoly for fourteen years, which is certainly a very great boon for any individual, you take away certainly from the interest that the patentee has in giving that fair description which will enable the public, when the patentee is dead, we will say, or the patent expired, to benefit by the invention to the full extent that the patentee himself did; you take away his incentive to do that, if you take away his responsibility that it shall be correct, and throw that responsibility on the commissioners; for certainly my experience tells me that, in VOL.IV.-SECOND SEEIES.

Y Y

three cases out of four, it is the main object of the patentee to deceive the public if he can, and nothing but the dread and fear of losing his patent altogether keeps him constantly from imposing on the public by a false description. In some cases, even that fear will not operate; a case that I may mention is familiar to almost every body, and will illustrate what I have said as well as any thing I can say: in the case of those elegant visiting cards which have been lately shown about with an enamel on them, that is produced solely by a particular white colour which is brought from Germany; the inventor, a German, came to me on the subject of his specification, and told me it was done with the purest chemical white; I said, "it appears to me it must be the German white (Kremnitz white); he said, "it is the purest chemical white;" shielding himself under the knowledge that the Kremnitz white was purer than any other; he would not allow me to put in his specification the Kremnitz white, but made me put it "the purest chemical white." I said, "you take the responsibility on yourself, and recollect if your patent is ever upset on this point you absolve me upon it," and I even made him write a note to that effect; and years afterwards, during the whole of which period the English manufacturers had been trying to make it and had failed, somebody says, "it is Kremnitz white;" I believe it was Ackermann, who is a German, and they repealed the patent. I supported it all I could, and contended because Kremnitz white is the purest chemical white, it was accurately described, not eo nomine, but by a faithful description, in saying it is the purest chemical white; but the Lord Chancellor properly said at once, "this is not a description on which the public can act; at any rate the patentce knew a better one:" that will only show the Committee the feeling there is, if possible, to conceal something from the public. You might succeed with commissions nine times in ten. Commissioners almost uniformly

get careless in their office by time; they have not the same motive to put so much zeal into their examination of specifications as the patentee has himself, if he knows it must be upset at any time, however long, if any defaultis detected in it; therefore when one considers monopolies (when that name is given to them) always have a degree of odium in the public eye, and when you consider that the specification is the only return a patentee makes for the monopoly, it does seem extremely desirable that every possible incentive to induce that man to do right should be held out to him. It is also a fact, that as the specifications are now drawn, certainly in the course of my practice, (and I have thought about the subject since my attention has been brought to it by the summons I received from the House,) I never recollect but one case in which a patent was upset for want of a

proper description merely of the invention in the specification, that is, with regard to the mechanical means of carrying it into effect; that is to say, a description by which a person could not do the thing if he was set to work to do it. Many patents are upset on the specification, but then it is on points arising out of the law as it now stands, which is in itself uncertain, from circumstances that I will endeavour to explain, and which certainly, to my mind, wants most material alteration. In the first place, the statute of James, which is called the statute of monopolies, passed at the time when those injurious monopolies were granted, which are now restrained by the statute restraining all monopolies except those for patent inventions for fourteen years; and the words of the statute, which are extremely well calculated for those times, do not happen now at all to hit the necessities of the present period. The consequence is, that the judges are constantly straining the meaning of this act to make it meet the necessity of the times. Thus it exactly depends on the extent of laxity that a judge will venture to give as to what the law at this particular day in any particular court happens to be on patents. The word in the statute is "manufactures"that monopolies shall be granted for fourteen years for the sole working or making of any manner of new manufacture within this realm; then comes the question, what are "manufactures ;" now if it is discovered that in bleaching cotton, instead of dipping it, we will say, first in an acid, and then in a water to get rid of the acid; if it is found better to mix the acid and water together, it may be an improvement of thirty per cent value to the manufacturer, and that advantage in the process is no doubt most important in the present time, when every thing depends on the excellence, the rapidity, or the cheapness with which you do a thing. In fact, three patents out of four are taken out for new processes, by which well known ends are obtained; that cannot be considered as a new maunfacture; a new process by which you obtain an old manufacture is not a new one; it is a mere mode of putting together known elements to effect a known end. But some judges, my Lord Tenterden for one, arc so open to the necessity of granting patents for these things, because they are so vastly important, that they will say, "that is the meaning of the word, manufacture"" Another who is a statute lawyer, would say, "nonsense; manufacture means no such thing, this is only a process." A man takes out his patent with this conflicting evidence as to the judges, for "a new manufacture of bleached linen.", Then that will be upset in the specification, because one judge will say, "it is not a new manufacture, it is a new process." If he takes out his patent "for a new process of bleaching linen," he will again upset it, because

6

he says, "you cannot have a patent for a process;" he will quote the authority of Lord Mansfield, who says,-the way in which you can determine what is a patentable article and what is not, is simply by asking yourself this question; Is it a vendible article or not? who shall say, mixing acid with water, instead of using them separately, is a vendible article. The judge, who is adverse to Lord Mansfield's decision, says, you cannot have a patent for a process. Then Lord Tenterden, in a celebrated judgment which I have here-The King and Wheeler, attempts to determine what a new manufacture is; the words of his Lordship show how completely he is puzzled to make it mean what patents ought to be granted for at the present day, to meet the times. He says, "the word manufacture has been generally understood to denote; he only says,." has been generally under stood to denote either a thing made, which is useful for its owu sake, or vendible as such; as a medicine, a stove, a telescope, and many others; or to mean an engine or instrument, or some part of an engine or instrument to be either employed in making some previously known article, or in some other useful purpose, as a stocking frame, or a steam engine for raising water from mines; or it may, perhaps, extend also; " that is what I complain of, as the cruel judgment which makes the law uncertain; "or it may, perhaps, extend also to a new process to be carried on by known implements or elements acting upon known substances, and ultimately producing some other known substance; but producing it on a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or of a better or more useful kind; but no merely philosophical or abstract principle can answer to the word "manufacture." That little word perhaps, sets us all at sea, and nobody can say positively what title to a patent the courts will support or will not.

What remedy do you propose for that? This difficulty embraces undoubtedly almost all the points on which patents are upset on the specification. I will come in a moment to the remedy. The second point is that on which patents are upset, most frequently; for on these two points almost all patents are upset. It is the novelty of the invention, which has nothing to do with the specification at all; and it is a false idea to suppose it is the want of a just description, by which a mechanic can follow the process or make the engine that is the subject of the invention, which causes the patents to be upset on the specification. Now the remedy that I would suggest for the indecision in the Judges, is to make an extension of the statute of monopolies. Another distortion, however, the Judges have made of this statute, because it was not wide enough to meet the necessity of the case; the statute says, there shall be no patent granted except to the true and first inventor thereof," and yet we find the Judges sanctioning the grant of

66