LARGE AND SMALL WHEELS. There is an inclined plane a, which in loading and unloading is let down so that its end lays on the ground, connected by strong hinges b to the platform; in front of the platform and strongly attached to the shafts is a small windlass d, with a ratchetwheel and click at one end e, which is turned by a winch or winches f, hung in two staples, and always carried with the cart. Two ropes pass from this wiudlass round the cask to be loaded, and are fastened to any part of the shafts on each side, as at c: many of the carts have sides to them; this of course depends on the purposes for which they are wanted. The advantages of such a machine must be obvious at first sight. The load being placed so much below the points of suspension, renders it much steadier; it cannot wring and dis 389 tress the horse so much, and there be ing little or no weight upon his back, he is not likely to fall; and if such an accident should happen, the load would not be disturbed, or prevent his getting up again. The line of draught being so low, he draws at right angles with the slope of his shoulder, and is consequently enabled to exert the whole of his strength upon the resisting body, and the fore-horses partake of the advantage. I am much surprised this machine has not been adopted in London, for it appears ad mirably adapted for rough pavements; and I think two horses with such a cart must be equal to three with a common one. Yours respectfully, MILIWAL THIGNк. Chelmsford, Oct. 15, 1829. Sir,-The above sketch will serve to illustrate the assertion of your respectable correspondent, Mr. Baddeley, Jun., vol. xii. p. 174. Supposing the line a to represent the uneven surface of a road, and 1, 2, and 3, three wheels running on it, the lines b, c, and d, will show exactly the course which the centres of the said wheels will run, and prove the truth of Mr. B.'s assertion, and consequently that it will be easier for goods or persons to travel in carriages with high wheels than with low ones, The shape of the courses, c and d, where the wheels are going over a hole in the road, as at e and f, is rather remarkable, and must be felt very sensibly by the traveller. I cannot help noticing that the difference between the line formed by the axle, or centre, of the large wheel, 3, and that of the small wheel, 1, is not so great as Mr. B.'s letter would lead one to expect. It is possible, however, that the circles in the annexed sketch may not be sufficiently large to show the difference correctly.I am, Sir, your old subscriber and correspondent, 390 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON THE PATENT-LAWS. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON THE PATENT-LAWS. (Concluded from our last No. p. 384.) Professor Millington being further examined, stated; that it has always appeared to him that the chief inconvenience of the existing system is the necessity of preserving secrecy during the period allowed for specifying: another great inconvenience is the obligation on the parties to attend per sonally to acknowledge their specifications. The appointment of a scientific commission for the decision of all questions relating to patents was a favourite notion of the witness some years ago; but there seems to be great doubt as to the possibility of obtaining commissioners, or of getting the duty performed in an efficient manner, without partiality or prejudice. Thinks that it would be well if one patent were made to serve for the three kingdoms; but does not consider the present expense an evil, provided the patent were made a secure property. Deems it rather an advantage that a patent should not be too cheap; the world would be inundated with them if that were the case would have the same time for specifying granted in every case. Witness, in conclusion, begged to direct the attention of the Committee to a difficulty of a peculiar kind which has lately started up. As the law stands at present, it does not appear that there is any protection for patent property in the East Indies; they are not supposed to be included in the term "Colonies." Mr. W. H. Wyatt, editor and proprietor of the Repertory of Arts, examined, states, That the "Repertory" contains many hundred verbatim copies of specifications, and a list of every patent that has been obtained since 1795. Has a private volume containing a list of every patent obtained since the time of James II. In 1794, when the "Repertory" was first published, the number of patents in a year was about 50 odd, and it has subsequently increased to 300 for England alone. Of late they have decreased very much; there are now from five to a dozen in the course of a month only. Conceives that the system of granting patents has not only tended much to stimulate inventions, but that it has been a greater spur to the improvement of the arts and manufactures in this country than any other system that could be adopted. No (fixed). sum of money will gratify an inventor; if it is indefinite, his expectations are very great. Believes that the present state of the law is a subject of universal complaint, and that it is attended with great inconveniences. Has known mischief to arise from the different periods for enrolling specifications. One person who has a patent for an improvement will have perhaps six months, and another who takes out a patent for a similar thing immediately after may have only two; the latter being compelled to specify first, has no protection against the other's incorporating his invention in his later specification, Such incorporation would vitiate the patent of the person guilty of it, if it could be proved that he had incorporated what he did not invent; but that is a negative which you cannot easily prove. Thinks the policy of permitting patents to be taken out for inventions communicated from abroad by foreigners is very good, because the great object is to improve by all available means the manufactures of the country; but is of opinion, that so far as the law prevents a patent from being taken out for an invention communicated by a British subject abroad it should be altered. There has been much complaint as to the expense of patents; but is of opinion that if you decrease it much (and unless you did it would be no benefit), it would so increase the number of patents that they would become a public nuisance; for notwithstanding the great expense, there are patents continually obtained for the most trivial, absurd, and old things. Would it not be a better check to patents being granted for frivolous inventions if the parties who were to judge of the propriety of granting patents were more narrowly to sift them, in the first instance ?-It would certainly be a check, but I do not perceive any advantage in that check; a great deal of discontent would frequently arise; parties would complain of being prevented. Have you any other suggestions to offer the Committee ?-Conceives that all the defects, at least a great por tion of them, might be remedied if an Act were passed dispensing with the King's sign-manual, and authorising the patent to be granted by commissioners. Has known patents delayed several months waiting for his Ma MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON THE PATENT-LAWS. jesty's signature, during which period the invention has been discovered by others, and the patent rendered of no effect. Thinks if the specification took place of the caveat, and were entered for twelve months, or some definite period, with power to substitute at a certain period a more perfect one, it would be an improvement; that is, that the patent should take date from the lodgment of the specification, and that the party should be at liberty to consult all the world on preparing (perfecting?) it. Thinks it would be also an improvement if all the specifications were enrolled in one office; and not literally enrolled, but copied into a book. It would be likewise very advantageous if all the specifications were collected from the several offices, and properly arranged and indexed, so that they should be of easy access. Mr. John Macarthy, examined. Have you any suggestion to offer with regard to the laws relating to pa tents? With reference to the price of patents, I think it is too high. To a man like myself, an officer on halfpay, and having a family, it is a very heavy expense; and I beg to say, with reference to the specification, that in all the patents I have taken out (of which I have had as many as four), I have always taken care to have six months; but in more instances than one I have known six months not sufficient time. I have been obliged to specify before the matter has been ripe; but at the same time, I believe there are many inventions that would allow a patentee to enrol his specification next day. I want at this moment to take out a patent with reference to a shoe for an elephant in India, but I must traverse by proxy to India before I can specify. I have heard that it has been proposed that there should be a Board to sit upon inventions. I believe it is the practice in Russia, but it is productive of a great deal of mischief to inventors: inventions are often brought before them with respect to which they are not competent judges whether they are good or not, and they are often, in consequence, thrown out. An invention may appear a very silly thing, but at the same time it may turu out very profitable; and there may be a very valuable invention that may perhaps come to no good. Supposing there were a Board appointed, not composed of lawyers, but 391 of scientific men, and that their attention were to be directed, not so muchTM to the usefulness of the invention, as to the sufficiency of the description, should you have any objection to a Board of that sort ?-No. Benjamin Rotch, Esq., Barrister, examined. 1441 Thinks that the uncertainty of pa tents, and the difficulty of maintaining them, are not particularly owing to defects in specificatious; and does not approve of the plan of a Commis sion to examine specifications, if the approbation of such Commission is to absolve patentees from all farther re-> sponsibility. In three cases out of four, it is the main object of the patentees to deceive the public if they can; and nothing but the dread of losing their patents altogether keeps them constantly from imposing false descriptions on the public. A correct specification is the only return the public get for the monopoly of 14 years; and in proportion as you lessen the responsibility of patentees, the less chance you will have of obtaining such correctness. Commis sioners, too, get almost uniformly 392 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON THE PATENT-LAWS. or instrument to be employed either in making some previously-known article, or in some other useful pur. pose, as a stocking-frame, or a steamengine for raising water in mines; 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 in a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or of a better and inore useful kind: but no merely philosophical or abstract principle can answer to the word manufacture." It was that little word perhaps which set us all at sea, and nobody can say positively what title to a patent the Courts will support or will not, Auother distortion which the Judges have made of the Statute of Monopolies, because it is not wide enough to meet the necessities of every case, relates to the persons to whom patents are granted. The Statute says no patent shall be granted "except to the true and first inventor;" and yet the Judges sanction patents to the importer of foreign inventions, holding that he is to be considered as the true and first inventor." The remedy which witness would suggest to put all this straight, would be to adopt the common-sense decisions of the Judges, and to form a Statute which shall embrace those objects which, although without the pale of the Act, are every day the object of patents, and sanctioned and supported as such by the Judges. There is another point on which all the Judges are at variance, namely, whether or not a new principle reduced to practice may be the subject of a patent. The present Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, holds that it should; and witness would have this decision made law. Illustrates the expediency of this by the following case:-A person in Scotland has lately discovered that in distilling spirits if the wash is thrown into the boilers in the form of a shower, by which a greater surface of the wash is exposed to the heat than if it were laid in one mass, he can distil four times as quickly. Now, there are fifty ways of effecting this: you may, for instance, force a jet against a triangular piece of metal with such force as to distribute the whole into a complete mist in the still; or you may drain it through horse-hair cloths, which will let it come through in drops. The grand inveution was the first thought of exposing wash in that minutely subdivided state to the action of the heat; and in witness's opinion the patent in that case should be granted for the principle, and the patentee should be under no obligation to state all the modes in which it may be carried into effect. You began by stating that this shower would be a principle-a new principle; but if so, and if the same thing has been done before in a steainengine to raise steam, would you call that a principle as regards distilling both is raising a vapour ?-That is getting a legal opinion from me as a lawyer on a subject which does not touch this question (Inquiry). Can you define a principle ?-Any new principle reduced to practice (!) How do you define a principle?Johnson's Dictionary definition of it; whether a thing is new or not must be the subject, and I hope ever will be the subject for a jury to determine. Do the Committee wish me to state what i conceive may be a new principle? What the Committee would ask is this, as to that which you have defined to be a new principle-(the shower)→→→ whether you would consider a man taking out a patent for that principle would give him the exclusive use of it, both as for distilling and as for the steam-engine; taking it in that sense -whether you consider it a new principle in each, or only a general one that would ride over each ?-That again, as I said before, is a legal question; it must depend entirely on the way a man takes out a patent: supposing the principle to be new, and that a man takes out his patent for the principle of exposing water in the form of a shower to the application of heat as a good mode of raising vapour; if he takes it out for that, then I say he shuts the public out from using that principle for any thing. Is the law different at the present day?-I am not aware I am introducing any new law; I am only settling what is law. Look at the steamengine, that was a patent distinctly for a principle. What principle?—Now describe in words what it is? Unless I have the patent before me, I cannot describe it. What is the principle?-I do not sufficiently recollect the patent, but I can describe the lever-fid principle, if that will explain my meaning. You said the patent was 16 distinctly" taken out for a principle ?”— Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ON THE PATENT-LAWS. Interpret to the Committee what you meant by the word principle?-I will take another patent that I am more familiar with for my illustration. A person takes out a patent for a lever-fid that supports the topmast of a vessel; a man takes out a patent for doing that by means of a lever; I should say the principle is the doing it by means of a lever, however arranged or contrived. Should that embrace a screw-a scrow is a lever?-Certainly not; it has been held over and over again that we are to take terms as they are understood mechanically and technically, and not philosophically. I never knew any difficulty to arise until today as to defining what a principle is (!!!)* Mr. Rotch next directed the attention of the Committee to the effect of want of novelty in upsetting patents: the Statute of Monopolies confines the novelty to such manufactures as others at the time of taking out the patent shall not use; but the Judges have completely perverted the provision in the present day-they admit evidence of an invention having been used at any time preceding the taking out of a patent. Apprehends that it would be a great improvement if the letter of the law were adhered to; if it were always understood, that when a thing has gone out of use, if any person provided he be also the inventor, though not the first inventor-shall introduce it in such a form again as shall make it an object to be very much desired, he shall be entitled to a patent. If it is not in use, there is no vested interest to be injured by granting it. But would it have dis We have given this portion of Mr. Rotch's evidence in his own words, because its authen. ticity might have been reasonably doubted on any other authority. As its worth howeverlike that of other flimsy things-is best ascertained by compression, we subjoin what we submit to be a very fair abridgment: What do you mean, Mr. Rotch, by the word principle?-I mean that a principle is a prin ciple. But how do you define a principle? As Dr. Johnson defines it. And how does Dr. Johnson define it?—I forget how. But can't you show by some example what you mean? Yes, the steam-engine was a patent distinctly for a principle. Well, what was that distinct principle?—I don't know; I can't tell !!! We have not met with any thing more amusing in the way of cross-examination on a scientific matter since the noted Mr. Accum's celebrated examination before the House of Commous with respect to the areas of circles.-ED. M. M. 393 tinctly ascertained that the person spplying for a patent for a thing which once existed before had actually invented it a second time; the proof of which should be his own affidavit to that effect?-Thinks that the right of every patentee should date from the time of his first applying; and that in return for this, he should describe the nature of his invention more fully in his title or petition than he does at present. Agrees with preceding witnesses as to the tricks and frauds occasioned by the present practice of allowing patentees different periods to specify. Has known one man upset another because he had the ear of a person about his Majesty, who could get his paper signed; and has alse known 100 guineas given for signing one paper before another. Would make the period for specifying/ the same to all, and that period two months. Is excessively averse to the plan of a Commission to examine specifications, and thinks the public would be ill served by it indeed. 3d June, 1929, Arthur Howe Holdsworth, Esq., a Member of the Committee, examined. Conceives that the notion expressed by some of the preceding witnesses, that patents may be multiplied to too great an extent has arisen from this that as the law is not clear with regard to patents, so many are obtained that appear defective in law, and by confusing workmen really do mischief: but if the law be made so clear and defined that a patent for a something really useful, when taken out, would be found to be secure, then witness cannot conceive that we can have too many patents, as they are the reward of men's ingenuity. One man has a property in the funds, another in land, a third in the powers of his head, evidenced by his inventions and if you were to attempt to limit the number, you would at once cramp men's ingenuity, and not give those who are clever their fair value in the market, because their brains are the only property they possess. Does not consider that it is for the purpose of improper deception that persons so often give titles to patents which do not at first sight indicate the thing they ultimately specify; but that patentees are driven to this course in order to guard themselves against the danger to which they are liable, under the present state of the law, of being |