"get it," or something of that sort. There is another piece of evidence behind. Mr. Arkwright, after his defeat in the Court of King's Bench, applied to the House of Commons to try if he could not get an act of parliament to relieve him: and in his printed case, stating the reason of his applying to parliament, he speaks of the verdict against him in the King's Bench in these words: "At the time Mr. Arkwright obtained his last patent, he justly concluded that his inven tions were of great national importance, and conceived that they would be sought after by foreigners, to introduce into other countries; he there. fore, purposely, in prevention of that evil, (he had almost said national injury) omitted to give so full and particular a description of his inventions in his specification attendant on his last patent, as he otherwise would have done; and in order the more effectually to guard against foreigners, it has been Mr. Arkwright's uniform rule, to forbid the admission of them into any of his works." For fear that foreigners might steal this invention, he withholds it from Englishmen to the end of fourteen years. If that is the fact, that he meant not to disclose his invention lest foreigners should steal it, he cannot have his patent; for, at the peril of all that, the law requires it. He has declared he purposely omits a full and fair disclosure, lest foreigners should have it; if he has done so, there is an end of his patent. It is highly for the public benefit, that, upon this occasion, a verdict should be given against Mr. Arkwright.

I

LORD LOUGHBOROUGH.-We must never decide private rights upon any idea of public benefit. must tell the jury, that they must shut out that part of the argument. I cannot let a cause between A. and B. be determined upon consequential reasons, that it is beneficial to the public that A. should prevail.

Mr. Bearcroft, with great submission, thought it material in this case; for, by the statute against monopolies, no patent is to prevail, that is generally inconvenient, or against public trade.

Mr. Serjeant Adair, in reply, contended, that enough had appeared to-day to warrant his assertion, that the cause was not understood in the Court of King's Bench. Mr. Arkwright's long acquiescence in the event of the former trial, is complained of; but that complaint comes with a very ill grace from those who have been all along profiting by that acquiescence. A man who has been once beaten in a Court of high authority, does not feel himself immediately bold enough to enter into another Court. It was natural for Mr. Arkwright to endeavour to procure every ground of evidence, before he brought the matter to another discussion; in fact, this action was brought a considerable time ago: and has been brought forward as soon as the attendance of witnesses could be procured.

The question in this cause is truly stated to be, whether this specification is such as the law requires, in order to support the patent. And it has been admitted as true, in point of fact, that a declaration in the case of a machine of this exten

sive utility, is less necessary than in other cases that are not the visible object of the senses; but it was added the law requires it. It is not contended that it is not necessary, in point of law, that there should be such a specification as will enable a proper judge of the subject to practise the invention, but a jury will be less curious and minute in examining a specification of that kind, than where there is no means of preserving that benefit to the public, but the intelligibility of the specification. An attempt is made to persuade you, that Mr. Arkwright intended to conceal this invention; not to disclose, but to render it more obscure. Now, if it is true, that from the general use of these machines it is impossible to keep them secret, Mr. Arkwright must be a downright idiot, if he had, in order to make his patent void, purposely concealed by his specification that from the public, which, it is admitted, it was impossible for him to conceal; for, these machines being necessarily brought into pretty general use, it is obvious, that if there had been no specification at all, or if it had been the most studiously obscure that ingenuity could have made it, long before the expiration of the patent, a vast variety of persons, certainly, could have made it; therefore, Mr. Arkwright must know that it was impossible this should remain a secret, and that the only effect of a studied obscurity would be to render his patent doubtful, if not void. One part of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, if believed, must make an end of this cause. There is the evidence of five witnesses, who have positively sworn that they

made the machine from the specification. Do you, or do you not believe those five witnesses to be perjured? If you do, and reject their evidence, still the balance of the evidence is in favor of the plaintiff; but, if you believe them, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. For, if it is true that they, with no other information, than a knowledge of the old machine, and the specification of the new one, have made the new machine, it is of no consequence if fifty or five hundred men were called to prove that they could not have done the same thing. But there is a piece of evidence which deserves particular attention; the evidence of a man who had been long concerned in the manufactory, and who, immediately on Mr. Arkwright's invention coming out, had recourse to the specification, and from thence added all the material parts to the old machine. Is that, then, a specification, unintelligible as Chinese? It was the source of information to which every body had recourse, who wanted to steal the invention, and every man who had recourse to it, and had sufficient ingenuity on the subject, did steal it. If, then, one man is to have credit who tells you, that wishing to get the benefit of this, he got the specification from the office, and from thence made the machine, it will overbear the evidence of five hundred witnesses, who say they think it could not be done.

LORD LOUGHBOROUGH, before he stated the evidence, took notice of some things that had occurred in the course of the trial, merely for the purpose of laying them aside as foreign to the

purpose of the inquiry. There is no matter of favor can enter into consideration in a question of this nature. The law has established the right of patents for new inventions; that law is extremely wise and just. One of the requirements is, that a specification shall be enrolled, stating the nature of the invention; the object of which is, that after the term is expired the public shall have the benefit of the invention, but without that condition is complied with, the patentee forfeits all the benefit he derives from the great seal.

It has been said that many persons have acted upon an idea that Mr. Arkwright had no right, he having failed to establish it when this cause underwent an examination in another place, in which the event was unfavorable to him. If the question at present were what damages Mr. Arkwright should have received for the invading that right, I would have allowed the parties to have gone into evidence to shew to what extent persons had acted upon the faith of the former verdict; but the question now is upon the mere right: and if the result of this cause is in favor of the plaintiff, the verdict will be with one shilling damages. A future invasion of this right would entitle Mr. Arkwright to an action for damages, but in the present case they are not asked.

It is said, it is highly expedient for the public that this patent, having been so long in public use after Mr. Arkwright had failed in that trial, should continue to be open; but nothing could be more essentially mischievous than that questions of property between A. and B. should ever be