The second improvement consists in a mode of manufacturing malleable iron, by means of the above process, combined with the use of pig or scrap iron, which is mixed with the ore in equal quantities.

If a single bedded furnace is used, the best time for applying the pig or scrap iron, is when the ore and carbonaceous matters have become well heated; but if a double furnace is employed, the iron is added when the ore and carbonaceous matters are raked on to the working bed.

The patentee claims, Firstly.-The mode of manufacturing wrought or malleable iron, in reverberatory furnaces, from iron ore, by combining with it 28 per cent., or upwards, of carbonaceous matters.

Secondly. The mode of manufacturing wrought or malleable iron, from iron ore, in reverberatory furnaces, by combining with it 28 per cent., or upwards, of carbonaceous matters, with pig or scrap iron.-[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, September, 1840.]

To SAMUEL MARLOW BANKS, of Bilston, in the county of Stafford, Gent., for improvements in the manufacture of iron.-[Sealed 16th April, 1840.]

THIS invention consists, in conveying into the blast furnace, particles of coal, slack, coke, charcoal, anthracite, lime-stone, or any other suitable material, along with the blast.

The patentee does not confine himself to any particular means of carrying this into effect, but describes the following, by way of illustration :-Upon the blast pipe, near the tuyre, a large funnel is fixed, provided with a stop-cock, and closed air-tight. The funnel is filled with powdered coal, &c., which, upon the stop-cock being opened, descends, by its own gravity, into the blast-pipe, and is carried by the blast into the furnace; the pressure, above and below the powdered coal, being equalized, by admitting the blast into the upper part of the funnel, through a tube, connected with the blast-pipe, and furnished with a stop-cock.

The patentee claims the introduction into a blast furnace of solid particles of matter, of any kind, along with the blast, whether hot or cold blast, and by whatever means such mixture of blast and solid particles be produced.[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, October, 1840.]

To ALFRED JEFFERY, of Lloyd-street, Pentonville, Gent., for a new method of preparing masts, spars, and other wood, for ship-building and other purposes.-[Sealed 15th April, 1842.]

THIS method of preparing masts, spars, and other wood, for ship-building and other purposes, consists in the use of a composition or glue, (insoluble in water, and more elastic than the glue in ordinary use,) for fastening together pieces of timber, of which masts, &c., may be composed; and for strengthening "shaky" pieces.

Of this glue, called by the patentee "Jeffery's marine glue," two kinds are described; the chief difference in their composition being, that one contains caoutchouc, and the other does not.

In making glue with caoutchouc, a solution is employed, called crude naptha caoutchouc solution, made by mixing 1 lb. of caoutchouc, cut into thin shreds, with 4 gallons of crude or rough naptha, stirring it occasionally, until the caoutchouc is dissolved, and the solution has acquired the consistence of thick cream; which will be in about 10 or 12 days. Gum lac or shellac is now added to the solution, in the proportion of two parts, by weight, of lac, to one part of the solution, and the mixture is put into an iron vessel, provided with a tap at the lower part; heat is applied to the vessel, and the mixture is stirred until the solution and lac are thoroughly amalgamated. The marine glue, thus produced, is drawn off through the tap, while in a heated state, and poured upon slabs to cool.

The other kind of glue, which does not contain caoutchouc, is composed of one part, by weight, of crude or rough naptha, and two parts of gum lac, or shellac, which

are combined together, in the same manner as the lac and solution before mentioned.

When the glue is required for use, it is heated to 250° Fahr., in an iron vessel, and is applied with a stiff brush to the surfaces to be joined. As both kinds of glue soon become cold and stiff, they must be softened again, if they become hard before the pieces are properly joined together, by applying a heat of about 140° Fahr., by the aid of hot irons, or any other suitable means.

Shaky pieces of timber are strengthened by filling up the crevices with glue, heated to 250° Fahr.

The patentee claims the use or application, in preparing masts, spars, and other wood, for ship-building and other purposes, of glue, insoluble in water, and more elastic than the glue in ordinary use.―[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, October, 1842.]

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.

We have received the following communication from the Registrar of Designs, which we publish for the information of such of our readers as may be interested in the working of the new Act.

GENTLEMEN,

OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF Designs,
November 12, 1842.

I have to inform you that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have approved of the reduction of the fee from Twenty Shillings to Five Shillings, for registering designs, in Classes 12 and 13.

As the reports of the decisions of the Scotch Courts are accessible to few English readers, the following Extract from Lord Hailes' Reports, referred to by the respondents, and added to their case, by way of appendix, may be useful.

APPENDIX.

"Lord Hailes.-A very momentous question occurs here. Messrs. Roebuck and Company contend, that although they were not the inventors of making oil of vitriol in lead vessels, still their patent must be good to exclude others, because they were the first that practised that art in Scotland.' Your Lordships will not establish this proposition without maturely weighing its consequences, which seem exceedingly strange. I will explain what I mean by a few familiar examples. The first stocking-loom in Scotland was established at Glasgow between thirty and forty years ago. According to Messrs. Roebuck and Company, the man who first established that stocking-loom might have sought and obtained a patent, prohibiting all others in Scotland from establishing a stocking loom in Scotland for fourteen years; the same would be the case as to the still later establishment of looms for silk, gauze, and ribands, so necessary in the present ruined state of our linen manufactures. At this day the working of velvet, or of any other manufactures used in England, but not in Scotland, may be circumscribed by patent for fourteen years, that is, all new manufactures may be limited in Scotland to one man for the space of fourteen years. The only person in Scotland who has used Dr. Franklin's conductor for lightning, is Dr. Lind. Were that gentlemen less benevolent than he is, he might monopolize Dr. Franklin's invention in Scotland for fourteen years. According to the suspender's argument, he, as the first user, though not the inventor, may have a patent. Although lightning were as frequent and as fatal in Scotland as in Virginia and Pennsylvania, no man could use the conductor without Dr. Lind's permission, no, not even Dr. Franklin himself. Take the latest invention of all, Dr. Irvine's method of making salt water fresh; the process is simple; I may set it agoing in Scotland, procure a patent, and prohibit all the inhabitants in Scotland from making salt water fresh. Again, there is in Edinburgh one Dallaway, who understands the method of enamelling on white iron, as practised at Birmingham. This art is not known in Scotland; it is a manufacture which would maintain thousands of hands; there can be no doubt of the publicus usus et exercitium of Dallaway, for I have seen his work; he may therefore obtain a valid patent to-morrow, and prevent the further introduction of the manufacture into Scotland for fourteen years. Many more examples might be given; but these may suffice to call your Lordships' attention to this question, Whether that proposition can be true in law, whereof the consequences are obviously ruinous to the whole system of improvements in Scotland.

"Lord Gardenston. Here is such an improvement as may be held an invention. There is nothing in the objection, that Roebuck and Company had privately carried on the trade for a number of years. The great difficulty is here, that the work in lead vessels had been carried on in England before the date of the patent. I should even doubt whether a patent might be granted to the person who first introduced any foreign invention into Britain. In matters of prerogative there is no distinction between England and Scotland. This distinction was taken away by the happy Union.

"Lord Kaimes.-This is a matter of considerable moment, because it concerns the good of the public and manufactures. The suspenders take the benefit both of the act of James the First, and of the general prerogative of all Princes touching patents to new inventions. The radical point is, whether Messrs. Roebuck and Company have invented any thing material? They certainly have. The use of lead vessels instead of glass is a matter of great moment. It has been said, that if the use of lead vessels was known in England before the date of the patent, Messrs. Roebuck and Company cannot support their patent; and to illustrate this the use of the stocking-loom, &c. has been mentioned. I am not sure that the King could not have granted a patent to the person who introduced the stocking-loom into Scotland. The

cases, however, are different, for the stocking-loom was a public manufactory in England, to which every one had access; whereas they who made oil of vitriol in lead vessels at Bridgenorth or Bewdly, wrought privately, and work privately still.

"Lord Monboddo.-The invention of Messrs. Roebuck and Company has proved useful: It has been found by this Court that it is sufficiently published. I do not see the case of The Glasgow Merchants in so favourable a light; they had no certain knowledge of Roebuck's method; they sent one of their servants to corrupt the servants of Roebuck, and to discover the secret. Yet we must determine on grounds of law, not of favour. The first objection is, That there is no new discovery. Ans. Call it a discovery, or call it an improvement, it is so material as to entitle Messrs. Roebuck and Company to a reward. The second objection is, That the patentees had used this method for fourteen years before the date of the patent. Ans. 1st, In point of fact, it is long since they began to try it; but they did not till of late bring their trials to perfection: 2d, There was no occasion for applying to obtain a patent till there was a danger of discovery. The third objection is, That the discovery was not made by Roebuck and Company. I do not see any evidence of the art having been practised in Scotland. The charger's pretensions for discovery are ridiculous. It is acknowledged that there is no proof as to Steel. With respect to England, that the art was practised in England before the date of the patent, am satisfied. It is probable that the discovery came from Roebuck himself by the treachery of one Fauconbridge, a discarded servant. (This is probable conjecture. The Company gave Fauconbridge 10s. a week, and on his proving idle and drunkensome, dismissed him. It is likely that he told all he knew to the English artists, and that though he might not be able to explain the whole process, yet could tell enough to set chemists on the right scent; it was a poor saving to the company to suffer so dangerous a man as Fauconbridge to go at large, because he was not worth his wages.) However, I lay not stress on the circumstance of the discover y having come from Roebuck and Company. The question then comes to this? Will not Roebuck's patent be good, as he first brought the art into Scotland: Even in that view, as the introductor of this art, he is a great benefactor to the nation. The art was not publicly practised in England; its being secretly practised there will not affect Roebuck's patent. But I will suppose that the art was publicly practised in England; still I think it the same thing as if Roebuck had introduced it into Scotland from beyond seas. In the sense of law, England, with respect to us, is beyond seas. (There is a decision of the Court, finding the contrary in express terms.) The Article of Union touches not this case. This is not a matter of trade, though it may be useful in trade. There is no communication of the law of patents between the two nations.

"Lord Coalston.-I am clear that there is no relevancy on the first and second objections. My sole difficulty lies in the third objection, that this art had been practised in England and elsewhere before the date of the patent. There is no proof either as to the Stirlings or as to Steel. It is not sufficient that others may have known it, if others did not use it. The patent will be good; so says the act of King James I., which the parties admit to be the law of Britain; but the evidence of its having been practised in England, is sufficient to void the patent. I admit that its being practised in foreign parts would not be a good objection. It is proved to have been practised at Bridgenorth and Bewdly; this, I think, is a good objection in the words of the Articles of Union. Upon this clause of the Articles of Union, the statute of James I., is admitted to be the law of Britain. At the time of the Union, there was scarcely one manufacture properly practised in Scotland. Most of the manufactures now known, were then known in England. Was it agreeable to the statute of Monopolies, or to the Articles of Union, that any subject of Scotland could apply for a patent respecting any manufacture in England but not in Scotland? This cause falls to be determined upon the