Wellington-street, impd. apparatus for racking and decanting liquids (termed 'Laburthes apparatus '),— a communication. 3207. George Haseltine, of Southampton-buildings, impd. oil, more especially designed for mixing paints and colors, and a new mode of manufacturing the same,—a communication. 3208. Frederic Newton Gisborne, of Adelaide-place, London, impts. in the means of communicating signals on board ship, on railways, and for other purposes. 3210. Frederick Walton, of Chiswick, impts. in the manufacture of floorcloths and coverings and similar fabrics, and in pavements. 3211. Charles Tiot Judkins, of Ludgate-street, impts. in machines for sewing and stitching,-a communication. 3212. James Howden, of Glasgow, impts. in steam engines and boilers, and in processes or apparatus to be employed in working the same. 3213. William Henry Tooth, of Rhodeswell-road, Stepney, impts. in the manufacture of iron and steel, and in the machinery, apparatus, and furnaces used therein; and for the production and application of gas to be employed in such manufacture; and the application of parts of the said apparatus to the manufacture of glass and alkali. The above bear date December 19th. 3215. William James Dixon, of Pres ton, Lancashire, impts. in oil cans, and in apparatus for lubricating. 3216. William Clark, of Calcutta, and William Fothergill Batho, of Birmingham, impts. in machinery or apparatus for rolling roads; which is also applicable to traction engines and other similar purposes. 3217. Edward Tangye, of Brussels, impts. in the manufacture of welded iron chain and welded steel chain, and in tools to be employed in the said manufacture. 3218. Robert Heaton Taylor, of Brightside, near Rotherham, impd. apparatus for lubricating the cylinders of steam engines. 3219. Robert Paterson, of Glasgow, impts. in steam engines. 3220. Edward Wilson and George Lindsley, of Worcester, impd. method of feeding locomotive and other boilers; applicable also to the raising of water and other liquids. 3221. Robert Baynes, of Wimbledon, impts. in apparatus for darning stockings and other fabrics. 3223. John Green, of Newtown Farm, St. Martin, Worcestershire, impts. in the construction of harrows, cultivators, and ploughs. 3224. Edwin John Green and Richard Mason, of Birmingham, a holder or suspender for holding cotton and other reels, spools, or balls; parts of which are also applicable for other useful purposes. 3225. James Eastwood, of Blackburn, impts. in apparatus for forcing size or other glutinous substances through pipes, to supply machines for sizeing yarns, cloths, or other materials. 3226. Michael Henry, of Fleet-street, impts. in the mode of, and apparatus for, controlling the passage of fluids to and from casks and other vessels, -a communication. 3227. Julius Lorenz Wittenberg, of Clarendon-road, Notting-hill, impts. in wrappers or envelopes for receiving or enclosing papers and various other articles. 3228. Michael Henry, of Fleet-street, impts. in the mode of, and apparatus for, constructing houses and other structures of plastic materials,—a communication. 3229. Victor Beare Fitz Gibbon, of Cork, impts. in spring mattresses or beds and cushions. 3230. Alfred Vincent Newton, of Chancery-lane, impts. in the construction of cotton gins,-a communication. The above bear date December 21st. 3232. James Shanks, of St. Helens, Lancashire, impts. in the manufacture of caustic soda and caustic potash. 3234. John Sainty, of Burnham-market, Norfolk, impd. turnip cutter for cutting the last slice. 3235. Joseph Grindley Rowe, of Queensquare, Westminster, impd. means of communication between the guard and engine-driver of a railway train. 3236. Richard Archibald Brooman, of Fleet-street, impts. in feeding steam boilers and condensers,-a communication. 3237. Frederick Hazeldine, of Lantstreet, impts. in hydraulic pumps. 3238. William Edward Gedge, of Wellington-street, impts. in the knives used for the cylinders and blocks of rag cutting or beating engines; the same arrangement of knives being also applicable to the crushing or beating of other substances,—a communication. 3240. John Gjers, of Middlesbrough, impts. in lifts or machinery or apparatus for raising and lowering weights. 3241. Archibald Turner, of Leicester, impts. in looms for weaving. The above bear date December 22nd. 3242. John Henry Johnson, of Lincoln's-inn-fields, impts. in shields or tips for boots and shoes,—a communication. 3243. Mara Matilda Twining, of Grove Lodge, Clapham, apparatus for the prevention of railway accidents. 3244. Richard Edward Van Hees, of Manchester, impts. in means to be employed for securing the ends of bands in packing bale goods, and in machinery for manufacturing holdfasts to be employed for the purpose. 3245. Robert Walter, of Crumpsall, Lancashire, impts. in the construction and arrangement of "safety cabs" or other like vehicles. The above bear date December 23rd. 1863. 1514. John Banwell. 1516. James Newman. 1523. William Naylor. 1524. J. A. Sparling. 1525. J. L. Ganne. 1536. H. A. Bonneville. 1545. D D. Kyle. 1547. Robert Brownlee. 1550. Charles Peterson. 1562. Edwin Wilks. New Patents Sealed. 1563. Alexander Twaddell. 1567. L. A. Majolier. 1568. William Rowan. 1575. John Murray. 1576. A. R. Stocker. 1578. W. W. Sleigh. 1580. T. F. Parsons. 1581. R. A. Brooman. 1588. William Toovey. 1590. Theophilus Redwood. 1591. P. R. Hodge. 1592. E. Myers and W. R. Williams. 1595. Thomas Skinner. 1600. Thomas Page. 1601. J. O. Mathieu. 1603. William Kirrage. 1604. H. G. Craig. 1605. H. C. Lee. 1606. Alfred Watson. 1608. Alfred Tulpin. 1609. William Clark. 1610. Gottlieb Boccius. 1614. Thomas Dunn. 1615. George Clark. 1618. John Chatterton. 1620. William Andrews. 1699. A. G. Southby. 1704. John Thomas. 1728. William Henderson. 1734. M. W. Ruthven. 1736. J. Orr, J. Brinton, and J. Lewis. 1738. R. A. Brooman. 1739. Hugh Greaves. 1740. James Mortimer. 1749. R. A. Brooman. 1750. R. A. Brooman. 1751. P. C. A. Jodocius. 1752. H. A Bonneville. 1760. James Davison. 1763. Edward Sonstadt. 1766. James Slater. 1767. Edward Funnell. 1768. Thomas Wimpenny. 1770. W. T. Cheetham. 1771. William Clark. 1772. P. A. J. Dujardin. 1774. R. A. Brooman. 1777. Dominique Tamet. 1781. J. N. Taylor. 1784. L. R. Bodmer. 1785. Charles Stokes. 1786. George Rand. 1787. John Lamb. 1789. Benjamin Lambert. 1796. Felix Lepoutre. 1797. Thomas Johnson. 1801. Richard Coenen. 1802. J. H. Johnson. 1803. Alexander Clark. 1806. George Murdoch. 1808. W. Simpson and J. Hutton. 1809. F. A. Calvert. 1810. R. B. Brassey and J. Hargreaves. 1812. J. Bailey, and W. H. Bailey. 1813. Augustus Smith. 1815. A. A. Pelaz. 1816. Frederick Ayckbourn. 1818. Robert Weare. 1820. F. L. H. Danchell. 1821. C. H. Roeckner. 1825. E. T. Bainbridge. 1827. George Haseltine. 1828. R. A. Brooman. 1831. W. E. Newton. 1832. P. R. Jackson. 1833. James Ronald. 1839. Joseph Simmons. 1842. J. L. J. Fillion. 1843. M. A. Soul. 1854. Bernard Bernbaum. 1872. Baron de Rostaing. 1888. W. and S. Firth. 1895. J. P. Culverwell. 1914. B. W. Gerland. 1915. J. Imbert, P. Bonnet, and J. Pfister. 1916. Hamilton Woods. 1925. W. E. Newton. 1934. A. V. Newton. 1938. J. G. Pinède. 1975. E. Myers and H. Forbes. 1981. J. G. Willans. 1996. William Clark. 2006. Harvey Brown. 2031. A. V. Newton. 2039. H. A. Bonneville. 2050. Alexander Cruickshank. 2056. C. G. Wilson. 2057. William Jackson. 2092. Alfred Jobson. 2093. Louis Guillemot. 2116. Francis Pragst. 2120. W. E. Newton. 2145. George Attock. 2151. A. V. Newton. 2176. W. Boulton and J. Worthington. 2179. H. A. Bonneville. 2180. H. A. Bonneville. 2300. H. C. Huskinson. 2352. T. Marshall and W. Marshall. 2389. William Clark. 2394. William Clark. 2441. Samuel Mathews. 2459. John Gibson. 2464. Caleb Croswell. 2472. A. V. Newton. 2477. George Parry. 2525. Peter Lesley. 2549. E. H. C. Monckton. 2574. G. H. Daglish and T. Windus. 2593. Robert Baillie. 2648. John Marshall. For the full titles of these Patents, the reader is referred to the corresponding numbers in the List of Grants of Provisional Specifications. NEWTON'S London Journal of Arts and Sciences. No. CXI. (NEW SERIES), MARCH 18T, 1864. PATENT ADJUDICATION REFORM. THE increasing attention which the patent laws are just now receiving throughout the country seems to indicate that a crisis of some kind is imminent. Whenever it may arrive, it will not come a day too soon, for if the collateral rights of patentees and manufacturers are only to be maintained at the ruinous cost that at present obtains, England might as well at once renounce her claim to manufacturing supremacy, and, by abrogating the law of patents, proclaim, like Switzerland, piracy of inventions as a feature of her national policy. There can be no question that the mode of proceeding in our courts-refined and elaborated, as it has been of late years, to an excessive pitch, until the adjudication on an originally simple question has become complex and costly beyond all calculation-is the origin of the hostility that exists against patents; for we are all too apt, when suffering pecuniarily or otherwise, to vent our anger on, or refer our distress to, circumstances to which the evil that has overtaken us is known to relate, while we overlook the minor circumstances out of which the evil really arose; and thus suffering, we, in our haste, condemn the primary and innocent cause, and wish to be rid of it, regardless of the disadvantages that would accrue from its removal. Thus, to cite a common example, how many times have we wished to be rid of pain, regardless of the value of its monitions, while, even with such a powerful monitor, we too often neglect the means for its legitimate removal. Besides those who have suffered by, or rather through, the instrumentality of the patent laws— as they might in like manner suffer through any other prohibitory or compensative law, similarly administered-there are the blind theorists who, forgetting that political economy is a science founded on the known laws of human action, ignore the existence of the interests that prompt that action, and publicly proclaim at once their imbecility and their hostility to patent law protection. But enough of this. Our object at present is not to strive to enlighten these latter, for that is hopeless; but to show the former how the rights of patentees and the rights of the public may be protected by a speedy and economical administration of justice. This is the more needful at the present moment because the attention of the various local Chambers of Commerce has been VOL. XIX. R recently directed to the subject of the patent laws, and at the annual meeting of the Association of those Chambers, held in London on the 23rd February, the principle of granting patents was brought under discussion. What we have to say on the subject of adjudicating on patents will not be very new to our readers, as respects the leading principles of the system which we desire to see adopted; but being encouraged by some recent judgments of no less an authority than the Lord Chancellor of England, we propose to explain, somewhat in detail, the plan which was first put forward in this journal some seven years ago, and has since been referred to, to demonstrate, as occasion served, its practicability. By many who have had the unenviable experience of being parties to a patent suit, it will be readily admitted that the importance of the original question at issue had, long before the termination of the suit, sunk into insignificance, in comparison with the superadded question of costs incurred in carrying the case through its several stages; and that, in point of fact, it was carried to the final issue mainly with the view of saddling the costs on the opponent. This state of things is not, perhaps, peculiar to patent-law trials; but in adjudicating on matters of this kind, where the facts are rarely in dispute, it is monstrous that it should exist. In the costly trial, for example, of SEED v. HIGGINS, which was carried to the House of Lords, there was not a fact eventually brought out that was not before the Court of Queen's Bench, and could as well have been settled there: in other words, the verdict first entered for the plaintiff was utterly groundless; and such, we believe, would be found to be the case in two out of every three verdicts of a jury, if the causes were carried to the ultimate court of appeal. Trial by jury is now, however, by common consent, acknowledged as altogether inapplicable to cases of infringement of patents; and recent alterations in Chancery practice having opened the Courts of Chancery to patentees, a large proportion of patent suits is being disposed of by the equity judges, and some of these, by preference, without the aid of juries. This is a resource that was much wanted; for, to say nothing of the special qualifications of our equity judges to deal with the questions at issue, we had the most competent, as well as the highest, of the common law judges discountenancing the resort of patentees to his court, because of the lengthy trials stopping the current of ordinary business; and the practice has been growing to force litigants to accept the tedious, costly, and unsatisfactory decisions of a legal arbitrator. Hampered, then, as patentees are-and not they only, but manufacturers also-by the present inadequate provision for the administration of the patent law, it is highly important to consider what are the |