1st a suggestion for examination, whether, as nearly all the above vessels were propelled by screws, the improvements noted might not be referable to an improved action in the propelling instrument, brought about by an alteration in the hulls of the vessels; and the question suggested itself, whether, if the resistance of the vessels in question could have been ascertained by means of a dynamometer applied to a towing rope, the improvement would have been so great as when shown by the diminished power of the engines ? THE LONDON ASSOCIATION OF FOREMEN ENGINEERS. THE Eleventh Anniversary of this Society was celebrated by a dinner, on the 27th of February, at Radley's Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, Henry Grissell, Esq., C.E., presiding. After dinner, the Secretary (Mr. John Jones) proceeded to read his annual report. The number of ordinary and honorary members was shown to be steadily increasing, and although serious inroads had been made during the last year upon the funds of the society, owing to payments made to members out of employment and to the relatives of those who had died, the income had more than covered the outgoings, and the sum at present invested on behalf of the society in the Three per Cent. Consols amounted to £347. 178. 9d. The number of ordinary members of the Association was 75, and that of the honorary members, 28; or, in all, 103. In 1859, the total number of members, honorary and ordinary, was only 62, so that a great increase was apparent at this time. The Secretary entered into further interesting particulars as to the position of the society, but for which space cannot be afforded by He referred to the library, which did not appear to be in so flourishing a condition as could be desired, and spoke of a book-case "which might be more completely filled." During the past year papers had been read before the society by the following gentlemen, on the various subjects enumerated—namely, by Mr. J. Newton, President, on "A New Marine Propeller;" Mr. Muir, on "Heavy Forgings;" Mr. Hume, on "The Manufacture of Locks;" Mr. Getteliffe, on "Boiler Explosions;" Mr. Miller, on "Coating Telegraph Wires;" Mr. Oubridge, on "Hollow Castings Cooled by Currents of Air;" and by Mr. Stanley, on A Substitute for the Link Motion." In some cases, the papers had been followed by adjourned, and in all cases interesting, discussions. us. The Secretary having concluded his statement, and of which the foregoing is but an abstract, the Chairman said that they had now arrived at that juncture when it was incumbent upon him to propose the toast of the evening. In doing so, he must first take a retrospective glance over the last dozen years. When the society over which he had on that evening great pleasure in presiding, was first established-namely, in the year 1852 -the labour market in this country, so far as mechanical trades were concerned, was much disturbed by strikes, and he confessed that he then looked with some distrust upon anything like a combination of foremen engineers. That feeling, he knew, was shared in by other employers at the time, and, in fact, was not entirely dissipated yet. For himself, he must say, however, that he had no longer any such sentiment. He had taken care to inquire into the nature of the proceedings of the Associated 1st Foremen at their monthly meetings, and he saw nothing in those proceedings to object to, but, rather, much to approve. Several of his own foremen were at that moment members of the society, and one, who was deceased (Mr. George Sheaves), might almost have been said to have been its originator. Mr. Grissell then entered into a rather lengthy dissertation upon the relative positions of employers and employed, and the duties of each towards the other. He compared the habits and the manners of the working men of other countries with those of the working men of England, and though willing to admit the superiority of the latter as workmen, found fault with their inattention to some of the outward demonstrations of respect and courtesy which were prevalent among the workmen of the Continent. In the most friendly and feeling way, Mr. Grissell gave utterance to his views of the amenities of the workshop, and humorously alluded to a mode of salutation which he had observed to exist among the workmen of a certain part of Saxony. In conclusion, the Chairman remarked that, in order to carry out fully the rules of the Association of Foremen Engineers, it ought to have a much larger balance in the bank than the secretary's report demonstrated to be in existence. He could not see, for example, how the system of paying superannuities to decayed members was to be effected under present circumstances. He thought it also desirable that the benevolent and the scientific sections of the institution should, so far as the funds were concerned, be separate and distinct from each other. As a proof of his friendship for the association, and his desire for its future well-being, he should hand in his name, as an honorary member, and would promise to place £50 to the account of the society, provided nine other employers would do likewise. The Chairman then formally proposed the toast of "Prosperity to the Association of Foremen Engineers," coupled with the name of Mr. Newton, its President. This and other toasts called forth speeches from the leading members and from visitors, showing that the Association was taking a good position, in the opinion of those who were best able to judge of its merits. Scientific Adjudication. COURT OF CHANCERY, LINCOLN'S INN. Before the Lord Chancellor. March 9th, 1864. FOXWELL v. BOSTOCK et al. THIS was a trial preliminary to a long course of threatened litigation, to test the validity of a patent granted to Mr. Charles Tiot Judkins, for improvements in machinery or apparatus for sewing or stitching, dated 16th October, 1852. The patent had become vested in Mr. Daniel Foxwell, of Manchester, and by reason of defects in the specification, which had become apparent during the first of a course of three trials at law instituted against Mr. Thomas, the well-known sewing machine 1st maker, for an alleged infringement of the patent, Mr. Foxwell had been advised to amend the specification by a disclaimer. Subsequently, having effected a compromise with Mr. Thomas, whereby the latter, on payment of a sum of £4250, became entitled to work under the patent for the remainder of the term,-Mr. Foxwell, through his solicitor, apprized the trade of his intention to levy royalties on the users of all needle and shuttle machines, other than those manufactured by Mr. Thomas; and, failing to bring all those advertised to his terms (viz., a payment of £5 on every machine used before the 20th June, 1863, and £2 on every machine subsequently brought into use), he filed bills in Chancery against 134 alleged infringers. Application was made, on behalf of 77 defendants, to Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, in November last,* for an order to compel the plaintiff to select one suit and carry it to a hearing, so as to determine the validity of the patent before calling on the remainder of the defendants to put in answers to the several bills. The Vice-Chancellor, not being able to see how the putting in of an answer could affect or prejudice any one defendant, refused the application, whereupon the application was renewed before the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship, perceiving the importance of consolidating the suits, made an order to that end, and ultimately determined to try the validity of the patent, irrespective of the questions of infringements which might follow. This trial commenced on the 21st January, and continued, at intervals, for some eight days. The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Aston; and for the defendant, Mr. Bovill, C.C., Mr. Hindmarch, Q.C., Mr. Webster, and Mr. Salter. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff, showing the merits of sewing machines made according to the patent of Judkins; but every attempt made by the defendants' counsel to ascertain from the witnesses or the plaintiff's counsel in what the improvements claimed consisted, proving futile, and it being apparent to the Lord Chancellor that the defendants' evidence could not be directed to the vital points of the case so long as the meaning put on the specification was concealed, his Lordship stayed the course of the evidence, and directed certain points to be argued before him. Having considered the arguments, his Lordship delivered, on the 28th January, an interlocutory opinion, in which he stated that the nature of the invention must be found in a certain part of the specification, and that as the use of a fourmotion feed in combination with a needle and shuttle-the main feature on which the plaintiff had rested his allegation of infringement-was not contained in the passage cited, it must be held to be no part of the combination claimed. On the delivery of this opinion, the case again proceeded. After some further evidence had been taken, the Lord Chancellor again called upon counsel to direct their attention to the ascertainment of the nature of the invention, and the proof of sufficiency or insufficiency of the specification. His Lordship, having heard the arguments on both sides on these points, took time to consider the case, being in the meanwhile furnished with a copy of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and also of the arguments of counsel on both sides. On the 9th of March, his Lordship delivered judgment nearly as follows: VOL. XIX, *See Report of this Case at page 359, Vol. XVIII. 2 G 1st JUDGMENT. THE LORD CHANCELLOR.-In the interlocutory opinion which I have already given in this case, it was my object to arrive, if possible, at the true construction of the plaintiff's amended specification. I thought that the passage specified in the third page of that specification, with the drawings, so far as they describe the means of effecting the operations mentioned in that passage, were the only portions of the original specification which remained after giving effect to the disclaimer, and therefore, must, if anything did, contain the alleged invention. But, inasmuch as I felt doubtful in a matter of so much minuteness and difficulty, of the accuracy of my conclusions, I reserved to myself the power of altering the opinion so expressed, if, in the course of the further hearing, I should find reason to do so; and I gave to the counsel on both sides full liberty to show me that I was wrong. Accordingly, the counsel for the plaintiff insist that it is a mistake to suppose that the specified passage in page 3 is a description of the invention claimed. It is, they say, a description only of part of the operation or working of that combination of machinery which is claimed. They say the patent is for an improved arrangement or combination of machinery, and the specified passage shows the working of that combination. They contend that that passage is a description of the operation, but not of the means of producing; and that the means constitute the invention. The necessity for this contention by the plaintiff is plain; for if the specified passage in page 3 be taken as a description of the improvements claimed, they are identical with Hughes's patent; for that passage is taken nearly word for word from Hughes's specification. But if it is treated as the description of a working or operation only, then, though the result may be the same as Hughes's, the means of producing that result may be different. The plaintiff's counsel, therefore, insist that it is the drawings, and the descriptions of the drawings alone, which contain the invention; that invention being an improved arrangement and combination of machinery for sewing or stitching by a needle and shuttle. This construction of the specification immediately gave rise to a very grave question, whether the specification was not so uncertain and indefinite as to afford no sufficient description of the alleged invention ? New difficulties also arose as to the validity of the disclaimer. The question that thus arose was, whether the original specification can be reduced by the disclaimer to the form of the amended specification without extending the patent right, that is, without producing this result, that by the alterations the amended specification is made to describe a different invention from that described in the original specification. In the course of the further argument, I requested the plaintiff's counsel more than once to tell me where the invention was described. The answer was, that it appeared by the drawings and the description of the drawings. It was contended by the plaintiff's counsel, and perhaps justly, that a patent for a new machine would be good if the specification contained nothing but clear drawings of the machine and a description of them. Adopting this argument and construction of the plaintiff's counsel, I will inquire what, upon the basis of this argument, must be the combination of machinery which is described and claimed by the amended specification. And, first, taking the specified passage in page 3 not to be 1st a description of the invention, but only a description of the working or operation of part of the machinery, the same character applies to the passages which follow, down to the words "the nature of these improvements," in the 12th line of page 4; and this accounts for these lastmentioned passages not having been struck out of the amended specification. They were inserted in the original specification as part of the description of the distinct inventions superadded to the chief subject of the patent. These distinct inventions are now disclaimed, but those passages are still allowed to remain, and they became a description of the working, or modus operandi of part of that machine, the drawings and description of which are afterwards given. Taking the whole, therefore, of the amended specification, down to the 12th line in page 4, as a description of the action of the improved machine, we come to the drawings, and the explanation of the drawings, as the only description of the machine itself, and here we find the drawing and description of an entire needle and shuttle machine, including also those several additional mechanical arrangements which were stated in the original specification as the means by which the three separate inventions for accommodating the supply of thread to the needle and shuttle, and also for accommodating the machinery to the different thicknesses of the thread or silk, and also for preventing the material from rising, were to be effected. Now, as these last-mentioned portions of the drawings have not been struck out in the amended specification, although the inventions themselves are disclaimed, but have been allowed to remain in the drawings and description of the drawings, they must be taken as part of that combination of machinery for which the patent is claimed in the amended specification. Such is the necessary consequence of this portion of the description of the drawings having been allowed to remain, and this conclusion is confirmed by the language of the claim, which, as altered in the amended specification, is for "the combination and arrangement of the various parts of machinery for sewing and stitching with the use of a needle and shuttle;" words which, by reason of their unlimited extent, would render the patent void, unless they were construed as necessarily meaning the aforesaid combination and arrangement of the aforesaid various parts of machinery; and if they are so construed, then they necessarily denote and comprise all the various parts of machinery which are thereinbefore described, and including the parts which belonged originally to the three separate disclaimed inventions. This is the necessary result of the plaintiff's view of the amended specification, and of the fact that the patent is for a combination of machinery, and that there is no other description in the amended specification of that combination than what is afforded by the drawings and the description thereof, nor anything which denotes that the patented combination is to consist of certain portions only of that machinery which is delineated and described. Unless we take the whole of the drawings, and the description thereof, as being the patented invention, there is nothing to show where the description of the invention begins, and where it ends. Then, what is the effect of this construction of the amended specification? The patent was granted for "improvements in machinery or apparatus for sewing or stitching" and by the original specification they were described as consisting of an "improved arrangement and combination of machinery for |