tion. The Society had done much good in the years 1850, '51, and '52, by the admirable reports they had published on the law of patents, and which had given to the world much useful and interesting matter on the subject. It appeared to him that the law of patents ought to be taken as established, and their endeavour should be to see what improvements could be made in it, and, more especially as it affected artistic copyrights. He wished to address a few words on this subject, as there were a large number of persons connected with the arts-painters, engravers, and sculptors whose property in their productions was very imperfectly, or altogether unprotected. How great were the number of persons interested might be gathered from the fact, that, in the course of the season of 1853, there were exhibited in London no less than 4,168 objects of art, the work of 1,952 artists, exclusive of what were exhibited in the provincial towns, Ireland, Scotland, and other parts of the British dominions. Now these parties were hardly protected at all, and it would scarcely be believed that sketches of Mr. Martin's picture of Belshazzar's Feast were sold, and some years afterwards prints were engraved from them, one of which W. bought, and had it painted in colours, on a large scale with dioramic effects, and exhibited it for money, as Mr. Martin's grand picture of Belshazzar's Feast, and Mr. Martin had no means of preventing him; for upon his filing a bill in chancery, the court decided that the Engraving acts did not apply to such a case as that, and refused to grant an injunction to restrain W. from exhibiting his copy, and representing to the public that it was the work of Mr. Martin, until the right had been established at law, at the same time observing, that if Mr. Martin had exhibited his picture as a diorama, he might have been entitled to an injunction. Could anything more unjust than that be imagined. There were five Acts of Parliament for the protection of copy-right in works of Art, the first of which was obtained through the exertions of Hogarth, the father of art in this country. Upon obtaining that Act, Hogarth published a small print with emblematical devices, and bearing the following inscription:-"In humble grateful acknowledgment of the grace and goodness of the legislature, manifested in the Act of Parliament for the encouragmeent of the arts of designing and engraving, obtained by the endeavours, and almost at the sole expense of the designer of this print, in the year 1735, by which not only the professors of those arts were rescued from the tyranny, fraud, and piracies of monopolising dealers, and legally entitled to the fruits of their own labours; but genius and industry were also prompted by the most noble and generous inducements to exert themselves-emulation was excited, ornamental, compositions were better understood, and every manufacture where fancy has any concern was gradually raised to a pitch of perfection before unknown, insomuch that those of Great Britain were at present the most elegant, and the most in esteem of any in Europe." It was curious that, notwithstanding that act obtained by Hogarth, and four others which had been since passed, painters and engravers were still very inefficiently protected, and sculptors had no protection at all. A good deal had been said about there being no right of property in inventions, but he hoped he should not be overstepping the mark laid down by the Society for this discussion, if he claimed for every man the right of property in his own productions. Why should not such a work as that of Belshazzar's Feast he protected from piracy. Why any one could copy the works of another, and dispose of the engravings for a profit, without the original painter having the power to prevent him, or obtaining any benefit from it. What he considered was wanted, was, that the law should be so amended both with regard to patents and copyrights by which a cheap and expeditious protection should be obtained at common law. Mr. WINKWORTH rose to advocate opinions which, he It was afraid, were held by only a small minority of the meeting; and seeing the powerful advocates he had to contend with, he feared it would be almost impossiblo for him to do justice to the cause he had in hand. There could be no doubt that that part of Mr. Webster's paper which referred to the origin of property was, as it had been truly described by Mr. Denison and Mr. Wordsworth, more metaphysical and philosophical than practical. It was, however, necessary that we should have a correct definition of the origin of property, in order to arrive at a just idea of its nature. His idea was that the origin of property might be referred to the separate or joint exercise of physical or mental superiority, the former establishing occupancy, the latter creating wealth by fashioning the materials in and on the earth in such form, and for such purposes of convenience or luxury, as the maker or inventor might desire. With this definition, no doubt, Mr. Webster would be satisfied. It was unnecessary, for the purposes of this discussion, to inquire how far, if at all, what was called natural justice was compromised or violated by an exclusive possession of what would seem to be, ab initio, the equal right of all. was sufficient that we recognised, as admitted, that what a man claimed as his own by creation, purchase, or descent, and could prove to be so, he ought to be protected in the enjoyment of. The real and primary question at issue was this-whether the less tangible results of intellectual activity, as developed in inventions in art and manufacture, had any claim to protection beyond what the law afforded to all rightful possessors of material property, such as the iron, wood, brass, or copper, of which their inventions might be com posed. In their raw and inert state these materials were comparatively of small value, but when manufactured or combined into certain forms, the value might become infinitely enhanced. Whether, however, these materials were of greater or less cost to the owner, he was not compelled to part with them at less than the value he set upon them, or even at all; but when he had so done, they were, or ought to be, no longer his property, but that of the purchaser, who, in his turn, ought to be at liberty to sell them again, or to make as many fac-similes as his interest or convenience might dictate. It was with the inventor to do what he would with his own: in the state of the law which he (Mr. Winkworth) contended ought to exist, he would know the penalty of parting with it. But if for a moment we admitted that an inventor had as much right to protection in the monopoly of his invention, after it had by his own act passed out of his hands, as the owner of land or other property, how was it that the law only gave him a temporary or limited interest in it? Simply because the law did not recognise that natural right to which he erroneously laid claim, and only granted it by way of encouragement or reward for ingenuity, very often to his own injury, and greatly to the damage of the community at large. If he had the same right as the owner of real or personal property, the law was guilty of a gross injustice by limiting the period of his enjoyment of it. So much for the present as to the principle. Let us glance for a moment at some of the evils resulting from the theory of patent right, falsely so called:-1. It compelled the liberal inventor to take out patents to protect himself in the enjoyment of his own discoveries. This was exemplified by the case of Mr. Scott Russell, who stated, in the chair of that Society, that he was forced to take out patents for his own protection, though he did not agree with the theory of patent right. 2. It prevented or deterred him from improving on existing inventions. 3. It encouraged persons of small means to embark in speculations in their own real or supposed inventions at a ruinous cost; and it was shown by Mr. Prosser, that not one patent in one hundred paid the inventor, so that parties were drawn into speculation merely in the hope of obtaining a prize. 4. The patentee of an invention of value was too often obliged to fight or buy off pirates at a large JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS. cost of time, anxiety, and money. This was illustrated would be patented, so that we could only perform those by Mr. Denison, by reference to the evidence of Mr. necessary operations with the sword of Damocles hanging Ricardo, with regard to the Electric Telegraph Company. over our heads in the shape of an injunction in chancery, They had expended £200,000 in buying up patents, yet all which might be profitable fun to Mr. Wordsworth and fresh inventions and improvements in telegraphs were Mr. Webster, but would be death to us. We might rest so constantly being brought before the public, that he assured that the man of real genuis was a true patriot, believed they were now obliged to abandon that expensive and would not hide his talents under a bushel. If the policy. 5. An ingenious man sometimes supposed that patent laws were abolished to-morrow, there would be he had made a discovery-and to himself it was a disco- more useful inventions than ever, for talent being no very-and believing it to be so, he patented it. Scarcely longer bound by the fetters of monopoly, and breathing a had he done this, and begun to exercise his newly-freer atmosphere, would find its true position and exhibit itacquired right, than he was informed that the thing was self in forms to astonish, delight, and improve the world. not new, and that, though the original patentee had not Mr. COLE said Mr. Winkworth had told them that his hitherto availed himself of his right, he (patentee No. 2) | object was to put an end to patents altogether, and then might use his own patent at his own peril. That was he went on to say, that if they did not, there would be illustrated by Mr. Denison, by reference to Sir Joseph so many articles patented that they could not take a Paxton's sash bars, and the large volume of specifications meal without using a patented article. Now he (Mr. Cole) of reaping machines produced to them by Mr. Prosser, maintained that all property ought to be protected, though who said that a better reaping machine than any yet there might be inventors, such as Brunel, who could ininvented had originated with one Pliny, 30 years before vent whatever he wanted, who might consider the patent Christ, from which it would appear that all subsequent laws unnecessary. Why should they abolish a right which inventions and improvements were piracies thereupon. had been recognised for four or five centuries in all 6. A patentee, whether justly or unjustly so, had the civilised countries-amongst them, Spain, Austria, France, power, which he too often exercised, of charging exor- and the United States. He looked upon it that there was bitantly for his presumed invention, under pretence of very little difference in property the result of labour, and indemnity. 7. It was the interest of inventors not to any other kind of property, with regard to its right to confer with others, who could, assist them with advice to protection. Indeed, those who advocated the contrary that might make their inventions really valuable. Hence opinion, had evidently founded their notions of right on the many imperfect and valueless machines. 8. The the views of Louis Blanc and other socialists, that no supposed necessity for couching specifications in terms, property had a right to protection. Jeremy Bentham sufficiently comprehensive to embrace every possible had, in his opinion, very ably shown the right of invenmodification of the invention, and yet so general and tors to protection, in a few short and pithy lines, in which mysterious as to defy all power of understanding it. he said, "In new inventions, protection against imitators is Hence the interminable injunctions in Chancery, issues not less necessary than in established manufactures protection directed to be tried at common law, and other expensive against thieves. He who has no hope that he shall reap, will and harrassing results, by which some £200,000 or not take the trouble to sow. But that which one man has in£300,000 per annum was wasted. He had received vented, all the world can imitate." If two savages were a communication so germane to this point from Mr. following prey, and one, more skilful than the other, George Brace, who had been largely occupied in the killed, he took it as his right, yet he did not create that but amendment of the old law, and who had intended to have property, neither had the land been created by man, spoken had he been able to be present, that he would it had merely been taken in by-gone ages by the strongest, read an extract to the meeting :and yet property in land was now acknowledged and "The Society of Arts has done much in miti- protected. The inventor, however, created his property; gating the evils of the law respecting the obtaining of he brought into existence that which was previously patents. But the Society has done NOTHING touching unknown. The law said that a man should be prothe protection of men when they have got their patents. tected for his labour, and surely because he and Mr. Think of the crying evil as regards the costly remedies Winkworth might arrive at the same results from for infringements and invasions. A. B., an inventor, has their labour, that was no reason it should not be protected. his bantling attacked; he has then to go and instruct an Whoever patented the invention first would be protected unskilled attorney; the attorney, when up in the case, has in it; but then the law said, as two persons might hit to instruct an equally unskilled barrister; two or three upon the same invention at the same time, the patentee barristers have then to apply the forcing process to a should only be protected for a limited period, and then it judge profoundly ignorant of the subject; and they have should be open to all the world. He could not understand also to enlighten 12 jurymen, who are, perhaps, equally why the result of intellectual labour should not be equally ill-informed of the real merits of the scientific subject sub-protected with other property. If a labourer got a shilling mitted to them. However, the barristers, judge, and jury come to a decision at an enormous expense, and the whole is perhaps upset by a piece of solemn mummery called a Bill of Exceptions. Then comes an immense amount of legal trifling-a new trial and costs-perhaps ruin. Now, why not let a tribunal appoint a standing jury, if you like of five or seven men, conversant with the subject? Let the case be stated by the litigating parties, subject to legal direction by an assessor. The five or seven legal men would settle most subjects in an hour, that now occupy years, and at a cost marvellously small. Take a page out of the French system have Conseils de Prudhommes." Mr. Winkworth then concluded by saying that he trusted the time was not far distant when the whole system would be crushed under its own weight. Already the facility for cheap provisional protection was so great that thousands rushed to avail themselves of it, under the delusive hope of a profitable investment of their talents, and he confidently expected that 'ere long, even the common mechanical appliances for eating and drinking for paving the streets he was protected in the enjoyment of it,and surely those who devoted their minds and energies to patents were equally entitled to protection. Such patents could not fairly be called monopolies, as some of their opponents had designated them; and this was clearly laid down by Mr. J. Stuart Mill, in his " Principles of Political Economy." That gentleman said:-"The condemnation of MONOPOLIES ought not to extend to patents, by which the originator of an improved process is permited to enjoy, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege of using his own improvement. This is not making the commodity dear for his benefit, but merely postponing a part of the increased cheapness which the public owe to the inventor, in order to compensate and reward him for the service. That he ought to be both compensated and rewarded for it will not be denied, and also that if all were at once allowed to avail themselves of his ingenuity, without having shared the labours or expenses which ho had to incur in bringing his idea into a practical shape, either such expenses and labours would be undergone by nobody, except very opulent and very public-spirited per sons, or the state must put a value on the service rendered by an inventor, and make him a pecuniary grant." And further on he said, "No limit can be set to the importance, even in a purely productive and material point of view, of mere thought... Intellectual speculation must be looked upon as a most influential part of the productive labour of society." In looking over the observations of Mr. Denison, he found that he alluded to those foolish inventors who believed they had discovered something when they had not, and therefore argued that no man ought to have a patent. But what did Jeremy Bentham say on that point:-"These insults and oppressions (alluding to the charges for chaff-wax, &c.) have sometimes been approved, as tending to repress the temerity of projectors; in the same manner, taxes upon law proceedings have been applauded as tending to repress the temerity of suitors as if poverty were synonymous with temerity-as if the rich only had need of the assistance of the laws, or that they only were worthy of it-as if, indeed, this reason for only half-opening the doors of the temple of justice were not equally conclusive for closing them altogether!" Mr. Wordsworth had very properly called attention to the little protection enjoyed by the artist; but he might have gone further, and added what was a fact, that if a man painted a picture, and some thief got into his room and copied it, and afterwards got it engraved, not only could the artist not prevent him, but the copyright would be held to be in the person of the original publisher, and the artist would not be allowed to engrave his own picture. In his opinion the whole question resolved itself into the injunction coutained in the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." If he produced a result from labour, what right had any man to take it from him, or claim to enjoy it with him? It mattered not how he procured that result, the law ought to protect him. It had no right to say that it would protect one class of property only. The law ought not only to protect but to encourage inventions, as by them a good was done to society which all ultimately enjoyed. Mr. STEER hoped that they were not, in the 19th century, going back to the practices of the time of Elizabeth, and establish monopolies in inventions. Everybody now denounced monopolies. Look at the tea monopoly. When the advocates of throwing open the trade said by doing so they could get tea cheaper, the monopolists went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said," We pay a good lumping sum to the revenue, and you have no trouble, which will not be the case if the trade is thrown open." Indeed, all monopolists argued that their own monopoly was for the benefit of society; but they were contrary to the spirit of the age, and it was the duty of every man to endeavour to get rid of them. Did not the landowner say that he ought to be protected, and that they were wrong in receiving corn from abroad. Yet the monopoly was abolished, and tea had been reduced one-half in price, and bread was half the price it used to be. (A voice-"Not at present.") That reminded him of another great practical benefit to the public. Did Mr. Mechi ever ask for a patent for his improvements in agriculture? No; he threw them open, and let them come before the public with a fair stage and no favour. Mr. Wordsworth had called their attention to the fact that artists were very inefficiently protected, but was the Royal Academy closed because they could not patent the result? It appeared to him that this was a struggle involving a great principle of free trade. Formerly no man could make a tub unless he had been apprenticed seven years to the trade of a cooper; neither could a man make a coat or a waiscoat unless he had been brought up a tailor. Latterly, such ideas were scouted; and the sooner the market of inventions was thrown open the better. There appeared to him to be two objects in this discussion: one whether monopolies should be allowed to exist, and the other, if they were to exist, whether any improvements could be introduced into the patent laws. He was of opinion that they should be done away with altogether, but if not, that they should be so amended as to give as little trouble as possible to the patentee in proving his rights. He would suggest that, where a patentee complained of his patent having been infringed, it should be referred to some competent authority, such, for instance, as a committee of the Society of Arts, to determine whether it had been infringed or not. If that tribunal found that the patent had been infringed, then the case might go before a jury to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded. It should never be left, as at present, to a jury to determine upon the question of infringement, for no one could go in Guildhall when a patent case was being tried, without being struck by its absurdity. A declaration was drawn and averment made, and a witness put in the box, but the counsel dare not ask him any questions, instructions being either to obtain or defeat a verdict. The counsel had to consider the temper of the judge, the temper of the jury, and, above all, endeavour to get a verdict from a body of men who, probably, understood nothing about the question before them. That, however, would not be the case if, in the first instance, questions of infringement were referred to such a tribunal as the Society of Arts. It seemed as if the advocates wished to go back to the days of Elizabeth, monopolies of which were, in some measures, abolished and regulated by the laws of James, which, by the system of licenses, gave validity and protection to property in inventions. He was an advocate for doing away with the patent laws entirely, but if that could not be done he should be happy to see them put on a better and more intelligible system. Mr. NESBIT denied that, as he understood the word monopoly, a patent could be so called, or that there' could be a monopoly in property. He considered a monopoly to be a union of persons to prevent others doing a particular thing; but the possession of property he had never looked upon as a monopoly. Indeed, he thought if it were so, that they had a right to a monopoly in their wives and families; which, it would appear, would be disputed by these anti-monopolists. Mr. Winkworth had been somewhat metaphysical in his definitions of property; but a person might have a property which wes not visible; he had a monopoly in his ideas so long as he kept them to himself. The anti-patent party appeared to admit the justice of copyright; but no man had a copyright in ideas, but only in the peculiar form in which he put them upon paper. If 20,000 men were to have the same idea, and put it on paper in a different form, each form would receive the protection of copyright. So, also, was it with the patent laws. They could not patent the principle, but only the peculiar form of its application. If one man patented an article, and another arrived at the same result by a different application of the same principle, he would not be prevented from enjoying the benefit of it. Surely, then, if property was to be given to ideas expressed upon paper, it ought also to be given to ideas expressed in inventions. One part of the argument of Mr. Winkworth was that there could be no property in inventions without law. Why, as to that, there could be no property in anything without law, though the pro perty in inventions was limited, because other parties might have arrived at the same result, therefore it was held that they should not be entirely deprived of the benefits. What did they pay the police rates for but for the protection of property? And if it was to be argued that patents were to be done away with because of the number of pirates ready to seize upon inventions, then he might be allowed to ask whether the protection of property was to be neglected because of the number of thieves who were ready to seize upon it and divide it among themselves. Mr. Denison's arguments were altogether a tissue of fallacies. He said "there was this difference hetween copyright and the patent laws. Copyright interfered with nobody, but the patent laws did. Every book worse. that was published assisted those that came after, and if one man wrote a good book upon any subject, it did not prevent another person writing a better or a worse. All that he was prevented doing was the copying the words of another." Could anything be more fallacious? Let them see how well that sentence would read if applied to patents. It would run thus:-"Every invention that was patented assisted those that came after, and if one man patented a good invention, it did not prevent another person patenting a better or a All that he was prevented doing was the copying the work of another." Now, could there be a more total fallacy than was contained in the arguments of Mr. Denison? He would not, however, pursue that subject, as the whole matter had resolved itself into this whether or not a man ought to have a property in his ideas, no matter in what form they might be expressed, or whether the patent laws should be abolished. He thought there could be no doubt that, on all principles of sound policy and justice, they ought to be retained. Those laws had, of late, been much improved, through the exertions of this society, the press, and other parties; and he hoped they would yet be much more simplified and improved. The CHAIRMAN here said that, as there was a gentleman present who had accompanied Mr. Whitworth in his mission to the United States, to report on the New York exhibition, he should be very happy to hear his opinion upon the subject under discussion. of notice; and he further reported, that the general principles of the patent laws of America gave universal salisfaction. Now, he thought such an authority could not be undervalued, and must have great weight with all who considered the question. He did not say that there might not be defects in American patent laws, as there were in those of England; neither did he say that there were not men in America who disapproved of them. In a country to which many of the revolutionists of 1848 had fled of course, the opinions of communism and socialism would prevail, and those who opposed the patent laws had borrowed their opinions from that class of society; and he thought, they might not inaptly also adopt the motto of the socialist leader, " La propriété c'est le vol." Mr. STANSBURY had risen to speak before the last. gentleman, but was glad that he did not catch the chairman's eye; because, as a citizen of the United States, he would not have liked to have stated so much as Mr. Hasler had done, for fear those tendencies should be attributed to him for which his countrymen were said to be so remarkable. It had been said aptly and correctly, that a man of science had no country, and the tendencies of the times were to bring the whole civilised world together as one great family; and, as such, advanced the position of the human race, by extending knowledge in In a complete state of society, it every possible manner. was stated, they ought to give up a portion of their own enjoyments for the benefit of the world; and therefore it was that inventors were invested with a monopoly in their inventions only for a limited period of time. If it had not been for the lateness of the hour, he had intended to have taken up the American law, and gone into the system of preliminary examination, &c.; but he hoped that it would not be lost sight of by that society, and that every opportunity would be taken of endeavouring to make the law as perfect as possible. The CHAIRMAN having suggested that it would be as well again to adjourn the debate, Mr. CAMPIN rose to move the adjournment, and expressed a hope that the discussion for the next evening might be confined as nearly as possible to the means of The law, as it at present existed, was improving the law. found wanting in everything, excepting in the reduction of expense, which it had accomplished. Dr. CAPLIN called attention to the advantages of the patent law of Belgium, where a patent was not granted until it had been examined by a competent committee of 30 persons, whose verdict determined the right of the ap Mr. HASLER, having been called upon, would do his best to respond, though he had not expected to have had to address that meeting. He would confine his observations as closely as possible to the subject before them, and only allude to the patent laws of the United States so far as they might be interwoven with it. The arguments of the gentlemen who opposed the patent laws, resolved themselves into this-that they were obstructions, and that all obstructions were bad. Patents were necessary to the protection of property in inventions; and all property was, to some extent, an obstruction. Blackstone laid it down, that any person having property could exclude another from it; indeed, he might surround it with a wall, and that wall would be an obstruction to a person who might wish to pass on the property. All property was open then to the charge of its being an obstruction; and yet, nobody would think of arguing from that, that therefore the protection of property should be abolished. If a man's ideas when placed upon paper were protected, surely they had an equal right to protection when wrought into a tangible form. The example of one republic-plicant for a patent. Switzerland, had been cited as a reason why there should be no patent laws; but Switzerland was in a peculiar position, she could filch from her neighbours, whilst she had nothing to give in return; and, of course, she had, therefore, an objection to allow a foreigner to patent inventions in her territory. When in the United States his inquiries had been specially directed to the patent system in that country. He had had the honour of assisting Mr. Whitworth of Manchester in drawing up his report on the subject; and therefore could say, that the patent laws were objects of peculiar care in the United States. The very first article of the constitution declared that it was desirable for the promotion and progress of the useful arts that there should be secured to authors and inventors exclusive rights in their works for a limited period. He thought that the example of such a country as the United States, which had placed its broad seal of approbation on He was now the patent laws, worthy of attention. dealing with facts: and to show, under a system of patent laws, how invention flourished in the United States, he might mention, that in 1852 a thousand patents were taken out, and the Minister of the Innterior, a minister answering to the Secretary-of-State for the Home Depart. ment, reported that these inventions had been inquired into, and 200 of them found to be useful and worthy Mr. WEBSTER thought that the observations of the last and other speakers, relative to improvements in the patent laws, most valuable, and that they should, in future, address themselves to the question of what was the best There system, and how it could be made most perfect. were only three gentlemen who had spoken against all patent laws, and, without meaning any disrespect to those gentlemen, he must say a greater mass of fallacy or ignorance upon any subject had never been propounded by He might use strong language, but he men of science. Mr. Denison had rewas sure they would forgive him. ferred them to the question of soke mills; but what could the practice of feudal times have to do with the patent incorpolaws? Mr. Denison referred to what he called " real property," as contrasted with property in land, the But he (Mr. Webster) would like to know funds, &c. what could be more incorporeal than property in the funds? Now, he maintained that a man had as much right to a patent in the results of his labour as an author Mr. Denison had rewould to a copyright in his books. ferred to Milton's "Paradise Lost," and said it was not But probable that anyone else would have written it. 64 if anybody believed that somebody might have written Milton's Paradise Lost,' why let him believe it." Now, could there be a more unsatisfactory mode of dealing with a serious subject than this? Mr. Denison also said that a copyright was no obstruction, because all that a man was prevented doing was copying the works of another. That was all the patent laws prevented a man from doing. He held in his hand a work called "The Clockmaker," by Mr. Denison himself, in which he stated that it was compiled, believing it would be useful, as no similar work existed. Yet, though it was a mere compilation, Mr. Denison had a copyright, and another person could not publish it. Mr. Denison had stated that Newton, Leibnitz and other eminent men, had not been able to obtain patents, because their discoveries were only carrying out the laws of nature. No one pretended that the laws of nature could be patented, but the ideas founded on, aud the applications of, those laws might be. Milton's "Paradise Lost" was not new so far as the idea was concerned, but it was so in the expression and carrying out of that idea. Allusion had been made to the fact that, in the inquiry before the Committee of the House of Commons, in 1829, not one person had given evidence against the patent laws; whilst before the Committee of 1851, six persons had expressed their opinion that they ought to be abolished. However, they must recollect that Lord Granville, who had a strong opinion against these laws, admitted that they had obtained all the evidence they could against the laws. They had heard of convets, and they had heard of perverts, and it appeared that Mr. Winkworth, who was for the abolition of the law, was himself a convert, he having formerly taken part in the proceedings of that Society, relative to the improvement of these laws. There had no doubt been great injustice done through these laws from the enormous amount of expenses in obtaining patents, but that had now been remedied; and he had no doubt that all the other abuses now existing might also be removed by calling the attention of the public and the legislature to them. The CHAIRMAN did not pretend to give any opinion either for or against the patent laws, and probably he was not well qualified to do so; but he must be allowed to say that he considered the opponents of those laws had been somewhat harshly dealt with in the discussions, in being accused of ignorance, and dealing in nothing but fallacies. It appeared to him that the other side had equally dealt in fallacies, and that Mr. Cole's illustration of two men chasing the hare, and the one killing it being entitled to it as property, was not at all analogous to the patent laws, for then it was a question of two hares in two fields, and upon one man finding the hare and taking it to the Patent Office he was told that somebody had been there before him, and that, therefore, he could have no property in hares for the future, even though he might have been the first man to catch the hare, though not the first to take it to the office. He did not think the eighth commandment at all bore on the question of public expediency, or what would be best for the general interests of society. He thought, too, that the statements made that not one invention in a hundred paid the inventors, was a strong ground for believing that the patent laws did not always prove of advantage. He had now only to move a vote of thanks to Mr. Webster for his very able paper. The Chairman announced that at the meeting on Wednesday next, the 8th inst., a Discussion would be invited, "On the Defects in the Administration of the present Patent Law." EDUCATIONAL APPARATUS EXHIBITION. The following letter has been addressed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to His Grace the Duke of Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, MY LOND, [DUKE,] I am directed by the Council of the Society of Arts to request your Lordship's [Grace's] assistance in a measure of great public importance. The Society of Arts has always aimed at the promotion of Education; and rendered some services in this cause before the Educational Societies now flourishing were in existence. Being now in its One Hundredth Session, the Society is desirous that the celebration of this event should be marked by some prominent measures, indicating its settled conviction that it is to an improved Education of all classes that the nation must principally look for an improved condition of its Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. In May, 1852, under the presidency of the Marquis of Lansdowne, K.G., it was resolved, on the motion of Earl Granville, that the Society should offer to receive into union the Literary and Scientific Institutions, Philosophical Societies, Athenæums and Mechanics' Institutes, which are established in all parts of the United Kingdom. Three hundred and thirty-five of these bodies have already been taken into the union; and, at the Conference of their Representatives, in June last, the Council was particularly invited, and undertook, to hold an Educational Exhibition, at the opening of the next Conference, in the month of June of the present year. It was considered that such an Exhibition, got up on a large and complete scale, and well arranged, would have a powerful effect in improving the means of Education, and in raising the public ideas respecting it. At the instance, and with the aid, of this Society, the Lord Mayor of London, last year, held a small Exhibition of Educational Apparatus at the Mansion House. This Exhibition excited a very lively interest; but was not more than sufficient to show the great importance of the subject thus attempted to be illustrated, and its backward condition in this country. The Council of the Society of Arts is desirous that its Exhibition, in June next, should be complete, and thoroughly practical and instructive; and it is regarded as most important to exhibit, as far as possible, to the people of this country a representation of the state of Education in France, Prussia, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States of America, [in certain foreign countries and colonies,] as well as in the United Kingdom. The Council is convinced that it would be of great service and interest to exhibit a model of such a School of Primary Instruction as would be approved by the Departments of Public Instruction in France, Prussia, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and at Washington, New York, or Massachusetts, [in Canada]. In addition to this Model of a Primary School, it would be most important that there should be a Specimen of every article which is authorised to be used in the different classes of the Schools condary; including Books, Maps, Diagrams, Apparatus, recognised by the State, whether these be primary or seCopies and Models for Drawing, Pens, Pencils, &c. Nothing that is officially authorised to be used, or is commonly used, in such a School, would be too trifling to be of interest in such an Exhibition. Specimens of average merit of the writing, drawing, needlework, printed examination papers, and any other work, done in the Schools would be very acceptable. It would of course be desirable to classify such collections, so as to show whether they apply to Primary Schools, or to Secondary Schools; embracing a course of Trades and Manufactures. general Education or of instruction specially applied to The Models of the School Buildings, including their |