out a patent, but offered the machine to all who liked to make use of it, and begged that he might be consulted in the execution, lest any mistake should be committed. At the end of two years not a single person had availed himself of the offer. If this occurs when the inventor is one of the most eminent men in his department in Europe, what is likely to be the result when the propounder of a novelty is, as usually happens, unknown? Apart, therefore, from the manifest justice of allowing a man to have a property in what he himself produces, it is expedient, for the sake of the public, that in the first instance an invention should be under charge of some one who is interested in preventing it from being smothered at its birth. The protection which is conferred by the patent is not only the cause, in the majority of instances, of an invention being made, but it is positively the cause why the invention is received. Thus largely is the public benefited by a system which on a superficial glance is erroneously supposed to be for the exclusive advantage of the inventor, at the expense of the rest of the world. One of the most celebrated of the reported cases, that of Josiah Heath, is another striking instance of the effect of patents in promulgating discoveries which would otherwise remain hidden in corners. Heath took out a patent in 1839 for improving the manufacture of cast-steel, by using the so called carburet of manganese and carbon in proper proportions. It appears from the evidence given before the Privy Council by an eminent Sheffield steel-manufacturer, that in 1839 shear-steel was sold at from 50%. to 70l. per ton, and could only be made from high-priced Russian or Swedish iron, costing from 207. to 301. per ton. Welding cast-steel, a still dearer product, was sold at from 70l. to 80l. per ton, and was too expensive to be employed in the Sheffield trade. When Mr. Heath had taught the makers of steel how to use his process, the same kind of steel was made from English iron worth about 107. per ton, and could be had for from 207. to 307. per ton. The result was a saving of 40 to 50 per cent. in the manufacture, and English iron was rendered available, where before iron imported from abroad could alone be used. There was, therefore, a twofold national advantage-an economy was effected in English manufactures, and an English mineral product was employed in the place of foreign ore.* To quote the words of the learned gentleman who reported the case: 'Mr. Heath was the author of an invention conferring commercial * See Webster's Reports on Patent Cases, vol. ii., Heath v. Unwin; Heath . Smith; also printed Case of Josiah Heath. † Printed Case of Josiah Heath: T. Webster, M.A,, F.R.S., barrister-at-law, p. 6. profits profits to be reckoned by millions; he described [in his specification] the invention in one set of terms according to the best of his knowledge at the time. The manufacturers adopted a process chemically equivalent, the same in effect and result, but admitting of being described in somewhat different terms, inasmuch as it consisted in the use of the known chemical elements of the substance, instead of the substance itself. The knowledge of the use of these elements, instead of the substance, was communicated by Mr. Heath to the manufacturers within a few months after the date of his patent, and while the invention, so to speak, was on its trial for adoption by the manufacturers. Its immediate adoption, under the advice and direction of Mr. Heath and his agent, followed on the first experiments, and showed a saving of from forty to fifty per cent. on the cost of the steel. The royalty demanded by Mr. Heath was about one-fiftieth or two per cent, on such saving. The payment of this or of any sum to Mr. Heath was refused by a section of the steelmanufacturers, who, relying on the refined distinction just adverted to, created out of their savings a common fund wherewith to contest his rights the expense of the fifteen years' litigation falling wholly upon himself, fighting single-handed against a common purse, the accumulation of the wealth which he had created.' In the course of these long legal contests a verdict given in Mr. Heath's favour was set aside by the Court of Exchequer, whose decision was overruled by a still higher Court, the Court of Error, whose judgment was in turn reversed by the highest Court of the land, the House of Lords. This final decision was adverse to the opinions of the majority of the twelve Judges who were called in to assist in hearing the appeal. The fact that Mr. Heath died before the litigation had ended will perhaps create no surprise. His widow was heard by petition before the Privy Council Feb. 1, 1853; and though the old opponents tried again to impeach the validity of the patent for want of novelty, an extension of the patent for seven years was obtained. The petition of the widow stated that the legal proceedings had subjected her husband to great expense with barely any return, and to an anxiety which had shortened his life. He had only received 1007. or 2007. for the use of an invention by which Sheffield alone had realised millions. The most extraordinary part of the statement has yet to be made. In August, 1853, Mrs. Heath brought an action against an infringer. It was tried before Mr. Justice Erle, and then, for the first time, credible evidence was given that the invention was not new at the date of the patent in 1839. Several steel-manufacturers were called as witnesses, two of whom, father and son, stated that they had employed the process in their extensive business in Derbyshire as early as 1824; the son averred that it was a secret secret every one knew.* Yet, this most profitable discovery, used commonly in the Derbyshire steel-works-a secret every one there knew-remained unpropagated, and did not cross the neighbouring borders of Yorkshire until 1839. Then, it was made known by Mr. Heath, because, having taken out a patent for what he no doubt independently discovered, it became his interest to take great trouble in teaching the men of Sheffield how to apply it, and to overcome the inevitable opposition of prejudice. If Mr. Heath had not patented his discovery, it seems clear that Sheffield would never have heard of the good things that had for years and years been done in Derbyshire. It must be confessed that the witness who swore that he had made steel by Heath's process since 1824, also swore that he had never heard of Heath's patent until 1850! and yet the hot contest that had been going on between all Sheffield and the poor patentee for ten years ought to have made some noise in the steel world. In the circumstance of litigation this case is no exceptional example of the hardships which are undergone by patentees, though some are fortunate enough to be successful in the end. It is never, however, at the expense of the public. The position of patentees, with regard to the means of protecting their rights, unfortunately still remains as it was under the old law, and it would be well for them if improvements could be introduced into that branch of the system as beneficial as those which have been effected in the method of obtaining the grant itself. Under the old law, as we have seen, the applicant for letters patent was compelled to pay black mail in numerous distinct offices, at a cost of between 3007. and 4007. in fees, and often as much more in incidental expenses. Under the new law he has merely to deposit his application in the Great Seal Office in Chancery-Lane, and for the payment of 57. he obtains, if his papers are drawn up with clearness, a provisional protection of his project for six months. This is a great boon to the poor inventor, who, by scraping together a hundred shillings, is able to acquire a property in his invention for at least half a year, which gives him time to test and complete his work, without fear of its being filched from him. He need no longer place himself at the mercy of the first rich patron to whom he may be forced to apply. He possesses a recognized property, and can treat on fairer terms with the capitalist who may be willing to advance him funds. Provided the scheme steers clear of the claims of prior patentees who might otherwise oppose the demand, letters patent are granted any time during the term of the provisional protec * Heath v. Smith, Webster's Patent Cases, vol. ii., p. 264. Vol. 105.-No. 209. L tion, tion, on payment of 207. They confer the usual rights for fourteen years, except that the patent will become void at the end of three years, unless a 507. fee be paid; and again at the end of seven years, unless a further fee of 100%. be paid. These periodical disbursements need not of course be made unless the patent should prove of sufficient value, and thus patents that are worthless are cleared away, and leave the field open to further invention. Besides enabling the inventor to obtain easily and cheaply a legal title to his own invention, the Patent Law Amendment Act empowered the Commissioners to reorganise the office branch of this department. The instructions are not very distinct or comprehensive, but they have been applied in a manner which shows how much may be done when the authorities take an enlarged view of their duties, instead of dronishly allowing the machinery of their department to grind along in the grooves of routine. Yearly reports are published by the Commissioners, and that for 1853 gives an account of the effects of the improved system : The number of applications for provisional protection recorded within the fifteen months from the 1st October, 1852, to the 31st December, 1853, was 4256; the number of patents passed thereon, all having become due on the 30th June last, was 3099; and the number of applications lapsed or forfeited, the applicants having neglected to proceed for their patents within the six months of provisional protection, was 1157. 'The number of applications recorded within the first three months of the operation of the Act was 1211. 'The number of applications recorded within the year 1853 was 3045.' The large comparative demand for patents during the first three months of the new system, was owing to the fact that many inventions had been purposely held back. The returns of the applications from different counties, from October, 1852, to December, 1853, inclusive, are highly significant: It would seem that the number of patents granted is a fair test of the manufacturing activity not only of districts, but of nations. England, France, and the United States of America grant grant the largest number, while Austria, Russia, and Spain grant the least in proportion to their population. This will appear from the following Table of the Patents granted in four of these countries during the year 1857: Great Britain A comparison of the applications made by the inhabitants of the Free and Slave States of America, further strengthens the conclusion that patents and progress go hand-in-hand. Massachusetts 1 to 2,362 1 to 8,427 Virginia North Carolina South Carolina 58 1 to 24,511 The first efforts of the Commissioners were directed towards vivifying the stores of information entombed in chapels or crammed to suffocation in the Petty Bag, by introducing the printing press. This was a startling innovation. Never since patents were first granted had there been any attempt to give publicity to their mouldering rolls. Even a pencil note by a visitor was a transgression of the rules. If memorandums had been permitted to be made fewer office copies of the documents would have been required, and these were paid for by the letter, and cost scores of pounds, where now they may be purchased for half so many pence. The Commissioners began by printing the new patents: -- All the specifications,' says the Report of 1853, 'filed in the office from October 1st, 1852, to 30th June, 1853, 3099 in number, have been printed and published, together with lithographed outline copies of the drawings accompanying the same, and these are sold to the public either separately, or in the series for the year, at the cost price of the printing and paper. The price of a The price of a specification of the average length of letterpress and drawings is 8d. Each specification is printed and published within three weeks of its deposit in the office.' It was in this department that fears were entertained of a speedy dead lock. It was prognosticated that no public office could continue to print the great influx of matter which might |