being mounted on a mule; he held in his hand a whip, but the writer did not say that he applied it to the voters; he however stated, that it must have been intended for them, as it was much too long to be applied to the mule. The noble lord contended, that the principle of abrogating the franchise on account of the apprehension of prospective danger, was to be found in the preamble of the statute of Henry the 6th. lord who had just sat down, whether he would, after limiting the number of voters who were under the influence of the ́aristocracy, leave a class of corrupt voters untouched, who would bear down the legitimate influence of the aristocracy? Lord Plunkett admitted, that he had made use of the expression imputed to him by the noble duke; but he had made use of it in answer to an hon. and learned friend, who had objected, that the measure introduced in the other House on this ano-subject did not go far enough." The amendment was negatived. The Duke of Richmond proposed ther amendment, the effect of which was, to except from the operation of the bill forty-shilling freeholders in fee simple. A noble and learned lord (Plunkett) had, when a similar bill was introduced into another place, said, "will you carry the principle so far as to disfranchise the yeomanry of England?" It was in order to save the yeomanry of England that he proposed the amendment. The Lord Chancellor stated, that those very freeholders whom it was the object of the noble duke's amendment to except from the operation of the bill, were the very persons most subject to corruption. They had acquired a right to voting, by building mud cabins on the sides of mountains without possessing any property. The Earl of Malmesbury differed from the learned lord. The freeholders alluded to were as much entitled to the protection of that House as any landholder of ten thousand a year. The freeholders of Ireland had originally established themselves on the mountains, as the poor of England established themselves on commons. They were an industrious body of persons; and their freeholds were as perfect as any other. Lord Oriel said, that the freeholders were idle and ignorant, and possessed the privilege of voting, not in right of property, but only by an act of parliament passed a few years ago. It was no right possessed by inheritance. Lord Farnham denied, that the right of all these voters had existed for so short a time. Some of the freeholds in fee simple under 102. had been handed down from father to son since the time of Oliver Cromwell, who gave land in Ireland to his soldiers. He however admitted, that great corruption existed generally amongst that class of voters. The committee divided: For the amendment, 12; against it, 66-Majority, 54. Lord Farnham proposed an amendment, to bring freeholders in county towns and cities under the operation of the bill. The Duke of Wellington thought it desirable not to extend the principle of the measure farther than it was absolutely necessary. Great abuses existed in the franchise in the counties at large, which it was desirable to remedy. Similar abuses, he did not deny, existed in county towns and cities, but there also existed a remedy, in the power which corporations possessed of creating an indefinite number of freemen. Lord Gort was quite aware that corporations possessed the power of creating freemen, but after having created them they had no control over them so that, in fact, no remedy existed for the abuse of the franchise in cities. The amendment was negatived. Upon putting the clause relative to the registry of freeholders, Lord Farnham proposed an amendment, by which two magistrates, together with the assistant-barrister, should have the power of deciding on the right of voting, and not the assistant-barrister by himself. He was aware that the assistant-barristers were highly respectable individuals, but still he thought it improper that officers appointed by the Crown, paid by the Crown, and removable at the pleasure of the Crown, should have the sole power of deciding who should and should not vote. He contended, that the appeal to the judge of assize was wholly illusory; for it would cost a freeholder of 107. half his income for a year to carry it on. He objected, that there was no appeal allowed on the admission as well as on rejection of the right of voting. The Lord Chancellor said, 'that the assistant-barristers had been chosen with great caution by the government, and he believed they had discharged their duty to the satisfaction of every one. He denied that the noble lord was correct in his assertion, that it would cost a free holder half the income of his freehold to institute an appeal. He had inquired into the subject, and had ascertained, that it would cost him no more than 10s. The Marquis of Londonderry thought it would take away all suspicion of partiality on the part of the assistant-barrister, if he were removable from one district to another like the judges of assize. Lord Plunkett stated, that the lordlieutenant would have the power of removing the assistant-barristers from one district to another whenever he thought fit. Lord Farnham still thought that his estimate of the expense of carrying on an appeal was not overstated. The amendment was negatived. The rest of the clauses were agreed to, without observation or amendment. The House resumed, the report was received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time to morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MINUTES.] Mr. LAMB gave notice, that he would to morrow present a Petition from the Bailiff and Freemen of East Retford, praying "that a new Writ may be issued for the Election of two Burgesses for that Borough." -MR. BARING gave notice of his intention to bring in a bill to vacate the Seats of Members of Parliament who have accepted Offices in India."-MR. TENNYSON gave notice of his intention to move "for a Select Com mittee to inquire into the Expenditure and Management of the Orphans' Fund." Mr. Fyler expressed his willingness to comply with the right hon. gentleman's request. He should be sorry to interpose any difficulty in the way of government. He was glad to find that the right hon.` gentleman would be prepared to state the intentions of ministers with respect to the Silk-trade on Monday. Mr. Dickinson presented a petition from the Silk-throwsters of Somerset, Wilts, and Dorsetshire. They prayed that their ruin might not be accelerated by taking off the duties, and that the miseries of the people they employed might not be increased. As it was the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to communicate his views on this subject on Monday, he would not discuss the question now; but he hoped that any future legislation on this subject would be consonant to the principles of the laws of England, which were for the preservation of the lives and properties of the subjects. If more duties were taken off, 25,0002. of property embarked in factories and machinery would not sell for 6,000l.; and the work-people who now dragged on a miserable existence on an average of wages of 2s. 6d. a-week, which afforded them just potatoes and salt, would inevitably be more distressed, these were considerations well worth the attention of government; who he sincerely hoped, would not sacrifice an industrious people for a theory, nor apply the principles of free trade to a complex state of society that did not suit them. Sir T. Lethbridge corroborated the statement of his hon. colleague, as to the distress of the Silk-trade in Somersetshire. It was quite true, that the great body of them were in a state of the most dreadful distress. Much capital had been invested in that trade within a few years, and a very considerable population was employed in it in the town and neighbour hood of Taunton. He was glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to state the plan prepared by his majesty's government for the benefit of the Silk-trade. SILK TRADE.] Mr. V. Fitzgerald, seeing the hon. member for Coventry in his place, was anxious to request, on his own part and for the convenience of government, that the hon. member would postpone his motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the State of the Silk Trade, which stood for to-morrow, until Monday next. It was the wish of the hon. gentleman and of parties concerned in the Silk-trade, that, when the motion for a committee was Mr. V. Fizgerald thought there was no made, he should mention the course which occasion on which less apology was re government intended to adopt. He hoped, quired for declining to enter into the sub under these circumstances, that the hon.ject than upon the third day previous to gentleman would not feel disinclined to admit of a short delay, which would enable him to state explicitly the intentions of government on the subject. that fixed for the discussion. He was not going into the case then, but this he must say, that there might be other causes for the distress and depression experienced in 1 the neighbourhood of Dublin, the building of which and the erection of machinery cost 1,7001. This concern was lately sold for 501., in consequence of the reduced state of the silk trade. There was no instance in the history of commercial affairs, of a depreciation so sudden and extreme, as had taken place in that species of property which was employed in throwing silk. With respect to the importation of foreign silk, the petitioners were of opinion, that in order the more effectually to prevent smuggling, the revenue officers should be stimulated to effect seizures, by a larger allowance of the property confiscated. They thought that if this expedi ent were adopted, an illicit trade in silk would not be carried on, to such an extent as it was at present. the Silk-trade, than those assigned by the petitioners. However, he abstained from discussing these considerations at present. The hon. member expressed his hope that the measures of government would be stated without further delay. Government could not be fairly called upon to state the course they intended to pursue so early as some gentlemen appeared to suppose. Nevertheless, they were anxious to explain their intentions as soon as possible. The laws regulating the Silk-trade did not expire until the end of the session; government therefore were at liberty to select the most convenient time, previous to that period, at which to bring forward their plan. However, they were willing to state the nature of the measure they proposed on Monday. It was evident that, in doing so they were only actuated by a desire to comply with the wishes of the parties interested, and to satisfy their minds upon the subject; for no measure proposed on Monday, could be carried through until after the recess. Mr. Robinson presented a petition from the silk-throwsters of London and its vicinity, complaining of the depressed state of their trade. The petitioners had, he said, embarked a considerable amount of property in mills and machinery for throwing silk, on the faith of the protection afforded them by the duties formerly imposed on the importation of foreign thrown silk. They declared that, since the alterations had been made in those duties, they found it utterly impossible to compete with the Italian throwster. If some adequate protection were not afforded, their trade must inevitably fall into ruin and decay. They stated, that, in the year 1825, they were suddenly and most unexpectedly exposed to great losses and fluctuations in their property, by the issue of a Treasury order, which reduced the duty on foreign thrown silk imported into the English market, from 7s. 6d. to 5s. per lb. ; and they added, that the latter duty was utterly insufficient to afford them adequate protection against the foreign throwster. In consequence of the new system introduced into the Silk Trade, a great depreciation of property had taken place, and the operatives were involved in the utmost distress. He could adduce many instances of the frightful extent to which property invested in silk mills and machinery had been depreciated. He would, however, mention one case of this kind-it was that of a large mill in Mr. Davenport said, the silk-throwsters had an immense amount of capital embarked in their trade, and gave employ ment to a great number of individuals. Without some alteration in the existing system, it was impossible that they should compete with foreigners. Ordered to lie on the table. LAW OF PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.] Mr. Lennard rose, to move for a committee to inquire into the present state of the Law and Practice of granting Patents for Inventions. He had no intention, he said, of impugning the principle on which the law in regard to patents was founded, nor of encroaching on the prerogative of the king to grant them. The prerogative in that respect was as old as the constitution; it was clear that at common law the Crown had the power of granting to the inventor of any new and useful manufacture or art, the exclusive right of using or vending it for a reasonable time. Such a grant was no violation of the rule laid down by lord Coke, that no one is to be restrained of any freedom or liberty he had before, or hindered in his lawful calling; such a grant, so far from being injurious to the public, was on the contrary beneficial to it, by tending to encourage useful discoveries. But this power having been greatly abused, particularly in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James, having been made the means sometimes of enriching a favourite at the expense of the public, sometimes of raising a revenue for the prince, having (in the words of queen Elizabeth, when she revoked some monopolies which had been complained of by parlia ment) "been repeatedly turned to the | thing, which was to be useful to the com hart of the people," it was at length found munity, ought to be rewarded;--that he necessary to define and limit it by statute, who informed the public of a new method and to reduce it within its ancient and of increasing their wealth or their comforts, constitutional limits, which was done by should obtain a compensation or recom the well-known Statute of Monopolies pense for his labours and ingenuity. The passed in the 21st James 1st. That best and most appropriate method of doing statute suppressed all monopolies gene- this seemed to be that which was marked rally; but the sixth clause in it authorized out by the statute; namely, the giving an the Crown to grant letters-patent, or grants inventor a limited monopoly in his own of privilege for fourteen years or under, of manufacture; for, in proportion as his inthe sole working or making of any new vention was valuable to society, so would manufacture within the realm to the true the amount of his profits increase. He and first inventor of such manufacture. It considered, therefore, that the principle was upon that clause that the right now was a sound one on which our patent laws exercised by the Crown, of granting those were founded, and which were intended, on letters, which confer upon an inventor the the one hand, to stimulate industry and right to the exclusive benefit of his own ingenuity by securing to inventors a reward invention for fourteen years, was wholly proportionate to the value of their invenfounded. Whenever that power was exer- tions, and, on the other, to secure to the cised, the privilege or protection thus public the perfect knowledge of such usegranted was the result of what might be ful inventions or discoveries as might be called a compromise between the Crown, made. His object was, to make the law or rather, he should say, the public on the efficient for these purposes, which it was one hand, and the inventor on the other. not at present. That clause, which did no more than declare that it should be in the power of the Crown to make such grants if it should think fit, left it to the Crown to prescribe those terms on which it would make the grant. Accordingly, in the reign of queen Anne, a condition was introduced into the patent, which had always since been insisted on, that the inventor should, within a certain time, generally within one or two, sometimes six, months after the grant of the patent, enrol in the court of Chancery, such a description of his invention, that the public might, at the expiration of the patent, have the use of it in as cheap and beneficial a manner as the patentee himself used it. By obtaining that statement the public derived a benefit, and an equivalent in return for the benefit the patentee derived from his limited monopoly. In looking at the limited and peculiar privilege granted by letters-patent, which he had spoken of as a monopoly, they must not confound it with the common notion of a monopoly, which it was not, being merely a bargain between the inventor and the public: the public acquired something which it had not before, or acquired it in a better form, or at a cheaper rate. And it was manifest that it was equally just, as it was politic, that those who had employed their time and spent their money in the production of some new He should not say any thing in regard to the expense of taking out a patent: he had heard it spoken of as a grievance, but he was not prepared to say that the law required any alteration in that respect. It was his own' opinion at present, and he knew it was the opinion of many persons who had great experience in that part of our laws, that it was not desirable to facilitate over-much the obtaining of patents by any reduction of expense; but what he did contend for was, that when a patent was obtained, it should be perfectly effectual for its purpose; namely, the security of this limited monopoly to the inventor, and of so perfect a knowledge of the inven tion to the public, that every one might use it when the term of the patent was expired. Such being the case, he would proceed to the consideration of those parts of the law which he thought the most important to bring under the attention of the House, and in which he thought it possible some improvement, on mature deliberation, might be made. The patent, as he had said, was granted on condition that the invention should, in the specification, be accurately and completely described-that it should describe the best and properest materials, and that the machine, or thing, or substance discovered, should be accurately and completely described. He was aware of the necessity of insisting on that; his invention-far from it; he saw the perfect justice and the necessity of this; but when a man had made a discovery, and was willing to come forward, and bond fide make the discovery known, which was part of the condition of the grant, he had a right to ask, when he gave the description of that discovery, "Are you satisfied with it?" "Is it complete?" "Can you work by it?" and then, unless the had wilfully concealed some part of the process by which the invention could be better or cheaper made, he ought to be secure of that protection which was to him the beneficial part of the bargain which he had entered into with the public; and not, after laying out vast sums of money, be liable to have to maintain his right before two or three successive juries, and ultimately, perhaps, after a balanced opinion of two juries and the court, lose the benefit of his invention on some technical point, which might have been foreseen, or which, perhaps, was really of no im it was part of the bargain and fairly made; He would not weary the House with attempting to enumerate the manifold imperfections in specifications, which had been held to be fatal to the right of the patentee. It was sufficient that it was notorious that the drawing a specification was a matter of the greatest possible nicety, and that most of the patents which on judicial trial had been lost, had been so from mistakes in the framing of that document. The history of the courts of law afforded, perhaps, no one head of law about which there had been so much difference of opinion amongst the judges, He was not contending that the patentee should not be obliged to give a complete and accurate description of He thought it would be found that some mode of ensuring the validity of the patent, when the specification was complete, or, if incomplete, of making the patentee acquainted with that fact, and of allowing him before it was enrolled to make it complete, might fairly be required. The history of the cases showed that some of the most meritorious and scientific men, who had devoted their time and their fortune to the perfection of inventions-to whom it was that we owed the unparalleled extension of our commerce, the increase of our manufactures, and the improvements in agriculture, those resources of that extraordinary prosperity and power to which this country had arrived-had, for some technical inaccuracy in the specification, nearly risked the loss of their property. He need only refer to the case of Bolton and Watt, whose patent was all but lost, and that from some technical error in the description-such as a description of a method rather than a thing. It was a fact well known that these eminent persons expended between 30,000l. and 40,000l. in the defence of their patents, which never would have been infringed if there had been persons authorized and competent to examine the specification on its enrolment, and to have said, "You have taken a patent for a principle rather than a thing, or for a whole machine, when yours is only an improvement of a |