The contradiction that we have just noted between two verdicts given by the same Court upon the same question gives us the right to say that the magistrates ought to show a little more indulgence to those they condemn. When there is a law like that relative to Patents, common mortals are very excusable if they make a mistake in interpreting in a wrong way this or that expression, since we see the highest Court in the country giving sometimes one interpretation and sometimes another. The first article of the law has given rise to fifteen different suits, inscribed in the pages of the volume we hold. These fifteen suits have been tried before the Civil Courts or the Court of Cassation. People may well be frightened at the mountain of papers that must have been used and destroyed by the attorneys, counsel, barristers, &c., before the public could have any clear notion of what the legislators meant. The second article is as follows: “Will be considered as new inventions or discoveries—the invention of new industrial produce; the invention of new methods or the new application of known methods to obtain an individual result or produce.” This article, we may say, is the main beam of the edifice, consequently it has given occasion to no less than 104 suits. One might fancy that the multitude of judicial decisions given by the Courts has thrown the most brilliant light on the interpretation to be given to the three paragraphs forming the second article. Alas! these paragraphs are just as obscure as before. For instance, the Imperial Court of Paris decided on August 13, 1861, that the “change in the form of a surgical instrument, even when there may result an advantage or greater facility to the operator, cannot be patented.” But on July 26 of the same year it had decided that “a production already known—a straw mat, for instance—may be patented when its form, its size, and its length are new.” So, again, the Court of Cassation decided, on February 9, 1862, that “the production of a new industrial result is an invention that may be patented, even if it is only due to a new combination in the form and proportions of objects already known.” On the contrary, the Correctional Court of the Seine decided on December 24, 1861, that a modification of form, even when it procures an advantage, is not of a nature to constitute a patentable invention. Can we not say with the poet: “Deviner si tu peux, et choisis si tu l’oses?” The lawyers of Great Britain are accustomed to celebrate certain anniversaries by a professional dinner. The President of the party, after having proposed the health of the Queen and the Royal Family, calls upon his brethren to join in a toast to the prosperity of the profession they follow. This traditional toast is characteristic enough. It is as follows: “_The glorious uncertainty of the law!_” We think the facts we have related give to this toast a right of citizenship on this side of the Channel.