Against it voted MM. Bichon, Blussé, Vader, Hofmann, Heemskerk Azn, Van Wassenaer, and Van Zinnick Bergmann. [8] For this translation I am indebted to the Foreign-office, to whose reports I have been politely allowed access. [9] This admirable document is prefixed, see page 185. FROM THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT MEMORIAL. The project of law, which is accompanied by an extensive memorial of explanation, contains the following stipulations:— _Article 1._—From and after the 1st of January, 1870, no fresh Patents for inventions and improvements, or the first introduction of objects of art and industry, shall be granted, those only excepted for which application shall have been made previous to that date. _Article 2._—The term for Patents formerly granted or deliverable within the provisions of Article 1 of this law may be extended in accordance with the law of 25th January, 1817. (Vide “_Staatsblad_,” No. 6.) The memorial says, _inter alia_:— “In order to let Netherlands industry and Netherlands people reap the benefit of the bulk of improvements in industry, the best course to take appears to be the repeal of the Patent-Law. “The first requisite of a reform of the existing legislation on Patents would be to more completely guarantee their rights to inventors, they being by no means sufficiently protected by the provisions of the law now in force. “Considering, however, the consequences of any kind of Patent-Law, the means that are to be employed and the expenses to be incurred, so as to render all parties interested quite familiar with the Patents granted; the fact that, in consequence of the development of industry, the number of Patents is increasing, the result of which is more and more to burden the exercise of the sundry branches of industry with a larger portion of obstructive privileges, besides the abuses and wrong practice to which they lead; in one word, the price which the public have to pay, compared with the very few inventors, whose advantage is even at best uncertain—considering all these points, there can hardly be a doubt as to the choice the Netherlands ought to make, placed as they are between the dark path leading to more obnoxious privileges and the highway where freedom of movement prevails.” We subjoin the following, with which we have been favoured, on the same subject:—