Lord Stanley, though only recommending the matter for the “particular handling” of the Government, inclines, on the whole, to the view that the Patent-Laws do more harm than good; and we are quite disposed to agree with him. The decisive consideration appears to be the unavoidable abuse of Patents for inconsiderable inventions, or inventions of simultaneous discovery. The hardship of excluding B from a discovery of his own because A had patented it a week before, is such as to demand the clearest proof of the expediency of the general law which deprives him of the fruit of his labours. Where B is a manufacturer, led up to the discovery by the necessities of competition and suddenly laid under contribution by a stranger or a rival, the hardship is especially severe. We are not sure but that to make any Patent-Law tolerably just, special provision should be made for proof of simultaneous discovery, and either compensation to all the discoverers by the patentees, or full liberty to them to make use of their discovery. It is of equal importance, however, that the amendment of manufacturing processes in detail should not be checked; and perhaps the fact that the great majority of Patents now only apply to what may be termed details is a main reason for abolishing them. It is a simple monstrosity, to quote the case given by Mr. Scott Russell, that every conceivable shape of a boiler should be patented, so that the most obvious change of form, which some particular exigency obviously suggests when it arises, should not be permissible to a manufacturer unless he pays black mail to somebody else. If it is said that details are often important, the answer is that manufacturers and inventors have a sufficient stimulus with regard to them without a Patent-Law. The pressure of competition and the large scale of manufacturing, which make details important, are sufficient inducements to those interested to find out something new, or encourage others to find out something for them. Just because invention must usually come in the way of great manufacturers, who can recoup themselves without Patents, Patents are no longer necessary. Men like Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Scott Russell, who are themselves considerable inventors, do not care for Patents, except to guard themselves against the interference of others who might take advantage of the present law to reap where they have not sowed. They are quite content to let others alone, if they are let alone themselves, deriving their profit from general excellence of manufacture, of which any single process which might be the subject of a Patent is only one out of many details, and perhaps not the most important. Nor do such inventors conceal their detailed improvements, so that they are in no way tempted to do anything for the advantage of the public by the present law. It was observable in the debate that the defence of the present law rested exclusively with representatives of probably the least important