But what if these are the subject of Patents the holder of which will not come to terms or cannot be treated with? Retardation, if the privilege is temporary; a full stop, if perpetual. NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF MR. MACFIE’S SPEECH. [Page 17.] The views taken in the text as to the meaning of the word “manufacture” receive confirmation from the following extract from the _Engineer_ of June 4, 1869:— THE AMERICAN PATENT-LAW. ... Accordingly, in the first general Patent-Law passed by Congress, the subject for which Patents were to be granted were described as the invention or discovery of “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used.” In the next statute—that of 21st February, 1793—the phraseology was first introduced which has been ever since employed—namely, “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, not known or used before the application for a Patent.”... We have, then, the following four heads of subjects suitable for Patents—viz., an art, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.... In England, to make a new process the subject of a Patent, the word “manufacture” would be used, and would have to be interpreted somewhat liberally. Thus, in some cases, there might not be a perfect distinction between the thing itself and the art or process of making the thing.... With regard to the head “manufacture,” we cannot do better than give the definition which Mr. Curtis has added as a note to his work. He says a manufacture “would be any new combination of old materials, constituting a new result or production in the form of a vendible article, not being machinery.”... As well as from the following extract from— HINDMARCH ON “VENDING OR SELLING.” “The sole privilege of making the invention as expressed ... is in truth the same in substance as the sole privilege of using and exercising it.... By the first section of the Statute of Monopolies, patents granting ‘the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything’ are declared to be void, and the proviso in favour of inventions contained in the sixth section only extends to ‘grants of privilege of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures,’ leaving the sole buying or selling of anything within the prohibition.... The sole privilege granted by a _Patent_ for an invention authorises the inventor ‘to make, use, exercise, and vend’ the invention.... And as no one can use the invention except the patentee, no one besides him can lawfully have such articles for sale.... Every part of the privilege granted by a _Patent_ for an invention, when thus explained (!) is therefore clearly within the meaning of the exception contained in the _Statute_....”