It is quite otherwise according to our Patent-Laws. Under them the _idea_ of an author is everything, so to speak, and is rigidly protected. Thus, for example, suppose A produces a new manufacture by means of a very imperfect and clumsy machine, or chemical process, which he invents and patents; and suppose afterwards that B invents a very perfect and simple machine, or chemical process, whereby he can produce the same manufacture as A, but better and cheaper than his. In such a case the Patent-Laws prohibit B from making any use of his improvement for making the manufacture of A during the continuance of his Patent, unless with his consent. This arises from its being a leading _principle_ of our Patent-Laws, that where a new invention has been secured by a valid and existing Patent no one is allowed during the continuance of that Patent to produce _the same results by a mechanical or chemical equivalent_. Hence the great source of complaints and of the litigation arising under our Patent-Laws. Thus it is that a patented manufacture precludes any improvements therein except by the patentee, or with his consent, during the term of his Patent.... In Italy, at the expiration of such forty years, although any one may then make and sell copies of the work, the person doing so must, during a second term of forty years, annually pay to the proprietor of the Copyright 5 per cent. (calculated at the _published_ price) upon all copies sold by the person so making and selling such copies. As to France, her Copyright-Laws are expressly extended to all her colonies. And, by the 8th Article of Her Majesty the Queen’s Copyright Convention with France, dated 3rd November, 1851, _reciprocal_ protection is agreed to be given in favour of Copyright works _first_ published in “the territories of France,” or in “the British dominions.” This appears to show that both States clearly intended that such reciprocal protection should extend to their colonies. It is also stipulated by the 7th Article that “pirated works _shall be seized_ and destroyed.” Now the French law very justly declares the piracy of Copyright property to be a _crime_ (_delit_), and provides rapid and effectual means for enabling the proprietor of the Copyright to seize both the pirate and the fraudulent copies, plates, &c., in his possession. Yet, according to the present state of the British Artistic Copyright-Laws, no such powers of seizure, as expressly agreed by Her Majesty the Queen’s Convention, exist in the British dominions; nor does any protection whatever for _artistic_ Copyright works extend beyond the United Kingdom; no, not even to the Isle of Man, or to the Channel Islands!