“A more recent instance has occurred, however, of a large sum being pocketed by parties not the inventors of the article patented. We can, however, only give you the figures as popularly reported, without vouching for their accuracy, and in relating the story we shall endeavour to reply to your queries _seriatim_. 1st, The patented article is a machine for dressing millstones by means of a black diamond, or piece of ‘bort,’ instead of by the hand with picks. It was originally patented in France by the party said to be the inventor, and shortly afterwards was patented by him in this country. 2nd and 3rd, A Leith commission agent (a German) and an Edinburgh miller saw the machine in the Paris Exhibition of 1867, and induced the patentee to bring it over to Scotland for trial, and ultimately they, in conjunction with a third party, purchased the patentee’s right for the whole kingdom for £4,000. 4th, These parties immediately put the machine in the market, and it was at once seized hold of by speculators, who readily gave most extraordinary sums for it. One party is said to have paid £40,000 for the right for a dozen counties in England; another £15,000 for three counties; and another £20,000 for some counties in Ireland: the whole sum realised by the original purchasers amounting, it is said, to upwards of £150,000. 5th, The consequence is, that such enormous sums having been paid by the speculators, the trade can only get the use of the machine by paying a most exorbitant price, and hitherto it has remained all but a dead letter. We cannot give you in round numbers the amount expected to be realised by the speculators, but the price originally charged by them would have yielded four or five times the amount they paid if the whole trade had become purchasers. This machine has not yet been the subject of litigation, but there is every probability that it soon will be.” But I can reproduce a case where the effect was far, far worse, communicated to me in a private letter:— “The patentee of the Howard series of improvements in sugar-refining granted licences to houses in Liverpool and Hull, with a condition in each case that he would not grant a licence to any party carrying on business within seventy miles of either town. A sugar refiner of long standing, established in Sheffield, applied for a licence, and was refused for the reason above stated, Sheffield being just within the prescribed distance. The consequence was, he had to carry on his manufacture for nearly fourteen years on the old system; and during this period sustained great losses by working, which he, as well as parties cognisant with the facts, attributed to the disadvantage he was compelled to carry on under. His fortune disappeared, and he became insolvent.—I am, &c.