“Let us suppose, for example, that a new colour is patented alone in France, and that the patentee only permits the manufacture of the colour on payment of a high royalty: this colour will become dear, to the profit of the patentee alone, and the detriment of all; its exportation, or the exportation of articles dyed with this colour, into a country where the manufacture is free, will become impossible, because in that country they will begin to fabricate it, and its price will be diminished to the extent of the royalty exacted for it by the patentee. “The French producer will necessarily be placed in such a situation that he will be unable to sustain any foreign competition. “It is of consequence, so far as it depends on legislators, to place those countries on the same footing who unite in the peaceful, beneficent struggle of competition. “But with the sound notions which prevail amongst persons of intelligence, it is evident that the uniform solution to which every one would adhere cannot be one which would recognise Patents. “The making all discoveries free is the system which alone would have the chance of being adopted by all nations. “It would certainly put an end to more injustice than it would originate.” I had the pleasure of being present at a numerously-attended meeting of the Economists of Germany held at Dresden in 1863, which almost unanimously adopted a resolution against all Patents; quite in harmony, I may say, with formal resolutions of commercial and industrial associations in that country and France. The House must long ago have been prepared for the following conclusions, which close the Royal Commission’s Report on the Law relating to Letters Patent for Inventions:— “That in all Patents hereafter to be granted a proviso shall be inserted to the effect that the Crown shall have the power to use any invention therein patented without previous licence or consent of the patentee, subject to payment of a sum to be fixed by the Treasury. “While, in the judgment of the Commissioners, the changes above suggested will do something to mitigate the inconveniences now generally complained of by the public as incident to the working of the Patent-Law, it is their opinion that these inconveniences cannot be wholly removed. They are, in their belief, inherent in the nature of a Patent-Law, and must be considered as the price which the public consents to pay for the existence of such a law.” This is signed by Lord Stanley, Lord Overstone, Sir W. Erle, Lord Hatherley, Lord Cairns, H. Waddington, W. R. Grove, W. E. Forster, Wm. Fairbairn. The public understood this to mean that the Commission were by no means satisfied that there should be any longer any Patent-Law at all. The _Journal of Jurisprudence_ gives it this interpretation.