But there are defenders of very different calibre: Mr. MacCulloch,[3] Sir David Brewster, Mr. John Stuart Mill. It is meet I should inform the House what are their arguments. I find them succinctly stated and well put in Mr. Mill’s “Political Economy.” I will read the whole of that gentleman’s observations, interlacing, for brevity’s sake, very short and unargumentative dissents, if not replies:— “The condemnation of monopolies ought not to extend to Patents, by which the originator—” Does Mr. Mill know that many an invention is patented by some person who is not the originator, but only the first promulgator in Britain; still more often, who is not the only originator? “of an improved process—” I have already shown that the law, rightly read, can hardly be said to sanction the patenting of a “process.” “is allowed to enjoy, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege of using his own improvement.” Which means, the privilege of debarring all other people—some of whom may, after him, or at the same time as he, or even before him, have invented it—from doing what he is, and they also should be, allowed to do. “This is not making the commodity dear for his benefit, but merely postponing—” For his benefit, and still more frequently and surely for the benefit of a multitude of other individuals, who have less claim, or no claim at all. “a part of the increased cheapness, which the public owe to the inventor—” But not to him only, for he invents often along with others, and always in consequence of knowledge which he derives from the common store, and which he ought, as its participant, to let others share, if doing so does himself no harm. “in order to compensate and reward him for the service.” The real service, if it be “service,” is the communicating his knowledge. “That he ought to be both compensated and rewarded for it, will not be denied;” But it does not follow, surely, even in Mr. Mill’s logic, that he should be invested with monopoly powers, which “raise prices” and “hurt trade,” and cause “general inconvenience.” “and also, that if all were at once allowed to avail themselves of his ingenuity, without having shared the labours or the expenses which he had to incur in bringing his idea into a practical shape—” But which, very likely, were trifling, and if heavy, were incurred for his own sake, and may have produced benefits to himself that sufficiently compensated all. “either such expenses and labours would be undergone by nobody—” Which is a wild assumption. “except very opulent and very public-spirited persons.”