Speaking on behalf of the public, we maintain that a Patent-Law is necessary in any uncivilised community, because, without its protection, industry cannot flourish, and ingenuity can have no scope for its triumphs. The reviewer can hardly have consulted any practical man when he pronounces it— absurd to plead that a Patent has been infringed in ignorance, when it is certain that the ignorance, if not wilful, is wholly inexcusable. Undoubtedly, infringements often are not acts done blamelessly in ignorance; still, I would be surprised in most cases if the infringer knew he was infringing. He is not likely to know it in making trivial improvements, for how can he know without subjecting himself to no small trouble and expense, such as ought not to be laid upon him. There is an important point as to which the reviewer and I perhaps differ, “the extent to which Letters Patent give a monopoly in ideas.” The fact is, that the whole breadth of a _principle_ is patentable, provided any single mode of applying it can be specified. The reviewer, adverting to the changes which have taken place in the Law of Patents since the days of Elizabeth, characterises them as “changes towards greater freedom of action on the part of the State, and greater liberty of choice on the part of the people.” This, I confess, I do not understand, except so far as it may mean there has been less and less control exercised by the State, and more and more advantage taken of this supineness by all sorts of persons. I am quite prepared to admit that in my speech I have exhibited rather a popular than a strictly legal and logical view of the meaning and legitimate applicability of the words in the statute, “nor mischievous to the State by raising prices.” All that I maintain is this,—that the spirit of the proviso is opposed to any individual Patent that keeps prices up at a level below which, if there were no grant, they might, by the natural progress of industry, be expected to fall, and to a Patent system that characteristically has that effect and is also chargeable with “hurt of trade” and “generally inconvenient.” SPEECHES AND PAPERS ON THE ABOLITION OF PATENTS. The following petition, which Mr. Macfie had the honour to present, contains the motion which gave occasion for the speeches that form the principal part of this compilation:— _To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled._ THE PETITION OF THE NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Humbly sheweth,— That your petitioners have had many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the working of the laws under which Patent-rights are granted to inventors in the United Kingdom. That your petitioners are informed that notice has been given in your honourable House of a motion in the following words:—