"I applied for letters patent for my system of communicating intelligence at a distance by electricity, differing in all respects from Messrs. Wheatstone and Cooke's system, invented five years before theirs, and having nothing in common in the whole system but the use of _electricity_ on _metallic conductors_, for which use no one could obtain an exclusive privilege, since this much had been used for nearly one hundred years. My system is peculiar in the employment of _electro-magnetism_, or the _motive_ power of electricity, _to imprint permanent signs at a distance_. "I made no use of the deflections of the magnetic needle as _signs_. I required but _one conductor_ between the two termini, or any number of intermediate points of intercommunication. I used _paper moved by clockwork_ upon which I caused a _lever_ moved by _magnetism_ to _imprint the letters_ and _words_ of any required dispatch, having also invented and adapted to telegraph writing a _new and peculiar alphabetic character_ for that purpose, a _conventional alphabet_, easily acquired and easily made and used by the operator. It is obvious at once, from a simple statement of these facts, that the system of Messrs. Wheatstone and Cooke and my system were wholly unlike each other. As I have just observed, there was _nothing in common in the two systems_ but the use of electricity upon metallic conductors, for which no one could obtain an exclusive privilege. "The various steps required by the English law were taken by me to procure a patent for my mode, and the fees were paid at the Clerk's office, June 22, and at the Home Department, June 25, 1838; also, June 26, caveats were entered at the Attorney and Solicitor-General's, and I had reached that part of the process which required the sanction of the Attorney-General. At this point I met the opposition of Messrs. Wheatstone and Cooke, and also of Mr. Davy, and a hearing was ordered before the Attorney-General, Sir John Campbell, on July 12, 1838. I attended at the Attorney-General's residence on the morning of that day, carrying with me my telegraphic apparatus for the purpose of explaining to him the total dissimilarity between my system and those of my opponents. But, contrary to my expectation, the similarity or dissimilarity of my mode from that of my opponents was not considered by the Attorney-General. He neither examined my instrument, which I had brought for that purpose, nor did he ask any questions bearing upon its resemblance to my opponents' system. I was met by the single declaration that my '_invention had been published_,' and in proof a copy of the London 'Mechanics' Magazine,' No. 757, for February 10, 1838, was produced, and I was told that 'in consequence of said publication I could not proceed.'