CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO THE BRISTOL CHINA BILL. 245 



deemed porcelain ? " He also said that, judging from Mr. 

 Champion's own words, Cookworthy's patent " ought not to 

 have been applied for at so early a period ; " it was evident 

 that the " patent was taken out for a discovery of the art of 

 making true porcelain before it was made ; and if the dis- 

 covery has been since made, there can have been no speci- 

 fication of it ; it has not been revealed to the public ; it is in 

 Mr. Champion's own possession, and being unknown, it is 

 presumed the right to practise it cannot be confirmed or 

 extended by Act of Parliament, which ought to have some 

 clear ground to go upon." The patent, he says, has evidently 

 been considered as a privilege to the patentee, " for the sole 

 right of making experiments upon materials which many 

 persons have thought would make good porcelain, and on 

 which experiments have been prosecuted by several succes- 

 sive sets of operators many years before the date of the 

 patent." He contended that it would be an " egregious 

 injury to the public " to continue the patent to one person 

 who was "no original discoverer, who was only just com- 

 mencing the commonest and most useful part of his busi- 

 ness with the aid of a foreign artificer, in the hope that a 

 discovery might at some future time be made. He con- 

 sidered that if the raw materials were thrown open to all, 

 " a variety of experienced hands would probably produce more 

 advantage to the nation in a few years than they would ever 

 do when confined to one manufactory, however skilful the 

 director might be," and that the extension of the patent 

 securing the monopoly " would be a precedent of the most 

 dangerous nature, contrary to policy, and of general incon- 

 venience," and therefore he " humbly hopes the legislature 

 will not grant the prayer of Mr. Champion's petition." 



In addition to the " Memorial" and the " Remarks" already 

 spoken of as a part of the zealous opposition which Wedg- 

 wood made to the proposed extension, he issued a sheet 

 of " Reasons why the extension of the term of Mr. 

 Cookworthy's patent, by authority of Parliament, would 

 be injurious to many landowners, to the manufacturers 



