310 REPORT~1882. 



Report of the Committee, consisting of Sir Frederick Bramwell 

 {Secretary), Professor A. W. Williamson, Professor Sir William 

 Thomson, ]Mi-, St. John Vincent Day, Dr. C. W. Siemens, Mr. C. 

 W. Merrifield, Dr. Neilson Hancock, Mr. F. A. Abel, Captain 

 Douglas G-alton, Mr. E. H. Carbutt, Mr. E. Macrory, Mr. H. 

 Trueman Wood, Mr. W. H. Barlow, and Mr. A. T. Atchison, 

 appointed for the purpose of tuatching and repjorting to the 

 Council on Patent Legislation. 



The Committee have no actual progress in Patent Legislation to report. 

 The Bill promised in the Queen's Speech, and, as was stated by Mr. 

 Chamberlain, to be prepared by the Board of Trade, was not even intro- 

 duced. 



Two Bills for the reform of the Patent Law were brouglit in during 

 the Session by private members. One of these was by Mr. Anderson, 

 and was generally similar to the Bills brought in by the same gentleman 

 in 1880 and in 1881 (see « B. A. Eeports,' 1880, p. 318, and 1881, p. 222), 

 but contains one important alteration. It provides an examination into 

 the novelty of the invention, with the object apparently of giving friendly 

 advice to the patentee. Mr. Anderson has also materially modified in this 

 year's Bill the schedule of fees to be paid. This Bill was only read a first 

 time. 



The second of the two Bills was the one prepared by the Society of 

 Arts, and fully described in the last report of this Committee (see ' B. A. 

 Report,' 1881, p. 222). It was introduced by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. 

 W. H. Smith, and Mr. J. C. Lawrance, Q.C. It was read a first time on 

 March 15, and a second time on April 28, Sir John Lubbock stating, on 

 the latter occasion, that should the House assent to the second reading of 

 the Bill, he would defer further action, in order to move that the Bill 

 should be referred to the same Committee to which it was understood the 

 Government Patent Bill, when introduced, would be referred. As above 

 stated, the Government measure never saw the light at all, and conse- 

 quently no further progress was made with the Society of Arts Bill. The 

 Council of that Society announce in their annual report that they will 

 endeavour to bring the Bill forward again next year. 



Most of the provisions of the Bill as introduced are identical with 

 those of the original draft, an abstract of which was given in the report 

 of this Committee last year. Consequent, however, upon the public dis- 

 cussion of the Bill, the Society of Arts made certain alterations in some 

 of their original proposals. The fees were slightly reduced, and the 

 definition of ' subject-matter ' was modified. The most important change, 

 however, referred to the proposed method of trying Patent actions. The 

 new Court, which the Bill as first drafted set up for this purpose, dis- 

 appeared from the Bill in its final shape, and in place of this provision was 

 inserted one by which the Commissioners of Patents (to be appointed 

 under the Bill) would be empowered to act as assessors, or as referees, 

 or as ai'bitrators, under certain specified conditions. 



It may be worth noting that the Bill had the advantage of being 

 introduced by the President of the Association, while the President-elect 



