306 Intelligence and Miscellaneous Articles. 



Knight's, which are not likely to be disclosed by the inducement of 

 any patent law however complete 3 and also to reward individuals 

 like Mr. Woolf, whose inventions have not come into use during the 

 terms of their patents, but have afterwards become of national im- 

 portance. 



Would you not in the latter case rather recommend an extension 

 of the term of the patent ? — Not in all cases. If the inventor has 

 brought his invention to such perfection, that others, by merely copying 

 what he has done, can practise it as well as himself, it would be best 

 to throw it open. Mr. Woolf's was such a case ; the engines made on 

 his system by others, since the expiration of his patent, have performed 

 as well as those made in the same interval by himself, and have even 

 obtained a preference in some places : hence the public would pro- 

 bably have gained nothing by confining it longer in his hands ; but 

 now that he is seen to be left quite unrewarded for his long exertions, 

 the circumstance, added to others of a similar nature, is very discou- 

 raging to men capable of making similar improvements ; and I am of 

 opinion that the public would gain by giving him a handsome reward. 

 In other cases where there are not many persons capable of taking up 

 the new subject, its progress will be greatly promoted by continuing 

 the patent, because that compels the patentee to continue his exer- 

 tions to extend the practice. That was Mr. Watt's case. If he had 

 abandoned his engine to the public at the time his first patent would 

 have expired, there was then no other person competent to go on with 

 it, and give it that additional perfection which he attained during the 

 prolongation of the term. 



(P. 140.) Do you believe that many useful inventions would never 

 have been prosecuted to the public advantage, if they had not origi- 

 nally been worked under a monopoly ? — Mr. Watt's steam-engine may 

 be quoted as a great example. At the time Mr. Watt made his inven- 

 tion in his own mind, in 1765, he was not a maker of steam-engines ; 

 and none of the makers of that day had sagacity enough to see the 

 value of his discovery before he had made an engine ; nor would any 

 of them have prosecuted his plan before it was proved, even if he had 

 made them a present of the invention, much more to give him any 

 thing for it : hence he had no means of making any profit from his 

 invention, or any prospect of repayment for the great expense and 

 labour necessary to bring it to bear in practice, unless he could have 

 secured it to himself for a long term. (P. 141.) The history of Mr. 

 Woolf's invention is very similar, with the difference that Mr. Watt 

 having through Mr. Boulton obtained an extension by Act of Par- 

 liament, he acquired a large fortune during the prolongation. Whereas 

 Mr. Woolf's patent expired before the actual outlay had been re- 

 payed ; so that he is left a real loser by his invention. The previous 

 inventors of steam-engines, Mr. Savery in 1698, and Mr. Newco- 

 men in 1710, were similar cases; — they lost money. 



(P. 174.) Mr. Watt's invention, and the perfection he gave to it 

 during the operation of this Act of Parliament, has proved of more 

 value to the nation than can be calculated ; probably as much as the 



inventions 



