Pat cut -Right and Patent-Law . 
259 
1883 .J 
it has come into notice, and in the course of a century be- 
comes, in all ordinary cases, almost null. Thus if a perpetual 
property were granted the author or inventor, or his as- 
signees, might very probably in course of time abandon their 
rights. But we must also remember that not merely property 
in ideas, but property of other kinds, is in these days called 
somewhat rudely in question. The Communard and the 
Sans Culotte, unwilling or unable perhaps to work and to 
accumulate, inveigh against the landholder and the capitalist 
as monopolists. In the very same spirit the man, rich or 
poor, who can invent nothing cries out against Patent-right 
because it prevents him from appropriating his neighbour’s 
ideas without payment. He longs for the abolition of Patent- 
law just as do his brethren above mentioned for the confis- 
cation of real property, the seizure of the “ unearned 
increment,” and similar drastic measures which cannot here 
be discussed. It is admitted that the limitation of copy- 
right and patent-right may seem to imply that they partake 
rather of the nature of a privilege than of property. But it 
will not fail to be noted that ordinary property is being sub- 
jected to increasing limitations. Among these rank the 
succession-, probate-, and legacy-duties, which on every 
occasion of a transfer greatly curtail its amount, if not its 
duration. 
It must also be remembered that we in England, unlike 
other nations, grant perpetual monopolies to persons who do 
not originate anything, but who do merely what any other 
man or association of men might have done just as well. 
Suppose a number of capitalists club together, and propose 
to supply any town or district with water. It is plain that 
here is no novelty, invention, or improvement. The methods 
of collecting and storing water in reservoirs, of conveying it 
in mains, and of distributing it in service-pipes are as well 
known as is the art of building a house. Yet on their appli- 
cation the Legislature will grant them a perpetual property 
not merely in their erections, tanks, culverts, and other 
works, but in the exclusive right to supply the town in ques- 
tion with water. If the inhabitants, weary of the extortions 
and malversations of such a company, wish to take the 
matter into their own hands, they cannot ereCt other water- 
works in opposition, but must buy off or “ compensate ” the 
company. Why should we give the inventor so much more 
unfavourable terms than we grant to the speculator and the 
projector ? 
But leaving the consideration of abstract right, which I 
hold to be decidedly in favour of the inventor, let us turn to 
