BETTS’S PATENT CAPSULES. 
265 
metal. The pot, the label, even the paper and the colour of the ink, might be registered 
designs, and render them liable to as many Chancery suits ; and really, if such suits as 
these could prevail, they could not conduct the ordinary retail trade of the country with 
any amount of safety. Now with regard to the international part of the question. Take, 
for instance, Vichy water. By the law of Trance, he believed Vichy water must be cap¬ 
suled. 
Mr. Hills said it was now covered with tin. They had given up the use of the 
composition. 
Mr. Flux : By the law of France Vichy water must be capsuled, but by the law of Eng¬ 
land it could not be imported with it; without capsules it would be contraband leaving 
France, with capsules it would be contraband touching the shores of England. There 
were many articles which were imported from France that were never opened until they 
got into the consumer’s hands, which might be full of explosive matter, in the way of 
Chancery suits. Now let them look at the question as it affected the trade in various 
portions of Great Britain. Betts’s patent does not extend to Scotland. Messrs. Bennett, 
of Scotland, manufacture bottled beer, which they fasten down with metallic capsules, 
arid sending it direct from Scotland to India they do not infringe the patent by the use 
of the capsules; they, however, received an order, the other day, for some beer to be 
sent to a foreign port, and as there was no steamer direct from Glasgow for that port, it 
was sent to Liverpool for transshipment into another ship to be taken to its destination. 
Now, by its arrival in the port of Liverpool, although it was never intended to be con¬ 
sumed within the realm, it was contraband. A Chancery suit has been commenced, and 
no doubt the injunction will be granted ; and that being the case, it appeared to him that 
the resolution was fully supported, that the patent laws interfered with international 
trade, and materially embarrassed the retail trade. 
The Chairman observed that as Mr. Flux had said that Betts’s patent was for metal 
only, how was it that metal could not be used in any form ? It appeared to him that the 
metal was to be applied to capsules only. 
Mr. Flux said: Not at all. The patent was for the manufacture of metal by a given 
process—leaden plates coated with tin on either or both sides,—thus combining the 
malleability of lead with the cleanliness of the tin. Mr. Betts’s father had originally 
a patent for capsules, but it expired long ago. There was noAV no patent for capsules as 
capsules in this country. The metal was applied for that and any other purpose. 
The resolution was then carried unanimously. 
Mr. Hovenden, jun., moved the second resolution, “ That a petition, embodying the 
foregoing resolution, and detailing the proceedings referred to, and also praying for the 
amendment of the patent laws, be prepared and presented to Parliament.” 
They had heard the real nature of the case from the statements made by Mr. Flux and 
Mr. Daubeney. Lie had been in communication with several gentlemen upon the sub¬ 
ject, and the universal opinion amongst them appeared to be that the suits ought imme¬ 
diately to have been compounded by the payment of certain sums of money to the 
patentee ; but if they had done so, the manufacturer would have been liable also, and 
thus the patentee would have been paid twice for the same infringement. That being the 
state of the law, he considered it high time that some change should be made in it, and 
he thought the defendants had acted quite right in not compromising the matter. 
It had been said that the defendants should compromise the matter, and then go to 
the wholesale manufacturer and call upon him to reimburse the money out of his 
pocket; but very few of the retailers knew for what article they had been made liable, 
and to ascertain that, further expense and great loss of time would result to the retailer, 
in finding out to whom he was to apply to be refunded what he had paid. Supposing, 
liowever, the retailer were to find out the manufacturer, and call upon him to repay the 
.£20 or £80 he had paid, thejatter would very naturally decline to do so, for two reasons: 
one that if he paid it in one case he would be obliged to do so in innumerable other cases 
(and, in fact, the demands might be so numerous that he might be compelled to button 
up his breeches-pocket and take a trip on the Continent for a short time) ; and the 
other reason, that he denied his liability, and disputed that Mr. Betts had any patent. It 
was quite open for the manufacturer to say that as the retailer had thought proper to 
compromise the suit on his own responsibility, he must abide by the loss. 
Mr. Patten briefly seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 
Mr. Twinberow suggested that as Lord Stanley had taken an interest in the 
VOL. VII. -T 
