of law, every proposition of law, when applied, assumes a state of facts to which it is applied, and every application of a proposition of law by a judge who decides on fact, assumes that he finds the facts to exist to which the proposition of law correctly applies; under these circumstances it is not easy to find a ground of appeal. Further, if the Court of Appeal has to review the decision of fact, a written statement of oral evidence, without conference with the judge who tried the case, gives very defective means for estimating what is the proper inference from the facts adduced. Further, if the same Court of Appeal has to decide what facts ought to be inferred from the facts deposed to, and at the same time what is the law applicable to the facts so inferred, if it differs from the court below on the inference of fact, it is a court of the first instance for the law which it applies to that inference, and the appeal in law would be taken away. Further

more, the severed department of law would be subject, during a judicial life, to the control of one mind sitting alone without the advantage of healthful collision with other minds equal in judicial degree, and there would be no rotation of judges enabling the suitors to exercise some degree of choice.

of other causes by protracted trials of patent cases, still the remedy, by eliminating for future times cases involving questions of science from the jurisdiction of the superior courts, would introduce a great evil; the judges of the superior courts have to decide on every interest depending on rights either to property or to personal security, and are presumed to be competent to perform every part of this duty. An alteration of an ancient institution, sanctioned by experience, on account of any peculiarities in respect either of the quantity or the subjects of litigation prevalent at a particular period, would be to sacrifice the permanent to the ephemeral.

"The courts at present established are probably sufficient for all real litigation, their time sometimes consumed by actions which either ought not to be brought, or to be brought elsewhere; this might be checked. It may be that other relief is required to dispose of the increase of litigation; but the objections to an appropriation of one branch of the law to an isolated judge for life appear to be grave, and there are some reasons for that opinion."

The following table, showing the number of patents granted by various states during the last twenty years was given in evidence by

The following resolutions of the Patent Law Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, agreed upon in London, in 1861, were given in evidence by Mr. Thomas Webster, F.R.S. :—

I. That all applications for grants of letters patent should be subjected to a preliminary investigation before a special tribunal.

II. That such tribunal shall have power to decide on the granting of patents, but it shall be open to inventors to renew their applications notwithstanding previous refusal.

III. That the said tribunal should be formed by a permanent and salaried judge, assisted when necessary by the advice of scientific assessors, and that its sittings should be public.

IV. That the same tribunal should have exclusive jurisdiction to try patent causes, subject to a right of appeal.

V. That the jurisdiction of such tribunal should be extended to the trial of all questions of copyright and registration of design.

VI. That the scientific assessors for the trial of patent causes should be five in number (to be chosen from a panel of thirty to be nominated by the Commissioners of Patents), for the adjudication of facts, when deemed necessary by the judge, or demanded by either of the parties.

VII. That the right of appeal should be to a Court of the Exchequer Chamber, with a final appeal to the House of Lords.

VIII. That for the preliminary examination the assessors (if the judge requires their assistance) should be two in number, named by the Commissioners of Patents from the existing panel; the decision to rest with the judge.

IX. That the Committee approve of the principle of compelling patentees to grant licences on terms to be fixed by arbitration, or in case the parties shall not agree to such arbitration, then by the proposed tribunal, or by an arbitrator or arbitrators appointed by the said tribunal.

X. That a report be drawn up in conformity with the resolutions passed by this Committee, and that the Council, if such report be approved by them, be requested to allow it to be read at the meeting of the British Association to be held at Manchester this year.

MR. EDMUNDS'S RESIGNATION.

Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords appointed to inquire into all the Circumstances connected with the Resignation by Mr. Edmunds of the Offices of Clerk of the Patents and Clerk to the Commissioners of Patents, and with his Resignation of the Office of Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in this House; and also into all the Circumstances connected with the Grant of a Retiring Pension to him by this House.

The Committee was appointed on the 7th March, and nominated on the 9th, as follows: Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Clarendon, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord Taunton; the Committee having appointed the Lord President to act as chairman. On the 14th the Committee ordered that the witnesses before the Committee be examined on oath, and that the evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed for the use of the members of this House; but that no copies thereof be delivered, except to the members of the Committee, until further order. The Committee examined Mr. Leonard Edmunds, Mr. John Greenwood, Q.C., Mr. Pemberton Gipps, Mr. Charles Hooper, Mr. Thomas Ruscoe, the Right Hon. the Master of the Rolls, Mr. James Leman, Mr. William Brougham, Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. William Matthewson Hindmarch, Q.C., the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, Mr. George Arbuthnot, Mr. John Fisher Miller, Mr. Alfred Montgomery, and Sir Roundell Palmer. The Committee sat fifteen days.

On the 4th April the draft of a report was laid before the Committee by the chairman, and the same was considered on the same day, the 7th April, and 27th April, when several amendments were made therein. On the 2nd May the following paragraphs of the draft report were read :-"The opinion which the Lord Chancellor appears to have entertained of his duty upon this occasion is one in which it is impossible for the Committee to concur. In forming a judgment upon it, it

is necessary to bear in mind the position in which Mr. Edmunds stood at the time his petition was presented to the House. A report had been made to the Lord Chancellor by persons whom he himself had selected to inquire into alleged misconduct on the part of Mr. Edmunds, charging him in the strongest terms with having misappropriated to his own use public monies, with having passed false accounts to the Treasury, and with having embezzled large sums, which but for the accidental discovery of his defalcations would have been lost to the public. Upon this report four grave charges had been framed by the AttorneyGeneral, and Mr. Edmunds had been called upon to answer them in a judicial inquiry. Instead of meeting these charges, Mr. Edmunds preferred to surrender his offices, and to undertake to pay all that was due from him to the public; and he afterwards paid into the Exchequer nearly three times as much as his then. discovered deficiencies. A second report had been presented only a fortnight before his resignation, which charged Mr. Edmunds with still being a public defaulter to a very considerable amount beyond the sum which he had so paid. These circumstances were fully known to the Lord Chancellor, and were all essentially important to be known by the House, in order to enable it to determine whether Mr. Edmunds was deserving of a pension or not. All that was afterwards done in the House was founded upon the petition presented to the House by the Lord Chancellor without observation. Upon its presentation the acceptance of Mr. Edmunds's resignation was moved, and agreed to, and the petition was afterwards referred by the House to the Select Committee on the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments."

It was then proposed by the Lord Taunton, to leave out the said paragraphs, and to insert the following paragraph in lieu thereof; viz. :"The Committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chancellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty. In their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented the petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in some manner to have apprised the Parliament Office Committee of the circumstances under which the resignation of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted, and

not to have left them to decide the question of a pension with no clearer light than that which could be derived from vague and uncertain rumours. The Committee have, however, no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was influenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the Committee." This amendment having been objected to, it was put to the vote that the paragraphs proposed to be left out stand part of the report, when there were contents five, viz., Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, Lord Chelmsford; and not contents six, viz., Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Taunton.

The paragraph proposed to be inserted by the Lord Taunton was then again read and agreed to.

The following paragraph of the draft report was afterwards read as follows; viz. :

66

Although the Committee see no ground for attributing to the Lord Chancellor any motive except an unwillingness to act harshly towards an officer of the House who had faithfully performed his duties to it for many years, they are compelled to come to the conclusion that in withholding from the knowledge of the House the serious matters affecting the character of Mr. Edmunds, and presenting his petition as if he approved of his application for a pension, he acted under a mistaken sense of his duty, and has thereby occasioned serious reflections to be cast upon the conduct of the House, and has placed it in a situation of great embarrassment and difficulty." This paragraph was objected to, and was put to the vote, when, on the motion that the paragraph proposed should stand part of the report, there were contents five, viz., Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, Lord Chelmsford; and not contents six, viz., Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Taunton.

The following paragraph was then proposed by the Duke of Somerset; viz., "The Committee are of opinion that the pension having been granted by the House in ignorance of the facts which are now brought to light, the proper course will be for the House to reconsider its

former resolution." And, this also having been objected to, it was put to the vote that the paragraph stand part of the report, when. there were contents three, viz., Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Clarendon; and not contents eight, viz., Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Taunton.

The draft report was again read, several further amendments were made therein, and the same, as amended, was agreed to. It was then ordered that the lord in the chair do make the said report to the House, as follows:

:

"Mr. Edmunds was appointed clerk of the patents by Lord Chancellor Brougham in the year 1833, at a salary of 4001. a year, out of which the expenses of the office were to be paid. After the passing of the Patent Law Amendment Act, Mr. Edmunds, in October 1852, was appointed clerk to the Commissioners of Patents, consisting of Lord Chancellor St. Leonards, the Master of the Rolls, and the law officers of the Crown. ceived for this office a salary of 600l. a year.

He re

"In the month of July 1862 information was given to the Commissioners of Patents that a clerk in the Patent Office of the name of Smith had been guilty of embezzlement, and that he had been permitted to make good his defalcations, while the knowledge of his misconduct had been concealed from them. The Commissioners thereupon directed an inquiry to be instituted on the subject by Mr. Greenwood, Queen's Counsel, one of the solicitors of the Treasury, who made a report in January, 1863. Before any final determination of the Commissioners upon this report, Mr. Edmunds intimated to the Lord Chancellor that he wished to resign his offices; but he afterwards stated that he must defer his resignation because he could not obtain a full pension. The announcement of Mr. Edmunds' intended resignation suspended the proceedings of the Commissioners, and no further step appears to have been taken in this inquiry.

"In March 1864 disputes arose in the Patent Office between Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Woodcroft, the superintendent of specifications, and charges were made by one against the other,

6

principally relating to the management and conduct of the office, and the due subordination of the different officers. Mr. Edmunds, on the 10th March 1864, in a letter to the Commissioners of Patents, courted and required the fullest inquiry into every single point in his conduct of the affairs and business of the Patent Office, from its first organization in 1852 to the present time;' and he claimed a hearing and the opportunity of disproving the charges and statements made by Mr. Woodcroft against him;' and also of proving the statements he had found it necessary to make in respect of the conduct of Woodcroft.' Mr. Edmunds suggested that the inquiry should be conducted by Mr. Johnson, the solicitor to the suitors' fund; but the Lord Chancellor thought it desirable that it should be conducted by persons of rather high professional grade:' and having, with the sanction of the other Commissioners and of the Treasury, nominated Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Hindmarch, Queen's Counsel, for the duty, he mentioned their names to Mr. Edmunds, who said, 'they were very proper persons, and that he had no possible objection to them.' An order was accordingly issued by the Commissioners of Patents on the 3d May 1864, directing those gentlemen to make the inquiry, and in making it to inquire into the charges against Mr. Edmunds, and into those against Mr. Woodcroft.'

"Messrs Greenwood and Hindmarch commenced their sittings early in the month of June. For the first three days there is no record of the proceedings except the private notes of Mr. Greenwood. The inquiry related chiefly to the manner in which the business of the Patent Office was conducted, and was carried on in a colloquial form, all the parties indiscriminately taking part in the conver sation. On the third day, however, the examiners arrived at a knowledge of circumstances which, in their judgment, rendered it necessary that the inquiry should be conducted in a more regular and formal manner. Accordingly, a short-hand writer was employed, and his notes of the evidence given on the eight sitting days between 15th June and the 5th July have been laid before the Committee. From this time the inquiry was mainly directed to alleged malversation on the part of Mr.

Edmunds, and a subordinate clerk, named Ruscoe, the principal witnesses being the accused parties themselves.

"Before the conclusion of the inquiry Mr. Edmunds had been anxious to resign his two offices connected with the patents. This appears from a letter written by the Lord Chancellor to the Master of the Rolls on the 21th June, in which he says, 'Mr. Edmunds has come to me to state his great anxiety to resign immediately his two offices of clerk of the patents and clerk to the Commissioners. I am a little surprised at this sudden and extreme anxiety. Are you aware of anything having been done by Messrs. Greenwood and Hindmarch that may have led to it? Mr. Elmunds was very anxious that I should sign the accompanying paper, which I declined to do until you had seen it.' The Master of the Rolls sent back the paper on the same day to the Lord Chancellor, stating, that he thought it the very best thing that could be done to allow Mr. Edmunds to resign, and that he himself should have signed the paper.'

66

Acting upon this advice the Lord Chancellor endorsed the paper with a direction to Mr. Edmunds that it must be converted into a memorial, which having been done, the Lord Chancellor signed it, and it was sent in to the Treasury.

"The Lord Chancellor believes that the memorial was in the course of being acceded to when Mr. Greenwood called upon him, and told him that there were 'circumstances of a very fearful character,' which would be embodied in the report of Mr. Hindmarch and himself, and that he thought it was absolutely requisite that all further proceedings upon that memorial should be stayed. The Lord Chancellor communicated with the Commissioners of Patents, and they being of that opinion he addressed a letter to the Lords of the Treasury requesting that his certificate appended to Mr. Edmunds' memorial might be considered as recalled; that the certificate was given before the Lord Chancellor was informed of certain grave charges against Mr. Edmunds of misconduct as a public officer, and which in the judgment of the Lord Chancellor must be strictly examined before any retiring pension can be awarded.'

"On the 12th July Messrs. Greenwood and

Hindmarch made a preliminary report, which they transmitted to the Lord Chancellor on the 14th July, unaccompanied by the evidence.

"The Lord Chancellor having received the preliminary report, and having consulted with the Master of the Rolls and the AttorneyGeneral, two of the other Commissioners of Patents, Mr. Edmunds, on the 25th July, was summoned to appear before him and two of the Vice-Chancellors on the 1st August to show cause why he should not be removed from his office of clerk of the patents upon four several charges founded upon the report. These charges the Committee propose hereafter to deal with in the order in which they are stated in the summons.

"On receiving the preliminary report and the order to attend the Lord Chancellor and Vice-Chancellors, Mr. Edmunds consulted Mr. Leman as his solicitor, who stated in evidence, that as soon as he read the report he advised Mr. Edmunds to resign his offices; he said 'he thought it was a very highly coloured report, and drawn up very strongly against him, but that there were admissions which Mr. Edmunds had made, and he certainly advised him to resign.' Mr. Leman says that he saw the Lord Chancellor on Wednesday, the 27th July, and asked him whether counsel would be allowed to Mr. Edmunds on his attending his lordship and the Vice-Chancellors, to which the Lord Chancellor replied 'No.' In this statement, however, he is contradicted by the Lord Chancellor, who says, 'My distinct recollection is that no application was made to me to do anything but to receive his resignation.' Mr. Leman, on the following day, the 28th July, called upon the Lord Chancellor, and told him that Mr. Edmunds was prepared to resign his office, and would undertake to satisfy the Treasury at once upon all money questions.'