ee, either with regard to the first clause or inadvertence, should be renewed. or the last clause quoted by his hon. Such action would not contravene friend, that the principle of this Bill was the principles of our patent laws. contrary to the spirit or letter of the This country, under the National Patent Act. He would not undertake Policy, was developing new trades and to say that it might not be improper to industries, and many patent rights which grant some of those patents contained in had lain dormant during the period of the schedule to the Bill, but he was now depression and never come into use would discussing the broad objection raised to become useful, and the inventors should this sort of legislation. He did not receive the benefit of the results of their think there was anything in the objec- brain work. He hoped that they would tion of the hon. gentleman to the 3rd not be allowed to suffer through their clause of the Bill as it now stands, be- inadvertence or misapprehension of the cause it was a matter of detail, and, if law, or when, through no fault of the unsatisfactory to the House, could be patentees their application and money amended. The hon. leader of the House for renewals were received a few days had intimated his intention of submitting too late, as seemed to be the case in the amendments that would more fully cover any objection that could be made as to injustice being done to the public or to individuals by the renewal of those patents. He did not see what more could be desired. His hon. friend from Amherst not only thought that those individuals who had used patents which had been allowed to expire should be protected, but he also wished that those who had never used them, or never had any intention of using them, should be protected. He did not think it would be possible to frame a clause that could meet that objection, because if they were going to protect all who had used these patent rights, and all who had not used them, it would be absurd to place the law on the statute book, as there could be no protected rights with an exemption so general that it included everybody. cases contained in the schedule to the Bill, and that in the advancement of the trade and prosperity of the country they would receive some reward for their ingenuity. A general amendment to govern all cases of expired patents should be added to the Bill and not confine its operation to the cases in the schedule. - Hon. Mr. VIDAL thought that the remark made by the hon. Senator from Richmond as to the character of the proposed legislation was one deserving of much more consideration than it had yet received. While he (Mr. Vidal) thought it would indeed be desirable, as had been suggested, to afford relief in cases such as those which had been referred to, he did not think it should be done in the manner proposed in this Bill. He concurred in the opinion that it partook of the nature of private legislation a certain Hon. Mr. KAULBACH was very number of persons asked relief. Had much in favor of the Bill, and thought they approached the House in the ordithat the third clause protected the pub-nary way by giving notice of their intenlic, because any party innocently and tion, in all probability, by this time, there lawfully using a patent, or engaged in might be a great many petitions before the construction or manufacture of the the House asking that certain patents article patented, after the expiration of might not be revived from parties who the patent, would have his rights pro- had profited by the interval which had tected, and the public would have the taken place between the expiration of benefit of competition in the manufacture those patents and their revival, and had and sale of the article, whatever it might innocently and lawfully manufactured be. He believed it was in the public some of those articles that had been interest, and no infringement on its patented. He did not think the title of rights, that inventors should be encour- the Bill was a correct one. He did not aged and protected for a reasonable time regard it as an amendment of the Patent in the use of their inventions, and, the Act of 1872, but as a Bill for the relief rights of others being properly guarded, of certain patentees. If an amendment that patents which had been allowed to such as that which had been suggested apse by misapprehension of the law by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Scott) could be made to the Bill, to cover | from Sarnia, that probably the amendthe cases which had been referred to as ment to the third section would not prosimilar to those mentioned in the sche-tect the people who, after the expiration dule, but unknown to the Department, of some of those patents, had expended it would then be properly entitled an large sums of money in purchasing maamendment to the Patent Act. Hechinery, for the manufacture of such trusted that a little further consideration | articles, and he thought that that section would be given to the measure, so that it shonld be so amended, if the Bill was might cover all those cases. He did not persisted in, as to provide for such cases.. know whether the third clause, as the The Government, in passing this Bill, leader of the House proposed to amend would be setting a very bad example it, would guard the interests of those who they would give the public to understand might have gone to great expense in pro- that, although the patent law stated that viding machinery for the manufacture of certain conditions should be complied articles to which these patents related, or with, still, the opinion of Parliament whether, when the patents were revived, was that those conditions need not be this Bill would protect them, or they complied with that people could go on would suffer a loss by their expenditure and neglect to fulfil the requirements of in that direction. He concurred in the the law with confidence, that they could opinion that it would be well to give come to the Legislature at any time afterfurther consideration to the Bill and per- wards and have the consequences of their haps refer it to a special committee, neglect removed. If the leader of the where it might be thoroughly examined House refused to withdraw the Bill, the and reported upon. suggestion made by the Senator from Richmond was the wisest that could be followed. This was, in fact, a kind of omnibus private bill. It embodied about twenty private bills, and was one which peculiarly required to be very closely investigated. He hoped, however, that the course suggested by the Senator from Amherst would be taken, and that the Senate would not assume the position of making laws and then telling the people that they could break them with impunity. Hon. Mr. POWER was very much pleased to notice that the leader of the House did not seem disposed to insist on the passing of this Bill, and did not propose to treat it as a Government iueasure, because he thought that the Government would be setting & very bad example by introducing such legislation as this. From what consideration he had been able to give to the Bill, he was led to agree with the views of the hon. gentleman from Amherst. In the first place, the Patent Act of 1872, and all patent laws, were, to a certain extent, infringements on, or lessenings of, the common law rights of the public at large. It was the right of the public to use every kind of invention or improvement; and the public rights had been, to a certain extent, diminished by the Patent Laws, in order to encourage ingenious and skilful men. He thought, however, that the public were entitled to nearly as much consideration as the inventors. Every one of those inventors whom the Bill dealt with had enjoyed for ten years the exclusive privilege of sell ing and making his patent; and if, through his own neglect, he had failed to get a renewal, he ought to suffer and not the public. There Was a great deal of force in the remark made by the hon. gentleman Hon. Mr. BULL said he held in his hand an application from a party whose name did not appear in this schedule at all, and he would like to have an opportunity to include it with the others. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL thought that the hon. Senator from Amherst had done less than justice to the Bill, because, although there was great weight in many of his objections he had not referred to other parts of the Bill, and, from what he had himself said, there were at least four or more--the last in the schedule-which ought to be renewed. The hon. gentleman had contended that to renew a patent which had been used by the public for a year or more after its expiration would be contrary to the spirit of the Patent Law. An answer to this had been given by the hon. Senator from Richmond, in one re spect. He (Sir Alexander) would give well considered as the one to which he another; he had, as he stated when he had adverted. With reference to the spoke before, prepared an amendment remarks of the hon. Senator from Lunenwhich would cover all cases where the burg, he feared that the hon. gentleman subject of the patent had been used had not read the Bill, and he certainly during the time it had lapsed. If this had not read the Act of which it was. amendment covered every case no evil supposed to be an amendment, because could result in that respect. He was he had made no reference to the two secstruck, however, with the objection tions of that Act to which he (Mr. raised by the hon. Senator from Rich- Dickey) had called attention, and made mond that this was substantially a no answer to the arguments founded private Bill, or, as the hon. Senator upon them. With regard to the hon. from Halifax (Mr. Power) re-Senator from Richmond, he had said very marked, a series of private bills. The truly that the object of the Patent Act measure, he confessed, seemed open to was to secure to a person the right to use that objection Parliament was asked to exclusively an invention. While it was renew, for a number of gentlemen whose designed to protect the inventor, it was names were mentioned, patents which had also intended to protect the public in expired. It seemed to him that the sug- this way it provided that it patentees gestion made by the leader of the Oppo- did not choose to renew their patents at sition was one which had much merit in the expiration of a certain time, they it it was that, instead of renewing these lapsed, and if an article had been in patents in the way proposed by this Bill, common use for one year, it could not be power should be given to the Commis- the subject of a patent. That was clearly sioner of Patents to renew patents under laid down in the 6th and 48th clauses of certain circumstances, which might be the Patent Act which he had quoted; defined in the Bill. That would meet therefore this legislation was contrary to the case suggested by the hon. Senator the Patent Law itself, and the same prinfrom Montreal, and also the class of cases ciple ought to be applied to the renewal mentioned by the hon. gentleman oppo- of a patent which had expired for one site (Mr. Scott). The Bill might then be referred to a sub-committee, though it seemed to him in that case it would not be necessary. year. the hon. gentleman seemed to forget the amendment which he had prepared for Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL said Hon. Mr. MILLER Not in that the protection of those who had become users, and which he had read to the House. case. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL was glad that the discussion had taken place. He was confident that the House would gladly give relief in such cases as those which he had mentioned, as far as it could be done. He would, after this discussion, move that the Committee rise and report progress, and he would confer with the Minister of Agriculture, so that he would be able to say to the House, when the matter next came before them, what course the Government would pursue in relation to this Bill. Hon. Mr. DICKEY was very glad that the criticisms which he had made on this Bill had been accepted by the leader of the House in the spirit in which they were offered, and he should have been quite satisfied if all the answers to his criticisms had been as intelligible and as Hon. Mr. MILLER said, not only had his view not been controverted, but it had actually been sustained by the clauses of the Patent Act which the hon. Senator from Amherst had quoted. That law was intended to apply to cases where no patent had been issued, and where the article had not been in use for twelve months prior to the application for the patent. The law applied to cases having both these conditions. The phraseology of the Act was not disjunctive. The phraseology of the 6th clause, instead of telling against the point which he had taken, confirmed it. The Act did not, in these particular clauses, have any reference to application for a renewal of patents. Hon. Mr. WARK, from the Committee, Prayers and routine proceedings. BILL INTRODUCED. Bill (G) "An Act respecting the naturalization of aliens." - HEALTH LEGISLATION. MOTIONS. Hon. Dr. BROUSE moved : "That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will cause to be laid before this House, copies of all resolutions from Medical Conventions asking for Health Legis lation." situations, and then if saltish and unfit for use. Here we have, more than 2,000 years gence He said: In calling attention to the "When you have selected the city for your future residence, consider well its situation, how it lies to the winds and the rising of the un-whether north and south or east and west - consider also attentively the waters which It is of secures to were successful. sanitary legislation, the death rate was reduced to 1 in 47 per thousand. Let us analyse this result: Aggregate.. 1,120,000 per 1,000 for 1,030,000 1842-Death rate 1 in 36 per 1,000 for 1872-Death rate 1 in 47 per 1,000 for 40,000,000. Difference from 1842 to 1862. 90,000 lives saved. Difference from 1842 to 1872. 270,000 66 Or 26 per cent. 850,000 Prussia, ever jealous of her growth and greatness, both in military prowess and internal development, is shadowing France in her health legislation. She fully recognizes what can be accomplish she established health officers throughout her provinces, who are responsible for the health of the people in their localities, but she has instituted an imperial board of health at her capital, which controls all matters of a sanitary character throughout the empire. What has been said of the results in France may also be said of the great work accomplished in Prussia. Austria, Russia and Italy are vigorously moving in the same direction. This question was considered of such magnitude and importance that Italy, during the last summer, held a sanitary convention at Turin, to which sanitarians from all nations were invited, to discuss the great questions of public hygiene. I will now proceed to consider the question of what has been accomplished by health legislation. Here is a wide field for our con the mariner on the ocean, the condemned in his cell. It is not only a study, but it is a large and comprehensive science. It unmasks the hidden poison that desolates our cities. It offers protection from destructive epidemics. It teaches a remedy that stays the shaft of death, and the thoughtful and attentive citizen a healthy, a happy and a prosperous home. This science, that claims such kindred to the subject, has naturally engaged the attention of a wise government. England's great statesman, in his official position, has stated that the first duty of a statesman is to legislate for the health of the people. Great Britain stands pre-ed by wise sanitary laws. Not only has eminently in the front ranks in her attention to preventive medicine. Chadwick, Simon, Grey and Farr were the heralds who summoned our parental nation to answer for its profligacy of human life. Their efforts Since 1842 more than fifty public health bills have passed the House of Commons in England. I may particularize a few of the more important: her Public Health Acts of 1848, the Nuisance Removal Act of 1853, the Local Government Act of 1858, the Sanitary Act of 1866, the Public Health Act of 1872, and the revised Public Health Act of 1875. These Acts, together with others not enumerated, have completed and established on a solid foundation an efficient system of public hygiene, with 15,000 sanitary districts and the requisite number of sanitary officers. France also has carefully consideration. sidered the great question of State health legislation. The Government of that country has made itself responsible for the health of the people. A department | of health has been established. In the formation of a government and the distribution of officers, special care is manifested in selecting a minister who is well qualified to fill the place with efficiency. The result throughout France has been most satisfactory. A remarkable and marvellous decrease in the yearly deathrate has been effected. In 1842 their most important legislation resulted in passing a wise health bill. At that date the death rate was 1 in 36 per thousand, while in 1862 it had been reduced throughout France to 1 in 39 per thousand, and in the next decade, through wise Almost every progressive nation has turned its attention to this work of reform. Our own country constitutes the exception. It is true some individual effort has been made to cause public attention to consider this important subject. Some of our medical journals and particularly a sanitary journal. published at Toronto, and ably edited by Dr. Playter, have done something towards directing the mind of our Canadian people to the question of public hygiene, but these efforts have received no assistance or encouragement from our Legislature, nor could they expect to be successful in their individual and unaided work -a work that requires a nation's resources to ensure success. In looking over therange of sanitary reform, I am still hopeful that, in the near future, Canada will |