have committed a still greater absurdity by omitting the whole parade of words in the laws about first invention and use of that which is the subject of the patent, to mean exactly the reverse of what they would indicate, according to the ordinary rules of grammar, for, say they, that is the fit subject for letters patent which is made profitable to the person producing it for use by the public. Thus, A may have made or used the same thing, or employed the same process, and have spent a fortune in bringing it before the public. He may have originated a grand "idea," and after a life spent in trying to induce the public to appreciate his "idea," he may die a pauper. But B, possessed with more boldness, or impudence, or reckless charlatanry, obtains for his own behoof the monopoly of letters patent. A, if living, is restrained by injunction from the further making, or using, or selling of his grand idea;" B profits by the publicity A has purchased through his life of labour; B trumpets forth his own ability and philanthropy; is received by the public as a benefactor; the courts assist him in his earnest endeavours to satisfy the public gullibility; and that which was freely made, bought, and sold, is now protectedcreated a monopoly, and B is enriched. This is no fictitious, highly drawn picture, but a matter of daily occurrence. It is not only in a coup d'état that success makes un fait accompli legal, but in the every-day concerns of the life of an inventor, beset as he is so constantly by the harpies who steal his brains to gorge themselves, and fatten upon his ruin. The laws as written say, "Declare you are the inventor;" the courts administering the law say, "Show you can make a fortune out of it, and we will give you letters patent, and protect your monopoly." Can absurdity be more absurd than this?

66

In the second place, all patent laws are formed upon the principle of protecting the few at the cost of the many, that is, they are opposed to free trade, as they tend to create a system of petty monopolies. In these days of free trade he must be possessed of no ordinary degree of hardihood who will face the wisdom and prejudice of the world of city life, run counter to its laws, or cherish the bare thought of opposition to the present laws of letters patent. Yet such is the fact, that if the same principles were transferred to any other laws, facts, or commercial rules, an outcry would be immediately raised against them; free trade would become the watchword of opposition, and the native-born free rights of the Englishman would be the staple commodity of their market. No candidate for public favour dare neglect these interests; it would be the shibboleth of political party, and necessary to the existence of the nation; yet the words, patent laws," lull all these "Gorgons dire" into fatal sleep and security, from which no effort, no argument, no interest, can ever allure into a truer, nobler, more dignified path,-the patent laws being, in fact, a gilded pill which the law courts force down the throats of a willingly gullible people.

66

It must not for one moment be supposed that we would object to

all protection of the inventor and the use of his invention. We think this is possible with the least degree of infringement of the principles of free trade, but the unrestricted and unprincipled creation of monopolies by the existing patent laws and the practice of our law courts, is most glaringly prejudicial to the interests of the nation.

That which is productive of public benefit, in a commercial sense, must be more useful and less costly than previous productions; but the patent laws and courts permit old things to become the subjects of letters patent, thus increasing the cost to the user. the patent laws are not productive of public benefit.

Hence

The patent laws, by creating an unrestricted monopoly of the thing protected, increase the cost to the public beyond what is desirable, and therefore they are not beneficial to the nation, although the thing may be new and useful, the extra or unreasonable cost being so far injurious to the nation.

The general question of all patent laws would necessarily open up all kindred subjects, such as the law of copyright in all its aspects; and although it may not be conducive to the prosperity of the country to abolish all laws which protect originality of thought, design, or adaptation, the present laws and practice are fraught with so much of anomaly and absurdity, with which all are familiar who have any practical acquaintance with them, as to practically deprive the true inventor of all protection, while giving every facility to wrong-doers to obtain all advantages and emoluments accruing from worthy inventions. The cost of letters patent, and the expenses of protecting the subject of patent from infringement, together with the necessary cost of placing it before the public, either increase the cost to the public beyond the value of the production in the estimation of the public, or arouse the cupidity of some unprincipled trader to produce a colourable imitation (which the law permits) at a much lower cost, and thus the true inventor is deprived of the fruits of his labour, and the public is defrauded by the imitation; in fact, such is the condition of the laws and the practice, that he who has plenty of money can infringe any patent he pleases, can resist any law proceedings, and, by continuing his opposition until the term of the patent has expired, may plead there is no action, because the patent has expired. When the action is at an end, the poor inventor is mulcted in his own costs, has no redress, and has been defrauded of his just and legal rights, the profit arising from the use of his patent having been enjoyed by his opponent during the whole term. Is this conducive to the public benefit? We think not.

The strange mass of injustice included in the expression, the patent laws of Great Britain, needs only to be well understood by the people of England, to be erased from the statute-book as one of the blackest spots it contains. For these reasons we ask the reader to agree with us in asserting that the existing patent laws are not productive of public benefit." DELTA.

Religion.

CAN MEMBERS OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES CONSISTENTLY TAKE PART IN THE SHAKSPERE TERCENTENARY MOVEMENT?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

We have examined the articles on the negative of this question with that thoughtful attention which the importance of the subject, and the literary abilities of the writers, alike demand. In so doing we have been struck with the conviction that the writers are thoroughly conscientious, well-meaning, Christian men; but that they are at the same time persons whose religious views are very narrow and rigid, and as a consequence very much biassed against all whose creed differs in the least particular from their own. They seem to think that because the Christian is commanded not to be of the world, that therefore he is to keep himself aloof from everything and everybody in the world; and that if a worldly man takes part in any movement whatever, that alone should be a sufficient reason for a Christian withholding his countenance from it. We hope to make this plainer as we proceed, and to that end shall begin at once with the examination of the arguments adduced by these gentlemen in support of their view of the question.

We demur to the sweeping condemnation of the Christianity of the present day, which, according to S. S., must be at a very low ebb to admit of the question being ripe for discussion. The argu ment is quite as forcible, and perhaps nearer the truth, when stated conversely; and we assert that the fact of Christians or others inquiring "whether members of Christian churches can consistently take part in the Shakspere demonstration," is a proof that they are not dead to the real import and responsibility of their position; but wish to be assured whether such participation will be in opposition to their professed principles and recognized standard of morality.

In noticing the scriptural definitions of a Christian, S. S. is accurate enough so far as mere quotation goes, but he should have gone a little farther. These are negative qualities in the Christian's character, and to know when to act upon them it is necessary to ascertain exactly what is meant by the “world," and what by not conforming to it, or "keeping himself unspotted from it." S. S., in assuming that all who have already signified their intention of taking part in the tercentenary demonstration are worldly, is acting not only most uncharitably towards them, but also begging the whole questio at issue, which is whether a Christian can take part in the demonstration, and still deserve the name. The Christian is commanded

to be "zealous of good works." Now it will not be denied that insincere professors and worldly men sometimes do good works. Is the Christian, then, in keeping himself unspotted from them and not conforming to them, to repulse his assistance because worldly men have a share in it? To take an instance, the late calamity at Hartley; thousands poured in for the relief of the sufferers: on the most charitable view of the case, can we suppose that all the donors were sincere Christians? Again, in the Lancashire Relief Fund, may there not be many, both contributors and directors, who are not Christians in deed and truth; whose lives have no correspondence with a Christian's daily walk? Yet, is the Christian thence to cease from his labours on this account? Surely not, but rather to do what good he can, wherever and with whomsoever he may be placed.

pure,

The next point in this article is upon the licentiousness of Shakspere's writings. That there are many passages of this nature in his works no one has attempted to deny ; and the question is not, Will the continued reading of licentious works, or witnessing licentious actions, exert a baneful influence upon the readers or spectators? but whether Shakspere's works as a whole are calculated to produce such an influence. We reply in the negative. The plays contain licentious passages, but the plays are not licentious; that is, they do not inculcate licentiousness. In proof of our assertion, we would ask our opponents to point us to one of the many great minds who have devoted themselves to the study and illustration of this great poet, who has become immoral in principle by this means. Those who have read Shakspere-mostly commentators, &c.,-have they been men of depraved principles and immoral lives? "To the all things are pure." The third point in the article is mainly a repetition of the previous portion, and therefore we need not stay to confute it, save to observe that we should like to know what is meant exactly by "good works ;" and that we venture to think that doing honour to one who has used his great genius for the pleasure and instruction of all succeeding ages is most certainly a good work." Further, we cannot see the very great difference which seems to exist in the mind of S. S. between Christians and members of Christian churches. It appears to be "a distinction without a difference;" and if there be any difference, the whole argument is nullified, for it is built upon the duties and responsibilities of Christians-practical Christians-and not upon the responsibilities of "members of Christian churches." If these have duties and responsibilities other than those stated, they should have been set forth with the rest, so that the conclusion might be drawn fairly and logically.

66

"L'Ouvrier," whose article comes next in order, uses the words "Christians" and "members of Christian churches" as synonymous. We admit that Shakspere has depicted the workings of the human soul Satanic, as well as the human soul Divine; and that in some plays, though not in his works as a whole, the former predominates over

the latter; but is it not so in the world? Are not the evil, numerically speaking, greater than the good? And Shakspere has not undertaken to depict one side of the picture, but to paint both. Whether it be right to use vices as a foil wherewith to set off the opposite virtues, we are not called upon to determine. This practice has been adopted by moralists of every age. In the parables uttered by the great Head of the Christian church, we find the force of contrast continually employed to inculcate virtues and to warn from vices. We have a boasting Pharisee, an humble publican; a forgiving and a relentless creditor; a cold, heartless, and unsympathizing priest and Levite, with a warm, generous, and compassionate Samaritan.

Again, we believe that many a Christian man has read Shakspere to his edification, both moral and intellectual, and that many more will do so again. If the Christian is to be debarred perusal of Shakspere, he may, as we shall presently show, with equal reason be debarred from perusing any secular work, or studying any art or science whatever. We learn from Shakspere the habits and manners of the people in the times in which he lived and wrote, as well as the state of our language at the time. We are also made acquainted with the inner life of the people; their superstitions and articles of belief are fully portrayed; and many historical events, which the writer of history would pass by as beneath his notice, are rescued from oblivion by Shakspere, and made the subject, or inwoven with the text, of his historical plays. The play of" Richard II." is an instance of this, being copied from Holinshed's Chronicles. Many of the speeches are literal extracts from that writer. There is then no necessity, as W. R. seems to suppose, to use an expurgated edition of the text of Shakspere. To the student it would be decidedly objectionable, as giving him only one side of the picture, as we have already said (p. 18): though such editions become the drawing-room, they are quite out of place in the study. We admit, as W. R. says, "many things objectionable in our hero," but with the proviso that it is only to us of the present day that such things are objectionable; they were not considered so then. As Elpisticos well remarks, "The terms which one age considers as delicate the next cries out against as gross. The diction of Shakspere is sometimes such as Addison would not have ventured to imitate; and Addison, the standard of moral purity in his own age, used many phrases which are now proscribed.'

W. R. seems possessed of a more liberal judgment than the two previous writers on the negative side, and he has tersely pointed out the chief excellences of Shakspere's writings, so that it is with some surprise we find him among our opponents, and in a few sentences further on completely changing his sentiments. We think W. R. has written his article in opposition to his own judgment in the matter, and because he thought it would have an appearance of greater propriety to be found among those who condemn Shakspere. We believe he will yet give his silent vote in favour of the affirma