SOME EARLY PATENTS FOR INVENTION.

Progress, Volume I, Issue 10, 1 August 1906, Page 274

SOME EARLY PATENTS FOR INVENTION.

By E. S. Baldwin, M.E. (Baldwin & Rayward).

A dip into the forgotten past has a fascination for most people, and it is not generally known that such a peep into a former age can be obtained from the English Patent Records on file in Wellington. They carry us back to the time when the authorised version of the Bible was produced, when Shakespeare was producing his plays and James I. was struggling with the Judges of the King's Bench with regard to what he considered his royal prerogative of interfering in the decisions of the Courts of Law. Between this and his other reprehensible action of putting Sir Walter Raleigh to death, James, however, conferred a boon on future generations by granting the Statute of Monopolies, which gave the sole right to the true and first inventor to use, make and vend an invention withm the realm. British Patent No. i being the first patent on record is particularly interesting. It might be expected that it would relate to contemporary matters, such as a composition for polishing armour, locks for canals, combined cross-bow and pike, all of which are dealt with by patents immediately subsequent. We find, however, that it relates to the broad and

perennial subject of the manufacture of maps and plans. The patent, with naive disregard for patriotism, sets out that London is behind Paris and other continental cities, of which complete plans had been m existence for some time, and the deed confers upon " our lovinge subjecte Aron Rathbone," the sole right to make, use and vend maps of the city of London, Westminster, Yorke, Bristol Norwich, Canterbune, Bathe, and the twoe Vniversities, Oxford and Cambridge, and their suburbs. In quaint terms it sets out that " wee doe by theis p'sentes, for VS our heires and successors, straighthe charge, p'hibite, and forbidd, all and singuler bodies politique and corporate, and all and evene p' v 6on or p'sons, as well as our naturall borne subjectes as aliens, dezines, and stranngers, other than the said Aron Rathbone and Roger Burges, their executors, administrators, deputies, and assignes, and such as shall by them, or some of them, bee sett at worke, lycenced, or authorised, that they or anie of them, do not p'sume, attempte, or take in hande, dunnge the the said terms of twentie and one yeares, to make, carve, describe, impnnte, sett forthe, or counterfeite, or sell, utter or dispose of within this our realme, or anie other of our domynions, or exporte out of the same the said mappes ' This document concludes in the followmii terms . " And lasthe, we doe hereby for VS, our heires and successors will and comande all justices of peace, maiors, shernffes, bailliffes, constables, and all other the officers, ministers and subjectes of VS, our heires, and successors, to whome it shall or maie appertame that they and evene of them bee from tyme to tvme aidmge helpmge, and assistmge to the saide Aron Rathbone and Roger

Burges, theire executors, administrators, assignes, •deputies, and servantes, in the execucon of theis our Lrs Paten te —as they tender our indignacon and displeasure, and will avoid the same at theire Vttermoste perills, although expresse men con &c." "In witness whereof &c. Witness ourselves at Westm, the eleaventh daie of March. Pbre de prinato sigillo, &c." The principle that an invention must be novel, to be entitled to protection, did not exist in the year 1617, the date of this patent. The applicant was the first to undertake the manufacture in the realm, and he asked for a monopoly, which was granted to him. A somewhat similar provision applies in Great Britain at the present day, where the first importer, though not the actual inventor, is entitled to protection. Coming now to our own colony, interest centres in New Zealand Patent No. 1. We find it was granted to Purchas and Ninnis, in the year 1857, for treating New Zealand flax. The drawings accompanying the application are very crude. The specification is as follows :—: — 26 MARCH 1 86 1. " PURCHAS, Arthur Guyon, Clerk, and NINNIS, James, Mining Registrar, both of Onehunga, Auckland. (An invention for the preparation of the Fibre of the Phormium Tenax and other plants for the manufacturing purposes). The specific object of the invention is to separate the fibre of various plants from the cortical and other vegetable tissues of the plants, so as to render the said fibre fit for manufacture into cordage or woven fabrics. The principle claimed is that of percussion. The mode of application is by means of beaters, hammers, beetles ,or stampers, made of various forms and sizes to suit the particular plant or kind of plant which is to be operated on. The said beaters may be made either wholly of wood or iron, or other metal, or in part of wood and in part of iron or other metal ; or of various metals combined ; or of .any other suitable material ; and may have their faces either plain or wrought, and may be made to act either by gravity or springs, or by any other convenient mechanical arrangement ; and may work upon either wood or metal, or other material, fixed or movable, with or without springs. The machinery may be driven by any kind of power. The raw material is subjected to percussion, ■either in a fresh state or after maceration, and may be worked either with or without water. The fibre may be dried immediately after percussion or washed and then dried ; or subjected to maceration and further percussion before drying.. Several forms of beaters are shown in the drawing." By the date of British Patent No. 5 it was apparently recognised that a patent might become a source of revenue to the Crown for we find that Thomas Marraye in return for the monopoly of making swords was compelled to pay " duringe the whole terme of twentie and one yeares, the yearlie some of five poundes* sterling of lawfull money of England into the receipte of the Exchequer at Westm," until the trade be well established, after which " the yearlie rente or some was to be increased to " tenne poundes." At the date 1627 of Patent No. 38 the " yearlie rente" had risen to " foure hundred poundes" for the monopoly of manufacturing iron. Patent No. 8 dated January 9th, 161 8, approaches more nearly to the requirements of a presentday specification which must " particularly describe an-1 ascertain the nature of the invention " It reads : " Whereas wee are informed that the said drawing and drayning of myne's, myneralles, and colepittes, and raysmg of waters aforesaid, is to be done and performed by the vse of C'teme engines and instrumentes by Robert Crumpe, newly devised and found out as aforesaid, which are farre different and exceeding all engines, instruments, or devises heretofore oute or vsed in or aboute the p'misses (that is to say) by a c'teine hollow trunck or pipe of one entire length, to be made of tymber or leade, which is to reache from the waters that are to be drawne or raysed vnto the toppe or place where the same waters shalbe to vent or yssue forth, att the foote of which said trunck or pipe so made of en tyre length as aforesaid, and in some other partes or places thereof, there are to be placed and fyxed C'teine suckers, drawers and other devises, and other engines of brasse, copper, or other metal, and att the vpper part or end of said trunck or pipe

*The "pounde" of those days signified the pound of silver that was coined into twenty shillings, a shilling, in the middle ages, having had the same value as to-day. — [Ed. Progress.]

there are to be planted and placed severale peeces of tymber fyxed and framed together, wherein are likewise to be placed c'teine suckers, drawers, and other devises, together with one or more wheele o* wheeles with spindles and cranks of yron or brasse, whereby the waters may be drawne or raised from any depth whatsoever." for the monopoly of making the above pumps which avoided the necessity of a series of pumps one above another, Roberte Crumpe was enjoined to pay a yearly sum of ten pounds for twentyone years.