Page:A Letter on the Subject of the Cause (1797).djvu/82

 the ſufficiency of the ſpecification. The word Engine, I agree with the Witneſs, does imply ſomething compoſed of parts; and conſequently thefſ parts muſt have proportion and relation one to another; which he, the witneſs, properly calls organization: ſo that the word Engine does certainly comprehend and impreſs the mind with an idea of ſome organized machine, and not principles only. And it appears to me on viewing the caſe in this ſhape, that provided the effect the Plaintiffs propoſe to produce, does either wholly or partially depend on the conſtruction and organization of a machine, or in which theſe principles were applied to produce this effect; it certainly was the duty of the inventor to lay down in the moſt inſtructive manner he was then able, how this machine was to be compoſed and made capable of the effect he had ſtated in his petition to the King to be thereby produced. This the Law, which regulates theſe monopolies, continued your Lordſhip, does require, and can take nothing leſs; and this being the price every inventor is to pay for his patent, none can have a good title deed who wilfully or ignorantly with-hold a part. And as the King held nothing but this ſpecification to guarantee the public in their reverſionary right to the benefits of the invention, he could not make a fair account to them if this inſtrument was