354 P A T P A T the same period, was taken possession of by Sir John Narboroueh in name of King Charles II. in 1669. In the latter half of the 18th century our knowledge about Patagonia was considerably augmented by Byron (1764-65), Wallis (1766), Bougainville (1766) ; Thomas Faltaier, a Jesuit who "resided near forty years in those parts," published his Description of Patagonia (Hereford, 1774); Francesco Yiedma founded El Carmen, and Antonio advanced inland to the Andes (1782) ; and Villarino ascended the Kio Negro (1782). The " Beagle " and "Adventure " expeditions under King (1826-30) and Fitzroy (1832-36) were of first -rate importance, the latter especially from the participation of Charles Darwin ; but of the interior of the country nothing was observed except 200 miles of the course of the Santa Cruz. Captain Musters wandered in company with a band of natives through the whole length of the country from the strait to the Manzaueros in the north-west, and collected a great deal of information about the people and their mode of life. Since that date explorations of a more scientific character have been carried on by Moreno (1873-80), Rogers (1877), Lista (1878-80), and Moyauo (1880, &c.), a convenient survey of which will be found in Petcrmanris Mittheilungen, 1882. Bibliographical lists for Patagonia are given in Wappa us, Handbuch der Geogr. u. Stat. des ehemal. span. Mittel- und Su<l-Amerika(Leps., 1863-70); in Quesada s work already quoted ; and in Coan, Adventures in Patagonia (New York, 1880). It is enough to mention Darwin s Journal of Researches (1845) and Geological Observations on South. America (1846); Snow, A Two Years Cruise off . . . Patagonia (1857); Musters, At Home with the Patagonians(lS7l); Cunning ham, Xat. Hist, of the Strait of Magellan (1871); Moreno, Viage a la Patagonia austral (1879); Lady Florence Dixie, Across Patagonia (1880); Lista, Mis esploracionts . . . en la Patagonia (Buenos Ayres, 1880) ; Beerbohm, IFande r- ings in Patagonia (1S7S) ; Informe Oficial . . . de la Exp. al Rio Xegro (under General Roca, 1879, Buenos Ayres, 1882); Giacomo Bove, Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco (Genoa, 1S83). (H. A. W.) PAT AR EXES, a name apparently first used in Milan about the middle of the llth century to denote the party most extremely opposed to the marriage of priests ; besides Patareni, the forms Paterini, Patarelli, Patarsei occur among others. Various etymologies, more or less far fetched, have been offered ; it seems, however, pretty well established that the party was so called because, under the leadership of Arialdus, a deacon of Milan, its members used to assemble in the Pataria, or ragmen s quarter of that city (pates being a provincial word for a rag). The name ultimately came to be applied to the dualistic sect of the Cathari, who were opposed to marriage altogether, and indeed was one of their most common designations in Italy, France, and Bosnia. PATENTS. Patents for inventions, instruments which formerly bore the great seal of the United Kingdom, are now issued at the Patent Office in London under the seal of that office. By their means inventors obtain a monopoly in their inventions for fourteen years, a term which, if insufficient to remunerate the inventor, can be extended. This monopoly is founded on exactly the same principle as the copyright enjoyed by authors and artists. There are persons who argue that no such privilege should be permitted ; there are others who think that the most trifling exertions of the inventive faculties should be pro tected. The right course lies between these extremes. All civilized nations have in modern times considered it desir able to give inventors an exclusive right to their inven tions for a limited period, not only as a matter of justice to individuals but as a piece of sound policy tending to the advantage of the whole community. The monopoly is granted in the expectation that the inventor will derive some profit from it ; and the hope of profit is known to be a great stimulus to invention. When an author writes a book, or an artist designs a picture, the law allows a right of property to those persons in their productions, and accompanies the recognition of this right with the power to repress infringements. If this were not so, probably very few persons would employ their time in writing books or creating works of art ; and hardly any one will be bold enough to assert that the extinction of the race of authors and artists is to be desired. The same principle applies to inventors, who ought to have the works of their brain protected from piracy fully as much as the other classes of mental producers. By holding out to them the pro spect of gain they are induced, at a present loss of time and money, to attempt to discover improvements in the useful arts, in machinery, in manufacturing processes, etc. ; and thus the interests of the community are advanced more rapidly than if such exertions had not been brought into play. Just as the rule of rewarding inventors is in theory attended with some difficulty, so is the practical ap plication of it. To grant a very long term of exclusive possession would be detrimental to the public, since it would tend to stop the progress of improvement. A limited property must therefore be allowed, large enough to give the inventor an opportunity of reaping a fair reward, but not barring the way for an unreasonable period. And, when this compromise has been decided on, it will be seen how difficult it may be to determine beforehand what is the real merit of an invention, and apportion the time to that merit. Hence it has been found necessary to allot one fixed period for all kinds of inventions falling within the purview of the patent laws. This regulation appears to be open to the complaint that the least valuable and the most meritorious inventions are placed on the same footing. But it may be replied that in the result this is of little consequence, since meritorious inventions alone obtain the patronage of the public, those which are destitute of value being neglected. Besides, if the complaint were well founded, there is here no sound argument against the policy of privileges of this nature, seeing that it is impos sible to weigh beforehand one invention against another in the scale of merit, or to obtain a true standard of com parison. Leaving the discussion of general considerations, we will now give an outline of the law affecting patent privi leges in the United Kingdom. Formerly the reigning prince considered himself entitled, as part of his preroga tive, to grant privileges of the nature of monopolies to any one who had gained his favour. These grants became so numerous that they were oppressive and unjust to various classes of the commonwealth ; and hence, in the reign of James I., a statute was wrung from that king which de clared all monopolies that were grievous and inconvenient to the subjects of the realm to be void. (See MONOPOLY.) There was, however, a special exception from this enact ment of all letters patent and grants of privilege of the " sole working or making of any manner of new manufac ture within the realm to the true and first inventor of such manufacture, which others at the time of making such letters patent and grants should not use, so they be not contrary to law, nor mischievous to the state by raising of the prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade or generally inconvenient." Upon these words hangs the whole law of letters patent for inventions. Many statutes were afterwards passed, but these were all repealed by the Patent Act of 1883 (46 and 47 Viet. c. 57), which, besides introducing a new procedure, modified the law in several particulars. When the law remains unaltered, it has to be gathered from the numerous decisions of the courts, for patent law is for the most part "judge-made law." Of the law as it now stands we proceed to give an outline. The inventions for which patents are obtained are chiefly either vendible articles formed by chemical or mechanical operations, such as cloth, alloys, vulcanized india-rubber, etc., or machinery and apparatus, or processes. It may be remarked here that a scientific principle cannot form the subject of a valid patent unless its application to a practical and useful end and object is shown. An abstract notion, a philosophical idea, may be extremely valuable in the realm of science, but before it is allowed to form a sound basis for a patent the world must be shown how to apply it so as to gain therefrom some immediate material advantage. With regard to processes, the language of the statute of James has been strained to bring them within
