George Baxter (colour printer) his life and work : a manual for collectors / by C.T. Courtney Lewis.

  • Lewis, C. T. Courtney (Charles Thomas Courtney), 1856-
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: George Baxter (colour printer) his life and work : a manual for collectors / by C.T. Courtney Lewis. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    342/366 (page 256)
    Baxter’s Application for an Extension of Patent IN 1849 We append an account, taken from the Morning Post of June 22, 1849, of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which sat in the Council Chamber, Whitehall, on June 21, to hear Baxter’s application. (For the names of the Judges see p. 20.) “ Mr. Serjeant Shee, with whom was Mr. Montague Smith, conducted the case for the petitioner; the Attorney-General watched the case for the Crown ; and an apprentice named Leighton, late in the employ of the petitioner, opposed the application. “ In this case the inventor, Mr. Geo. Baxter, made appli- cation for an extension of letters patent, in order that he might carry out more effectually certain improvements in the art of block printing generally. A large number of specimens were produced for the inspection of the Committee. The colours and tints were beautifully preserved in every instance ; and the noble and learned Lords present passed the highest eulogiums upon the petitioner’s success. “ Two specimens of Her Majesty and Prince Albert having been handed to the Committee, “ Lord Brougham said : I will purchase these two. How much will you take for them ? “ Mr. Serjeant Shee was understood to say that the petitioner would feel much satisfaction in presenting the noble and learned Lord with these specimens. “ Lord Brougham : I am reminded by my noble friend [Lord Langdale] that, if I don’t pay, I am accepting a present in an official capacity. I should therefore be liable to impeachment. (Laughter.) “After some further remarks Mr. Leighton, the late apprentice of the petitioner, addressed the Committee, and contended that, if the petitioner were allowed to exercise the exclusive privilege sought for by the extension of the patent, he should [would] be debarred from exercising the art and mystery of