officers of health who had security of tenure at the present moment were the bad ones. Mr. Wilson Fox, of the Board of Trade, in a paper which he read before the Royal Statistical Society last spring, stated that until the inspection was performed by disinterested persons, appointed, either by the Local Government Board or the County Council, who had no interest at all in the locality, so long would the conditions of labourers' cottages remove a blot on English civilisation.

Miss CHURTON read several replies which had been received from various rural district councils in answer to the circular letter referred to by Miss Cochrane. The council of St. Faith's, Norfolk, stated that some houses in a village were so constructed and placed that sanitary conditions were impossible; they should have been condemned as unfit for habitation, but the council were met by the difficulty that to condemn them would only increase the existing overcrowding. The council of Maldon, Essex, said they had long felt the want of suitable cottages within their districts, and that cheaper cottages must be forthcoming or the process of depopulation would continue. In Devonshire the medical officer reported that a very large proportion of cottages had no fire-place in a bedroom, and often only one fire-place in the whole of the house, so that it was most difficult to deal with cases of sickness. Many also were so dilapidated as to be unfit for human habitation, but rents were so low that owners of land did not care to build cottages.

Mr. J. L. GREEN stated that he had visited nearly six thousand parishes in England, and could bear out many of the remarks which had been made as to the present deplorable condition of things. He was very much surprised at Sir Edmund Verney's observations in regard to raising the rent. That might be an economic solution of the difficulty, but he could not get away from the idea that the landlords had some responsibility in the matter. He did not think the local authorities were the proper people to solve the question of housing in rural districts, because if local authorities put up cottage property it was impossible for the labourers to pay the rents charged, inasmuch as the cottages could not be built under £150 or £200 per cottage. If the labourer had a good cottage he ought to pay a fair rent for it, but it was impossible for him to do so with the present wages he received. He wished to inquire of what a good cottage consisted. He would like to see a cottage with a parlour, a back room, a scullery, the necessary out-houses, and three bedrooms at least, with a fire in two of them if possible, in addition to one in the front and back rooms downstairs. He did not see why a landlord should not provide as good cottages for his labourers as he provided pig-pens and cow-stalls for his cattle. If a labourer had to pay a commercial rent for a cottage, which would b: 4, or 5s. a week, then the land

lord might do his share towards assisting the labourer to pay that rent. The labourer now-a-days had been led to expect everything for nothing, but if he were given a good cottage, and made to pay his own rates and taxes, he would become a better citizen. He had found that cottages on large estates were invariably well kept, and that the worst cottages in the country were owned by the speculating builder and the small tradesman, who, perhaps had had a cottage left to him by his father, and let it out at the highest rent, irrespective of its condition. If they could not rely on the good sense of the landlord to keep the property in repair, an obligation should be imposed on him compelling him to do so. It was not sufficient to rely on the local sanitary authorities; the Local Government Board should control the medical officers of health, who should be independent men, so that the necessary pressure could be put on the owners of small property. With regard to the author's remarks about the model by-laws, the bylaws of to-day were, in his opinion, practically sufficient for cottage property in rural districts.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLAN CUNNINGHAM thought that, however deplorable the over-crowding and insanitary conditions were in the country, they were not so bad as those existing in towns. Good cottages could not be built to yield more than 1 per cent. interest, or, if the repayments were deferred 80 years, 2 per cent. If that was the case, the building had to be done as a charity, which could not be expected, because the work must be done on economic principles if it was done at all. The great difficulty lay in the fact that England was a small country, and was over-populated. Seven million people were said to be always on the verge of starvation, of whom a considerable number must live in the country. Sir Edmund Verney spoke of a better class of tenant, and probably mcre limited in number than those referred to by the author. The two lady speakers had referred to the advantages of good sanitation; but whatever steps were taken, great care should be exercised, otherwise the building of cottages would be made more expensive still, and the difficulties of the housing problem would thus be increased.

Mr. SEYMOUR WILLIAMS said that Sir Edmund Verney had referred to the question of the length of the term of the loans. Two years ago a Departmental Committee sat on the subject, and evidence was given before the committee in favour of extending the time during which loans for the purpose of housing operations were granted. Sir Edmund also complained of placing a burden on the next generation, but it must be remembered that part of the security for the loan was the land itself, and therefore the objection was not valid on that point. So far as the erection of the buildings was concerned, he thought Sir Edmund was hardly fair in saying that the building would be of no value in eighty

years time.

Repairs from time to time would

be made to the building, which would keep it in good condition; but it was useless to expect local authorities to take up loans if there was any serious risk involving a large rate. There was no doubt a certain amount of truth in the statement that some rural district councils did not do their duty, but he repelled the suggestion that all local district councils were lacking in their duty. Conditions varied very much in different parts of the country. In the West of England very little was heard of the rural housing question; there was no dearth of houses in his district at the reasonable rent which labourers could pay, so that in any legislation a hard and fast rule must not be made. The housing question affected the well-being of the country as a whole, because the exodus from the country into the towns was largely due to the greater comfort people found in living in the towns; and he therefore thought that a consideration of the subject, with the view to seeing whether fresh legislation was needed, was desirable.

The CHAIRMAN asked the author if he could explain the curious anomaly that, notwithstanding so much of the agricultural population had gone into the towns, the housing accommodation in the country was so small in proportion to what was required.

Mr. BRICE PHILLIPS said, in reply to the Chairman's inquiry as to the number of rooms in the cottages for which estimates had been given, that it would be seen, by a reference in the paper, that the figures were taken from Mr. Briggs' article in the Journal of the Sanitary Institute. That article gave full particulars, together with detailed plans, and the speaker recommended members desiring to obtain further information on those points to refer to that comprehensive paper. There were some points in which he agreed with Sir Edmund Verney, such for instance as obtaining security in office for medical officers. But he could scarcely follow Sir Edmund in saying that owners could repudiate all responsibility. He had endeavoured to show in his paper that the Legislature had already placed many responsibilities upon the shoulders of owners. Sir Edmund's statement that local authorities should take the duties upon themselves, would not meet the case, for, as a general rule, the work of local authorities consisted in enforcing owners and occupiers to carry out their legal responsibilities. He would be satisfied to accept the suggestions made by Sir Edmund Verney as to an inquiry. With reference to Miss Cochrane's proposal that district councils should build a few houses in each village, he feared the financial difficulties referred to in his paper would prevent this. From Mr. Green's remarks he gathered that he was also of that opinion. He could endorse what Mr. Green said about the better state generally of properties on large estates. It was the impecunious owners who gave trouble to

sanitary authorities. As to the anomaly mentioned by the Chairman of rural depopulation going on side by side with overcrowding, he could only offer as an explanation that more room was now required for each person than formerly, arising perhaps to some extent from the increased luxury in the living of all classes, and also possibly to more stringent sanitary require

ments.

On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to the author.

Miscellaneous.

MANUFACTURE OF PANAMA HATS.

The celebrated Panama hats are made in the Departments of Santander, Antioquia, Cauca, and Tolima (Suaza district), in Colombia. For the manufacture of these hats, the common fan shaped palm is used, known to the natives as the "palmicha." It grows wild, and in abundance. The young shoots are chosen, uniformity in size being an important consideration. The British Vice-Consul at Bogota states that the shoots after being cut from the branch, are boiled for a certain time till they soften and turn a light yellow in colour. After boiling for the desired length of time, the leaves are hung up to dry, and quickly separated. The work is carried on indoors, where they are exposed to a current of air, but no sun. When the leaves are nearly dry, a little Y-shaped wooden tool is used, which splits the leaves uniformly. When they are drying, the leaves curl in at the edges and are then ready for use. The straw is afterwards wrapped in clean cloths to protect it from the light and dry atmosphere. The process of boiling the straw is an art in itself. There are few workmen who succeed in turning out good straw. It is sold by the pound, the price being fixed according to the quality of the straw and the market price of hats. In the Suaza district of Colombia, the hats are made on solid wooden blocks. It takes two to four persons (usually women) seven days of steady work to make an average quality hat. A fine hat will take from three to six weeks. When the hat is finished the straw is carefully pared with a penknife, and then battered all over with a small hand-mace. It is then washed with common yellow soap and lime juice, and left to dry in the sun. The climate is an important consideration in the manufacture of these hats. A better hat can be made during the rainy season than during the dry summer weather. This is probably why the hats made in the rainy Suaza district are superior to those made only a few miles away. A long training is required to become a good hat maker. Female children are usually apprentice at about the age of 10, and are constantly kept at work. Hat makers work steadily every day, from sunrise to sunset, and often continue their work by

candle light, so as to have their hats ready by market day. An hour or two wasted means to them the loss of the market day, and consequently the loss of ready money for their household purchases. It is not a good business to export Panama hats from Colombia at the present day. The price in the Suaza district has increased to an exorbitant extent. Formerly, the finest quality hat could be purchased there for 12s. This price has now more than doubled. Unfortunately, to reach the Suaza district means a long and tedious journey, and the purchaser is therefore dependent on the middleman, who fixes his price for a first quality hat on the basis that his article, if exported, would fetch £20 in London.

Correspondence.

THE REPRESSION OF THE BRITISH INVENTOR.

As a British inventor with more than twenty years' practical experience of the British Patent-laws, and having taken out some thirty patents, I have been extremely interested in the correspondence in your Journal on the above matter, and I heartily agree with the position taken by Mr. Lowry and Mr. Boult, that the present system prevailing in the British Patent Office is iniquitous and unjust to the inventor, and has done more than almost any other one thing to discourage English ingenuity and enterprise.

It is not my purpose to defend the German or United States Patent-laws, which may be (and doubtless are) open to the criticisms made by Mr. Abel. The fact that these countries have made mistakes in this line in no wise minimises the mistakes which our country has doubtless made, and I therefore do not propose to enter into a discussion of Mr. Abel's letter. What interests me as a British inventor, are the facilities the British Patent Office affords me for protecting and exploiting my inventions. My experience is, that it would be hard to devise a method which is more unjust to the inventor than the one which has prevailed in England for the last twentyfive years at the least.

The Act of 1902 has improved matters somewhat, but it does not get to the root of things, as it retains the very burdensome and unjust renewal fees which, coming as they usually do in the case of a new invention, just at the time when the inventor is least able to meet them, cannot be met, and therefore the inventor loses his time and the moneys already paid.

commercial, and have made thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds for others), I will instance one case, i.e., the cinematograph.

I will not enter into the history of this invention except to say that I began working on it over twenty years ago, long before it could be possibly made commercial, for the reason that, at the time I began my experiments and for several years thereafter, celluloid was not made in long lengths, and therefore could not be used for cinematograph films.

I first showed my invention at a meeting of the Photographic Society, Pall-mall, in 1885. The invention itself was first patented in 1889. This patent gives a complete description of the cinematograph camera which is used to-day, but it was not then commercial, for the reason that celluloid film was difficult to secure, was expensive, and was too opaque to give proper results upon a screen. In fact it was not until 1893 or 1894 that a non-shrinkable celluloid photographic film transparent enough to enable pictures to be projected upon a screen was produced commercially.

I took out a further patent in 1893. This patent covered the projecting apparatus, and is the first machine of its kind. In 1896 I took out a further patent, covering certain improvements and attachments for this machine; and this patent, together with my patents of 1889 and 1893, are the master patents on this invention. I had expended thousands of pounds and ten years' time in perfecting this invention.

Directly my patents were published others profited by my work, and brought out various forms of machines, all of which I maintain are infringements of my patents; but I was not in position financially, owing to the large amount of money I had expended on this and other inventions, to properly protect my rights in the Courts, which would have cost me, as I was informed, from £2,000 to £5,000 at least.

The fact that I had obtained British patents on my invention did not in any way practically protect my rights as against infringers, who, knowing the practices prevailing in the Patent Office and in the Courts in reference to inventions, took the chances of a patent action, and exploited infringements of my invention for their own profit without payment of a penny to myself.

That is the condition to-day, with the exception of two firms in the trade who, as a matter of fairness to me (although I have not yet been in position to bring action to protect my rights) have entered into royalty arrangements, and are paying me royalties on my invention, although nothing like as large royalties as I should have been entitled to receive, and which they no doubt would have been prepared to pay, had the Patent-laws been so framed as to discourage infringers, rather than encourage them, as is the case to-day.

I do not say this as any reflection upon the two firms who are paying me royalties. Quite the contrary. They could afford to pay me much larger

royalties had the English Patent-laws been so framed as to enable me to protect them from unlawful competition. As a matter of fact these firms are to-day paying royalty, which the other firms are not, and are, to this extent, hampered in their business by reason of their recognition of my rights. In other words, the practical result is, that the infringer is protected by the present laws, whereas the inventor is in the position of paying the British Government for the privilege of giving the details of his invention to the very men who are encouraged to infringe it. This has been my experience with my cinematograph invention, and also my experience with many other of my inventions, but space prevents my going further into details.

Now as to practical suggestions, I do not for a moment imagine that the framers of the Patent-laws have deliberately tried to draw them so as to favour the infringers and hamper the inventors. On the contrary, I assume that it is the desire of the Government to frame laws which will encourage and protect the honest inventor.

Without going into detail, my suggestions are briefly as follows:

1. That a thorough search be made by the British Patent Office before the patent is granted.

2. That the cost of this search should be included in the initial fee.

3. That when a patent is once issued by the English Patent Office the presumption is not that it is bad, but that it is good, and that this presumption be one that the British Courts are instructed to recognise in any action for infringement.

4. That the penalty for infringement (where the infringement is clearly proved) be not merely an injunction against further infringement and the actual damages proved (which latter are almost impossible of proof in many cases), but should be substantial and exemplary damages which shall be sufficiently large to discourage others from attempting to infringe what they know to be a valid British patent. In other words, "make the punishment fit the crime" which is not the case under the present law. In fact, it not infrequently happens that an inventor may win his action for infringement and be ruined by the delay and expenses he has to incur over and above his damages and taxed costs.

5. Any man stating in his application that he is the original inventor, when it is proved he knows he is not, should be held to be guilty of perjury and should be prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor at the public expense.

6. Make one fee cover the entire cost of the invention for the full term. You can figure out for yourself what it means to maintain 25 or 30 British patents, many of which while they are the basis of very valuable inventions, may be premature, in that certain features of the invention are not yet perfected, or the trade not yet sufficiently advanced to appreciate its value.

7. The appointment of a Royal Commission con

sisting of practical men who shall take evidence on this whole subject and report their recommendations to Parliament. I would respectfully suggest that you call before said Commission some of the practical inventors and mechanics who have been either discouraged from patenting their invention, or if they have been foolish enough to patent it, have been ruined by the expensive processes which are necessary in order to protect their rights. I think this Commission would get some good, solid facts which would be of the greatest value in formulating a law which will do substantial justice to the English inventor and encourage the industries of the country. In other words, I make a plea for justice and common sense in our Patent-laws. Make it not only possible for a rich inventor to protect himself, but encourage a poor inventor to patent his ideas with a certainty that he will obtain a proper return for any good invention he may make, and full protection of his rights without danger of being financially ruined by his own inventive genius and his attempt to contribute something to the welfare of his country. W. FRIESE-GREENE.

Millbrook, Dovercourt, March 8th, 1904.

Obituary.

ADMIRAL HENRY BOYS.-Admiral Boys, who had been a member of the Society of Arts since 1885, died on the 16th inst., at his residence at Blackheath, in his eighty-fourth year. The Admiral was the second son of Captain Edward Boys, R.N., and a member of a family which for several years has supplied officers to the navy. He joined the service in 1837, and as a midshipman in the Edinburgh was at the capture of Birut and the bombardment of Acre in 1840, being wounded in the latter engagement. Among the appointments held by Admiral Boys before his retirement in 1885 were those of Director of Naval Ordnance from 1876 to 1878, second in command of the Channel Squadron from June of the latter year till June, 1879, and as member of the Committee on Heavy Ordnance in 1879.

Actuaries, Staples Inn Hall, Holborn, 5 p.m.
Medical, 11, Chandos-street, W., 8 p.m.

TUESDAY, MARCH 29... Central Chamber of Agriculture (at the HOUSE OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS), John-street, Adelphi, W.C., 11 a.m.

Civil Engineers, 25, Great George-street, S.W., 8 p.m. 1. Mr. Leopold Halliday Savile, "Lowering the Sill of the Ramsden Dock, Barrow-inFurness." 2. Mr. Robert Henderson, "Burntisland Harbour Construction of the East Dock." Colonial Institution, Whitehall-rooms, Whitehallplace, S. W., 41 p.m. Mr. E. Powys Cobb, "Federation and the Mercantile Marine."