Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts.

  • Great Britain. Committee on Coroners.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    58/232 (page 28)
    15 June 1909.] (Continued. 7013. You think, therefore, that it might reduce the number of deaths, but do you think it would do away with deaths from flannelette altogether P—I should be sorry to go so far as to say that it would do away with deaths entirely, because I feel certain that some people would still buy the other flannelette because it was cheaper. 7014. The very poor?—I do not think the very poor, as a whole, would do such a thing. 7015. I do not suggest anything improper, of course. I mean on the ground of mere poverty and inability to purchase the better article, might they not still be inclined to buy the cheaper inflammable article because of the cheaper price >—In some cases. 7016. I submit that that is a difficulty to be got over ?—Yes. © 7017. Do you think it might be got over by pro- hibiting the sale of inflammable flannelette altogether ? —If it were possible to passa measure of that kind in the face of the great opposition that there would be, I think that is the course that ought to be adopted. 7018. That leads me, of course, to a consequent question. Do you think that there would be a great outery if the sale of inflammable flannelette was pro- hibited ?—I think so. 7019. You think it is an impracticable question to try to prevent the sale of inflammable flannelette ?— I would rather say that it would be a very difficult matter. 7020. Because of the outcry >—Yes. 7021. By whom ?—The manufacturers. 7022. Not the British public as a whole ?—I do not think the British public as a whole would raise any outery at all. 7023. Not the people who save money by the cheaper article ?—I do not think so, the difference in price is very small. . 7024, You say that the manufacturers would raise an outery. What manufacturers do you refer to P— The manufacturers of flannelette. 7025. But would it not be as good for one as for the other ?—No; because I imagine that there are a large number of manufacturers who hold that if you insist upon all flannelette being made fireproof there is a possibility of the sale becoming less, restricting the trade. I do not hold that view myself of course. 7026. Let me try to follow youthereagain. Suppos- ing that were so, would it be throwing the sale of the non- inflammable article into the hands of the patentees ?— No. I should like to make that perfectly clear. There is no doubt that it would do the patentees a great deal of good, but at the same time I am of opinion that where you have discovered a process and shown that a certain thing can be done, there will most probably be half a dozen or more ways of doing that same thing ; and, therefore, no doubt several people will ultimately discover and adopt processes which would produce non- inflammable filanneletite. 7027. Do you think that persons who at present only produce inflammable flannelette would have a difficulty in discovering a non-inflammable flannelette patent which would not infringe your own ?—As I have said, it is a very difficult problem. 7028. Then you think that they could not get a non- inflammable process without trespassing on yours ?— No, I do not think that at all; I think quite the con- trary. When another process is found out, it will most likely be something very different from ours, because we have covered our own ground pretty well, and, therefore, when another process is discovered, I think it would be on quite different lines from ours. 7029. At present it is a difficult thing to find a process that does not trespass on yours, and they would have to invent something on entirely different lines ? —Probably. 7030. Would that be inflicting any hardship upon the present manufacturers of inflammable flannelette >— No, because the manufacturers would be in the same position as the firm which I represent were in; they would simply have to say to some expert, “Take this problem in hand and find out a process for me.” 7031. Then until they discovered a proper remedy they would not be able to sell their inflammable flannelette ?—Yes, they could, because they can use this process. We do not keep it to ourselves. 7032. They can use your process by paying youa royalty ?—A very small royalty. 7033. That, at any rate, would restrict the trade, would it not ?—I do not think so; on the contrary. 7034. There would be an increased expenditure in the business in connection with the manufacture of this article —No, because they could pass it through the same finishers that we pass ours through. 7035. They would be dependent upon your quotation of a royalty for the manufacture of non-inflammable flannelette until they discovered a patent of their own ’—They would have to make terms with us for the small royalty for which any manufacturer can use the process. They need put down no new plant, because they can pass it through the same finishers as we employ. But they must pay the royalty, of course. 7036. It really means this, that until he has dis- covered a patent of his own a manufacturer would be in your hands (I do not say that you would treat him improperly) until he had discovered that article P— Unless there is anything in this point that I have brought out, that there are several manufacturers who say they have discovered processes already. 7037. That follows. When I speak of you I speak of your process, or of some equally competent process ? —Yes. 7038. (Sir Malcolm Morris.) You have devised a scheme which, it seems to me, might be feasible so far as regards inspection of English manufactures, but how is the inspector going to deal with foreign manu- factures, which are the larger proportion ?—I have already suggested that the foreign manufacturer might, at his own risk, put the mark on himself during the process of manufacture; the material would then have to pass the inspector before he allowed it to be sold in this country as proof or non-inflammable. 7039. You cannot tax the country with an enormous expense for carrying out a process which’ is to save a limited number of lives, and any suggestion must be a very simple and easy one; otherwise it is out of all practicability >—If you put a matter of that sort before an inspector who is used to doing this kind of business, do you not think he would devise some means for meeting the difficulty ? 7040. (Dr. Willcox.) Is the flannelette in the piece wrapped round a board ?—I do not know. 7041. You spoke of pieces of so many yards; are they folded round any central thing which could be stamped ?—I should think very likely, and the inspector could, of course, mark the centre. But I should like to suggest that inspectors or manufacturers, or other people who are accustomed to actually deal with matters of this kind, could give you much more valuable evidence on that point than I can. 7042. (Sir Malcolm Morris.) The primitive idea would be to stamp it on the edge ?—Yes. 7043. (Dr. Willcox.) Would it not be possible to stamp the edge so that the purchaser could see the stamp on it ?—I should hardly think so. 7044. Assuming that it is impracticable to compel all flannelette to be of the non-inflammable type, do you think it is necessary that every piece of flannelette should be tested, both that which is inflammable and that which is non-inflammable ?—No. 7045. You suggested that?—I imagine that the manufacturer would put forward the bales of flannelette which he said were non-infammable and those would be tested and stamped; and all the rest need not be tested at all, they would only be simply marked as “ Unproved.” 7046. But assuming that the non-inflammable flannelette is of a particular type, and is going to be tested, do not you think it would be sufficient to assume that the other flannelette was of the inflam- mable variety and need not be tested and marked ? —No. I think the purchaser should be able to see at once whether he was purchasing inflammable or non- inflammable flannelette. 7047. You suggest that inflammable flannelette should be marked as “non-proof.” It seems to me