[TO TBZ EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOR:9
SIR,—Will you kindly allow me a few words in reply to youF correspondent "A. B." in last week's Spectator For the last six or seven years there have been in trade and other papers periodical outbursts on this subject, the most recent being in the columns of the Manchester Guardian, when all that could be said for or against was said. All who read the Guardian correspondence would, I think, agree that it proved, first, that the percentage of burning casualties was not greater now than before the production of flannelette; second, that ninety-nine per cent. of recent cases were from the same causes which held before that date,—viz., neglect of parents or guardians.
Dr. Perkins's chemical treatment may have all the virtues he claims for it, but its compulsory application would certainly place this very useful article beyond the purchasing power of the class from which most of these regrettable cases come ; some people think in millions, others in hundreds, these poor folks in farthings. I am quite sure there is a. large fortune for any inventor who can secure his patent being made compulsory in the production of articles so universally used as flannelette. I cannot believe it is the intention of the Spectator to open its correspondence columns for tho discussion of this threadbare subject; but to my mind it smacks a little of the advertisement odour which has been noticeable in previous first letters. May! kindly ask you, as a many years' subscriber, to publish this reply? —I am, Sir, &a., 3. [We have left out of our correspondent's letter a sentence which, in our opinion, unjustly asperses the good faith of an individual and of a newspaper.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
