These are times when an inheritance, such as the window pane, venerable though it be, is freely criticized and shown to be far from perfect. We find, indeed, that surfaces and forms long given to the glass through which light passes, or from which light is reflected, are faulty and wasteful. This means that sunshine can be turned to better account than ever before, that artificial light can be employed with an economy wholly new. A few years ago when we provided a window with plate glass, smooth enough for a mirror, nothing better seemed possible. Thanks to the late Edward Atkinson, of Boston, we know to-day that in many cases glass may be too smooth to give us the best service, that often we may get much more light from panes of rough, cheap make than from costly plate glass. He tells us: “In 1883, when I inspected a large number of English cotton mills, I found them glazed with rough glass of rather poor quality, the common glass of England being inferior to our own from the general lack of good sand. On asking why rough glass was used instead of smooth I was told that rough glass gave a uniform and better light. To my astonishment I found this true. The interior of a mill so lighted had the aspect of diffused illumination. This led me to reason on the subject. I looked into the construction of the Fresnel lens, in which a combination of lenses and curved surfaces concentrates rays of light into a single far reaching beam. I reasoned that if one set of angles or curves could thus concentrate light, then by reversal of such angles or surfaces, light could be diffused.”