deducted from the amount of compensation subsequently awarded by an arbitrator in another court. It would have greatly simplified the duties of the arbitrators if the Act had included all trades, seeing there are many employments which seem to be on the border-line of doubt, and the several Factory Acts upon which the Act is based are by no means clear in many instances; a fine distinction being often drawn between a factory and a workshop. In fact the various speakers and writers who have recently dealt with this subject from different points of view appear to have omitted to notice several inconsistencies in the wording of the Act, which must have struck any careful reader. To begin with the title of the Act, we find that whereas the Act applies to all employés (including clerks), the title expressly limits its operation to working men. Then, judging again from the title, the man in the street' would gather that it applied equally to all workmen, but one has not to read far into the Act to discover that it is somewhat limited in its scope, being restricted to certain hazardous trades only, whilst other trades, equally dangerous to limb and health, are outside the pale of the Act. In fact, the Legislature, whilst conferring a boon upon a large number of workmen (including a large number of employés who are not working men in the ordinary acceptation of the term), has made an arbitrary distinction between one trade and another, so that it will be difficult to decide as to whether a trade comes under the Act or not; and this question alone will prove a fruitful source of litigation or arbitration. For instance, a butcher who has a sausage machine worked by mechanical power will come under the Act, whilst his neighbour who has not such a machine will be outside its operation. The same sort of difference will arise between carmen and jobmasters who have mechanical chaff-cutting machines and those who have not such machines. Some bakers will come under the Act and some will not. In like manner, some laundries will be exempt. Other curious anomalies will arise in the case of hotels where there are hydraulic lifts and those which do not contain such conveniences. A still greater anomaly will be met with in the building trade, where some workmen will be able to recover compensation under the Act, whilst their brothers in the same grade of occupation will be left out in the cold, or be compelled to seek the cold comfort of the old Employers' Liability Act. Thus two men may meet with the same kind of accident resulting in equal disability, but simply because one was working on a building thirty feet high he will be able to recover heavy damages, whilst the other will be deprived of any compensation simply because his accident did not happen on a building thirty feet high! This is hardly likely to give satisfaction to the building trade, and raises a curious set of complications in forming any table of rates for insurance. Masters will naturally want to know how they stand in regard to their liability, and upon what basis their risk is

estimated. A workman falling downstairs may get heavy compensation if there happens to be a steam machine on the premises, but another man will be unable to recover because there is only a hand machine in his workshop! Then as to the restriction about scaffolding: it is easy to imagine some curious points for the arbitrators in connection with accidents on buildings with scaffolds and accidents occurring on other buildings minus scaffolds. An interesting question will quickly arise as to: When is a scaffold not a scaffold? A man may meet with an accident whilst taking down a scaffold, the only remains of which may be a single pole. Plasterers may be working in a house over thirty feet high, but without scaffolding and without machinery-they will, therefore, be outside the scope of the Act; but if there happens to be a slight scaffold inside or outside the building, these men would be entitled to the full benefits of the Act. Then there remains the vexed question as to the height of the building. Where are the dimensions to be taken? Is the measurement to be from the ground on the level of the street or from the basement? Suppose a man falls from a house twenty feet high from the pavement, into the basement twenty feet below the level of the pavement, will he be entitled to compensation? That arbitrator would be a bold man who decided against an injured workman under such conditions. A house in course of erection may have reached twentynine and a half feet in height when a serious mishap occurs, and one may take it the surviving relatives of the workman killed would have a very fair chance of recovering compensation under the Act in spite of the thirty feet restriction, provided there was some sort of scaffold. The sympathy of the arbitrator will lean towards the injured party. Leaving the building trade with all its complex arrangements, let us take the case of a working cooper as an anomaly under the Act. If the man meets with an accident whilst working for an employer who has no machinery he would have no claim under the Act, but should he be working for a master who has machinery driven by steam he would be able to recover damages. If, however, the machinery was not worked by mechanical power he would be unable to recover. His case is typical of a large section of workmen whose right to compensation is dependent upon such curious issues. Much will, no doubt, depend upon the construction placed upon the Act by the arbitrator, but whilst it bristles with restrictions, presumably in favour of the employer, the Act is really wider in scope than many persons are disposed to think, and in its actual working will be found, in many respects, very much in favour of the injured workman. Then as to compensation: the Act practically provides an annuity for life in cases of permanent disablement, but whilst a master may stop weekly payments at the end of six months, and refer the matter to an arbitrator, it does not seem that a workman who has taken an inadequate sum in settlement of his claim at an early stage of the

disability can have the matter reopened, in the event of the injuries causing lifelong disablement. Of course, a great deal will depend upon the definition of terms used in the Act, as in the case of the word 'warehouse,' used in the Factory Act, 1895, to which this Act refers. The term is of very wide range, and many owners of warehouses will find themselves liable under this Act who never dreamed it applied to them. We have endeavoured to few of the incongruities in connection with this Act. will be found to exist, and the problem will tax the ingenuity of lawyers and arbitrators to the utmost; and several test cases will have to be settled before a solution is found. But, perhaps, before that time arrives the Act will be amended so as to include all trades and all accidents of occupation, with a satisfactory limit to the amount of compensation payable in case of permanent disablement.

point out a Many others

Having dealt with some of the salient features of this important measure, and pointed out some of the anomalies which appear on its surface, let us now glance at the financial aspect of the subject, from the employers' point of view, and afterwards endeavour to indicate some methods of meeting the extra burden which has been placed on the shoulders of the masters. As to the operation of the Act and the number of trades affected, the Colonial Secretary stated in May 1897:

It [the Bill] deals with the whole of the accidents that occurred in the trades with which it is concerned, and I (undertake to say that this Bill will deal with between 60 and 70 per cent. of the whole of the accidents which occurred in the country. . . . But as regards the question of including other trades, I can only say that, dealing with a constituency of 6,000,000, which is the least number of workmen we are dealing with in the Bill, you have got a field so large that there should be no difficulty in framing insurance regulations with regard to them, and I am assured by those most expert in the matter that there will be no difficulty whatever in framing insurance in connection with the trades specified in this Bill, if the schedule which deals with the amount of compensation is made more definite in all its particulars.-Times, the 25th of May, 1897.

Now it is obvious that a large number of these 6,000,000 workmen will meet with accidents for which compensation will become payable, and it is unnecessary to add that this will prove a serious charge upon the employers. Indeed, Mr. Chamberlain, during the debates in Parliament, estimated that the cost to the mining trade would be about 1 per cent. on the total wages disbursed, but the colliery proprietors and others placed it as high as 2 per cent. Mr. Neison, the Government Actuary, seems to think both estimates equally erroneous, and in a letter to the Times, dated May 28, 1897, stated, Briefly, this difference of the method by which the risk has been measured accounts for the divergent views of the Government and the coal trade as to the financial burdens entailed by the Bill. The Colonial Secretary stated that 18. to 28. per cent. on the wages was sufficient for the textile manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and Sir J. Kitson stated that 2s. 6d. per cent. was all

that was needful for engineering works; but seeing that hitherto the insurance companies have charged similar rates to cover only the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 and common law risks for these trades, it is not likely that much reliance can be placed upon the above estimates. It is quite evident that this question of the extent of the liability of the employers has been greatly under-estimated in some cases, and greatly exaggerated in others. The undue lowering of the liability has been caused by a desire to appease the employers, and the overestimating has arisen chiefly from an innate dislike to the measure. 1 The Colonial Secretary and others who have relied upon the official Blue Books for data upon which to base their estimates of the cost, naturally came to different conclusions, seeing that the official reports, viewed as the basis of calculations, are totally fallacious. Speaking at the annual meeting of an insurance company of which he is the chairman, Mr. Thomas Hewitt said :

The value of such an estimate may be gathered from the fact that persons who deal with this question on more practical grounds have come to a conclusion totally different to that laid down by Sir Matthew White Ridley. Our better judgment and experience leads us to the conclusion that the reports are formed from a very incorrect basis.

The truth probably lies between the two estimates, but in any case it is a serious item for the employers to face.

In view of these facts, the question is, in what manner can this increased liability best be dealt with by the masters? Apart altogether from the trouble of looking after those who meet with accidents, in order to prevent malingering, and in addition to the anxiety connected with legal points in arbitration, there remains the great outstanding liability of the Act-namely, that attaching to injuries involving permanent disablement; bearing in mind. the fact that the amount recoverable for a permanent injury completely incapacitating a workman is very difficult to determine, but it may easily reach several hundred pounds. Even if the injury does not totally incapacitate a man permanently, but only renders him partially incapable of doing his usual work, the deficiency in his wages will have to be taken into consideration, so that a firm may in course of time have a large number of pensioners permanently on their books. It is this question of annuities for permanent injuries which has caused so much alarm in certain trades where there is a certain amount of bodily risk from the very nature of the employment.

To meet this increased liability, and to turn an unknown amount of loss into a known yearly outlay, three courses are open to the employer. First, he may confer with his workpeople, and form an accident fund of the works; but the scheme must not only be acceptable to the men, but meet with the approval of the Registrar

In his recent speech at Birmingham the Colonial Secretary said the rates being asked by the insurance offices were 'absolutely preposterous.'

of Friendly Societies, and must give benefits at least as advantageous to the men as those practically insured under the Act. No scheme will be so certified which contains an obligation upon the workmen to join the society as a condition of their employment. The conditions of contracting out of the Act are so difficult that probably very few masters will endeavour to do so, seeing that any scheme which may be devised does not really get rid of the liability altogether. Still, it must not be forgotten that Mr. Stanley Brown, a leading authority on liability insurance, when addressing the Insurance Institute in Bristol on the 21st of January last, advocated the policy of alternative schemes. He said:

The workmen were feeling the drawback of not being able to get compensation in the first two weeks, and that their claims might be resisted on the ground of serious and wilful misconduct to almost unlimited extent, making it very difficult to get compensation except by costly process. He thought if the employers would think that over and see if they could give in on those two points-that was, give the men their two weeks' pay, and contract not to raise the question of serious and wilful misconduct, the men would be willing enough to give way upon the point of duration of compensation, and settle that very vexed question of duration by putting upon it a limit, which would enable the insurance companies and the employers then to calculate much better what was the value of a risk, and how it should be met.-Post Magazine, the 29th of January, 1898, p. 68.

Against this must be set the fact that the iron and steel manufacturers, who recently met at Dudley, resolved to stand by the Act and not to arrange for any alternative plan with the workmen. They decided in favour of insurance pure and simple, charging the premiums to the costs of production in all future contracts. Dealing with this same question of contracting out of the Act by the substitution of an alternative scheme, Mr. Charles H. Green, in his address to the Manchester Insurance Institute, on the 18th of March last, combated the suggestions of Mr. Stanley Brown, and appositely remarked:

If Mr. Brown means, by the words 'making it very difficult to get compensation except by costly process,' that the employers will resist all claims, and endeavour to prove wilful and serious misconduct when an accident occurs, I challenge such an accusation, and say the concession is worth nothing.

There appear, therefore, to be great difficulties in the way of arranging satisfactory alternative schemes.

Secondly, the employers in a certain district or trade may join together and form a system of mutual insurance. At first sight this appears to be an attractive remedy, and we know of several associations already projected in various parts of the country. There are, however, several objections to such a plan. To begin with, such an association must be based upon the system of average liability, which means that the careful employer, with good plant, will have to pay for the accidents of the employer whose business is carelessly