"tion. In my opinion the Bill was a retrograde Bill; it would have carried us backward instead of forward.”

Mr. Chamberlain's Proposal.-"

I

"shall never be satisfied till I see its place taken by a better and "more complete measure, which will for ever do away with the "scandal-for I think it no less-of these wounded soldiers of industry begging their way in the streets because the State has "neglected their just claim."

A First Charge on Cost of Production.— "In my opinion the compensation for every accident in "every employment is rightly the first charge on the cost of "production. If you are going to manufacture gunpowder you "know that whatever you may do there will be a certain average "of accidents in the course of 50 years. I say the provision for "those who risk their lives, who lose their lives, or who are injured by those accidents-the certainty of which can be foreseen-ought to be thrown on the trade. It ought to be added "to the cost of the gunpowder. It is part of the cost, the most deplorable part of the cost, if you like, without which the gun"powder cannot be manufactured."

66

46

This view is supported by Mr. Provand, who would make insurance compulsory on employers.

Suggestion. The creation of an Accident Fund managed by a Government Department.-This General Accident Fund would provide compensation for severe accidents and deaths, and be raised by a charge upon all occupations, and be paid by employers as insurance premiums.

Estimated cost on same basis of compensation as now, £2,103,000 per annum, plus £100,000 expenses of management.

Workers to pay to a fund of their own to be applied to the first twelve working days' expenses (cf. German Sickness Insurance). This would conduce to thrift, and to give workers a direct interest in careful oversight of their work and machinery. -Contemporary, July, 1894.

Evidence was given before the Labour Commission that' the income of the wage-earning classes amounted to about

or

am

F

£600,000,000 per annum.. If insurance were compulsory, the whole body of workers could be secured compensation against. all injuries, fatal and otherwise, for an average annual premium of one-half per cent. on their earnings-say, £3,000,000.

This amount would be no serious addition to the cost of manufacture and distribution.

Objection 1.-Workmen object to insurance on the ground that it relieves employer of responsibility and leads to carelessness on his part.

Answer. In every branch of Insurance the tendency is to increase safety:-e.g., lessened liability of buildings to fire; increased security of ships, owing to action of Lloyd's and the Insurance Companies.

Objection 2.-That it will lower wages.

Answer. It has not done so in Mining since the Mines Regulation Act, 1888. Wages have increased. General uniformity of seamen's wages, though insurances vary enormously. in amount, &c., &c., &c.

Practice in other Countries.-Germany.Two forms of Insurance-Sickness Insurance and Accident Insurance-supplementing each other to provide relief in case of sickness or of accident, and to compensate for loss of wages during inability to work.

Sickness Insurance is compulsory on all wage earners of less than £95 a year. Its funds are contributed in the proportions of two-thirds by the workmen to one third by employers. It is restricted to local organization, and is selfadministered.

Accident Insurance is compulsory on the same class of wage-earners. Compensation is provided for all injuries sustained in the course of employment. The payments under the Sick Insurance last for thirteen weeks, after which the Accident Insurance takes the responsibility. The funds are controlled by Associations of Employers, as Employers contribute the whole of them.

Though there is no subvention by the Government, yet there is an Imperial Guarantee behind all these associations.

Nearly all the other European countries are adopting a similar system of accident insurance. The doctrine that "trade risks"—" le risque professionnel"—should form a first charge on production is becoming increasingly accepted. There is clear evidence that thousands of the graver accidents are in no proper sense attributable to the fault of those who were injured. The real origin of compulsory insurance is said to be found in the endless litigation under the old Employers' Liability Law.

France has accepted the principle of "le risque professionnel," and bills since 1889 have proposed to compensate for all accidents save those brought about by express action of the injured.

Switzerland and Belgium accept the principle of "le risque professionnel."

REFERENCES.-"Compulsory Insurance in Germany and other Countries," being the fourth Special Report of the Commission on Labour, Washington, 1893, C, D. Wright, 4/6. "Employers' Liability Report on the Question in Germany," 1893, 3d. Contemporary Review, July 1894, 2/6. Nineteenth Century, November, 1893, 2/6.

6.-EIGHT HOURS DAY FOR MINERS.

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A UNIVERSAL EIGHT HOURS DAY.

"Any one who will consider the variety of our employments, "the character of our trade, the difference in the competition to "which different trades are subjected, the difference in the char"acter of the work, will see that to apply a universal, stereotyped "rule to all trades and occupations would be impossible, and if it "were possible it would be disastrous."-Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, at Birmingham, October 11th, 1894.

Examples :—

Servants at a small railway station;

Seamen ;

Domestic Servants;

Agricultural Labourers-seedtime and harvest;

Building Trades-bricklayers and masons.

"The conditions of each class of trades must be studied "separately."-Marshall's Principles of Economics.

.66

.66

Two cases for State interference.-"There seem to be two cases, and two only, in which legislative inter"ference in the hours of labour may be justified. The first is the "case where the labour is so excessive that it constitutes an injury "to the worker, to his health and his life, or where indirectly, as "in the case of some classes of railway servants, it may involve danger to the public. The other case is the case of those trades "and occupations in which, by some improvement of machinery, -66 or, it may be, by some greater exertion on the part of the workmen employed, the same amount of production may be obtained "as at present with a less expenditure of time-if it appears that "only a very small minority prevent a beneficial change.”—Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, at Birmingham, October 11th, 1894.

Experimental Legislation. An experiment might be made in a suitable trade, the mining industry. In the case of the mining industry it might be possible, by increased exertion on the part of the hewers of coal, to get as much coal in eight hours as they do now in nine hours.~

"As they desire that the experiment should be tried, I am "in favour of authority being given them to try it."-Mr. Chamberlain, Birmingham, October 11th, 1894.

The Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, 1894, was introduced by Mr. Woods, and the Second Reading was carried on the 25th of April, by 281-194-87. "Facilities" were given by the Government for the Committee stage on the 13th and 14th of August.

Mr. D. A. Thomas' Amendment, introducing the principle of local option, was carried on the 14th, by 112107 5; consequently the Bill was withdrawn on August 15th, 1894.

In a letter to Mr. D. A. Thomas, August 8th, 1894, Mr. Gladstone said:-

"In 1892 I suggested the plan of local option for the eight "hours to my mining constituents, and they appeared to me to *" receive it in a manner not unfavourable. I am clear "that if the miners desire the Eight Hours Bill with a degree of "concurrence approaching unanimity they have a moral title to “ it. Of the moral title to impose it on a considerable minority "I am very doubtful I must not omit to say that, in speaking of local option, I contemplate the action of "districts.'

Mr. Chamberlain, at Birmingham, October 11th, 1894, said:

"I think that we are bound to protect the independence of "the men of the North, but, subject to that, I for one am perfectly "prepared to vote for an eight hours day for those districts in "which the mining industry, by large majorities, desire such "législation. I should be very glad to see the experiment "tried."