Chapter III: Introduction

The commencement of the Twentieth Century finds us discussing problems and elaborating plans for the amelioration of the life of the people. The last few years have witnessed an unexampled awakening of the public to a sense of its responsibility in regard to conditions of labour and unhealthy trades. The question is not should men and women work, but how do particular trades affect individuals, physically and morally? Like human life itself, industrial occupation has been a passage from the simple to the complex, a process of evolution wherein each succeeding stage of industrial development has been attended by labour problems, social difficulties, and diseases particularly its own. An attempt has been made to include within this book special knowledge, and I have preferred that each contributor should express his or her own opinions unfettered by editorial requirements, since the object sought is not the promulgation of the views of a particular school, but enlightenment, so that the lot of our working classes may be improved, industrial hygiene promoted, and higher ideals if possible attained. Living in a democratic age, we hear much of the claims of the right to live, right to work, and the right of workers to a larger share of the produce of their labour. These are not the subjects dealt with in the following pages. There are certain side issues that deserve consideration, but which can only be mentioned here. Social advancement and commercial prosperity, while creating fresh desires, often increase the difficulty of satisfying natural wants. The growth of large towns and the concentration of people in the crowded homes of our great cities are limiting the amount of pure air necessary to the life of those collected there. Drinking water has to be brought from distant sources and at great expense. The removal of the waste or refuse of human activity is often as difficult a problem as the conveyance of the necessaries of life. It is not, however, with such problems as these we are concerned, but rather with the conditions under which labour is carried on and its effect upon the people. Manual labour and handicrafts exercised for the purpose of gain were in a measure formerly controlled by family interests, subsequently by guilds, and to-day they are largely regulated by trade unions. By trade unions an attempt has been made, not only to sell labour in the highest market, but to artificially restrict output by objecting to the use of machinery, by requiring that machines shall run at a speed lower than their full capacity, by demanding one day’s holiday during the working week, claiming in many instances a uniform wage alike for the skilled and the less skilled workman, and a reduction of the working hours without a corresponding reduction of wages. Such methods in the long run cannot but be disadvantageous to the workers themselves, for they discourage industrial energy and enterprise, without which the wage-fund must inevitably fall. Instead of mutual co-operation there is an unnecessary conflict between labour and capital. The demands of organised labour already mentioned have called forth a marshalling of the forces of capital. Industrial competition concerns the sale of labour as well as that of products. Some persons maintain that in the bargaining that goes on capital has the advantage over labour. Without expressing an opinion upon this point, it is apparent that only organised capital is capable of holding its own against organised labour.

The change from the domestic system of industry to the modern methods of production by machinery and steam power forms what is known as the Industrial Revolution, and marks an important epoch in the history of the world. Within the last one hundred and thirty years the changes produced in the social and intellectual condition of the people have been enormous. Ever since the Industrial Revolution in our own country there has been gradually coming a greater demand for knowledge on the part of those workpeople who may subsequently acquire the control of industries and direct the manufacture of machinery. There has been created, if not immediately, certainly by degrees, a need both for general education throughout the country and a special education for those who wish to become leaders. On the one hand it has been felt desirable to counteract the cramping effects of machinery and to diminish the dwarfing influences of the division of labour upon the intellect of the workpeople by giving them the benefits of a wider education. As knowledge has been gained by the artisan classes, their aspirations have naturally risen. With improved constitutional means for the redress of grievances there has been in many instances a gradual supplanting of methods that involve acts of violence and intimidation, which years ago disgraced our large industrial centres. Thus is it that while in the early decades of last century, shortly after the Industrial Revolution and before labour had become organised, factory legislation was promoted by the wealthier classes for the benefit of the workers, the latter at the present time, with their improved education and personal knowledge, can themselves bring to bear upon the legislature demands for reform that are deserving of careful consideration, especially when these are not extravagant and do not far exceed the limit of experience. Factory legislation, while it embodies the opinions of Members of Parliament who have studied labour problems theoretically, and of a few who have practical knowledge, is a State direction of our industries so far as relates to the safety, health, and moral condition of the people, and which embraces to-day, more than in any other epoch, the opinions of the workers themselves. The story of factory life in Britain, of the long hours of toil spent by children in the mills, and the physical suffering they endured, remains a blot upon the pages of British history. Britain was the pioneer of factory legislation--does she still lead the way? Her commercial supremacy, we are told, is questioned, and the position she has long held is being threatened by increasing competition. Despite this fact there is a disinclination on the part of British manufacturers to admit the necessity of learning anything from their Continental or American friends. Is our country, both as regards methods of production and factory legislation, abreast of the times and of other nations? Instead of manufacturers hugging themselves into a state of industrial lethargy which our insular position and national prejudices encourage, it would be well if they sent their sons and heads of departments abroad to see what other nations are doing.

Several things have prevented factory legislation being as far forward as it ought to be. In our country no Government, however strong, can hope to successfully introduce social legislation largely affecting personal interests until public opinion has been educated to the belief that the remedies proposed are really necessary. The facts likely to carry conviction can only be produced after years of careful study and investigation, consequently factory legislation has to some extent progressed slowly. It is, however, fair to say that when certain trades’ organisations or representative bodies combine to secure amendments to Bills which, in their opinion, appear necessary, there is a tendency on both sides of the Houses of Parliament to drop party considerations, and to give facilities for well-considered legislation likely to benefit the community. At this stage of our inquiry it may therefore be not inopportune to refer to the Factory Act recently passed (August 1901), the framing of Special Rules, and the means of securing their observance.

In matters industrial the Home Secretary is not endowed with authority equal to that enjoyed by similar officials on the Continent. The arbitrary powers granted by foreign Governments for the regulation of factories do not commend themselves to English politicians, and this was borne in mind by the framers of the clauses in the Factory Act of 1891 relating to Special Rules and requirements, when each and every occupier could demand that a matter of difference between himself and the Secretary of State should be referred to arbitration. This system may be said to have answered fairly well when dealing with small trades, but certainly not in regard to extensive industries, such, for instance, as the manufacture of pottery. In this particular trade litigation has gone on for many years, and the questions at issue, at the time of writing, are not yet settled. The methods now proposed should not only secure fair-play to the manufacturer and the worker, but should obviate loss of time and unnecessary labour. Under the Act of 1891 the Secretary of State could not be held responsible to the House of Commons, or to the country, for the final word rested with an irresponsible arbitrator. Under the more recent provisions the ultimate decision will rest, as it undoubtedly should, with Parliament. Having certified that in his opinion any manufacture, machinery, process, or description of manual labour used in factories or workshops is dangerous, the Secretary of State may (subject to the provisions of the Act) make such regulations as appear to him reasonable and practicable. He must publish the proposals, with information as to where copies of the suggested regulations can be obtained, and the time within which objections may be made by, or on behalf of, the persons affected. He is bound to consider their objections, and may, if he thinks fit, amend the draft regulations, but where he does not amend or withdraw these draft regulations, he is required to direct an inquiry by a competent person, to be held in public, and the chief inspector, any objector, or any other person affected, may appear either in person, by counsel, or solicitor or agent. The witnesses may be examined on oath. The proposed regulations may apply to all factories and workshops in which the manufacture, machinery, process, or description of labour certified to be dangerous is used, or to any specified class of factories or workshops. The regulations may provide for the exemption of any specified class of factories or workshops, either absolutely or subject to conditions. They may prohibit the employment, and modify or limit the period of employment, of all persons or any class of persons in any process certified to be dangerous. They may prohibit the use of any material or process, and modify or extend any special regulations for any class of factories and workshops contained in the Factory Acts. The regulations made under the new provisions shall not come into force until they have been laid for a period of six weeks before both Houses of Parliament. In the _London Gazette_ must be published notice of the regulations made, and an announcement of the place where copies of these can be procured.

The right of arbitration conceded to manufacturers has been sometimes regarded as one of the means whereby the benefits of factory legislation have been diminished. No person considers it desirable for industrial liberty to be crippled by Acts of Parliament, or industrial progress checked by Home Office interference, and yet the dictates of humanity demand that no labour shall exceed the limits of endurance of the workers, and that all occupations shall be made as healthy as possible. The history of factory legislation is a record of attempts made to better the conditions of labour, improve the health of workers, and control the disposing power of employers over their workpeople. Those who blame State interference as the cause of the doubtful decline of our industrial supremacy, and who believe that it is checking enterprise, are not making a sufficiently serious attempt to grapple with the question by sifting all the facts carefully. It can be demonstrated that legislation has not paralysed but has improved trade as well as the conditions of labour.

At a meeting of the chemical industry in Glasgow, on 24th July 1901, Mr Joseph Wilson Swan remarked that “two causes are contributing to our loss as a nation in the chemical and metallurgical industries. One is the supplanting of old methods of manufacture by newer, _e.g._, the application of electricity. The electro-chemical and electro-metallurgical industries of the future are grouping themselves around large water-power stations,--90 per cent. of the power thus used being obtained on the Continent from waterfalls. We have no such available water-power in Britain, but we possess instead an abundance of cheap coal. The other cause is the lack of scientific training, and the indifference of our leaders of industry to the results of scientific research. They are contented with the methods of production of a bygone age. Their plant is old.” It is circumstances such as these that explain, for example, the decay of the chemical industry on Tyneside, and its transference to other localities at home and abroad. As regards the causes that are threatening our industrial supremacy, apart from the serious attempts made by countries possessing the raw materials to complete the finished products on the spot, thus hitting hard our textile and iron industries, I would emphasise the higher technical education of the men who are heads of departments in factories abroad compared with those in similar positions at home. They are on the Continent a superior class of men. I am not for a moment contending that the German or French workman is, as a workman, superior to the average British artisan similarly employed. In many respects I think our own is the more capable man; but the foreigner is better directed, owing to the fact that the managers’ assistants and principal foremen have been highly instructed; several of them have had a University training, and they thus possess a theoretical as well as a practical knowledge of the particular industry. Besides, it is well known that in Germany at least, large firms employ men well trained in chemistry and physics to do nothing but research work, with the view of not only finding out new products, but of improving them and cheapening their manufacture. Industrial methods, in a word, are more scientifically studied on the Continent than at home, so that while such labour troubles as strikes, and the higher wages paid to English workmen, are to some extent responsible for the loss of some of our manufactures and their transference to the Continent, the cheapening of methods of production has not been without its influence. As international competition becomes keener, and our manufacturers endeavour to produce more cheaply by increasing the speed of their machinery, there will be imposed upon the workpeople greater tension during the hours of labour. Will this circumstance, also the rising rents of houses and the consequent overcrowding in our large towns, improve the physique of future workers? A study of the prospects of the artisan classes is of necessity many-sided, since it must deal not only with the effect of work upon their health, but take into consideration the influence of their home life and surroundings. Our large industries, excluding mining, have scarcely existed long enough for us to realise to the full the physical changes they are inducing in the workpeople. Hitherto there has been no great difficulty in obtaining strongly-built men of good muscular development for hard manual labour. Many of these have been taken from rural districts. As these districts are becoming depopulated, they will cease to be the source of supply they have been in the past. It is not altogether idle to ask how far the second and third generations of the town-bred poorer working classes will possess the necessary physical powers for hard toil. Overcrowding and poverty are exercising a degenerating influence upon the rising generation; besides, industrial occupation as carried on in several of our large textile districts is preventing rather than encouraging development, especially when children are employed at too early an age. There is something in the air of such factories, it may be the excessive heat and moisture, or the animal products given off during perspiration and breathing, that interferes with the nutrition of the body and checks its growth.

Half-timers, fortunately, are becoming fewer and fewer. Experience has shown that they are not equal in physique to their classmates who are allowed to remain all day at school. When healthy country children have been taken into the factories of large towns, it has been found that their normal rate of growth has been checked, so that after two or three years’ work in the mills, they are observed to be of shorter stature than their former playmates left at home and allowed to rusticate. There is a limit to each person’s capability of doing work, and when this is passed, the results are harmful. We should not ask from any person more than his powers will enable him to accomplish. For mechanical as well as manual labour there is a determined number of hours beyond which the worker cannot proceed without physical suffering on his part, while industrially with each succeeding hour occupied there is a diminishing production. It is knowledge of this fact, apart from economic considerations, that is used as a lever by the working classes to obtain parliamentary sanction to limit still further the hours of labour. Our attention, for example, is directed to Australia, where, since 1856, the hours of toil have been reduced to eight per day with a satisfactory result. In the coal mines, as well as in the factories of Sydney, the week’s work is forty-four hours. The eight-hours’ day has also been instituted in Tasmania, Victoria, and New South Wales. A few years ago an eight-hours’ day was conceded to the men employed in Woolwich Arsenal, and as this turned out to be satisfactory, the Admiralty, in July 1894, took a similar step. There are many writers who maintain that to a reasonable diminution in the number of hours devoted to work there corresponds a qualitative and quantitative increased production. There is a maximum beyond which production is not profitable. The produce of one particular period of the day cannot always be compared with that of another. While the reduction from twelve to ten hours’ labour may have been beneficial, and may even have improved production, it does not necessarily follow that a reduction from nine to eight would be followed by a corresponding result, and a reduction from eight to seven hours by one still better. On this and other points the facts detailed further on in this book by Mr A. P. Laurie, in his paper on Chemical Trades under the heading “Health of Chemical Workers, etc.,” will be found interesting. Too long hours are certainly a cause of accidents in factories. Experience alone can settle the question of the number of hours to be worked, and that number must clearly be not the same for every occupation. Common sense, too, must dictate the minimum limit of working hours. Men and women are conscious when their occupation exceeds their strength; but the demands of the machinery they tend are exacting, and so no difference is made between the strong and feeble workmen. A few years ago, Messrs Mather & Platt, iron manufacturers, Salford, reduced the number of hours worked in their factory from fifty-three to forty-eight per week without reducing the wages of the men, and this regulation is still, I believe, in force. Employers have frequently questioned the value of the work done by the men between 6 A.M. and 8 A.M. Mr Mather holds the opinion that the first two hours before breakfast are hardly worth the trouble and disarrangement which they cause alike to the employers and the workers. Not only are these two hours ineffective from a productive point of view, but their effect upon the physical and mental condition of the men is to diminish their vigour and spirits and their interest in what they are doing.

Coal mining is one of those industries from which an answer to this question of the effectiveness of work in the early morning hours might be expected, for the men work in two relays, a “fore” and “aft” shift, and they change every fortnight. When working in the fore shift the miners enter the pit about 3 A.M., and when in the aft at 10 A.M., each working in the North of England about six and a half hours. Mr Ralph Young, Secretary to the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association, informs me, in answer to questions addressed to him on this point, that the present method of working coal mines scarcely allows of a satisfactory reply being given as to whether more work is done during the fore or aft shift. There is a feeling among some of the miners themselves that they can do more work in the fore shift, _i.e._, between 3 A.M. and 10 A.M., but they attribute this circumstance not to the particular hour of the day in which work is carried on, but to the fact that the air in the coal mine is fresher and purer then than later on in the day. In other occupations it is equally difficult to get at the real facts of the case. To questions of a similar character addressed to twenty foremen and men working in a large iron and steel factory on Tyneside, I received the following answer--that more work is done in the hours 9 to 11 A.M. than 6 to 8 A.M., and that a man does more work after than before his breakfast. As regards the influence of day and night shift, they all agreed that less work was done on the night shift compared with the same number of hours of the day, but it is difficult to express this in terms of percentages. Some of the men stated that the amounts varied from 10 to 20 per cent. Against this, it is only right to mention that some of my Infirmary patients working in the same factory have told me that they believed after a time they did as much work on the night as on the day shift. It was entirely a matter of habit.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, which was so strongly opposed by many employers on the supposed ground that it would ruin the industries of this country, has had apparently no effect in that direction. Although it has theoretically increased their financial liability, as a matter of fact many employers have been less out of pocket than formerly. The Act has cleared the industrial atmosphere, made employers more careful in their selection of workmen, more willing to safeguard machinery, and do all they reasonably can to prevent accidents. It pays them to do so.

Until July 1898, when the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the previous year came into force, in the case of all accidents coming under either the common law or the Employers’ Liability Act 1880, the basis of the action was negligence or wrongful act on the part of the defendant, or of some person for whom the defendant was responsible. Since 1898 it matters little how the accident was caused, the employer is held liable by the Act of 1897. Certain trades only are included under the Act, _e.g._, railways, factories, docks, laundries, mines, buildings 30 feet high, and any building in which machinery is driven by mechanical power. So far as compensation for injury is concerned, the workman must be incapacitated for more than two weeks as the result of the injury before he can receive any benefit under the Act. After a fortnight a weekly payment is secured to him of one half of his weekly wages during his period of incapacity, or for six months, after which the employer can claim to have his liability redeemed by paying a lump sum fixed by agreement or arbitration. In the case of death the employer is liable to the extent of three years’ wages, or 156 times the average weekly earnings of the deceased workman during his period of employment, the amount to be not less than £150 and not more than £300.

When the Workmen’s Compensation Bill was introduced it was strongly opposed, as already stated, on the grounds that it would injure trade and ruin many employers. So far, events have not justified this suspicion, but have shown that these fears were more or less groundless. In providing compensation for injured workmen, Britain was only doing what other nations on the Continent, especially Germany, had already accomplished. It was thought at the time that the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act would very materially affect the output and price of coal as well as the wages of the miners. There is no clear evidence that it has increased the price of coal. The cost of compensation paid in Northumberland and Durham does not exceed one halfpenny per ton, while the cost under the Act for the United Kingdom is under three farthings per ton. This is a small sum compared with the threepence we were informed would be added to the price of each ton of coal. One way in which the Act might indirectly increase the price of coal would be by restraining timid capitalists from investing money in coal mining through fear of being ruined by some great accident or explosion; but this is a remote probability, and a contingency that could be met by insurance. Nor can it be shown that the Workmen’s Compensation Act has had any effect upon the miner’s wages. Theoretically the wages of miners should fall _pro rata_ with the benefits received under the Act, but as the benefits will not be more than 1½ per cent. of the wages, any readjustment would be small. It cannot be said that in coal mining the Act has had any noticeable effect one way or the other, so far as the number of accidents is concerned. For several years prior to 1898, owing to newer and more scientific methods, the number of accidents in coal mines had been diminishing. It would appear from the reports of Mr Hedley, H.M. Inspector of Mines for Northumberland, Cumberland, and North Durham, that during 1899 there were 84 lives lost, and in 1900 the number was 105, or a ratio of 1 death for every 784 persons employed, against 1 for every 924 in 1899; in 1898 the ratio was 1 in 1053, and for the five years 1893|97 the ratio was 1 in 895.[1]

Mr Ralph Young has abstracted from the annual reports of the Northumberland and Durham Miners’ Permanent Relief Fund the following facts, showing the number of fatal and non|fatal accidents, with the percentages of non|fatal accidents, spread over ten years in the North of England.

MINERS’ PERMANENT RELIEF FUND.

+------+-------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+
| | | | | Percentage of|
| Year.| Membership. | Fatal Accidents. | Non-Fatal | Non-Fatal |
| | | | Accidents. | Accidents. |
+------+-------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 1890 | 107,997 | 158 | 16,000 | 14.9 |
| 1891 | 113,126 | 167 | 16,500 | |
| 1892 | 114,326 | 149 | 13,000(_a_)| 12.24 |
| 1893 | 115,361 | 177 | 16,400 | 14.21 |
| 1894 | 121,133 | 166 | 17,000 | |
| 1895 | 121,944 | 168 | 17,450 | 14.42 |
| 1896 | 122,257 | 163 | 19,200 | 15.7 |
| 1897 | 124,920 | 204 | 20,000 | 16.01 |
| 1898 | 127,564 | 159 | 19,511 | 15.28 |
| 1899 | 130,552 | 197 | 19,484 | 14.8 |
| 1900 | 137,073 | 198 | 18,470 | 13.4 |
+------+-------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+
(_a_) Durham Strike, 90,000 members idle for 13 weeks.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act came into force in 1898, but it cannot be said, looking at the foregoing figures, that it has had any material influence upon the number of accidents in coal mines, nor, as was anticipated, has it so far displaced many of the older miners by younger men. There is a remarkable constancy in the number of pit accidents. I have tried to ascertain whether there is any decade in a miner’s life during which accidents are more numerous than another, but statistics do not support the supposition. There is a personal and age element that must not be lost sight of, also one of fatigue. The older miners have experience and caution; the younger, if rash and less experienced, are more alert and can get out of danger quicker.

As bearing upon this part of our inquiry, the annual reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories give the following information:--

+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| |ACCIDENTS REPORTED TO CERTIFYING SURGEONS, AND ALSO|
| | TO INSPECTORS. |
+-------------------+-----------------------+---------------------------+
| INDUSTRY. | Fatal. | Non-Fatal. |
| +-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+
| |1900.|1899.|1898.|1897.|1900. |1899. |1898. |1897. |
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+
| Textile Total, | 70 | 52 | 59 | 43 | 4,647| 4,332| 3,786| 3,565|
| Non-Textile Total,| 975 | 819 | 668 | 615 |22,012|17,568|14,714|11,762|
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+
| Grand Total, |1045 | 871 | 727 | 658 |26,659|21,900|18,500|15,327|
+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+

In reference to these figures Dr Whitelegge states that there has been an increase in the numbers of _reported_ accidents since 1897, the year previous to the coming into effect of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Many considerations other than the Workmen’s Compensation Act have to be taken into account, _e.g._, the better reporting of accidents, activity of trade, and classification of industries. From these figures of the Chief Inspector of Factories no definite conclusion can be drawn as to the influence of the Act in preventing accidents. As a contrast it should be mentioned that in some large factories where an “Accident Compensation Fund” previously existed under the Employer’s Liability Act, to which employers and employed contributed in the ratio of 2 to 1, and out of which all accidents were compensated, statistics show a remarkable falling off in the number of reported accidents under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In some works these are now only one-third of what they were. This reduction is probably explained not by any change in the methods of production, nor by better safe-guarding of machinery, but by the fact that while previously all accidents, however trivial, were reported and compensated, accidents under the Act of 1897 must be of such severity as to prevent the individual following his employment for two weeks before he is entitled to compensation.

Although difficult to prove by actual statistics, there is a feeling that the Act has on the whole been beneficial alike to employer and workmen. It is this circumstance that has induced some Members of Parliament to press for an extension of the Act so as to include a larger number of industries, and particularly those regarded as Dangerous Trades. One of the principal features of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is that it fixes the liability upon the employer, so that where an accident causes injury to health or the death of a working man the individual himself or his relatives receive compensation. If the circumstance solely of ill-health or of death caused through work, and not violence or the manner in which either of these has been induced, were made the principle that ought to underlie the operations of the Act of 1897, there would be found many persons who, taking effects alone into consideration, would recognise no difference between ill health the result of an accident in a factory, and ill health brought about by working at a particular trade known to be dangerous. Ought dangerous trades, therefore, to be brought within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act? Many advocate their inclusion. The law recognises that trade shall be made as healthy as possible, and it takes steps to secure this, both by providing regulations and penalising those who transgress these regulations. Will it go further, and impose a burden upon the employer by making him compensate a workman injured in health when it can be shown that, even where all precautions have been taken, ill health has followed? Occupation ought to be the opportunity whereby an individual, in return for work done, should receive sufficient wages to enable him to live, and not, as it occasionally is when he is employed in a dangerous trade, the means whereby he becomes the subject of ill health at an early age, and is thrown as a burden upon the ratepayers for the remainder of his life. No high wages paid to men to undertake work in a dangerous trade, even if it were always the case that such were paid, can adequately compensate the affected workman for the loss of health caused by following a dangerous occupation. Many dangerous trades are far from being highly paid. The class of workpeople who are affected by these industries are usually very poor, their occupation is often interrupted, and they are not organised into Unions, so that they neither contribute to the funds of, nor do they receive benefits from, a Friendly Society. The Workmen’s Compensation Act makes accident the sole circumstance that enables an individual to receive compensation. As the Act stands at present it is clearly meant to distinguish between accident and disease. It is a disputable point, for example, how far a fatal disease like anthrax caught in a wool-combing factor is not as much an accident beyond the control and expectation of the individual workman as the fatal burns caused by the sudden ignition of some spirit paint in a shipyard. A similar line of argument might be made to apply to other trades. The man who gets his arm broken by a piece of machinery in motion or by a barrel falling off a trolley in a colour factory receives a weekly allowance from his employers; but another man who becomes paralysed in both hands as a consequence of having filled the barrels with white lead in the same factory does not receive any part of his wages at all when off ill. It is said that the Act only recognises the fact of external injuries, but it goes beyond this, for a workman may die as a consequence of shock without any sign of external injury and yet his relatives receive compensation. It is the fact of personal and not external injury that underlies the Act. Is phosphorus necrosis, which is a purely personal malady, an accident? The Act answers--No.

There is considerable difficulty in defining what is meant by industrial disease. It would be well if we could have some clearer conception of what is implied both by “industrial disease” and “dangerous trades,” for there is scarcely any trade or occupation that is not attended by some risk or another. It is admitted that certain occupations involve exceptional risks. Theory cannot determine what these trades are, but experience and inquiry can. As an illustration, I might mention that of 22 trades suggested as dangerous, and given by the Home Secretary to the Dangerous Trades Committee to investigate, careful inquiry showed they could not all be included in this category.

In the case of an accident there is usually the history of a violent cause in operation, and there is the fact of an injury received. Yet even with accidents there are certain contributing factors, _e.g._, the length of the working day, the previous ill health of the workman, and his state of debility anterior to the accident. Old age, too, aggravates the harmful effects of an accident. It is accessories such as these that have made legislation difficult and tied the hands of Governments. The subject is one to which at home Mr H. J. Tennant, M.P., Sir Charles Dilke, Bart., M.P., Sir John Stirling Maxwell, Bart., M.P., Mr John Burns, M.P., and other members of the House of Commons have given considerable study, and to which among others on the Continent, Mr Arthur Verhægen, member of the Belgian Superior Council of Labour, drew the attention of members at the Congrès International des Accidents du Travail in Brussels in 1897. Several writers have defined industrial disease. Dr Van der Borght says: “Industrial diseases are those maladies which arise as the result of the prolonged action of harmful influences in certain occupations, and which consequently and exclusively occur in persons working in these trades, or at least more frequently than in other persons in general.” Dr Glibert, Medical Inspector of Labour, Belgium, says: “Every disease recognised as particularly frequent in a profession ought to be considered as an industrial disease to the extent that it is clearly due to the risks in the trade.” By the term occupation or industrial disease we mean, briefly, disease the direct effects of a particular trade in which a person is engaged. In many instances there are also included maladies that are the result of pathological alterations of structure, _indirectly_ induced by the occupation. Colic, for example, might be regarded as a _direct_ effect of working in lead, and yet this is unaccompanied by structural alteration in the wall of the intestine; on the other hand, kidney disease in the file-cutter is very slowly developed, and although, as regards its production, there are other causes in operation than lead, still the kidney lesion is believed to be a remote or _indirect_ consequence of plumbism. As artisans are liable to the ordinary ailments of humanity, it is necessary to carefully sift statements so as to eliminate all causes other than those related to the particular industry in question. To the production of occupation disease, several factors contribute. Even in the causation of such an indisputable malady as industrial lead poisoning, it is well to remember how important is the part played by individual idiosyncrasy, while in the badly ventilated state of one factory compared with another, the home life and surroundings of the workpeople, poverty, heredity, age, and sex are to be found conditions that favour its production, and are therefore not to be ignored. Usually it is a gradual deterioration of health that is produced. There is nothing of the nature of an acute illness in industrial disease comparable with an accident. The only occupation disease that approaches accident in the suddenness of its development is anthrax, and even here the prospects of recovery are influenced by the channel of invasion, the severity of the attack, the vital resistance and idiosyncrasy of the affected individual. Take another example: it is not always easy to draw a distinction between potters’ phthisis due to the inhalation of dust when at work, and a broncho-pneumonia which has become tuberculous, and yet potters’ consumption in the early stages may be as much the result of the trade at which the person has worked as is the paralysis of the file-cutter.

In order to make an employer liable for an occupation disease there would have to be a stated limit as to the length of time an individual had worked in a particular factory, and as in some of the dangerous trades the workpeople change frequently from factory to factory, it would be difficult to prove under which employer the malady was caught. Carelessness on the part of the employed, through ignorance or intention, would also have to be disproved. In the case of workpeople who spend practically the whole of their life in one factory, say a white lead works, and who at the end of twenty or thirty years’ service find themselves the victims of an incurable form of plumbism, humanity and good feeling alike should indicate to the employer his obligation to the affected workmen. Yet even here the question might be raised, did the workman fully attend to all the regulations when in the factory as regards personal cleanliness, and were his habits, when not working, those of a temperate man? Mr Verhægen gives illustrations of the difficulty of exactly defining occupation disease. A workman becomes the driver of a public vehicle, and in the course of time, having developed rheumatism, he is obliged to give up work. To the individual thus crippled by rheumatism, is the employer financially liable? One can scarcely think so, for the simple reason that while exposure to inclement weather may be a cause of rheumatism, certain persons are by heredity predisposed to it, and would develop the malady irrespective of what their calling in life might be. Besides, are delicate men and imprudent drivers to be placed on the same footing as robust and careful men? Verhægen recognises the inexactitude, and states that if we would but limit the term occupation disease to conditions of ill health due to _poisoning_ caused by coming into contact with certain chemical and other agents used in such industries as lucifer match making, colour grinding, etc., the difficulty would be materially lessened. It would still not always be easy to assign to one particular factory, especially when it was known that the workman had moved from place to place, the blame for having caused ill health. Even in cases of “phossy jaw,” in which it is generally admitted that exposure to the fumes of yellow phosphorus is its cause, there is yet some doubt as to whether the necrosis of bone is entirely due to this circumstance, or partly to it and the operation of micro-organisms. Take, too, the diseases of Italian miners and of the colliers of Belgium, particularly ankylostomiasis. Dr Kuborn of Seraing, in discussing this question, maintains that the maladies special to mining have their origin very largely in the kind of life the men lead, their inattention to the rules of ordinary hygiene both in their home and person, excesses of various kinds, imperfect feeding and clothing, etc., causes to the influence of which want of education greatly contributes. In some industries there are inherent dangers, and yet with care these can be diminished if not removed. Ventilation of British coal pits, for example, has practically abolished pulmonary consumption in our miners. Experience shows that there is scarcely a dangerous trade from which, with extreme care and attention to regulations, the dangerous influences cannot be largely removed. There is no occupation so risky to life as the manufacture of the high explosives. I have had the opportunity of visiting the largest explosives works in the kingdom, and can bear testimony to the healthiness of the employment and its comparative safety owing to the careful training and discipline of the workers, scrupulous cleanliness and attention to the minutest details.

Occupation disease, it must be remembered, is not _always_ easy of recognition. There is no difficulty in diagnosing a malady to be plumbism when there are double wrist drop and a history of exposure to the metal when at work; but where there is only complaint of abdominal pain and vomiting, the diagnosis cannot be always so clearly established, even in the presence of a well-marked blue line on the gums. Several cases have been recorded in the medical journals of acute abdominal pain occurring in painters, which had been regarded as lead colic; but when the patients died, the post-mortem examination showed that death was due to a small ulcer of the bowel or to inflammation limited to a particular portion of the intestine known as the appendix, which a surgical operation might have cured; while, on the other hand, workers exposed to lead and with similar symptoms have been operated upon by careful surgeons for appendicitis when the malady was lead colic. If this is the difficulty experienced by competent surgeons and careful medical observers, it shows us some of the pitfalls parliamentarians might easily drop into by including industrial diseases under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Verhægen is of opinion that the matter would be more easily settled by accumulating a larger number of statistics of disease occurring in occupations; but this inquiry would have to be extended over a lengthened period, there would have to be some degree of uniformity in the conditions under which the people worked, there would also have to be taken into consideration the hygienic conditions of the factories, the situation of these buildings, the number of hours worked per day, and the influences that would follow a prolonged strike of the workpeople, such as poverty. To be exact, too, the workpeople would have to be medically examined before entering upon the particular industry, and re-examined months afterwards so as to ascertain what effects, if any, the trade had produced. Some of the difficulty would be got over by limiting the definition of industrial disease to maladies that are the direct consequence of occupation, and in which as a result there is a well-ascertained lesion of the organism. Verhægen, as already mentioned, illustrated his argument by alluding to the driver of a public vehicle who in good health to commence with, and notwithstanding his obedience to the laws of prudence yet becomes rheumatic, and to another man who, under similar conditions as regards health and carefulness, undertakes work in either a lucifer match or a white lead factory, and suffers from phossy jaw or wrist drop. The malady is in either of the latter instances regarded as a disease of occupation, in the former it is not, the explanation of the difference being that as regards the first illustration rheumatism is not confined to the occupation of coach driving; also while it is admitted that out-of-door occupations expose the individual to all kinds of weather and predispose to rheumatism, the same out-of-door life led by other people is in them an explanation of the good health they enjoy. In the case of the match and white lead maker, had it not been for exposure to the fume of phosphorus or the inhalation of lead dust the workman would not have become the victim of phossy jaw or of wrist drop.

Although many workpeople in the factory incur the same risk, yet all do not equally suffer. Some men are more susceptible than others. It would be regarded as an interference with the liberty of the subject if an attempt were made to prevent people going to work in a factory. It is known, for example, that engravers are more liable to lose their eyesight at an earlier age than men engaged in outdoor occupations. Should a man with feeble sight be allowed to undertake this kind of work? On commencing his industrial career, unless he voluntarily seeks the advice of an oculist, who is to say to him nay? There cannot be, although it is accomplished in certain dangerous trades without much opposition, a medical examination of all persons undertaking work. The dangers of particular occupations ought, however, to be pointed out to all applicants for work, after which these should state that they are prepared to accept certain risks. At present many workpeople incur risks without knowledge of the danger or of the means of preventing it. There are occupations that are not of themselves unhealthy, and yet owing to the strain which they impose upon the body, the weak spot of the organism, so to speak, is found out, and for this the occupation itself cannot altogether be held responsible. Take what is known as rupture or hernia, which occurs with greater frequency in persons whose work obliges them to be long upon their feet, and who are exposed to sudden strain, the lifting of heavy weights, etc. What is said of it applies equally to varicose veins in the legs. Both of these may be partly the result of the position assumed by the individual when at work or the strain he is exposed to, and yet it would scarcely be right to make the occupation responsible for an affection the result of an inherent weakness of the abdominal wall which allowed a portion of intestine to protrude, giving rise to rupture, or for an ill-nourished condition of the walls of the veins in the legs whereby the blood-vessels became distended and deformed. To secure compensation, the workman would have to establish that the hernia was solely the result of his work. Life is for all of us very much a game of chance, and we have to run ordinary risks. For a disease to be regarded as industrial, and capable, therefore, of being brought within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it would have to be placed upon the same narrow limit as an accident. It would require to be shown that it was the sole result of the occupation, and that there had been produced a definite pathological lesion of the body. Adopting this view, the maladies that could be included in the category would be, among others, anthrax, poisoning by lead, mercury, phosphorus, and bisulphide of carbon; but with the exception of anthrax, in which the disease is often suddenly induced, and as rapidly runs to a fatal termination, there is not as a rule the same exactitude in the incidence of disease as is the case in accident. There might be little difficulty in including anthrax under the Act of 1897. The inclusion of some of the other dangerous trades would give rise to frequent litigation, but it would make employers more careful in the selection of their workpeople, and in the means adopted to prevent industrial poisoning. This latter fact is one of the objects aimed at by those who are in favour of an extension of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, not omitting, where it can be clearly proved, the financial liability of the employer to compensate the affected workman. In the case of a fatal accident occurring in a factory, a post-mortem examination shows perhaps the body to be healthy, and therefore the accident to have been the sole cause of death, or there are certain signs of disease present which may have caused or hastened the fatal termination. In the latter instance the law takes no cognisance of the previous disease. It takes for granted that but for the accident the individual would have gone on following his occupation. In industrial poisoning, would a similar legal opinion be entertained? In acute lead poisoning, when the post-mortem examination and chemical analysis of the internal organs conclusively prove that death was due to lead, it might be a comparatively easy thing to fix the liability upon an employer; but the presence of signs of previous disease in the body, which probably contributed to the fatal termination of the illness, would make it extremely difficult to assign to each of the two circumstances its proper share in causing death.

It is facts such as these that doubtless led to the rejection by Parliament in 1897 of the proposal to extend the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Bill so as to include industrial diseases, and place them on the same footing as accidents occurring at work. There is, however, a common sense view of the matter which should not be overlooked, and it is this. Where a person suffers in health, or loses his or her life through neglect of the employers to comply with the legal requirements of the Factory Acts, surely the employer under these circumstances ought to pay full compensation. In the case of accidents the question of neglect does not arise under the Act of 1897. The injured person is compensated, and that is the difference between the Employers’ Liability and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The question that calls for an answer then is rather this: Where an employer has followed out to the full all the regulations required by the Home Office, and it is shown that he has done all that common sense and humanity dictate, and yet industrial poisoning has occurred, is the employer under these circumstances to be considered liable? In France, where the match industry is a State monopoly, the Government admitted its liability by paying to the workmen who suffered from the effects of phosphorus a stated indemnity. Bryant & May’s firm has always recognised its liability by paying a weekly allowance to the workpeople off ill through phosphorus necrosis. Other firms in other trades probably do the same. It is for the public, therefore, to say whether humane deeds like these, which are purely voluntary in this country, should be made compulsory by an extension of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, or be simply dealt with through the medium of mutual trade insurance societies.[2]

Collectively, occupations may be likened to a huge organism. Industries are the functions that indicate the life and prosperity of a nation, and like the higher forms of life they have grown in process of time from simple beginnings to highly complicated combinations, the controlling and to some extent directing agent of which is parliamentary legislation, keeping pace with the inventiveness of man and human requirements. In many ways is the resemblance between the industrial and human organism demonstrated. No man can use unrestricted freedom with his own body. There is a physiological limit to which he must bow. An over-worked brain or group of muscles sooner or later tells its own tale, unbridled licence causes degeneration of the nervous system, and excess in wine or at table is checked by the diseases it produces. Perfection is what we ought to strive for, and this can only be obtained by submission to nature’s laws. So, too, in the industrial organism it is recognised that production should be kept within limits, reckless bargaining should be curtailed, that each man should put his very best into the work he is doing, and that there should be more sympathetic communication between employer and employed. Trades, like human beings, are influenced by their surroundings. They do not thrive well away from coal fields and centres of human activity. Competition or the struggle for existence is as keen in the world of industry as in that of biology, and there occurs the same weeding out in both. Thwarted by local conditions and hampered by scarcity of labour, overburdened by excessive taxation or ground rents, industries will languish in one place, while with fewer restrictions they will flourish in another. New trades are constantly developing, and new methods of manufacture keep replacing those that are old. Everything is tending towards improvement. Many circumstances are operating to direct the industrial evolution of to-day. Human wants and man’s inventiveness play their part so that those manufacturers alone of their commercial confrères are successful who, recognising the spirit of the age, make an attempt to meet its demands.

Admitting that factory legislation has for the last century been gradually bringing into line industrial undertakings of all kinds, and that the Government has by enforcing regulations exercised a disciplining influence upon masters and men, it is only recently that it has taken up a strong and decided attitude in regard to the effects of particular trades upon health. Public health as a science is still in its infancy; it owes its origin mainly to the rush of people into the large towns. Its theories and facts have been brought by municipalities to bear upon the conditions of life in our homes and persons. Modern factory legislation, so far as industrial hygiene is concerned, is an extension of the ordinary laws of health to those workers who in many instances cannot frame rules of guidance for themselves. Law restricts as well as regulates individual freedom. The Public Health Acts have interfered with the liberty of the subject by insisting upon closing unhealthy dwellings, the removal of refuse, the notification of infectious diseases, and the compulsory removal from the home of members of a family who are suffering from some infectious malady, and by doing so have secured a larger measure of health for the community. Factory legislation similarly aims at improving the health of the workers.

Every man tries to get as much out of life as possible. Ideally he ought to contribute his best to it. A workman, while obtaining for his labour the largest wages possible, ought to put into his labour the best of his thought and energy so as to improve the character of the work he is engaged in. While the immediate object of labour is to obtain the wherewithal to live, the character of the work performed is unconsciously shaping the destiny of labour and building up through individuals the national reputation. The end of work is progress, and just as human life is perfected through suffering and experience, so is the industrial.

There are many ways by which the hygiene of trades may be promoted. The notification of industrial diseases to the Chief Inspector of Factories has, although it has only been in existence a very few years, already placed the Home Office in possession of facts and statistics which enable the Factory Department at once to realise when a particular industry is becoming prejudicial to the health of workers, and how it may be met. The good effects of notification are observed in the trades in which lead, mercury, and phosphorus are used. The power granted to the Home Secretary, which enables him to schedule a trade as dangerous on sufficient information being given to him, is, so long as it is judiciously applied, a step in the right direction. It is desirable that accurate information should be obtained from all sources, from employers as well as employed, and from experts, chemical and medical. The formation of a consultative body or of an industrial council composed of the Home Secretary and members of the factory staff, employers, a few educated workmen, chemists, medical men, and electricians, for the purpose of discussing with the Home Secretary terms of Special Rules and prospective legislation has been recommended, and might be helpful. On the Continent such industrial councils exist, a description of which will be found in Miss Anderson’s paper on “Regulations of Injurious or Dangerous Occupations in Factories and Workshops in some of the Chief European Countries.” In Britain there might be some difficulty in including upon a permanent consultative body gentlemen capable of dealing with the numerous technical questions that constantly arise, but the difficulty would be no greater there than in France. Within the last few years the Home Secretary has, whether for direct advice or to serve upon committee, occasionally called in the assistance of recognised experts or authorities upon particular points under consideration. This system has worked well, and might with advantage be extended. Industrial hygiene, too, so far at any rate as dangerous trades are concerned, could be promoted by small International Committees meeting to improve the sanitation of labour rather than to discuss economic problems of production. By many it is believed that the cause of industrial hygiene would be furthered by the establishment of a Ministry of Labour. It seems an anomalous circumstance that a country like ours, whose reputation has been built upon commerce, should be without a department specially devoted to labour and labour problems. The Home Office has the necessary machinery and possesses all the information, but its jurisdiction covers too extensive a field. The Factory Department ought to form a separate and distinct branch of the Home Office to be directed by a Secretary or Under-Secretary of State. Year by year the work of the Department and its scope increase, and surely among the many Departments of the State there can be none of greater importance than that which watches over the millions of persons engaged in factories and workshops in the United Kingdom.

THOMAS OLIVER.