poral, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. The following paragraph shall be added as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of section three of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875:1

"An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable."

2. (1) It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.

(2) Section seven of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is hereby repealed from " attending at or near to the end of the section.2

3. An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labor as he wills.

4. (1) An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed

1 The paragraph referred to reads as follows:

"3. An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime."

2 The paragraph repealed reads as follows:

Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section."

by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court.

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, section nine, except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.

5. (1) This Act may be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and this Act may be cited together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906.

(2) In this Act the expression "trade union" has the same meaning as in the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and shall include any combination as therein defined, notwithstanding that such combination may be the branch of a trade union.

(3) In this Act and in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the expression "trade dispute " means any dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or nonemployment or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of labor, of any person, and the expression "workmen " means all persons employed in trade or industry, whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom a trade dispute arises; and, in section three of the last-mentioned Act, the words, "between employers and workmen " shall be repealed.

IV.

THE BRITISH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

Introductory.

The theory of Workmen's Compensation Acts, such as have been passed in 21 foreign countries, notably Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Belgium, British Columbia, Cape Colony, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Queensland, Russia, South Australia, Spain, Sweden, and West Australia, was well and succinctly stated in the report of the Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee, which was submitted to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1904 as the result of an inquiry authorized by the preceding Legislature. This Committee, which was composed of Carroll D. Wright, Chairman, and Messrs. Henry Sterling, Royal Robbins, William N. Osgood, and Davis R. Dewey, said:

The object underlying all such acts, whether in Great Britain or in other countries, is to remove in a measure, and so far as safety will warrant, the economic insecurity of employees, on the theory that, where a man receives injury while in the course of his employment, society should recoup him in some measure without resorting to charity; that a man working in any dangerous occupation, or in any occupation, as to that matter, is really doing a service to the public; he is enabling the public to prosper through industrial conditions, and therefore the public owes him something should he meet with disaster; that capital recoups itself for losses by charging off a certain percentage every year for deterioration of plant; that the workingman has no means of charging off his deterioration of muscle and skill through the accidents incident to production, and that he ought, in all justice, to have such deterioration compensated in some reasonable way by society itself; that, as the deterioration of plant is paid for by being added to the cost of production, the deterioration of the man should also be added to the cost of production. The theory is, also, and this has determined the acts of foreign countries in this respect, that society ultimately pays all such costs through consumption.

Prior to 1880 there had been numerous attempts to secure legislation by Parliament to abrogate entirely the doctrine of common employment and the defence of assumed risk, but in

that year a measure was introduced by the Gladstone government, which was finally enacted into law, being known as the Employers' Liability Act of 1880. The prime reason for this legislation was said to be that "the common law had ended in giving the workman no compensation at all unless he could trace the accident to personal negligence on the part of his employer."

The bill, as passed, was limited in its operation to seven years, but the time was subsequently extended periodically until the passage of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897. By the provisions of the Act of 1880 the doctrine of common employment remained in force with respect to accidents from other causes than those mentioned in the first section of the law. These five causes of injury to a workman concerning which the doctrine of common employment was no longer to apply were as follows:

(1) Defective ways, works, machinery, and plant (if due to the negligence of the employer or of the person to whom has been delegated his duty thereabout).

(2) Negligence of a superintendent (if superintendence was his principal duty and he was not ordinarily engaged in manual labor).

(3) Negligence of persons to whom the employer had delegated his power of giving orders.

(4) Acts or omissions in obedience to rules or by-laws or in obedience to instructions of persons authorized by employers to give them.

(5) In the case of railway companies, the negligent management of trains, points, and signals.

The employers sought to escape responsibility from compli ance with what was doubtless intended as the spirit of the law by making special contracts with their men by which they were freed from the liability imposed by the act, and the courts decided that such contracts were not contrary to public policy. In 1881, therefore, a bill was introduced in Parliament to prevent an employer from making such contracts, but the measure failed as did similar bills in 1882 and 1883 and again in 1886, in which year a special committee was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1880.

The contracting-out schemes proved to be many and varied, sometimes operating quite advantageously for the workmen

themselves, so that a progressive legislative agreement upon an equitable arrangement for all parties was slow. In 1893, the Home Secretary, Mr. Asquith, the Liberals being in power, introduced a bill to amend the existing law by providing for the repeal of the Act of 1880, for the complete abolition of the doctrine of common employment and limit of damages recoverable, and for the absolute prohibition of contracting out. This measure, while not taking away the defense of contributory negligence and acquiescence, left the servant in the same position as a stranger. But the bill finally failed. In 1897 another attempt was made to deal with the subject by the government, which stated the situation thus:

The present law is notoriously inadequate; it fails to compensate for accidents if caused by fellow-servants, if contributed to by the injured, and if resulting from the risks of occupation; it causes costly litigation, 35 per cent of the amount recovered being legal expense; it leaves the employer ignorant of what his liability is.

The bill was vigorously attacked as revolutionary and socialistic, and was defended by Mr. Chamberlain on the ground that it dealt, not with absolute rights, but with questions of humanity and expediency. It finally became a law, being limited in its application to employment in the railway service, in factories, mines, quarries, or engineering works, and in the construction or razing of buildings exceeding 30 feet in height. In 1900 the scope of the Act of 1897 was extended so as to include agricultural occupations.

In November, 1903, a committee was appointed by the home secretary to inquire and report to the home office

(1) What amendments in the law relating to compensation for injuries to workmen are necessary or desirable, and

(2) To what classes of employments not now included in the Workmen's Compensation Acts those acts can properly be extended with or without modification.

This committee consisted of the following gentlemen: Sir Kenelm Digby, K. C. B. (chairman); Sir Benjamin Browne, D. C. L., Memb. Inst. C. E.; His Honor Judge Lumley Smith, K. C.; Capt. A. J. G. Chalmers, of the Board of Trade; Mr.