NATURE 
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1902. 
DANGEROUS TRADES. 
Dangerous Trades: the Historical, Social, and Legal 
Aspects of Industrial Occupations as affecting Flealth. 
By a number of Experts. Edited by Thomas Oliver, 
M.D. (London: John Murray, 1902.) 
| Way is claimed for this volume of some 900 closely printed 
pages that it constitutes the first serious attempt in 
this or indeed any other country to deal comprehensively 
with the conduct of trades in relation to the life and 
health of the workers. And there is a certain fitness in 
the fact that such a book should first be produced here 
and that its authors should be British, inasmuch as 
Great Britain has led the van in factory legislation as 
she has hitherto led it in industrial enterprise. Indus- 
trial enterprise and the economic and social amelioration 
of the worker inevitably go together, for in proportion as 
each country advances in commercial prosperity and 
in economic development, higher ideals of comfort and 
higher standards of industrial hygiene are demanded 
by its people. Our own legislative attempts to secure 
these began with the opening years of the last century, 
and have been made the basis of, and the occasion for, 
similar attempts abroad. The general result has been 
that during the last forty or fifty years the lot of the 
artisan has been everywhere brightened by the improve- 
ment of the conditions under which much of his labour 
has to be performed. 
It is hardly necessary to say that such a measure of 
progress has only been obtained by strenuous and per- 
sistent effort, by outside interference, or in other words, 
by the working of the public conscience and the force of 
public opinion. 
Apathy, callousness, self-interest and an obstinate 
adherence to the doctrines of a perverted political 
economy have too frequently stood in the way of well- 
recognised reforms. It must be admitted that much of 
the improvement, has been contemporaneous with the 
shifting of political power, but whether as the direct 
result of it is by no means equally certain. The spread 
of information, a more enlightened self-interest on the 
part of the worker, the organisation of labour, a deeper 
and more active sense of public responsibility in regard 
to unhealthy trades, together with an intelligent appre- 
ciation on the part of employers that what is good for 
the bee is also good for the bee-hive, have combined to 
secure the good which has been achieved. 
The book before us is made up of sixty chapters—so 
many separate essays, in fact—contributed by thirty- 
eight authors, all of whom must be considered specialists 
on the subjects with which they deal. 
It is impossible within the space at our disposal to do 
more than indicate in the briefest possible way the main 
features of the mass of material which Dr. Oliver and 
his coadjutors have brought together. We hope, how- 
ever, to succeed in showing that the work deserves the 
careful attention of everyone interested in the hygiene 
of industrial life—employers of labour, factory inspectors, 
certifying surgeons, and also of the many members of 
our Legislature who concern themselves with the well- 
NO. 1714. VOL 66] 
433 
being of our artisan population. It is not to be expected 
that all will give unqualified assent to every expression of 
opinion to be found within the work. The various 
questions of public policy which are incidentally raised 
are necessarily subjects of controversy, and will be viewed 
very differently by persons of different political proclivi- 
ties or of different schools of economics. But we think 
that every dispassionate and impartial reader will admit 
that, taking it as a whole, it is a conscientious and praise- 
worthy attempt to deal with matters which lie at the 
very foundations of our industrial prosperity and 
happiness. 
In an introductory chapter Dr. Oliver traces in a few 
short paragraphs the main features of the industrial 
revolution—the change from the domestic system of 
industry to the modern methods of production by 
machinery—which constitutes one of the most momentous 
epochs in the history of our civilisation, and he 
indicates the changes in the social and intellectual con- 
dition of the people to which it has directly and indirectly 
given rise. He explains how a demand for the State 
control of our industries so far as relates to the safety, 
health and moral condition of the workers has arisen, 
how it has been met, and within what limitations the 
control has been operative and effective. As regards 
the economic effect of factory legislation, Dr. Oliver 
utters no uncertain sound. 
““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.” 
He is no less reassuring as regards the results which 
have flowed from the Workmen’s Compensation Act :— 
““The Workmen’s Compensation Act,” he says, “ which 
was so strongly opposed by many employers on the sup- 
posed 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, asa matter of fact many employers have been less 
out of pocket than formerly. The Act has cleared the in- 
dustrial atmosphere, nade 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.” 
Should the Act be extended so as to include a larger 
number of industries and more particularly those regarded 
as dangerous trades? On this point opinions may 
differ, as was shown by the fate of the proposal in Parlia- 
ment to place industrial diseases on the same footing as 
accidents. 
The main objection would seem to depend upon tke 
difficulty of defining industrial diseases. 
“Fora disease to be regarded as industrial, and capable, 
therefore, of being brought within the scope of the Work- 
men’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 
U 
