238 •^•■'^" KEPORT— 1871. 



found desirable ; boards of control, empowered to carry out the inspections and 

 levy such rates upon the steam-users as niigbt be necessary for the conduct of the 

 service, being appointed by the popular election of the steam-users in each district, 

 the diflerent boards being aifiliated by means of an annual conference in order to 

 promote the harmonious -worldng of the whole system. Its advocates consider 

 that in this way a system of national inspection might be mildly, but at the same 

 time firmly administered, and that it would then not only prevent the majority of 

 steam-boiler explosions, but prove of gieat assistance to steam-users in the ma- 

 nagement of their boilers ; that it would be the means of disseminating much 

 valuable information ; that it would promote improvements ; that it would raise 

 the standard of boiler engineering, and prove a national gain. 



The question of the relative merits of the two systems, the one, that of direct 

 prevention by enforced inspection, the other, that of indirect prevention by the 

 infliction of penalty, is one of a very complex character, and the more it is dis- 

 cussed the better, and therefore the fullest expression of opinion is requested at 

 this time. 



A further topic for discussion on the present occasion is suggested, viz. whether 

 it might not be well to fix a minimum sum, to be exacted absolutely in the event 

 of every explosion, that fixed sum, however, when inadequate to cover the damage 

 done, not to limit the claim for compensation. 



Several advantages it is thought would spring from the adoption of this course, 

 both as regards compensation to those injured and the prevention of explosions. 



It frequently happens, on the occurrence of disastrous explosions, that boiler- 

 owners are quite unable to compensate those who have been injured. Such w.as 

 the case last year at Ijivei-pool, where an explosion occuired at a small iron foundry, 

 in October, killing four persons, laying the foimdry in ruins, smashing in some of 

 the surrounding dwelling-houses, and spreading a vast amount of devastation all 

 rovmd. The owners of the boiler, which had been picked up second-hand, and 

 was a little worn-out thing, were two working men, who but a short time before 

 the explosion had been acting as journeymen. Thejr were possessed of little or 

 no capital, and were rendered penniless by the disaster. Another very similar 

 case, though much more serious, occurred at Bingley in June 18G9, where as 

 many as fifteen persons were killed, and thirty-one others severely injured by the 

 explosion of a boiler at a bobbin turnery. In this case the user of the boiler was 

 only a tenant; and, judging from the ruined appearance of the premises after the 

 explosion, any attempt to gain compensation for the loss of fifteen lives and thirty- 

 one cases of serious personal injury would have been absolutely futile. The plan of 

 imposing a fixed minimum penalty would tend somewhat to meet this difficulty, as 

 the surplus of one would correct the deficit of another, and in this way a com- 

 pensation fund might be established for the benefit of the sufferers. 



Further, this measure would have a good effect upon steam-users, inasmuch as 

 they would then incur a positive liability, which would act as a more definite 

 stimulus than the vague apprehension of an action for damages, in which they 

 might hope to get off. Also, if this penalty were rendered absolute, it would save 

 a vast amount of litigation, and boiler-ovraers would then see that it was as mucb 

 to their interest to believe that explosions were preventible as that they were 

 accidental ; and such being the case they would soon find out the way to prevent 

 them*. 



This definite minimum penalty would also tend to meet the present tendency of 

 boiler-owners to seek to purchase indemnities from Insurance Companies in the 

 event of explosions, rather than competent inspection to prevent these catas- 

 trophes, since, if the penalty were made sufficiently high, it would pay an insu- 

 rance company as well to make inspections and prevent explosions as to adopt 

 comparatively little inspection, permit occasional if not frequent explosions, and 

 pay compensation. As pointed out last year at Liverpool, the principle of steam- 

 boiler insurance by joint-stock companies does not, under the influence of com- 



* Steam-users, however, should be exempted from penalty in those eases of explosion 

 resulting from the direct intention of some evil-disposed person, for which the user could 

 not be lield responsible, and which might be regarded as an act of conspu-acy, intrigue, 

 or plot. 



