was a serious one, as he had been robbing his fellow workmen. The least they could do was to send him to prison for two months. The section of the Act (from the "Handy-Book of the Labour Laws ") under which Charles Stretch was convicted was quoted by the prosecution.— Extract from the Annual Report of the National Hosiery Federation, 1894.

CHAPTER XII.

FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS ACT, 1875.

[38 & 39 VICT., CH. 24.]

ANOTHER Act which is often found useful in prosecuting dishonest officers of societies is the above, which enacts:

"1. That if any clerk, officer, or servant, or any person employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer, or servant, shall wilfully and with intent to defraud destroy, alter, mutilate, or falsify any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or shall wilfully and with intent to defraud make or concur in making any false entry in, or omit or alter, or concur in omitting or altering, any material particular from or in any such book, or any document or account, then in every such case the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to be kept in penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.

"2. It shall be sufficient in any indictment under this Act to allege a general intent to defraud, without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded." *

* As the officers of trade unions are paid officers, the provisions of the above Act should be borne in mind in the event of a prosecution where the society is not registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876.

CHAPTER XIII.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 1880.

It was generally thought, when the question of Employers' Liability for injuries to their servants or employés, sustained by them in the course of their employment, was before Parliament, that the amendment of the law as proposed would entail ruin upon the employing class; and that, therefore, not only was it inexpedient to so amend the law as to augment their liability and increase their responsibility, but that any such enactment would have the effect of defeating its own ends, by reason of the stringency of its provisions. The House of Lords, representing in an intensified form all the timidity of the capitalist class, made the Act temporary, by restricting its operation to a period of seven years. Since 1887 the Act has been continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The Act has now been in force sufficiently long to judge of its effects; on the whole it has worked without serious friction, and the strain has not been excessive on the capitalists of the country. Cases of individual hardship may have occurred, but they have not been many, though oftener to workmen than to

employers; and we very much question whether even employers would care to make any decided effort to repeal the law, though they may object to its amendment.

The agitation in favour of extending the liability of employers in the event of injury to their workpeople, during their employment, was first commenced by the miners, and was carried on at their expense up to the year 1869 or 1870; the late member for Stafford-Mr. Alexander Macdonald-being their trusted representative in this and other matters. When the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades' Union Congress was constituted, the duties formerly undertaken solely by the miners' representatives, devolved upon that Committee, and they at once proceeded with their task. A Bill was drafted and introduced into Parliament, based upon a Bill previously prepared by the National Association of Miners, which measure was drafted by Mr. R. S. (now Mr. Justice) Wright; Mr. Walter Morrison, Mr. J. Hinde Palmer, and Mr. Andrew Johnstone taking charge of it in the House of Commons. On the proposal that it be read a second timeAugust 7th, 1872-the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, afterwards Lord Carlingford, promised that the Government would introduce a measure, having similar objects, during the then next session, 1873. That promise was not redeemed, and the agitation continued without intermission until the final passing of the Act of 1880.

Apparently, prior to 1837, the liability of employers, in cases of injury to their workpeople, was precisely the same as to other persons not in