protected by law from exercising hard work during pregnancy, and
from various other influences likely to be injurious. But this
law is evaded in practice, because it provides no compensatory
indemnity for the woman. An attempt, in 1899, to amend the law by
providing for such indemnity was rejected by the people.

In Belgium and Holland there are laws against women working
immediately after confinement, but no indemnity is provided, so
that employers and employed combine to evade the law. In France
there is no such law, although its necessity has often been
emphatically asserted (see, e.g., Salvat, _La Dépopulation de la
France_, Thèse de Lyon, 1903).

In England it is illegal to employ a woman "knowingly" in a
work-shop within four weeks of the birth of her child, but no
provision is made by the law for the compensation of the woman
who is thus required to sacrifice herself to the interests of the
State. The woman evades the law in tacit collusion with her
employers, who can always avoid "knowing" that a birth has taken
place, and so escape all responsibility for the mother's
employment. Thus the factory inspectors are unable to take
action, and the law becomes a dead letter; in 1906 only one
prosecution for this offense could be brought into court. By the
insertion of this "knowingly" a premium is placed on ignorance.
The unwisdom of thus beforehand placing a premium on ignorance
has always been more or less clearly recognized by the framers of
legal codes even as far back as the days of the Ten Commandments
and the laws of Hamurabi. It is the business of the Court, of
those who administer the law, to make allowance for ignorance
where such allowance is fairly called for; it is not for the