This Act was, however, of very little value to the workmen. It was extremely hard to prove negligence and, even if negligence was obvious, the risks of litigation were very serious for both parties. In comparison with the number of accidents, the number of cases in which proceedings were taken was very small, and the majority of the decisions were, moreover, unfavourable to the workman. Further, many employers evaded liability by making a renunciation of the right to compensation under the Employers' Liability Act a condition of employment.

Various attempts to amend the Employers' Liability Act were unsuccessful. Even a Bill introduced in 1893 by the then Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), the chief object of which was the abolition of the doctrine of common employment and a limitation of the maxim "volenti non fit injuria," had to be withdrawn. On the Second Reading, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain took up the position that all industrial accidents, except those caused by serious misconduct, should be regarded as phenomena inherent to industry, and the cost of compensating them should be added to the cost of production. This idea was applied in part in the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, in the passing of which Mr. Chamberlain took a prominent part.

The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, which came into force on July 1, 1898, placed the English law relating to accidents on quite a new footing. Although the German Acts of the eighties exercised great influence on English legislators, yet the system of compulsory insurance was left out of consideration, owing to the fact that the custom of voluntary insurance of workmen had already taken firm root in England.

In general, the principle of liability to pay compensation for injuries was extensively applied, " contracting out" in the form which had been usual hitherto being prohibited-i.e. all possibility of evading or limiting the liability was precluded, except under conditions which ensured to the workman advantages equivalent to or greater than those conferred by the Act, The state of affairs brought about by the three limitations of the common law previously cited, was completely done away with, as far as the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act was concerned.

An experimental character was claimed for the Bill by the responsible Ministers. Its application was, for this reason, limited to the most dangerous. occupations—namely, railways, factories, mines, quarries, buildings over 30 feet high, or in the construction of which mechanical power was used, and engineering works. In this way about six million members of the working classes were brought under the Act.

Accidents caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman, and those resulting in incapacity lasting less than two weeks, were not compensated under the Act. On the other hand, no higher liability was incurred by the employer when the accident was due to his negligence or fault, than when he was quite free from blame.

The amount of compensation payable was fixed as follows:-The dependants of a deceased workman received an amount equal to three years' wages, or 156 times the average weekly wages of the workman before the accident, such compensation not to be less than £150, or more than £300. If, however, the dependants were only partly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, a proportional reduction was to be made in the compensation. If total incapacity resulted from the accident, half the weekly wages, but not more than £1, was payable each week, beginning from the third week after the accident during the total period of incapacity, for the whole lifetime of the workman, if necessary. After six months, the employer (but not the workman)

might require the weekly payments to be commuted for a lump sum. In the case of partial disablement, temporary or permanent, the difference between the earnings before the accident and the average earnings after the accident were to be taken into account; in such cases it was at the discretion of the courts to decide the amount of compensation. Thus the English Act only allowed half the former wages to the injured workman, whilst other Acts go somewhat further in this respect. Further, the workman had a preferential right in case of the bankruptcy of the employer. Even in the case of subcontracting the liability of the principal was maintained; the workman or his dependants might proceed against either principal or sub-contractor, but could receive the legal compensation from only one of the two.

The provisions by which the employer might be relieved from his liability, but only under conditions placing the workman in as favourable a situation as he would have occupied under the Act, are very important. The employer might agree with his workman upon a scheme of compensation, subject to the approval of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Chief Registrar had to ascertain that the workmen were not placed in a less favourable position under the scheme than under the Act, and if there were no objections to make, to register the scheme (in the same way that Friendly Societies are registered). Such a scheme had to remain in force for at least five years. No workman could be compelled to join a scheme as a condition of hiring. The Chief Registrar was empowered to supervise the execution of these compensation schemes, receive complaints and revoke a certificate, if necessary, and give an account of the compensation schemes in his annual report. The remaining provisions of the Act relate to procedure in case of accidents, lodging of notices, means of paying out lump sums and weekly payments, examinations by qualified medical practitioners and proceedings in case of dispute, and need not be further detailed here.

Only three years later the provisions of the principal Act of 1897 were extended to agricultural occupations, including horticulture, forestry, livestock and bee-keeping (Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, which came into force on July 13, 1901). By this Act another million members of the working classes received the benefit of compensation in case of accidents, which henceforward extended to about half the working population of the United Kingdom.

Legislation did not, however, cease at this point, and under the Balfour Ministry, the Home Secretary (Mr. Akers-Douglas) undertook to further extend the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was thought well to inquire into the working of the earlier Acts, so that well-considered proposals could be laid before Parliament. To this end a Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation was appointed in 1903. The duty of this Committee was to inquire :

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

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

The Committee held 37 meetings, under the chairmanship of Sir Kenelm E. Digby, between January 12 and June 15, 1904, and addressed 9,500. questions to 76 witnesses, representative of employers and workmen; the opinions of employers' associations and Trade Unions were also invited.

The Committee formulated the six following questions:

(a) Have these Acts in their operation been unduly productive of litigation? If so, to what causes can this result be attributed, and how far can the evil be mitigated?

(b) Have they conduced to prevent the occurrence of accidents in the industries to which they have been applied?

(c) How have they affected accident or benefit funds?

(d) Have they imposed, or are they likely to impose, any undue burden on the employer?

(e) Has their operation, on the whole, been beneficial to the workman ?

(f) Under what conditions have the Acts operated most beneficially? In view of the assertions of Mr. R. Bell, M.P., Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (then 60,000 members), Mr. Cummings, representing the Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders' Society (then 49,000 members), Mr. Stevenson, Secretary of the United Builders' Labourers' Union (then 10,000 members), and many other Trade Union Secretaries, representing over 250,000 workmen, and also of employers and insurance officers, the first question had to be answered by a decided negative; for the number of cases where legal proceedings were taken was extraordinarily small compared to the number of cases settled by amicable means. Further, it was asserted that the number of disputed cases could be still further reduced by amending various provisions, and the opinion was expressed that the functions of medical referees should be extended.

As regards means for preventing accidents, it could not be confidently asserted that the more frequent adoption of such means during the preceding 10 years was to be attributed to the Act. Indeed, it was stated in certain quarters that the insurance of employers against their liability and the greater probability of procuring compensation created by the Act, had the effect of inducing greater carelessness on both sides. Nevertheless, opinions were not wanting which attributed a beneficial effect to the Act in this respect also.

The Committee found that the Act had had an unfavourable effect upon existing accident funds to which the employers contributed, but that it had had no adverse effect upon funds maintained by the workmen alone. The system of joint contributions was maintained in the contracting-out schemes allowed under §3 of the Act of 1897, and in some cases where voluntary arrangements were continued the workmen had no reason to exchange the advantages conferred upon them for the rights guaranteed under the Act, so long as the employers continued to pay compensation on a more liberal scale than that of the Act. Most mutual accident insurance funds had, however, ceased to exist as employers could not be prevailed upon,, in view of the burdens laid upon them, to continue to pay into these funds.

In order to obtain exact information respecting the distribution and the amount of the burdens imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, the Committee made inquiries of a number of mutual insurance societies founded by groups of employers, in order to meet the risks imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Acts of 1897 and 1900, and also of the most important insurance companies carrying on employers' liability business. The principal loss was, of course, still borne by the workman, who, besides his physical injuries, was liable to lose, even in the most favourable cases, at least one-half of his former wages, and in many industries the burden which would otherwise have fallen upon the employer, was transferred directly to the consumer. In the coal trade the expenses incurred for accidents under the Compensation Act had risen from 36d. per ton in 1899 to 64d. per ton in

1

1903; reckoned per £100 of wages, the cost was 10'4s. and 18'50s. in the two respective years. In other industries similar increases could be shown, but the relative amounts were not so high. Summing up the opinions of the mutual insurance societies, the Committee was able to state :—

(1) That hitherto the pecuniary burden imposed by the Acts upon the employer has not been excessive;

(2) That the burden tends to increase, especially in consequence of the rapidity at which claims are growing, and the burden which is necessarily imposed by the increasing number of permanent cases, and that the Act of 1897 has not been sufficiently long in operation to permit of any really trustworthy estimate being formed of the limits which this increase will ultimately reach;

(3) That if this last reference is well founded, the greatest caution is required before the personal liability already imposed by the Act on the employer is materially increased, especially by any legislation which may add to the indefiniteness and uncertainty of that liability, unless there are paramount reasons for the suggested change.

The Committee expressed the opinion that the mutual insurance societies performed very important functions, and, if further extended and better organised, would be able to solve many difficulties which had arisen out of the Act, to the advantage of employers and workmen. The insurance companies, on the other hand, were obliged to attend, in the first place, to their dividends.

The question whether the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 and 1900, had been of benefit to the workman had, on the whole, to be answered in the affirmative. Before the Act came into force the whole burden, so to speak, of industrial accidents fell on the workman, unless, as was often the case, assistance was provided by the generosity of the employers in the form of direct support, or in the form of benefits from accident funds to which the employers contributed. The Act had now replaced such isolated cases of personal relations between employers and workmen by a purely business relation, leading, however, to good results. The complaints brought forward by the workmen related to certain hardships which had arisen, and, in some cases, to the fact that persons injured, though guiltless of causing the accident by any contributory fault, and their dependants, could receive only half their former wages. Attention was also drawn to the danger of the employer being unable to pay, or of its being impossible for the workman to take proceedings against him; it was maintained that the Act needed urgently to be supplemented and extended in this direction so as to provide a surer guarantee that the compensation would be forthcoming. Finally, it was also pointed out that the Compensation Acts had essentially increased the difficulties experienced by old men of obtaining employment, or of retaining their situations. Means should be found of allowing such persons to be employed without the employer incurring so high a liability to pay compensation. Five shillings a week was suggested as the minimum compensation for such persons in case of injury, and £25 for their dependants, if death resulted from the accident.

The last question was answered by the Committee in the sense that in industries where the employers and workmen were well organised the number of actions was smallest, and the greatest satisfaction with the working of the Act prevailed. In unorganised industries the difficulties were considerably greater. Unorganised workmen did not know where to obtain advice and assistance, and ran the risk of losing the advantages offered by the Acts. In the case of small employers who, through ignorance or improvidence, had neglected to insure, the position of the workman was even more unfavourable :

BULLETIN

3

he ran the risk of being involved in costly proceedings or losing his claim through the bankruptcy of the employer. The class that was most unfavourably situated was that of the casual labourers who had no permanent and regular employment.

It is impossible here to give all the proposals of the Committee which were surpassed by the legislation in 1906. The deliberations on the Bill introduced by the new Government (in charge of the Home Secretary, Mr. Gladstone) resulted in the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act of December 21, 1906, which came into force on July 1, 1907. (E.B. I., p. 18.)

This Act is a Consolidation Act, and repeals the earlier Acts. The principles underlying the old Acts remain unaltered. The employer is liable to pay compensation for accidents sustained by a workman arising out of and in the course of employment. The workman is free to claim compensation under the Act, or under the Employers' Liability Act, or at Common Law. The limitations of the common law, already done away with in the earlier Acts, are still excluded; contracting out," as practised in respect of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, is, as before, prohibited except under similar conditions as obtained under the Act of 1897, the relative amounts of compensation and the minimum and maximum payable to the dependants of a deceased workman, and the relative amount of the weekly payments in case of incapacity, are, with few exceptions, unaltered.

66

The most important innovations are the following :

(1) Occupations included under the Act. Contrary to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, the Act now applies to practically all industries and occupations. [See (13) Definitions.] Compensation is now payable for all accidents which arise out of and in the course of the employment wherever they occur.

(2) Period during which no compensation is payable. [§1 (2) (a)] If the disablement lasts less than two weeks, no compensation is payable in respect of the first week. The period during which no compensation is payable is thus reduced from two weeks to one, if the disablement lasts less than two weeks, and is abolished altogether in cases where the disablement lasts more than two weeks.

(3) Misconduct. [§1 (2) (c)] If the injured person is proved to have been guilty of serious and wiful misconduct, the compensation is now, nevertheless, payable if the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement. Under the old Acts such cases were excluded.

(4) Time limit for claims. [§2 (1) (b)] Claims for compensation must be made within six months of the date of the accident; but if it is proved that the failure to make the claim within the specified period is due to absence from the United Kingdom, such failure does not now bar the claim.

(5) Amount of compensation and contracting out schemes. [Schedule I. (1) (b)] Persons under 21 whose weekly wages are less than 20s. may, during total incapacity, be awarded as much as 100 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. of their average weekly earnings, but such award must not exceed 10s. a week. (Recommended by the Committee.)

[Schedule I. (2) (b)] If a workman is employed concurrently by more than one employer, the compensation is calculated on the basis of his total earnings under all his employers.

[$3 (1)] No contracting-out scheme may now be certified under §3 if it provides for contributions by the workmen, unless it confers benefits at least equivalent to these contributions in addtion to the benefits