bility became general and such actions as were brought were usually unsuccessful.

That act cannot be said to have been successful. The proof of negligence has been found extremely difficult, and in a vast proportion of the cases of accident no negligence of the nature required by the act in fact existed, or at all events could be proved; and even if there were prima facie evidence of negligence, the risks of litigation were most serious both for employer and employed. . . . Regarded, therefore, as a means of obtaining compensation for injury by accident with a reasonable degree of certainty, the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 must be considered to have been a failure.5

Realizing the inadequate nature of the act of 1880, Mr. Asquith introduced a bill in Parliament in 1893 to modify still further the law of employers' liability. The bill provided for the abolition of the fellow-servant doctrine, for the repeal of any limitation on the amount of damages, and for the prohibition of contracting out. It left operative the doctrines of contributory negligence and of assumption of risk (except as modified in 1880). The bill was passed by the Commons but the House of Lords insisted on an amendment permitting contracting out under certain conditions. This amendment the Commons refused

Report of the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation, 1904, P. II.

The scheme of compensation to be substituted by contract was to be approved by the Board of Trade and to provide for the compensation of all accidents, the employer contributing at least one-fourth of the cost.

to accept and the bill failed to pass, but its partial success is significant of the general trend of opinion.

Workmen's Compensation, the Law of 1897.– Finally, in 1897, the Conservatives introduced a bill which became the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 and which was the first law of the sort in an English-speaking country. Mr. Asquith, of the opposition, admitted the justice of the principle of compensation as opposed to the further modification of employers' liability which his earlier bill had proposed. It is interesting to contrast the statement made in support of this bill that "sound economic doctrine requires that the employer shall take all the ordinary and extraordinary risks involved in the carrying on of his industry" with the statement sixty years earlier in the case of Priestly vs. Fowler that "principles of justice and good sense require that a workman should take on himself all the ordinary risks of his employment."

The law was limited in its application to employment in, or about, a railway, factory, mine, quarry, engineering work, or building work exceeding thirty feet in height. The employer was required to pay compensation for all accidents except those due to the "serious and willful misconduct" of the employee and those which did not cause over two weeks' disability. The employee could recover under the law of negligence only if he could prove personal and willful neglect on the part of the employer.

Benefits for the injured and their dependents were provided as follows:

Compensation for death:

To those totally dependent, three years' wages, to be not less than £150 nor more than £300.

To those partially dependent, a reasonable payment according to the degree of their dependency, not to exceed three years' wages nor £300.

Reasonable medical and burial expenses, not to exceed £10, if there are no dependents.

Compensation for disability:

Fifty per cent of wages after the second week, not exceeding £1, for total disability with a reduced amount for partial disability.

It was required that payment of death benefits be made in lump sums which might be invested by an arbitrator to prevent squandering; and that incapacity benefits be paid weekly with privilege of commutation, subject to a similar investment provision, after six months.

Disputes arising regarding the payment of compensation must be settled by a committee representative of the parties in interest, by an arbitrator selected by the two parties, or, if no agreement could be reached on one of the first two methods, by the judge of the county court who should act as an arbitrator or might appoint someone to act in his place. Appeal could be made from a decision only on questions of law.

Contracting out was permitted by the new law provided the workman was not a pecuniary loser, and

provided the contract for other compensation was not a condition of hire. The Registrar of Friendly Societies was authorized to determine the adequacy of any proposed substitute for the compensation provided by law.

Later Acts.-The Act of 1897 was regarded as something of an experiment subject to extension and correction in the future. In 1900 its provisions were extended to cover agricultural employment and in 1903 a special committee was appointed to recommend amendments and to determine whether its operation should be further extended. This committee reported in 1904, and in 1906 an amending statute was passed which extended the principle to every employment, covering all workers earning £250 or less, with the exception of casual employees and out-workers.7 The act of 1906 is still in force and is, in essentials, the same as the act of 1897. Some important changes were made, however: certain trade diseases are now covered; the waiting period was reduced to one week and compensation is paid from the date of the accident if disability lasts over two weeks; the defense of "serious and willful misconduct' was removed where the accident resulted in death or in serious and permanent disablement; the privilege of compensation was extended to a greater number of dependent relatives; maximum benefits for minors were raised to full wages (later becoming one-half of the wages they would have earned as their wages increased); the restriction of compensation to accidents occurring “on,

'The wage limitation does not apply to employees engaged wholly in manual labor.

in, or about" the employer's premises was removed; and more careful provision was made for the commutation of periodical payments.

Such have been developments in foreign countries and it is safe to say that nowhere is there any probability of a reaction against the compensation principle. Defects there are, but they are not fundamental. Many improvements must be made in method and in details and there will always be unsatisfactory features connected with the operation of any law, but workmen's compensation is thoroughly established and has become, especially in those countries where it was early adopted, a recognized essential in the governmental and industrial fabric.

REFERENCES

FRANKEL and DAWSON. "Workingmen's Insurance in Europe," Charities Publication Committee, New York (1910). Chaps. I-VI, XVII.

DAWSON, W. H. "Social Insurance in Germany, 18831911." Unwin, London (1912). Chaps. I and IV. Workmen's Insurance and Compensation Systems in Europe, 24th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor. Washington (1909).

Workmen's Compensation Laws of the United States and Foreign Countries (1916). Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 203. Washington (1914).

Report of the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation. London (1904).