view to controlling the agreements made; it took the form of placing a duty on the employer to register them, empowering the court to enforce a penalty for failure to do so, and rendering them, if unregistered, unavailable as a defense to future claim for weekly payments.

Appeals.

The creation of a special court (two county-court judges and one permanent judge) to hear appeals on both law and fact, with appeals therefrom to both the court of appeals and the House of Lords, was suggested by Mr. Ruegg, in order to obviate the delay of appeals, and bring the different county court decisions more into harmony. The committee, however, recommended that no appeal be allowed on questions of fact, and no change be made except in the direction of unification of decisions on law, by permitting appeal on law to the House of Lords from both Scotland and Ireland, the chief dispute on fact being as to serious and willful misconduct, which was dealt with by the arbitrator. Greater facility of appeal would, they believed, add to delay and expense.

Doctors.

As the clauses of the act dealing with doctors (first schedule (3), (11), and second schedule (13) made provision for calling in the official medical referee in arbitration proceedings only after the other medical testimony had been heard, practically no use was made of him, nor was he much used when a review of compensation being paid was contemplated, as then it was only optional with the workman to go to him at his own expense. The committee therefore recommended that the medical referce should be used at a much earlier stage; that after the examination by the employer's doctor, the result should be communicated to the workman, in order that the workman might then be examined by his own doctor, and if a dispute existed, it should then and there be submitted to the medical referee before the disputed case goes to court, and that his decision should be final for any subsequent proceedings. One modification, however, was suggested for new accidents, namely, of leaving to the discretion of the registrar, after the reports of both the doctors of the employer and the workman had been filed with him, the question of using the medical referee.

It was thought advisable to leave the judge his power of summoning the medical referee to sit with him as assessor in the actual trial if a case reached the court.

It was further suggested that the medical referee should have the duty of giving employment certificates as to aged, infirm, or maimed persons for their special rate of compensation, which the committee had recommended.

As to the position of the medical referee himself, it was strongly urged that he should be a public officer rather than a medical man in practice, paid by salary, not by fees. In other words, a civil servant in the permanent civil service - one to act for each district, and to prevent making him a partisan by his employment either by one side or the other, that he should have his salary paid by the State.

The committee found that where the organization of the master and men was most complete there was the least amount of litigation, the workmen who had no organization to resort to necessarily having to call in the assistance of lawyers. They concluded that authoritative decisions being necessary the actual litigation produced by the act had been very small, and they felt that providing more effective machinery for settling doubtful questions and increasing the functions of the medical referee would further reduce it.

From the official figures of the proportion of cases that reach the courts, it will be seen that in the home-office statistics for 1904 it is stated that even in

cases of death (including cases finally settled out of court, and also those in court solely to apportion benefits among benficiaries) not 25 per cent came in anyway before the courts, while probably less than 1 per cent of incapacity cases did.

Compensation Payable - The Beneficiaries.

As to the persons entitled to receive compensation, though the definition of workman in the act was wide (covering all employes, whether in manual labor or otherwise, etc.), the committee recommended the inclusion of brother and sister in the beneficiaries, in addition to descendants and ancestors (i. e., by English definition of dependents). This was opposed by employers, who said it would tend to increase their difficulty, in that they now had to pay compensation exceeding what was necessary for the support of dependents, as, for instance, to pay a father earning good wages for the death of a son, provided as a fact the son contributed slightly to the family fund.

Aliens killed or injured within the United Kingdom have the same right of recovery (as have their beneficiaries while resident also) that British subjects have under the act. The commitee, however, recommended that the act be made not to extend to beneficiaries who are non-resident aliens, or to beneficiaries who are non-resident British subjects, so as to obviate difficulty in determining the Fability involved.

Death Benefits.

The committee found little criticism, when the deceased left persons wholly dependent, of the amount of the limits payable - minimum £150 ($730), maximum £200 ($1,460)—and concluded they had been found satisfactory in practice, and though they found some complaint from employers of decisions as to what constituted partial dependency and awards that disregarded consideration of whether such dependency was for necessaries or not, they concluded that no change in that definition was desirable.

Incapacity Benefits.

Interpretation of the courts as to what constituted average weekly earnings resulted at one time in excluding all casual labor, through the difficulty of reaching an average for a man employed spasmodically, casual labor covering not only men employed for a job, but large classes, like dock labor. Although the House of Lords reversed this decision, the committee recommended that the duty of "estimating" the injured man's own earnings should be placed upon the judge, guided somewhat by the standard of the district for like employment (as provided by the employers' liability act of 1880), instead of taking the district standard of wages alone, though the latter would be a simpler method. They also recommended an amendment to base it on the net and not on the gross earnings, as the latter often included pay for helpers, tools, etc.

Lump-Sum Payments.

Evidence submitted showing the squandering and loss of lump sums paid to widows and the advantage to them and to children of weekly payments in lieu of lump sums, as well as evidence showing the cost to the employer in getting valid releases, led the committee to recommend more elasticity in the powers conferred on the arbitrator in this regard under first schedule (6) by payment of the money into court by the employer and granting the arbitrator a voice in the method of distribution. They recommended that the mode of payment be settled in each case by the county court judge, with power to reduce the amount of any weekly payment to a widow on remarriage, neglect of children,

etc., and to decide on the amount, time, and mode of payments to beneficiaries other than the widow, using the office of the county court as the machinery for that purpose whether the amount and compensation was settled by agreement or otherwise.

Official County Court Returns.

The official returns of cases under the workmen's compensation acts, dealt with by county court judges, and their arbitrators in England and Wales, show that in the six years, 1899 to 1904, the average award for deaths where there were dependents varied from £163 8s. 9d. ($795.37) to £188 7s. 7d. ($916.75); for total incapacity, from 10s. 11d. to 12s. 2d. ($2.66 to $2.96) per week, and for partial incapacity, from 9s. 2d. to 10s. 9d. ($2.23 to $2.62) per week, while in 1894 the average lump-sum award for incapacity was £34 12s. 8d. ($168.54), there being in that year 105 lump-sum against 650 weekly-payment awards.

Minors.

Both employers and workmen agreed that one-half wages paid to minors permanently injured had proved to be often insufficient compensation. Proposals were made to consider, in fixing compensation, the full wages earned by the highest-grade workmen in the same employ; to fix a higher scale than onehalf wages-say full wages; to fix a minimum of 10s. ($2.43), with power to increase that on reaching 21 years of age. The committee recommended fixing a maximum and leaving it to the discretion of the judge to assess an amount up to that maximum.

Old Men and Maimed and Diseased Persons.

The committee found from extended evidence of both employers and workmen that the acts had largely increased the difficulty already existing of old men getting and retaining employment. They found further that employers were being compelled to discharge persons maimed, as, for instance, one-eyed men, and to refuse to re-employ them after accident. While the case of Lysons v. Knowles (1 Q. B., 780; 69 L. J. Q. B., 449; 82 L. T., 189), decided by the House of Lords, finally settled that casual labor was not excluded from the act, it was felt, too, that this decision would further operate to bar old men from employment.

This the committee considered to be such a serious drawback to the other advantages of the act that they recommended amendments to be made enabling employers to hire such persons upon special terms as to compensation for accidents, and they suggested an age limit of 60 as desirable if hale, and under that age if infirm or maimed, to which the amendment should apply, with a minimum compensation of 5s. $1.22) a week for injury and £25 ($121.66) for death.

Commutation of Benefits.

The evidence showed that in practice the employer's right under first schedule (13) to apply for a redemption by arbitration of weekly payments by a lump sum was rarely used; that few agreements for commutation were registered even under second schedule (8), but that great numbers of unregistered commutations had actually taken place by voluntary agreement. The latter permitted the defense of accord and satisfaction to subsequent claim for weekly payments. These commutations were often made at figures very much below what the weekly benefits justified, and in many cases were improvident and also oppressive settlements, brought about by improper pressure on the

workmen. Though it was found undoubtedly advantageous to workmen, as well as masters, that commutation should be possible, the committee said that better control over it should be adopted. They considered that the evidence showed it would be disadvantageous to give the workman a right to demand a commutation, as likely to increase the evils attendant on lump-sum payment generally, but in order to render the principle of compulsory commutation workable, if demanded by the masters, the committee recommended the adoption of a maximum limit on the amount of commutation of £500 ($2,433), and urged, after making the obligation to register commutations stringent by rendering an unregistered agreement inoperative, and so forth, also the giving of discretion to the registrar as to registering, and to the judge as to reopening an entry within six months for fraud or undue influence.

Review of Award.

The difficulty arose of determining, under first schedule (2) and (12), when and to what extent the compensation granted should be reduced.

From the workmen's standpoint, as they got only one-half of their loss to begin with, it was advocated and decided by some judges that this one-half wage compensation allowance should not be reduced until they could again earn full wages, and that no reduction of compensation should take place so long as what they earned, while partially incapacitated, added to the compensation allowed, was not more than their full wages before the accident. Other judges divided the loss, holding that the difference between their partial earnings and their full wages should be divided, the employer bearing one-half the loss and the workman bearing one-half. The committee recommended a more explicit clause adopting the latter mode, thus making the workman share the loss with the cmployer.

The test of earning capacity had proved to be another difficulty, as, for instance, to determine whether a man who had lost one eye was incapacitated, and so forth. It was suggested that in the highly organized trades something approaching a tariff for injuries might ultimately be agreed on, apart from parliamentary enactment. The committee thought earning capacity, not only at the same kind of work as before the accident, but at any kind of work, should suffice, and strongly recommended clearer enactment. They advocated bringing the medical representatives of employer and workman together at an earlier stage, with the official medical referee as arbiter.

As to increase of weekly payments, it was found that in practice the maximum payment had been so universally allowed that the provision for increase had become unimportant.

Notice of Accident and Claim.

The requirement in section 2 (1) for notice of accident as soon as practicable after the happening thereof caused laxness in practice and resulted in employers' complaints that it failed to attain the object of enabling them to verify the facts and ascertain the nature and extent of the injury. The committee recommended a limit of six days for notice. As to the claim for compensation, the House of Lords had decided that a mere demand was sufficient to entitle the workman at any time thereafter to institute proceedings. The committee recommended that a written notice of claim be required in three months after the accident. After the expiry of these periods, however, they recommended that leave be given to the workman to file a sworn statement before the registrar showing sufficient reason for the necessary steps not having been taken within the limited time, that notice of this action be served on the employer, and if

the latter should object to waiving notice that the registrar should refer the matter for decision of the judge.

Contracting Out.

As to the effect on mutual benefit and friendly societies, the committee found that where these were supported jointly by the workmen and employers such schemes had been practically put an end to by the act, except in those cases where schemes were framed under section 3 of the act, through the discontinuance of employers' contributions. They found, however, that in some cases voluntary arrangements continued unaffected by the act, where employers were already providing benefits on a more liberal scale than the act, and that workmens benefit clubs, which were entirely supported by the workmen, continued. There was evidence submitted that through these benefit funds, and so forth, workmen sometimes received more when disabled than if working.

The committee, in considering the contracting out of the act by contracting into definite schemes under section 3, found that, owing to the expense and trouble such schemes entail on both employers and workmen, no extensive use had been made of the section, and they also found that under those schemes which had been certified under the section, the actual payments exceeded the maximum that the act would have paid by 75 per cent, 65 per cent of that excess being pay for the first two weeks not covered by the act. Both workmen's and employers' representatives testified that the schemes, being based on the active cooperation of and being jointly administered by masters and workmen, brought special advantages over the act provisions, such as permitting provision for minor accidents, allowances for old age, and annuities instead of lump sums. They testified that the schemes led to prevention of accident, to litigation being reduced to a minimum, and to good feeling being promoted.

Mr. J. D. Stuart Sim, the chief registrar of friendly societies, characterizes section 3 as a splendid opportunity for regulating the relations between workmen and masters in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and on a sound financial basis; while Sir George Livesey, the chairman of the extensive South Metropolitan Gas Company, has succeeded in demonstrating the practicability of such a regulation in his ten years' operation of a successful copartnership årrangement with all employes, one feature of which is his jury system, namely, having all accidents in his plants submitted to a jury of workmen, resulting in a large, reduction of accidents, which feature was specially commended by the committee, who thoroughly indorsed the fact that the above advantages from the section existed, and recommended that it remain practically unchanged.

The following is a summary of receipts and expenditures of workmen's compensation schemes authorized by the registrar of friendly societies, under the workmen's compensation acts of 1897 and 1900, for the seven years from 1898 to 1905: