The Act of 1897 came up for review before a departmental committee appointed for the purpose in 1903. Many of the rec ommendations of that committee (Report of Departmental Com mittee on Compensation for Injuries to Workmen, 1904, Cmd. 2,208) were embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, by which the Act of 1897 was repealed. In 1919 the departmental committee generally known as the Holman Gregory committee was appointed to report what alterations of the law were required "to remedy defects which experience has disclosed"; and "whether it would be desirable to establish a system of accident assurance under the control or supervision of the State." The committee re ported in 1920 (Report of Departmental Committee on Compen sation for Injuries to Workmen, 1920, Cmd. 816; Minutes of Evi dence, Cmd. 9o8 and 909). Post-war conditions were not favour able to the achievement of the whole of the scheme of reform recommended by the committee, but a good deal of it was embod ied in the amending Act of 1923. Finally, the consolidating Act of 1925 was passed and there the law must now be sought.
The Act of 1906 applied to the United Kingdom of Great Brit ain and Ireland. When the 1923 Act was passed the status of Ire land had changed. The present Act applies to England and Scot land only. It does not extend to Northern Ireland "except where otherwise expressly provided," and since the Irish Free State has dominion status it, of course, has its own legislation. Northern Ireland has passed an Act corresponding with the British Act. From the first the remedy by way of the Workmen's Com pensation Acts has, in Great Britain, been an alternative, and not an exclusive remedy. If circumstances are such that the Work men's Compensation Act applies, the injured workman or his representatives are not barred from bringing an action at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act if the evidence neces sary to support an action is forthcoming. The principle is laid down, however, that the employer is not to be liable to pay com pensation twice over in respect of the same accident.
mentioned, the expression "workman" is defined to include any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer whether by way of manual labour, clerical work or otherwise." The sweep of the Act was thus widened in 1906 so as to include not only the coal miner and the engineer, but also the clerk in the counting-house, the shop assistant and the general servant.
Yet there were still workers excluded from the protection of the Act. These cases are a result of the general rule of law that, in the absence of an intention indicated in the Statute the pre sumption is that Parliament does not design its Acts to operate beyond the territorial limits of Great Britain. A seaman on a British ship meeting with an accident when abroad would be out side the Acts; so with the crews of British aircraft, when outside Great Britain. Again, if the legal relationship between, say, a cab proprietor and his driver is that of bailor and bailee, the relationship, the basis of which is a contract of service, which is the fundamental test for inclusion in the Acts, is absent. To bring such cases within the Workmen's Compensation Acts specific enactment has accordingly been necessary.
By Whom Compensation Is Paid.—The liability to pay com pensation is imposed directly on the employer. It is not paid out of a fund to which the workman is himself a subscriber, as under national insurance. Nor does the employer's liability begin and end with the payment to a compensation fund, as in countries where there is a State scheme of workmen's compensation. Although in Great Britain insurance in respect of these risks is not compulsory, most employers do, in fact, transfer their lia bility to an insurance company.
What Injuries Are Within the Acts.—The law defining the liability of employers is as follows : If, in the employments to which the Act applies, "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation." It is quite true that this form of words has given rise to an unprecedented crop of litigation. Nevertheless, a simpler and more satisfactory formula appears to be hard to find, for the formula has remained unaltered to the present day. Furthermore, the British form of words has been generally adopt ed in the Workmen's Compensation statutes of the British domin ions and the United States, and in the Act recently passed by India the same formula appears.