The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-06-12 00:00:00

A SPEECH BY THE EMPEROR OF
JAPAN.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.

This bill, originally introduced in the Noise of Com-
mons by Mr. Dodson, has been reprinted with the
Government amendments. Personal injury caused by
reasons of (1) any defect in the plant, machinery, &c.,
of the employers; (2) negligence ed any person in the
service of the employer who has superintendence en-
trusted to him; (3) negligence of any person to whose
orders the workman at the time of the injury was
bound to, and die, conform ; (4) to any act or
omission of any person in the service done or made in
obedience to the employer's rules or bye-laws, or in
obedience to particular instructions given by any
person delegated with the authority of the employer,
will give the right to the injured workman, or his re-
presentatives, to recover compensation.
The Bill proceeds to enact that a workman shall not
be entitled under this Act to any right of compensa-
tion or remedy against the employer in any of the
following cases :
(1.) Under the before-mentioned sub-section one, unless
the defect therein mentioned arose from the negligence of
the employers, or of some person in the service of the em-
ployer, and entrusted by him with the duty of seeing that
the works, machinery, plant, or stock were in proper condi-
tion.
(2.) Under the fourth sub-section, unless the injury re-
sulted from some impropriety or defect in the rules, bye-
laws, or instructions therein mentioned.
(3.) In any case where the workmen materially contributed
by his own negligence to cause his injury.
(4.) In any case where the workman knew of the defect or
negligence which caused his injury, and failed within a
a reasonable time to give, or cause to be given, information
thereof to the employer or some person superior to himself
in the service of the employer, having no reasonable cause to
believe that the employer or such superior were aware of the
said defect or negligence.
The amount of compensation recoverable for per-
sonal injury to a workman under this Act must not
exceed such sum as may be found to be equivalent to
the estimated earnings, during the three years pre-
ceding the injury, of a person in the same grade em-
ployed in the like employment and in the district in
which the workman is employed at the time of the
injury. An action for recovery of compensation will
not be maintainable unless notice that it will be
brought is given within six weeks, and it is commenced
within six months from its occurrence. The following
are the definitions for the purposes of the Act, "un-
less the context otherwise requires "
The expression "person who has superintendence entrusted
to him," means a person whose sole or principal duty is that
of superintendence, and who is not ordinarily engaged in
manual labour. "Employer" includes a body corporate or
unincorporate. "Workman 'means a person to whom the
Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, applies.

Upon the above proposed Bill The Times has published
the following letters :
--

Sir,—Asa large employer of labour, I have naturally
read with great interest the article in The Times of to-
day on the subject of the Employer's Liability Bill,
the remarks made by the deputation waiting yester-
day upon the Prime Minister, and also the able letter
from Air. Charles Markham.

I venture, therefore, to make a suggestion for the
solution of this great difficulty, adopting as the basis
the idea emanating from the observations made by Sir
Edward Watkin and Mr. Baxter.

The suggestion I desire to make is that the Govern-
ment should create a workmen's trust fund. To this
fund all workmen should be required to contribute a
weekly sum, and the employers also should be required
to make a payment for every workman employed, the
payments in all cases to be collected and paid over by
the employers to the Government. The Government
would then afterwards control this fund, and by means
of a Board, or in any other way they may think best,
deal with all cases of accident—fatal or otherwise
and, unfortunately, accidents more or less severe must
always be associated with large undertakings and in-
dustrial enterprise. The Government would then ap-
portion or allow what they think right, and subse-
quently when necessary control the expenditure as
may be best for the families of the unfortunate reci-
pients, and this need not in any way prevent the men
if they feel disposed to subscribe to a separate fund for
their trades' unions or other purposes.

As more particularly affecting the object of the
Bill, I would suggest that the Board proposed to be
formed should be empowered to claim damages if
negligence is clear and apparent to them, and not
lealie it, as now proposed, for the power to be exer-
cised (as too often would otherwise be the case) as a
lever for extortion and for promoting vexatious pro-
ceedings. To employers of labour, this plan, to my
mind, offers no reasonable objection. Employers
should, I think, contribute to the fund, and certainly
they should be held liable if they fail in their duty.
To the country at large the benefit would be great,
and there would be some hope that the trade of this
country would return. It can only do so when the
working classes, of whom years ago the country was
so proud, are again left unfettered and free, and when I
they again believe that the employers are their true
friends, working in harmony and hand in hand
together.—l beg to remain, Sir, your obedient ser-
vant, JOHN AIRD.
37, Great George-street, Westminster, London, June 3.

Sir,—lf Parliament should enact that employers are
to be liable to compensate their workmen for the
injuries sustained by accidents which they cannot
personally prevent, a very serious change will affect
the mining interests of this country. It will become
absolutely necessary for mine-owners to insure the
lives and limbs of their workmen. Accidents in mines
result in most cases either from unforeseen causes or
from the recklessness of the workitien themselves. If,
therefore, the mine-owner cannot protect himself by
fulfilling statutory requirements or by discharging the
duties imposed upon him by the common law, he must
have recourse to insurance indemnity. The occupation
of a miner—more especially, of course, that of a
collier—is dangerous; hence the premiums to be paid
for insurance must be high. The amount of such pre-
miums must form part of the working expenses of the
mine, and the sum divisible between profit to the
owner and wages to the workmen must be to that ex-
tent reduced. The result will be that the premiums
must be taken in whole or in part from the wages fund
of each undertaking. _ _

I sincerely hope that this consequence will be fairly
considered before any such change in the law as is
now proposed takes place. The distinction between
the relation of employers and employed in the case of
railways and in the case of mines is so obvious that it
is hardly necessary to state it. In the one case acci-
dents usually happen from causes easily preventible ;
in the latter case they can usually neither be foreseen
nor prevented.
No chanse in the law, therefore, ought to be made
without this distinction being clearly perceived, and
its consequence being properly considered.—l have
the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
W. A. LINDSAY.
17, Cromwell-road, London, June 3.