The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—THIS DAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair soon after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Bridport Road, Folkestone to Barham
Downs Road, North Devon and Okehampton Railway,
Norwich Corporation, Ross Turnpike Trust, and Wycombe
Railway.

PETITIONS.
Petitions were presented by Mr. O'FERRALL, from the
county of Carlow, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill ;
by Mr. WILLIAMS, from Lambeth Vestry, against the
Parochial Assessment Bill; by Mr. ALcocri, Mr. TITE,
and others, from various places, against the Revised Code
on Education ; and by Mr. Alderman SALOMONS and Mr.
LOCKE, from Woolwich and Chelsea, against certain clauses
in the Metropolis Local Management Act Bill.
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION BILL.
Mr. AYRTON moved the second reading of this bill.
After going over the practice observed in the earlier stages
of legislation in questions relating to masters and work-
men, the hon. member referred to the first case on the
subject, which came before the Courts, at Westminster, in
1837, whic was an action brought by a workman for com-
pensation for injuries received in his master's service; but
which action, though the facts were all in favour of the
workman, failed. Ever since that time the Judges in West-
minster Hall had been endeavouring to build up a code of
laws for the regulation of questions between masters and
workmen; but, in his opinion, they had as yet
failed. At the present time, if a seaman brought an action
for compensation for injuries inflicted upon him in conse-
quence of his having sent his vessel to sea in an unsea-
worthy state, he could get no redress, as the question came
within the catagory of the Common Law; but if he sued
for compensation because the vessel had not been supplied
with medicines in terms of the statutary injunction, and
that his health had suffered in consequence, then an action
would hold. It was the same in regard to mines and fac-
tories. -Unless the statutary injunctions put upon
the owners of these were proved to have been
neglected and not complied with the action for compensation
for injuries inflicted in consequence, would hold, and that
he considered a most unsatisfactory state of the law. The
object of his measure was to render the master responsible
for everything which happened to his workmen while in
his employment, arising through neglect, so that the
distinction which had been set up by the courts of law
between injuries arising from the default of observing
the statutary injunction, and from those arising from the
masters neglecting to something he was morally called
upon to have performed. He held that as a matter of policy
they were bound to take up this matter, and deal out to
the workman that justice which he considered him entitled
to, but which, under the present state of the law, he could
not possibly obtain.

Mr. POTTER having seconded the motion,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to move an amend-
ment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
He had come to the conclusion that were the measure to be-
come law it would not only be injurious to the master
against whom it was levelled, but it would be
also also injurious to the workmen who it
was intended to protect. At present the master
was bound to see that due care and provision should be
made for the protection of his workmen, and he could see
no middle course which he could adopt between the law
as it at present stood, and the measure before the house.
Under the present state of the law the master was liable for
accidents caused by his own aot, or arising from his neglect
ofor breach of duty, that duty being that he should, in the
conduct of hie business, use reasonable care with the view
of providing good machinery and tackle and competent and
efficient servants, and he could not see how, in that respect,
his liability could be extended. The hon. and learned
gentleman quoted a number of cases in support of this
view of the case, which had been decided by the courts
of law, and some of them by the House of Lords, on one
of which a master was held liable for negligence on the
part of his foreman.

[LEFT SPEAKING].