The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-20 00:00:00

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. ALCOCK, Mr. TITE,
and others, from various places, against the Revised Code
of 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 been sent to sea in an unsea-
worthy ship, he could get no redress, as the question came
within the category 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, no 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 those arising from the mas-
ter neglecting something he was morally bound to do,
should be clearly defined. 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 I
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 injurious to the workmen who it was
intended to protest. 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 act, or arising from his neglect
of or breach of duty, that duty being that he should, in the
conduct of his 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, in one
of which a master was held liable for negligence on the
part of his foreman. According to the measure, as it stood,
a master was to be liable if personally he neglected to use
due and proper precaution, or omitted to do what was right
and proper to have been done. The question, therefore,
would come to be what was right and proper to have been
done. That must be left to a jury, and with the event, in
respect for which damages were craved, perhaps a break-
down in a railway fresh in their minds, and being in
some degree under the influence of it, would it be proper to
leave the matter to go to the jury in that leose manner. It
was creating no extension of the liability of the master other
than at present existed, but it was raising a suspicion and
doubt in the minds of the jury as to what the master ought
to have done to have escaped damages in the case.
The same injustice would be entailed by the clause
making the master liable- for injuries inflicted by the
negligence of one workman in his employment towards
another, and he hesitated not to say that were such un•
just trammels put upon the employers of industry they
would remove their establishments to other quarters where
they could carry them on without being subjected to such
annoyance. Were the measure to pass it must either
be inoperative or bo pregnant of great injustice,
for one of its first effects would be that, before masters took
workmen into their employment, they would make them
enter into an agreement to free them from the consequences
of the measure. Upon the whole, therefore, as he could
see no amendments which could be made in committee
which would render the bill such as the house could adopt
it, he must move that it be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr. BOVILL opposed the measure, and illustrated the
evil consequences which would result from the measure by
the case of a gentleman travelling in his carriage and being
upset by the carelessness of the coachman. His horses
were killed, himself and his wife injured, together with his
footman, who afterwards could bring an action against him
for the injuries he had sustained by the catastrophe,
and if he should happen to have been killed, his
wife could bring a similar one. He could not by possibility
see bow the law could be further extended, having in view
the rights both of master and servant. It was a well un-
derstood law, and, he believed, a just one, and he could see
no reason for an alteration in it.
Mr. H. A. BRUCE also opposed the measure, as he
considered tho law as it stood perfectly satisfactory, as the
master was held responsible in every case where proper
care and vigilance had not been used. Were the measure
to pass, and an accident similar to that at Hartley to occur,
which was caused by the breaking of a beam, and as re-
garded which no blame could be attached to the owners,
te owners of the colliery would, in addition to the im.
mense loss sustained by it, have to compensate every widow
and child of the sufferers, which would be most unjust,
Mr. MITFORD considered that the provisions of the
bill would, if adopted, be attended with great injustice, and
would strenuously oppose it.

Mr. W. E. FOSTER hoped that, while they could not
go into committee on this measure, nothing that had been
said against it would be taken as showing any indisposition
on the part of the house to go into the consideration of
means for preventing a repetition of those great and
terrible accidents which had recently taken place.
Sir M. PETO also opposed the measure, when
Mr. AYRTO N replied, and stated that after the discus-
sion which had taken place he would not press the second
reading of the bill to a division.
The second reading of the bill was accordingly negatived
without a division.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Lord ENFIELD suggested that the hon. member for
the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who had an amendment
to it on the papers in effect that the members of the Metro-
politan Board should be elected by the ratepayers direct,
instead of by the vestries, should withdraw that amend-
ment, and bring on a separate measure on the subject.
Mr. AYRTON declined to agree to the suggestion, and
suggested in turn that the measure should be referred to a
select committee of 15 members, in order that the various
amendments might be properly considered.
. _ _

Mr. CRAUFORD stated that he had no objection to
going into committee with the bill, as all the amendments
suggested by the city had been arranged.
After some further conversation, the house went into
committee pro forma, and the chairman having reported
progress, the house resumed.
TURNPIKE TOLLS EXEMPTION (SCOTLAND)
BILL.

This bill was read a second time and ordered to be corn.
mitted.

WHIPPING (No. 2) BILL.
This bill was also read a second time.
BLEACHFIELDS (WOMEN AND CHILDREN

EMPLOYMENT) BILL.

This bill passed through committee, and was ordered to
be reported.
Lord HOLMESDALE obtained leave to bring in a bill
to amend the laws relating to the sale of spirits.
The bill was read a first time.
The house then adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

In the sitting of the 15th of the Germen Diet it
was decided, upon the proposition of Austria and Prussia,
that the command in chief of the Federal garrison of Frank-
fort, now held by Major-General Rzikowsky, shall be de-
ferred, until further orders, to a Prussian General, and the
command of the town, at present confided to the Prussian
Colonel Alvensleben, be transferred to an officer of the
Austrian staff for the whole of the time that Prussia shall
hold the command of the garrison. The report of the nego-
tiations between Austria and Prussia on the one hand, and
Denmark on the other, relative to the constitutional affairs
of Holstein and Lauenburg was also communicated to the
Diet
COLD
COMFORT.—Canada, when the last mail left,
gßlauepwstorms, the most
sheavde
rhea
od f f ot
hr
e some
presentdays a
winter,s u cc e sbslioocnk
nf
the railways and
interrupting all business ; and before these storms above 85
inches of snow had fallen this season at Montreal—more
than enough to cover the tallest man. Nevertheless, says a
would not exchange
ld f
errMontrealt hpeapselur,"vo"rcinegwanotid our clear, dry
wintr of the British dampness which characterises the