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

HANDICAP PLATE.

Lord of the Manor
Dominie Sampson
3
Ariadne

Eight ran.
DEBDALE STAKES.

Shropshire
Old Past 2
Gisors .. 3

Nine ran.

LATEST BETTING.
CITY AND SUBURBAN.
12 to 1 agst suburban (taken freely)
CHESTER CUP.
20 to 1 agst Hadji Stavros (offered)
NORTHAMPTON STARES.
100 to 7 agst Prince Plausible (taken)
100 to 6 agst Schism (taken)

IMPERIAL PARL LAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tats 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'FEuniLL, from the
county of Carlow, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill;

by Mr, WILLIAMS, from Lambeth Vestry, against the
Parochial Assessment Bill; by Mr. ALoocK, 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 bon. member referred to the first case on the

subject, which came before the Courts, at Westminster, in
1837, whin 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
workmaa, 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 got 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
ho 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-
ters neglecting something he was morally bound to do,
should be clearly defined, lie held that as a matter of policy
they were bound to take up this matter, and deal out to
tho workman that justice which he consider ed 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 injurious to the workmen who it was
intended to protezt. 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 questioi, 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 ware 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 muster 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 workmen in his employment towards
another, and he hesitated not
upon the
just trammels p
employerstopslasyystrhs that 7inedreussturychthueny•
uld carry
oyance, them on without being subjected to such
would remove their establishwents to other quarters where
they co
Were the measure to pass it must either
annoyance.
be imperative or be 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 how 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 be
considered tho law as it stood perfectly satisfactory, as the
master was held responsible in every ease where proper
care and vigilance had not been used. Were the measure
to pass, and an accident similar to that at Ilartley todoccur re-
,
which was caused by the breaking of a beam, as
garded which no blame could be attached to thane owners,
the 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
repetitiontakenof those
great
place.and
Sir M. PETO also opposed the measure, when
on the part of the house to go into the consideration of
ad recently
tmerrieanhslefeoer tineipdreenvteenwhigeh
had
Mr. AYRTON 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 fACT
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 1)y 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
sleet commit, ee 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 com-
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.