The Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, THURSDAY, 24th AUGUST, 1865. MASTERS’ AND SERVANTS’ BILL.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 300, 24 August 1865, Page 2

The Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, THURSDAY, 24th AUGUST, 1865. MASTERS’ AND SERVANTS’ BILL.

The Act bearing the above title has by this time, in all probability, become the law of the colony, though doubtless modified somewhat during the ordeal of committee, for we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the House would consent to its passing in all the enormity of its original provisions; yet having thanks to the favorable vote of our Clive representative, among others, passed the second reading, the House is in a degree pledged to its principles, and we may be pretty certain that, for the future, a servant who may, for any reason, fail to carry out his engagements with an employer, will be liable to be treated as a felon. Did the Act cut both ways, and place the dishonest employer in a similar position, there would not be so much reason to complain, but it is not so. The principle of the Act is exactly this distinction between the two classes of employer and employed, and makes the former guilty of a merely civil offence when violating his engagements; but the employed, if so guilty, is subject to a criminal prosecution. Our respected Town | member, Mr Colenso, did his utmost to prevent so unjust and oppressive a Bill from becoming law, by recording his protest against its principles, and his vote against its second reading, but, as we have before remarked, Mr Ormond did not do so, but by voting with the ayes contributed to swell the majority (of sixteen) by which the second reading was carried. M e would ask if employers have not always hud a civil remedy against a servant who should violate his engagements? If they have not, owing to the class of men who, as Justices of the Peace, have the decision of such questions in their hands, something like an advantage in a dispute of this kind over a servant, —to say nothing of that derived from the power which the possession of means is calculated to afford them in initiating proceedings ? fur there can be no doubt but many a case of oppression and injustice is submitted to by the poor from inability to prosecute their oppressor. If they have this remedy and this advantage, we see no reason why they should ask for more, but abundant reason why the House should have refused the second reading of such a measure as that proposed. We believe that some of the hou. members, Mr Cracroft Wilson (the originator of the Bill) amongst them, have had experience in countries where the working portion of the population are bat little, if anything, superior to slaves, aud it is scarcely to be wondered at if they feel greatly annoyed by finding themselves amongst a class of free laborers, —men often quite equal in every respect, except that of property, to themselves,—who refuse to act as they have hitherto seen servants act, because they regard their labor as an equivalent to the payment received for it, and do not sell their rights as free men ; and, therefore, we do not wonder at such men trying to alter a state-of things so disagreeable to them ; but we do wonder that the majority of the House —whom we should not suppose to be of this class—and especially at the fact of Mr Ormond, who will shortly have to appeal to his constituency for their approval of his couduct —voting for such a measure. We, of course, kuow that many of that constituency are employers of labor, and may (though we may be permitted to doubt the fact) approve of the obnoxious measure. Perhaps, too, there are some who cau send their servants to the poll like sheep to vote as they please. It so there could not be a better argument against the measure than this ; but we do believe that the.great majority of the Ulive : constituency, whether employers of labor or laborers, will, with ourselves, agree that the measure is un-English, and altogether unworthy of the age of progress in which we ■uvc.