THE EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY FOR INJURY BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5378, 22 June 1878, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY FOR INJURY BILL.

(From the London Standard, April 11.) _ The Employers’ Liability for Injury Bill, introduced into the House of Common i by Mr. Macdonald, has met with the not uncommon fate of Wednesday measures. . It came on for the second reading yesterday morning, and after occupying the whole afternoon was “ talked out” at a quarter to six. It is uncertain, perhaps, what the result of a division might have been, as there seemed to be a general opinion in favor of some modification of the law, and members who would not have supported the Bill absolutely might have voted for its being read a second time, and referred to a select committee. The Attorney-General’s announcement that Government was prepared to adopt Mr. Tennant’s amendment, and bring in a Bill founded on the report of a committee which sat last year to investigate the whole subject, failed to satisfy Mr. Forster, and would not have prevented a division had the time allowed of it. Mr. Forster and Mr. Lowe, too, are apparently of opinion that some middle course may be found between the recommendation of the committee and the proposal of Mr. Macdonald, less sweeping than the latter, and more favorable than the former. This the Attorney General, and those who think with him, denied. The present law—which, with all due deference to Mr. Lowe, we shall hold to have existed from the time of Charles ll.—is this, that a master or employer is responsible for injuries caused to any thir l person by the negligence of his servants, or for injuries caused to his servants by his own negligence, but not for injuries sustained by one servant in consequence of the negligence of another. It was the object of Mr. Macdonald’s Bill to abolish this particular exemption, and to place servants on exactly the same footing as the general public. There is said to be a feeling among the working classes that they are the victims of exceptional legislation, and on this ground alone some members would have supported the Bill. The feeling is a pure delusion. If we are told that there is any hardship in the existing law the answer is that all laws entail hardships on individuals. But laws which have the effect of driving capital out of any particular trade in which it is invested must be far more injurious to the workmen employed in that trade than any liability to uncompensated accidents to which they are now exposed. Besides, it is not to be supposed that nothing is done by employers to alleviate the sufferings of servants who have been injured in their service. On the contrary, considerable sums are subscribed for the very purpose, and one main objection to Mr. Macdonald’s Bill is that it would have the natural effect of drying up this stream of bounty. The Attorney-General; as we have said, was prepared to adopt the suggestion of last year’s committee, which advises that Corporations should no longer bo allowed the privilege of impersonality, but should be accessible through their agents ; and also that individuals who “ leave the whole conduct of their business to agents and managers ” should be placed in a similar position. Whether more than this is desirable seems extremely doubtful. An immense amount of vested interests are dependent on the existing law. Capital has been invested in the full security that the conditions of the investment were understood. Such a change as Mr. Macdonald proposes would be a shock to trade which none of ns could wish to see. His liabilities for compensation are as much taken into account by the man who invests money in a business as the liabilities to risk are by the workman whom he employs. Such a Bill as Mr. Macdonald’s would derange our whole commercial system, and we cannot, therefore, pretend to regret the fate which yesterday befell it.