(NO. 7.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 March 1879)

§ EARL DE LA WARR,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was one of considerable interest to a large section of Her Majesty's subjects; therefore it would cause no surprise to hear that some 300 Petitions, signed by upwards of 300,000 persons, had already been presented to their Lordships' House in its favour. The main object of the Bill was to make employers liable for injuries to their servants caused through the neglect or want of caution on the part of those who were acting as their agents or were exercising superintendence in any way. The Bill was founded upon the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat two years ago to consider this subject, and upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents. As the law stood at present, a master or employer was liable for injuries sustained by his servant when caused by his own personal negligence or want of caution, but not when caused by the negligence or want of caution of his fellow-servants. The 1st clause of the Bill dealt with this point, and rendered the master liable whenever the injury was caused by any person, acting by his authority, or exercising superintendence, or by defective machinery or plant or stock of any kind. This legislation was in accordance with the spirit of the law which had always made a master or employer liable for injuries sustained by his servants through his own negligence. It surely followed that if an employer delegated his authority and superintendence to other persons he delegated also his responsibility. By many decisions it had been held that the employer was not liable for an injury to any workman caused by one of his fellow-workmen. These decisions were based upon the doctrine of "common employment." This clause did not touch that doctrine further than this—that it excluded from the class of fellow servants or fellow-workmen those who were exercising responsible superintendence and acting with the authority of the employer. This was necessary, in 1965 consequence of the wide meaning which the English Judges had given to the term common employment. In the case of a mine, for instance, if from the fault of any of the men in charge a miner were killed or injured, the owners were by the present law free from pecuniary responsibility; so that, however culpable their agents might have been, no compensation could be obtained. The present state of the law, which in effect made no one responsible when the master had delegated his authority, was manifestly unjust, and its tendency was a premium to employers to rid themselves of all responsibility by throwing it upon other persons who were not liable to make compensation to their fellows for any injury that might be inflicted by their negligence or misconduct. It had been held by high authority that when a man engaged himself to a certain employment he engaged himself to run all the risks attending upon it. For his part, he (Earl De La Warr) could not concur in that view. Surely an employé did not engage himself so far as to run all the risks incident to his employment; to run the risks of accidents that were preventable, and that arose from the carelessness or negligence of those who were exercising authority and superintendence. Thousands of persons met with accidents every year from causes declared to be preventable—they were to be read every day in the newspapers—and it was to protect the workman, as far as possible, from such dangers that his Bill was intended. Indeed, it might be very fairly argued that the Bill would in some degree tend to prevent such accidents, by making the employers liable for injuries occasioned by their own negligence or that of those to whom they delegated authority. He asked their Lordships, as a matter of justice, to give it a second reading, because he considered that the law was operating unjustly, and needed to be amended.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was glad to acknowledge the very great interest which the noble Earl had taken in this subject, and the humane motives that had actuated him in laying this measure before their Lordships. If the Government had been of opinion 1966 that it was possible at the present time adequately or conveniently to discuss the provisions of the Bill, it would have been his duty to follow the noble Earl in his observations on the operation of the existing law. Had it been necessary for him to do so, he believed he could have shown that the Bill before the House, instead of proceeding on the lines recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, was really drawn on very different principles, and on a Report which had been presented to that Committee, but which the Committee refused to adopt. He could also have shown, from the noble Earl's own point of view, that the Bill would probably fail to achieve its object. He was anxious, however, to state the position of the Government. In the House of Commons last year, after the Committee had reported, the Government desired to bring in a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee; but, owing to the state of Public Business at the time, that could not be done, and the Bill had to be postponed to the present Session. The Government had this Session introduced a Bill on the subject in the other House, and it was their earnest desire to expedite its progress as much as possible; and he believed there was a strong feeling in the other House in favour of settling the question. But the House would see that, as there was already a Government Bill before Parliament on the same subject, it would be hardly convenient to determine, until the two Bills had been laid side by side and compared, in which form legislation should proceed. Possibly, when the Bill came up from the other House, and was compared with that of the noble Earl, it might be found, whichever were adopted, that there were provisions in the other of them which might be advantageously imported. He should, therefore, suggest the postponement of the discussion of this Bill till the House had the Government proposals under its consideration.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
expressed his willingness that both the Bills should proceed pari passu, but asked when the Government Bill was likely to come before the House?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was unable to forecast the progress of the Bill through the other House, but thought it would be best to move the 1967 adjournment of the debate to that day six weeks.