16 



compensation would, tends to make them less careful 

 in themselves and more disposed to conceal want of 

 care in others. 



I say, then, that the proposal to make the master 

 liable to a servant for the negligence of a fellow ser- 

 vant, is contrary to principle, unjust, unreasonable, 

 and calculated to produce, if not no good, at least 

 more harm than good. It would be better to make 

 servants liable to their masters for the damage caused 

 by their fellows, than to make masters liable to them 

 as proposed. 



One word as to the Government Bill. Its pro- 

 visions are needless or wrong. If the master, by an 

 act of omission fails in his duty to a servant, he is 

 liable, whether the failure was in himself personally, 

 in his manager, or other agent. If the injury arises 

 from an act of commission, then the reasoning I have 

 used is applicable. Let the actual wrong-doer be 

 responsible. No servant is bound to obey a command 

 attended with danger. 



One word more. It is proposed to guard the 

 master by provisions that he shall not be liable if the 

 servant contributed to the injury. There are other 

 qualifications. In vain. The untruths told in accident 

 cases are prodigious. They will be told in such as 

 the Bill will give rise to. I foresee a frightful crop 

 of litigation if it passes. 



G. BRAMWELL. 



