LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that in rising to move the second reading of the two Bills which he had laid on their Lordships' Table, it was, he believed, not necessary that he should say more than a very few words, as he was not aware that any opposition was likely to be offered to his Motion. One of these Bills was for the abolition of deodands, and the other was for granting compensation in cases of death by accident. Under the existing law, the relatives of 968 the person killed could receive no compensation, no matter what the degree of negligence occasioning the death might be. Any pecuniary mulct that might be inflicted would go to the Crown, or to the lord of the manor; and the formalities were such that it was hardly possible that an inquiry before the coroner could be so conducted as afterwards to stand fire in the Court of Queen's Bench. In the progress of the Bill of last Session through their Lordships' House, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had been authorized by Her Majesty to give Her Majesty's gracious consent to the introduction of the measure; and he had no doubt that a similar favour would be extended to this Bill. With regard to the question of deodands, he might mention, that Mr. Wakley, the coroner for the county of Middlesex, a gentleman very active and of very great experience as a coroner, had authorized him to say that he had found no benefit whatever to arise from the present law of deodands. He (Lord Campbell) had a great respect for the common law; but still he felt that there could be no doubt that some of its doctrines were not applicable to the present state of society. One of these doctrines was, that the life of a man was so valuable that they could not put any estimate upon it in case of a death by accident; and, therefore, if a man had his leg broken, on account of negligence on the part of coach-proprietors or of a railway company, he had his remedy in a court of justice; but if the negligence were still grosser, and if a life were destroyed, there was no remedy whatever. In Scotland, and in foreign countries, the general rule was, that where there was a wrong which worked injuriously to another, the law gave compensation; and that law had been acted on in a recent instance in France—the trial of M. de Beauvallon on a charge of murder; but, in this country, if death ensued, the civil injury merged in the felony; and this state of the law was, he thought, highly discreditable. He was sorry to perceive that some disposition appeared to exist among hon. and learned Gentleman elsewhere to oppose this measure; but this he could say, that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of England had expressed his unqualified approbation of its merits. Some of his learned Friends thought, however, that the law of England was absolute perfection, and that any attempt to infringe upon it should be resisted. 969 He was told, that the resistance to this measure, in the other House of Parliament, would be also increased by the influence of railway companies there, and that this influence was so great that one railway company alone could muster no less than eighty votes. But though there might be a great many hon. Gentlemen in the House of Commons proprietors in railway companies, he trusted that when they came to consider these Bills, they would forget that they were directors, and consider only that they were citizens and subjects, and that, as men, it was their duty to give their support to them.
§ LORD LYTTELTONsaid, it might be remembered that last year he had introduced a Bill having the same object as the measure now before the House; and he only rose at present to express his great satisfaction that the subject had fallen into so much more able hands. He would support both these Bills; but he would confess that he viewed with some anxiety their progress through the other House of Parliament. The objections to them were, however, he believed, rather of a technical nature than of any other kind, and he trusted they might be provided against.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he certainly agreed with his noble and learned Friend, and with the noble Lord who had just spoken in favour of these Bills. He was one of those who had attended most carefully on the Committee on this matter, and he was not aware until it had been now stated that the objections alluded to were entertained against the measure elsewhere. Nothing could be more clear than the grounds on which his noble and learned Friend had rested these very important measures. The law of England was, with regard to the subject of compensation for loss of life, an exception to the law of every other country; and this very fantastical reason was given for a very bad law—the badness of the law being only equalled by the badness of the reason—that the value of life was so very great that nothing could be a compensation for it: because they could not give an infinite value for a life, they refused to give any value at all for it. The argument, in fact, blew hot and cold, because it made life either infinitely valuable, or of no value whatever. He thought they were much indebted to his noble and learned Friend for having taken up the subject, and he trusted that both Bills would be allowed to become law.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, as it was necessary to obtain the assent of the 970 Crown to the passing of a Bill on the subject of deodands, he had applied to Her Majesty last Session, and had obtained Her Majesty's assent to the Bill then before the House, and he thought he could undertake to obtain the assent of the Crown in favour of the present measure also. As to the other Bill, he thought it would be worth while to ascertain what were the technical grounds entertained against it in the other House of Parliament, in order that this might be provided against.
§ Bills read 2a.