LORD CAMPBELLmoved the Third Reading of these two Bills. The noble and learned Lord said he was sorry to announce that a disastrous rumour had reached his ears, that when these Bills went elsewhere, although they had both been passed unanimously by their Lordships, they were likely to meet with the same fate they experienced last Session. He would only say that the principle of these Bills was approved of by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, by all the law Lords, and by the Judges of England. All the law Lords in that House had most deliberately considered them, and he supposed they were quite competent to form a sound judgment. Notwithstanding all this, he was told they were immediately to be thrown out of the other House, that deodands were still to be continued, and that if deaths took place by gross negligence, there was to be no compensation. He could only invite the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the subject, and express his earnest desire that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) would draw the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers in the other House to these Bills, hoping it would be borne in mind that this was the only civilized country in the world where, under such circumstances, the law afforded no relief.
§ The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, his noble and learned Friend had spoken to him some time ago on the subject of these Bills, and for himself he fully con- 174 curred in the measures which he proposed.
The LORD CHANCELLORMy noble and learned Friend should not be quite so credulous in believing the rumours which have reached him. Perhaps they may have been circulated only for the purpose of teazing my noble and learned Friend.
§ LORD DENMANsaid, the Deodands Bill proposed to abolish a remnant of a barbarous and absurd law, and he therefore hoped the Bill would pass: and as deodands were the only security now against death being caused by reckless conduct, the abolition was a strong argument in favour of the other Bill. He thought his noble and learned Friend was far too sensitive; for he believed that when these measures came to be well considered, the other House would be convinced both of their merits and their necessity: if they passed, infinitely more care would be taken for the preservation of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects than those who were intrusted with them at present thought necessary.
LORD CAMPBELLThere is one objection to these Bills which I have heard. It has been said, "Suppose the Lord Chancellor were to meet with an untimely end by a railway accident, which we all pray may never occur, how would the Jury estimate the loss to his family? What would be considered as the value of the tenure of his office? [The LORD CHANCELLOR: Hear, hear!] What would be considered a fair compensation to be awarded to his family for their loss?" I have that regard for my noble and learned Friend that I hope his valuable life will never be exposed to any such peril. A railway company would be extremely sorry if my noble Friend were to have a limb broken through any negligence of theirs, because then he might bring an action and recover; but they would not care one farthing if his invaluable life were at once extinguished, because they would then say, "the law affords no remedy against us whatever." For the sake, therefore, of my noble and learned Friend, though I hope he will never require the security, I do trust these Bills will meet with that support in another place which they have so unanimously received in this House.
The LORD CHANCELLORThere is a much more difficult case to estimate for compensation than the one which my noble and learned Friend has had the kindness to suggest. If my noble and learned Friend 175 should unfortunately fall a sacrifice, how would any jury be able to estimate the value of his hopes?
§ Bills read 3a. and passed.