The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-25 00:00:00

LAN OF DEODAND.

—.—
Lord CAMPBELL, in pursuance of a notice he had given
.on a former occasion, laid a Bill on the table for abolishing
deodands- The Noble and Learned Lord characterised it as
a foolish and absurd law, and expressed his surprise that it
,hould have been allowed to exist from time immemorial to
the nineteenth century. He would briefly state what the law
was which he wished to abolish. By the old common law of
_England, which was still in force, it was provided that all per-
no:nal chattels which should tend to the death of a human being
ehreeld be forfeited to the Crown, no matter whether the •wrier
of the chattel was concerned in the affair or not, because in
ilisat case it would become murder or manslaughter, and the law
of dotiand would not apply. Now, he thought it extremely
absurd t:.iat if a man took his sword and slew another, that
his sword sh e eld be forfeited to the Crown. He could give
...
various instances ilustrating the absurdity of the law, but he
q
thought one or two ,74rreld be quite sufficient. If an ox gored
a man, the ox was not .4'cfeited ; but if a man fell from the
horse of another, and was kille."4 the horse became a deodand.
The law of deodand, however, di..4 not apply if the chattel were
not in motion at the time the acciden' occurred ; thus, if a man
climbing up a waggon fell from the war'.Ont the waggon was
not forfeited ; but if the waggon is in mote.'lls the ease became
different. As the law row stood, if a person on the top of a
coach being intoxicated, fell asleep, tumbled from the top of
the coach and was killed, the coach and everythinit in the coach,
including the luggage of the passengers, would h?forfeited.
The law made some very absurd distinctions ; thus, if a man
fell from a ship into salt water, there was no deodand ; but a
man fell front a ship into fresh water, then the ship and cargo
became forfeited to the Crown. 'The ancient law provided
that the chattels should be sold, and the proceeds spplied to the
performances of mass for the salvation of the soul of the de-
ceased. Now, he felt that this ought not any longer to he the
case. It placed the coroner in a peculiar position, and imposed
upon him the duty of inflicting a punishment—for he was, in
fact, the instrument of the jury—when, in fact, he was only
engaged in making an inquiry. He thought that the imposi-
tion of a deodand was, at least, contrary to the spirit of the
law. The power, his Noble Friend said, was definite and in-
dependent; but he (Lord Campbell) doubted whether the
imposition of a deodand might not be revised by the Court of
Queen's Bench ; and of the whole of the law of deodands he
would nut hesitate to sayehat they were a clog on the adminis-
tration of justice, and that, too, in cases where the application
of the principle of recompence was sometimes the most ap-
parent. He (Lord Campbell) had on this subject consulted a
most intelligent coroner—he meant Mr. Wakley—on this
point, and he quite assented to the view he had taken. In
many cases no cause of action could lie. In others
the principle fell with peculiar force on the proprietors
and directors of railways. The law in France, and most
other continental countries, and, he believed, also in Scotland,
avoided this abuse. In Scotland, however, the law was any-
thing but correct. In that country, if a man was thrown
from a coach and was killed, no deodand could be imposed.
because there was no one who could claim a pecuniary right in
his services. While in another case, if a boy was thrown
from a coach and injured, his fattier could claim recompence,
though he believed that a case had occurred the other day in
which a boy had been injured, and then a deodand was im-
posed. —( Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he believed the
ease to which his Noble Friend had referred, in which death
had ensued, the individual who suffered was the man's wife and
not his sun.
Lord CAMPBELL said, the correction of his Noble
Friend was immaterial. All he was anxious to show was, that
no cause of action would lie in many cases in which a deodand
was imposed. This was evidently an absurdity width ought
to be amended, and he therefore hoped that no opposition
would be offered to the introduction of the Bill which he was
desirous of laying on the table of the House, and which he
should beg to move might be read a first time that night. He
believed his Noble Friend (Lord Littleton) had a measure of
something similar character to lay before the Ilouse.
What were the precise provisions of that Bill he was not
Aware, though he believed they were in many respects
similar to those of his own Bill. He was, however, ready to
meet any proposition of his Noble Friend, either to amalgamate
the two Bills, to introduce such clauses of his own as might be
necessary to render the Bill of his Noble Friend complete, or
he would take the contrary course, and introduce such provi-
sions as the Bill of his Hon. Friend contained, but in which his
own Bill was deficient. Or he would, as a third course, be
willing to introduce the two Bills pari passu, and leave the
House to deal with the clauses as they might deem best.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not wish to oppose
the proposition of his Noble Friend (Lord Campbell). The
system of deodand presented many instances of absurdity, and
he thought that opportunity for them ought to be abolished.
There were, however, some points which he wished to bring
under the consideration of his Noble Friend. His Noble
Friend was aware that deodands were considered to form a por-
tion of the extraordinary revenues of the Crown, and that pre-
vious
to the introduction of any measure for abolishing the im-
position of deodands, he thought that it would be necessary to
obtain the consent of the Crown before the passing of the
measure. He thought it would be better to obtain this con-
sent before the introduction of the measure rather than
apply for that consent when the Bill was in its last step. There
was also another point which he wished to brine under the con-
sideration of his Noble Friend, and that was—that as this was a
Bill which referred to money, whether it was competent for the
House of Lords to entertain the question of the abolition of
deo.iands. He repeated, that he did not wish to oppose the in-
troduction of the measure of his Noble Friend, but merely to
draw his attention to the points which he had submitted.
Lord CA NIPBELL said that so fully aware was he that the
consent of the Crown was necessary to tke measure he had to
introduce, that he had sent notice of his intention to bring in
his Bill to her Majesty's Ministers, with a view to obtain
their consent. With respect to granting compensation to those
individuals to whom the value of the deodands had been granted
by the Crown, he could not see how they were entitled to any
recompence for the loss of a thing which was only of value so
long as it had existed, and as a property in the nature of a
deodand was always of uncertain value,and might subside by other
means as well as by an Act of Parliament, there could be no
vested interest in it, and therefore the claim to compensation
was a groundless one. Another consideration which his Noble
Friend on the Woolsack had brought under his notice was the
impropriety of originating a measure of this character in the
House of Lords. Had his ( Lord Campbell's) Bill been a
money Bill, there would, doubtless, have been an obstacle.
But he (Lord Campbell) conceived that there was a material
difference between this and a money Bill. A deodand was im-
posed in the nature of a penalty for an •ffenee, and not as a
supply for the Crown. Deodands were instituted originally,
not for the sake of revenue, but were given to pay for ensuring
the rest of the soul of the deceased, so that though this mea-
sure was introduced without consent, he should not, he
conceived, be infringing on the rights of the Crowe's. Several
measures analogous to this had been introduced into the
House of Commons during the Presidency of his Noble Friend
Lord Canterbury, who had just entered the House. With the
zeal of his Noble Friend all were acquainted, and all were ready
to allow his great knowledge of the forms of the House, and of
the extent of constitutional privileges. Yet he had never oh-
jeeted to the introduction of those measures, and he (Lord
Campbell) therefore felt justified in bringing this measure be-
fore their Lordships, and moving the first reading of the Bill.
Afer a few observations from Lord Moerreee ex and the
LOR:. CHANCELLOR the Bill was laid on the table.