Lord Suffieldrose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move the first reading of a bill to declare it unlawful for persons to set Spring-guns, or any other instruments which were dangerous to life, or liable to inflict bodily harm. He understood the forms of their lordships' House did not usually permit of discussion on the first reading of a measure as it provoked objections which were generally reserved for the second reading of a bill. He hoped the same courtesy would be extended to him, and therefore he should only state the object of the bill, and his reasons shortly for offering it to their lordships. The object of the bill had been, however, stated already in its title, and he did not know that he could add any thing on that subject. The reasons which had operated with him for bringing in the measure, were principally those reports which he had lately read in the newspapers, of various accidents resulting from the use of spring-guns, to innocent persons. It 642 was not poachers who suffered from these weapons, but servants, and gentlemen, and children, who happened to stray in woods where they were set. Poachers knew how to avoid them. He had heard that royal blood was very near being shed not long ago by one of these spring-guns. They were liable to inflict death on people; and he was sure no one of their lordships would sanction the principle, that individuals should take the law into their own hands, and inflict capital punishment for an offence that the law only punished with a much lighter penalty. It could not be allowed that individuals, for the protection of their property, should thus go so far beyond the law. It was in this case rendered more odious, by the sneaking and assassin-like manner in which the injury was done. He did not mean to say that any gentleman, or particularly any noble lord were assassins; and he hoped he should not be so understood, as he was quite convinced no one of their lordships ever wished to inflict death on any man for stealing a pheasant. As to the legality of the practice, he would undertake to prove it illegal; not, indeed, by reference to any particular law, for then the bill he had the honour to propose to their lordships would be unnecessary, but by arguments drawn from analogy. There were, however, doubts existing on the subject, and the bill he offered to their lordships would clear them up. He would not then trouble their lordships with any further observations, but move that the bill be read a first time.
Earl Grosvenorhoped the bill would receive the attention of their lordships; as he was satisfied that it was likely to do a great deal of good.
§ The bill was read a first time.