Lord Suffieldrose to move the second reading of his bill for declaring Spring Guns illegal. He said, he would briefly refer to certain cases on this subject, which had been decided in courts of law. As he had already observed, there was no distinct law respecting the employment of spring guns. In most of the cases which had come before the courts, the judges had been guided in their decisions by analogy and inference. From an examination of the cases which have been reported, it would appear, that the setting of spring guns was considered illegal; and secondly, that in those cases in which the setting of those weapons had been supposed to be legal, their use had been regarded as contrary to humanity, and those principles of moral justice on which all law ought to be founded. The noble lord then cited the case of Beer v. lord Cawdor's gamekeeper, and several other cases, in which lord Ellenborough had held, that persons were not justifiable in inflicting, by the means of such weapons, the penalty of death, unless the individual who might expose himself to the hazard of destruction was in the act of committing a capital felony. He also mentioned the case of a boy, who though guilty of a trespass in cutting a stick from a hedge, got 160l damages for being wounded by a spring-gun. A man was tried some years ago at the Old Bailey, for shooting another who personated a ghost. The jury wished to bring in a verdict of manslaughter, but the judge refused it, and told them it must either be "murder," or "not guilty," as 923 the personating a ghost was not a felony. In a case in which damages were recovered for the loss of a dog, which, in pursuing a hare, had run upon spears so placed that a hare could pass under them, the judge held, that damages must be given on the same principle as if the defendant had speared, the dog with his own hand; because, the law did not permit a man to do that indirectly which he might not do directly. In a late case, the chief-justice, and other judges of the court of King's-bench had held, that a defendant was not liable to damages because it was proved that the plaintiff who had been injured was aware of spring guns being set in the grounds into which he voluntarily went; but the judges came to this decision with reluctance. The only ground on which he had heard the practice of setting spring guns defended, was the advantage of collecting a great quantity of game; but, a great quantity of game was collected solely for the purpose of committing an extensive and unnatural slaughter. The only inducement, then, which a landed proprietor had to place murderous engines in woods was, that he or his friends might have two or three days' shooting. For this object, innocent persons as well as poachers were exposed to death. It appeared from a review of the law reports, that the only case in favour of spring guns was one in which it had been proved, that the person injured had received notice of their being set. In this case, however, the Jaw was at variance with itself; for this decision of the judges was contrary to others, in which they had held, that a man could not do indirectly that which the law did not allow him to do directly. The defendant in this case certainly could not have legally put the gun to his shoulder, and fired it at the plaintiff; though it must be confessed, that in this way the latter would have had a great number of chances for his life, as the former, while his finger was at the trigger, might still relent, but a spring gun was sure to execute the purpose for which it was set, on any one who might come in its way. Two very melancholy accidents occasioned by the use of spring guns had come to his knowledge. These, however, he forbore to state; one in accordance with his own feelings, and the other because a member of the other House, who represented a county, had requested that he would not mention it. These guns, it was said, were meant to be employed only against 924 poachers. He, however, thought it extremely cruel that they should be used in that way; but, if it were humane and just to use them in that way, it would be impossible to confine their action to poachers only. A notice, it was said, might be seen. In the day-time it could, but not at night. And, might not a man travelling along a road go over a hedge without any criminal design? A gentleman had told him, that while riding on the north road, in a snow storm, his hat was nearly blown off; he put up his hand to save it, and at the same time observed a notice of spring-guns and man-traps. If his hat had been blown off, he must either have left it in the wood, or run the risk of being shot, by seeking it in the wood. It was always acknowledged, that it was better that culprits should escape, than that the innocent should suffer; but, with respect to spring-guns, the maxim was reversed, for the innocent were the victims, and the poachers escaped. He had appealed to humanity against this sacrifice of the lives of men; but he believed there were persons who disliked to hear of humanity, except in reference to animals. Others even pretended that they set spring guns on a principle of humanity, and that by doing so great mischief was prevented. He was, however, willing that their lordships and the public should be informed, that he was so barbarous a wretch as to wish to put an end to this humane practice. In some cases, notices of spring-guns were put up where there were none; but this only increased the evil, for persons were left in doubt as to the existence of the guns. This cry of "wolf where there was no wolf, only tended to lead persons into danger. It was therefore thought necessary by some persons to give a particular assurance that spring-guns were set; and he had lately seen a notice to this effect," Spring-guns set here. N. B. This is no joke. "The setting of spring-guns had been defended by some, on the ground of necessity, because it was said, that without them game could not be preserved; but, he would rather deny the necessity of preserving the game, than admit that of the spring-guns. It was certain, however, that game could be preserved, and was preserved in many parts of the country, without the assistance of spring-guns. Since he came into the House that evening, he had been informed, that some persons were in the habit of setting spring-guns for the preservation of 925 their lives and property. He did not approve of such a practice; but, as he was only opposing the use of spring-guns for the preservation of game, if any noble lord would frame a clause to except spring-guns used for the purpose which had been described to him, he should have no objection to the insertion of that clause in the committee.
§ The bill was read a second time.