Lords Sitting of 5 April 1827

SPRING-GUNS BILL.
Lord Suffieldmoved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Spring-guns Bill. Their lordships immediately resolved themselves into a committee. The noble lord said, that, in consequence of what had passed yesterday, he should propose to make the bill general. With this view he should move, as an amendment, that the words "woods and plantations" be excluded from the bill. He should also propose that the word "declare" be added, in order to make the law declaratory as well as enacting.—These amendments were agreed to.
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to the use of the word "engine" as too general.
Lord Suffield,in justifying the use of the word, said, that their lordships were not aware of the numberless contrivances employed to protect game. It was customary with poachers to drive cattle before them into the woods, or shove long poles before them, by which they discharged the Spring-guns, without running the risk of injuring themselves. They then took away the Spring-guns. A friend of his, a very ingenious gentleman, who had been served in this manner, contrived to attach a shell to the Spring gun, so that those who took up the Spring-gun, after it had been discharged, without knowing the nature of the contrivance, discharged the shell, and were blown to atoms. He had also contrived a shell to be attached to the bough of a tree; which went off under certain circumstances, and injured those who were near it. Their lordships were aware that it was customary in some places, to fix a wooden pheasant to the bough of a tree, with a view to attract the attention of the poachers. They fired at it frequently; which gave the keepers time to come up. This gentleman, how-
240
ever, attached a shell to such pheasant, and when it was struck by shot it fell from the bough, and in its fall, by its own weight, it pulled a trigger and discharged the shell. Such engines were very dangerous. They might be blown down and be discharged by a high wind: they might injure ladies and gentlemen riding through woods: and it was to prevent the setting of such diabolical engines of mischief as these, that he thought it necessary to preserve the word engine in the clause. He could mention other contrivances; but he thought these were enough to make their lordships see the propriety of retaining the word. If some general word of this description were not used, new instruments might be invented, which would escape the penalties sought to be imposed by the bill. The objection was accordingly not urged.
It was then proposed by lord Ellenborough, that the words "calculated to destroy life and inflict grievous bodily harm," should be left out; with a view of making the mere setting of Spring-guns with an intention of inflicting injury on trespassers, a misdemeanour.
Lord Suffieldobjected to the amendment, as going to destroy the bill.
Lord Hollandthought it would be excessively difficult to convict any person, if the crime was made to consist in the intention. If the words were left out, the object proposed by the bill would be lost. He was prepared cordially to support the bill, understanding that it was intended to visit with legislative condemnation the practice of placing such diabolical engines in any man's grounds.
Their lordships divided: for the original clause 21, against it 13.
The Marquis of Lansdownexpressed his hope that in the progress of the measure, the noble lord would introduce a clause to exempt from its operation Spring-guns set in dwelling-houses; and that on a principle similar to the general principle of the bill. The general principle of the bill was, that no man was justified in doing that by a machine or engine, which he would not be justified in doing personally; but any man was justified in personally shooting a housebreaker; therefore he would be justified in devising the means of shooting him by a Spring-gun.
The House adjourned.