Lords Sitting of 6 April 1827

SPRING GUNS BILL.
The Report of
266
the Committee upon this bill was brought up.
Lord Ellenboroughgave notice, that he should move, unless some other noble lord did so, upon the third reading of the bill, that nothing in the act should extend to prohibit the placing of Spring-guns in houses or walled-gardens.
Lord Suffieldstated, that when the noble baron brought forward his amendment, he should then think it necessary to oppose it. He now rose for leave to withdraw the clause relative to bringing actions, as it was wholly useless; because, as the placing of Spring-guns was made a misdemeanour by the act, an action at law followed as a matter of course.—Agreed to.
The Marquis of Lansdownmoved to except from the operation of the act, that which he thought ought to be excepted, the inside of houses, because he felt that such exception was in accordance with the principle of the bill; which was, that no individual should be permitted to do that by indirect means which he had no right to do by direct means. But it was lawful to repel by violence every act of violence; and it was an act of violence for a person to break into a man's house. The principle of the bill also went to prevent the employment of Spring-guns wherever innocent persons might fall upon them, and where individuals might go without warning. But if Spring-guns were placed in the inside of houses, it must be supposed that the father of the family would take care to let every person in the House be acquainted with the places where Spring-guns were set. He had not himself been in the habit of setting Spring-guns; but he knew that some persons set them in particular places of the house, which were considered weak points, where the house might be easily entered; and he knew that setting those Spring-guns in those spots had the desired effect of giving protection, by terrifying robbers from attempting them. He had had the assistance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, who had drawn up the clause to except the inside of houses from the operation of the act.
Lord Suffieldfelt it his duty to oppose the introduction of this clause. He would venture to say, that the noble marquis was wrong in his law, as to shooting at a person in a dwelling-house. He believed that if a person was in the act of forcibly entering the dwelling-house of any man, he

267
was justified in shooting him; but if a person found a man in his drawing-room, who was willing to surrender himself, and shot him, that person would be guilty of murder. He believed one man had no right to shoot another, except he was taken in an act of violence. The object of the bill was to prevent accidents: and how would it be with regard to people walking in their sleep? Noble lords who had alarm-bells in their houses, well knew, that with all the precaution taken to prevent their going off accidentally, and alarming the family, such occurrences did take place. What would be the consequence, if they had been Spring-guns? Why the person would be shot. A noble lord had mentioned to him an instance of the accidents that occurred from Spring-guns, where, not only the man himself who had set the gun was shot, but his wife and daughter also. He therefore entreated those who were disposed to support the principle of this bill to prevent the introduction of this clause.
The Earl of Abingdonsaid, that as the noble lord had so earnestly looked at him, he must say that he had neither shot himself, or been the means of shooting his wife and daughter. But he would tell the noble lord, that if he should attempt forcibly to enter his house, he would shoot him in the attempt, and leave him to prove his intention afterwards [a laugh].
The Earl of Malmesburythought it perfectly clear that a man was justified in shooting any persons endeavouring forcibly to intrude themselves into his dwelling-house at night. In fact, they forfeited their lives by the illegality of the act they were engaged in; and he thought there was more danger to be apprehended from keeping loaded fire-arms in the house than from Spring- guns.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it was difficult to say what was the weight of judicial opinions with respect to setting Spring-guns; but he believed that wherever due notice was given of their being set, such engines were not illegal.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the learned lord, and by way of amendment proposed to except also "hot-houses or other buildings" from the operations of this act.
The Earl of Harrowbyinstanced greenhouses, which, as well as hot-houses, might require such protection, and which would, according to the present exceptions, be included within the operation of the
268
act. It was of the greatest importance for persons to know, whether by using such engines for the protection of their property, they became guilty of murder. Noble lords might decide as they pleased, but he hoped to God they would not leave it undecided, whether a man had a right to shoot another in defence of his property.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was extremely dangerous to take upon themselves to say what was the law upon such a subject. The law must depend entirely on all the circumstances of the case.
On the question being put, whether the words "hot-house or other building" should be inserted by way of amendment,
their lordships divided; Content 27; Not-content 29. On the motion of the marquis of Lansdown for excepting dwelling-houses from the operation of the act. Content 39; Not-content 17.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of lord Wharncliffe, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that having moved for certain returns, showing the increase of crime within the last few years, and as those returns, in pursuance of their lordships' orders, were now in progress, he should, for the present, postpone delivering his opinion on the subject, especially as he understood that the third reaching of the bill would not be permitted to pass without sonic discussion. The knowledge to be derived from those returns, with respect to the alarming increase of crime of late years in this country, but more particularly in England, as regarded the crimes arising from the practice of poaching, was a subject deserving their most serious consideration, and to which, on the third reading of the bill, he should call their attention.
The House then resolved itself into a committee on the bill.
Lord Redesdaleobjected strongly to the first clause, the object of which was to introduce a new system of qualifications for killing game, whereby greater facilities would be afforded for poaching than existed under the present. He had no objection to so much of the bill as rendered the sale of game legal; but he thought it would be advisable to require that every person selling game should I take out a licence for that purpose.
Lord Suffieldbegged to express his dissent from the view which the learned lord took of this subject. The learned lord had talked of qualifications. Now, he contended, that they were not qualifications, but disqualifications, and that they were replete with injustice, as well as mischief.
The Marquis of Londonderryobserved, that the first clause of the bill went to repeal all the laws that had hitherto been enacted on this subject. Now, it was rather strange that, if those laws had been so destructive in their operation as they had been described to be, there should have been no petitions presented against them. Whatever might have been their effect in producing crime, he considered that the present bill was calculated to increase it. He did not disapprove, however, of the principle, that the sale of game ought to be permitted by law. It would be desirable that those who were at the expense of feeding it, should, when a quantity of it was killed, have those around them who might be at liberty to dispose of so much as was given to them. Indeed, one of the greatest pleasures derived from the possession of game was that of making presents of it to friends or tenants. To that part of the bill, therefore, he was perfectly willing to agree. But the clause now before the committee was so replete with experiments (indeed, this was the era of experiments, for we had experiments in free corn, free trade, and a free system of navigation laws), that he felt himself called upon to oppose it, and he trusted that, like other experiments, it would fail.
Lord Wharncliffeassured the noble marquis, that he would find himself in a miserable minority in the country, whatever he might here, in his attempt to uphold the present system of qualifications; which were in violation of every notion of common justice. Was it justice that, when game came upon another man's land, and were fed upon it, he was not to have any claim to it? He contended, that the present bill did not give any new rights, but only confirmed those which existed, and quoted lord Coke, and other authorities to show that the old law gave a man a qualified property in the game on his own land.
The Lord Chancellordid not approve of the existing system of qualifications, but, at the same time, he was not prepared
270
to say that he considered the one provided by the present bill a change for the better. He would, however, reserve his opinion upon the general principle of the bill until the third reading. With respect to the decisions of lord Coke, that great authority, like many others, was contradicted in some most important doctrines, and many of his decisions were not law at this day. For himself, he did not believe that the law gave a man an action of trover against a person who killed a pheasant on his land, because it was on his land; notwithstanding the authorities referred to by the noble lord. The great circumstance on which the bill was founded; namely, the increase of crime, was owing to the introduction of battues; and if their lordships did not find some means of destroying these battues, they might as well say that the moon shall not shine, as that there shall not be poachers.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the present Game -laws were most unjust in their operation. As to the effect apprehended from the bill before the committee, that it would be attended with the destruction of the game, there was just as much reason to apprehend it at present; because any man who now chose to destroy the game, might do so by laying poison in his field, which the law did not prevent him from doing. He considered the whole system of our Game-laws so objectionable, that he would vote for any alteration in them which might be proposed. It was not by law that game was now protected, but by an armed force.
The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.