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.