Lord Ellenborough roseto oppose the motion. He could not, he said, consent to pass an act, which left the law on this subject in its present state of uncertainty, This would be the case as long as the word engine was retained in the bill. That word, in its widest sense, meant any thing which might inflict an injury, and their lordships would be obliged to remove every thing like a spike or a fence from around their houses. In a more restricted sense, if it were understood to mean any thing which only inflicted injury by being set in 296 motion, it should be so expressed, and the law should be made more precise. It was stated, in defence of the bill, that it was a maxim, "qui facit per alium facit per se;" and though this was true, it was not the whole truth; for if persons setting Spring-guns gave proper notice, the law held that it was not they who committed the injury, but the thief who came to invade the property, and was shot in the attempt. He was persuaded that the contests between the gamekeeper and the poacher, to which the bill would give rise, would do much more harm than Spring-guns did. It had been argued, that the accidents resulting from Spring-guns ought to induce parliament to abolish them. If, however, they were to legislate against accident, their labours would be endless, The object of setting Spring-guns was not personal injury to any one, but to deter from the commission of theft; and that object was as completely obtained by hitting an innocent man as a guilty one. He conceived that the bill was contrary to that principle of the English law, which gave a man protection for his property, in proportion to the difficulty with which it could be protected by the ordinary means; and that it was calculated to increase the temptation to crime, by diminishing the obstacles to its commission. If, however, the bill should be rejected, either in that House or elsewhere, he would introduce another, declaratory of the law as it stood. This would, in his opinion, be much better than any change; for he had frequently heard from those, whose knowledge and experience gave them ample opportunities of judging, that where any innovation was made upon the common law, it generally appeared afterwards, that the principle thereby abrogated was a wise one, and that our ancestors knew very well what they were about.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that all the arguments urged by the noble lord had been so frequently answered in former debates, that he would not trespass upon their patience by any further reply to them; satisfied as he was, that they considered the bill a good one, and that they would pass it.
Their lordships divided: Contents 28. Not-Contents 19. Majority 9. The bill was then read a third time.