Sitting of 4 April 1827

SPRING-GUNS BILL.
Lord Suffield roseto move the order of the day for the second reading of the Spring-guns Bill. His lordship said, that in proposing the second reading, it would not be necessary for him to detain their lordships by entering into any arguments on the principle of the bill. He only wished to call to their lordships' recollection the bill which he had submitted to them on this subject two years ago. The present bill was exactly like the bill as he then brought it in, but not like the bill as it was amended by their lordships, and sent to another place. He wished to state, but only as a matter of history, that his motives for introducing that bill, prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in woods and plantations, was to meet and remedy a practical evil. Several accidents had occurred from the use of spring-guns, but they had occurred principally in woods and plantations; and he had not then heard that any such accidents had occurred from setting Spring-guns in gardens. Since then he had heard of such accidents; and no longer ago than yesterday, a case had been mentioned to him, in which a gentleman had shot his own father. He would not mention any names; as the sufferings of the family had been sufficiently great. This was, in his opinion, a reason for prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in gardens as well as in woods. Such instances were very few, and the great mass of the accidents arose from setting Spring-guns in woods. He was, however, bound, by the principle on which he had opposed setting Spring-guns in woods; and he would not object if any noble lord should propose to extend the principle of the bill, and prohibit the use of Spring-guns in any place. He had always contended, and by this principle, he would stand, that it was not legal for any man to do that per alium which he had no right to do per se. Indeed, he had never heard any valid arguments for setting Spring-guns in any place. Nobody had contended that it was just; but some persons had said that it was expedient. He knew that some noble lords were prepared to contend, that the bill was directed particularly against the sports of the country gentlemen. He could only say, that it was not so intended. The evil existed in woods
236
and plantations, and to meet that evil the bill was drawn up. Any noble lords who proposed to extend its provisions might do so in the committee; to which he would willingly consent. Some noble lords might wish to make the prohibition general, with the exception of walled gardens. Against such an exception he would enter his protest. It would introduce a new law and a new punishment into the code of Great Britain—the punishment of Spring-guns, which was now unknown to our law. A man had no right to shoot another who trespassed in his garden, if he saw him: and he could have no such right to shoot him by an instrument, when he did not see him. It was a sneaking, assassin-like method of wreaking his vengeance, which no man could possibly encourage. He would not further detain their lordships, but just to remark, that it had been contended, in favour of Spring-guns, that they were in reality a greater good than evil, and that humanity gained more than it lost by setting them. This he must deny. Putting out of view the people shot by them—that a game-keeper, within fourteen days, had been shot by his own Spring-gun, in the county of Warwick, and within the same period a lad, who had gone into a wood to drive out some sheep, had, in another county, been shot in the middle of the day—he would contend, that the use of Spring-guns caused a mass of evil. These were cases of undeniable mischief: but he was also of opinion, that the conflicts which were carried on between game-keepers and poachers arose from the use of Spring-guns. Before the use of Spring-guns, such sanguinary contests were unknown. They were new features of the national character, and had been ingrafted on it by the use of such sanguinary instruments. Before they were introduced, there were broken heads, such as were got at fairs, but there was no bloodshed and no death. The keepers went armed with sticks, and were met by men with no other weapons. Shooting men by Spring-guns, however, had now taught them to shoot each other. Looking at Spring-guns as the origin of those sanguinary conflicts which it was said they prevented, he must contend, that the mass of suffering which they occasioned was very great. Supposing, also, that in these contests a poacher was wounded, the punishment fell on the guilty; but when Spring-guns were used, the punishment fell, in nine cases out of

237
ten (he believed he might say in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred), on the innocent. Even admitting, therefore, that the mode of protecting property was in any case justifiable, which, however, he did not admit, it protected property by punishing the innocent, and allowing the guilty to escape. Within three weeks there had been two instances of this, in the game-keeper and farmer's boy, to whom he had alluded. He should feel disposed to assent to extending the principle of the bill, and under thee circumstances he hoped no noble lord would object to its going into a committee.
The Lord Chancellordid not certainly mean to object to going into a committee on the bill, but there was one point in it to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. He had not had an opportunity of examining the bill very closely, but he observed that it made it a misdemeanour to set Spring-guns, and other engines of this description, in particular places; and he did entertain a doubt, whether from this it would not be inferred, that it was not illegal to set them elsewhere.
The Earl of Malmesburywas of opinion, that prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in particular places would have the effect of legalizing the setting them in other places. If the bill was founded on a just principle, as he thought it was, it ought to be made general. Setting Spring-guns was altogether objectionable; as it was not, under any circumstances, proper to destroy life by their means. The present bill was, in his opinion, imperfect in principle, and odious in operation. It was directed against one class of persons and one description of property. By another bill before their lordships, game was to be made property; and why was it not to be protected as well as other property? By what possible argument, also, could it be proved that woods were not to be protected? It was not more unjust and inhuman to shoot persons for breaking and stealing trees, than to shoot them for stealing codlins; and yet, the bill went to legalize one, and make the other penal. On the understanding, that the principle of the bill would be extended in the committee, he would not oppose the second reading. Two years ago, a bill had been passed for the protection of gardens; and if this bill were also to pass, the owners of gardens would have the power of shooting men, added to their
238
other means of protection. By the one bill, a person might first be shot, and by the other he might afterwards be sent to prison. He would not oppose the second reading; but it would be with the special understanding, that the principle of the bill should be extended to every species of property. Humanity demanded it in one case as well as in another.
Lord Wharncliffewas also of opinion, that the bill ought to be extended. It would not go to the root of the evil, if it allowed Spring-guns to any situation. At the same time he believed, if the game-laws were not altered, that the bill would not be a benefit to humanity. The noble lord was quite mistaken if he supposed that no conflicts had arisen before Spring-guns were employed. He had had one of his keepers murdered before he had used Spring-guns. He had afterwards used them; and never since using them had he had any conflicts. The same had happened to other persons. He thought the bill ought not to be entertained, unless it was made general. If it was to be confined to woods and plantations, he should certainly oppose it.
The Earl of Carnarvondid not mean to oppose the second reading of the bill, but he wished, before their lordships proceeded to legislate, that they should know how the law stood at present. One judge was in favour of the legality of setting Spring Guns; another was supposed to entertain a very different opinion. Whether setting guns was at present justifiable, or whether the person setting them, and causing death by them, was guilty of manslaughter or murder, neither any unlearned nor learned person could give them any positive information. If in legislating on this subject, they declared that Spring-guns should not be set in some particular places, and left the law in its present state of uncertainty as to other places, their lordships would not do their duty. He wished that either the setting of Spring-guns should be declared unlawful at all places, or the exceptions specified. He, for one, was quite ready to prohibit the use of Spring-guns altogether. Or, if they were allowed in any place, he would confine the use of them to places within walls, and having locked gates, but not where occasional trespassers came. He hoped the question would be so disposed of, as that no person would be liable accidentally to suffer from others using Spring-guns.
Lord Suffieldexplained, that he had not originated this bill. It came from another place, and he had no power to alter it. He would willingly adopt the alteration suggested, of extending the principle of the bill; but he was not competent to alter it except by proposing amendments in the committee.
The bill was read a second time.