The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 4.

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition
from South Brent, Devonshire, against the Catholics.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from
a Mr. Dillon, who claims the Roscommon Peerage,
stating that he was too poor to bring up the wit-
nesses necessary to refute his opponent's claim, and
establish his own, and praying their Lordships to
furnish him the means to bring up his witnesses.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained that
some Returns relative to the Navigation Laws,
which had been formerly moved for, had not yet
been made ; and he moved that these Returns be
forthwith made.—Ordered.

Lord CLIFDEN presented a petition from Ha-
vant Island, and other parishes in Hampshire, pray-
ing for protection to Agriculture, and that the im-
port price should be fixed at 645. per quarter. His
Lordship said, the petition was respectably signed,
and he had thought it his duty to present it; but he
wished to be understood as not entertaining the
same opinion as the petitioners. He was not yet
sure, but he thought he should approve of the Bill
then going through the other House.
The NOBLE LORD also presented petitions
from the Borough of Southwark and the parish of
St. Margaret, Westniinster, praying for some law to
prevent cruelty to animals, such as bull baiting, &c.
Several Private Bills were forwarded one stage.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN gave notice, that
he should on Monday next, move the second read-
ing of a Bill which had come up from the other
House, to amend the 57th Geo. 111 respecting
Costs on Distress.
SPRING GUNS.

Lord SUFFIELD rose to move the Order of
the Day for the second reading of the Spring Guns
Bill. His Lordship said, that in proposing the
second reading of this Bill it would not be neces-
sary 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 lie 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 bad heard of such acci-
dents, 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 suf-
ficiently great. This was, in his opinion, a reason
for prohibiting the setting of spring guns in gardens
as well as in woods. Such instances, however, were
very few, and the great mass of the accidents arose
from setting spring guns in woods. He was, how-
ever, bound, by the principle on which he had op-
posed setting spring guns in woods ; and he would
not object if any Noble Lord should propose to ex-
tend 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 (ilium which he
had no right to do per se. Indeed, he had never
heard any valid arguments for setting spring guns in
anyplace. 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 only existed
in woods and plantations, and to meet that evil the
Bill was drawn • up. Any Noble Lords who pro-
posed to extend its provisions might do so in a Com-
mittee, to which he would willingly consent, and he
hoped they would allow the Bill to go into a Com-
anitaee Some. Noble Lords might wish to make
thep.ro'hibition general,.but excepting walled gardens.
Against such an exception he would enter his pro-
test. It would introduce a new law and a new pu-
nishment into the Code of Great Britain—the pu-
nishment 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 in-
strument, when he did not see him. It was a sneak-
ing assassin-like method of wreaking his vengeance,
which no man would like to encourage. He would
not further detain their Lordships, but just to re-
mark, 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—though 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
bad been ingrafted on it by the use of such sanguinary in-
struments. 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 gulls as the origin of those san-
guinary conflicts which it was said they prevented,
he must contend that the mass of suffering they oc-
casioned was very great, Supposing, also, that in
these contests a poacher was wounded, the punish-
ment fell on the guilty ; but when spring guns
were used, the punishment fell, in nine cases out of
ten, he believed he might say in ninety-nine cases
out of one hundred, on the innocent. Even ad-
mitting, therefore, that the mode of protecting pro-
perty was in any case justifls.ble, which, however,
he did not admit, it protected property by punishing
the innocent, and allowing the guilty to escape.—
Within three weeks at most, there had been two
instances of this, in the gamekeeper and farmer's
boy, to whom he had before alluded. He should
feel disposed to assent to extending the principle of
the Bill in the Committee, and under these circum-
stances he hoped no Noble Lord would object to
the Bill going into a Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did 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 Lordship's attention. He had
not had an opportunity of examining the Bill very
closely, but he observed that it made it a misde-
meanour to set spring guns and other engines of this
description in particular places; and he did enter-
tain a doubt, whether from this it would not be in-
ferred that it was not illegal to set them elsewhere.
The Earl of MALMESBURY was of opinion,
that prohibiting the setting Spring Guns in parti-
cular places would have the effect of legalizing the
setting them in other places. If the Bill was founded
on a just as he thought it was, it ought
to be mGuns was a
d
e
principle,
general.
Setting Spring
alto-
gether objectionable, as it was not, under any cir-
cumstances, 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 he protected as well as other property ? By what
possible argument, also, could it beproved that woods
were not to be protected ? It was not more unjust
and inhuman to shoot persons for breaking and steal-
ing trees, than to shoot them for stealing codlins ;
and yet, the Bill went to legalise one, and make the
other penal. On the understanding that the princi-