The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-07 00:00:00

SPRING GUNS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the Report
of the Committee on the Spring Gans Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to give notice, that
if no other Noble Lord proposed such an amendment, it
was his intention to move, on the third reading of the Bill,
that nothing in the present Act should prevent setting
spring guns in houses and walled gardens.
Lord SUFFIELD would oppose such an Amendment to
the best of his power. He had an Amendment to suggest
which he would then submit to their Lordships. It was
to withdraw the clause of a Bill relative to bringing actions.
That clause only encumbered the Bill without adding to
its efficiency. As the Bill made the setting spring guns a
misdemeanour, an action for damages would follow of
course. The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN then moved to add a
clause, excepting the inside of the house from the opera-
tion of the Bill. He felt that what had induced their
Lordships to assent to the Bill so readily was, that it put
an end to setting engines to protect property that was not
invaded with violence. To repel violence it was at present
lawful to use violence, and it could not be conceived that
any body would attempt to enter a house without being
guilty of violence. Their Lordships could not desire that
it should prevent the use of those engines, when they were
necessary to protect houses. He himself never used such
machines ; but he knew other persons did, and their houses
were in places so exposed, that they thought they should
not be secure without adopting this precaution, or at least
without giving notice that it was adopted. He had had the
assistance of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack
to draw up the clause, and therefore he offered it to their
Lordships with the greater confidence. The Noble Lord

then moved, that a clause should be added to the 13111,;
cepting houses from its operation.

. -
The Earl of WESTMORLAND was sorry to differ
from the Noble Lord, but he had understood that the great
object of the Bill was to prevent the inflicting of injury, and
lie should be glad to know if this might not be done when
spring guns were set in houses, as well as when they were
set in woods ? He should oppose the amendment.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested, that no accident
could occur except against trespassers, if the guns were al-
ways pointed outwards.
Lord SUFFIELD ventured, with the greatest difficulty,
to differ from the Noble Marquis, but he could not agree
with him as to the right of shooting in dwelling houses.
He apprehended, and he spoke the opinion of legal men,
when he stated, if a person was caught entering a house,
he might be resisted and shot; but if a person had entered
a house, and he was in a drawing-room, for example, and
dhici,a_ed,isel,einr no resistance,
ffi
It
1, et hle,
opiirdistoonliv)passioloseuonttilii:ltegwafimiiiilienntodlmls_loemunoltdt, hbio)iencalgo;unialntp)d,eio.i_ff
murder. No person lied a right to shoot another in his
sons might in fact be shot by spring-guns being set it
hsloceupse P
.s.
No
oerlosonnzs ermightthan
n yesterdaylose thei r
aw
Nobleo r walk Lord inh their
a din
formed him that a gentleman had contrived a very inge-
nious Spring Gun for his house, by which he bad shot
himself, his wife, and his daughter.—(Laugliter.)—Acci-
dents could therefore occur from Spring Guns being set in
unlawful,hiol
aiitscits ;
made
butan lsdieitstiiipnurgki inicoi,pvai SpringG
tobjectiono oin
,our
rslawful,j tro. the
when.7Athhmo
seeeelnNvdionotmul,),lllelvdona t
s shootLeuNoiv
earls,
t
anxious to support the Bill on account of its preventing ac-
cidents, would, he Noped, resist the Amendment.
The Earl of ABINGDON could not help rising, as the
Noble Lord had looked at him so earnestly, to inform their
Lordships that he had not shot his wife and daughter. ---
Noble ,
htSlAi lat augh.)—He
andghhefound. leave)—i thocd prove entering also
afterwardsthis
statehou
ti:h
that on entering
it lie intended no harm, and to find his remedy for being
shot.—(A laugh.)
was
The Earl of MA LMESBURYanthenoguignhethiet
couldlnegoatldtoo
shoot any person who was breaking into a dwelling-house.
The reason why he had supportedtihe.baßrieke
Bill was,
might thatht n
beo
-
d l
al,lvonw ed
hand to do;
andtli as a house
_-breaker
t
by
s'iv)tooditih:p' e was
his
liy o
violence, he should support the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained, that the clause
only said that the setting Spring Guns in dwelling-houses
was not made a misdemeanour by this Act, but it left the
law in other respects as to the subject unaltered. It was
difficult to say what the law was in consequence of some
recent judicial opinions on this subject; but he apprehend-
ed that the correct judicial opinion was, that where due
notice had been given, though it was difficult to ascertain
that due notice had been given, that setting Spring Guns

was not illegal.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, if the clause waa sdoptell,