Star.
London, England, 1827-04-05 00:00:00

t
P
•

wu
I .

and one description of property. By another ;Tit-
fore their hardships, game was to be made property,)
and why was it not to be rotated as well as other pro.
petty ? By what. possible argument, also, could it be
groved 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 legalise one,
and make the other penal. On the understanding that
the principle of the Bill should be extended in the Com-
mittee, be would not oppose the second reading. Two
„years ago, a Bill had been passed for the protection
gardens; and if this Bill were also to pass, the owners
of gardens would have the power of shooting men add•
ed to their other means of protection. By one Bill, a
person might first be shot, and by the other he might
afterwards be sent to prison. He would not oppose
second reading ; but it would be with the special na-
-1
I derstanding, that the principle of the Bill should be
extended to every speciewof property. Humanity i
de-
manded it n one case as well as another.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE was 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 in any situation.—
At the same time he believed, if the Game Laws were
not altered, the Dill would not be a benefit to humanity.
The Noble Lord sou quite mistaken if he supposed that
no conflicts had arisen before spring guns were employ.
ed. He had one of his keepers murdered before he heal
used spiing guns. He bad afterward! used them, sad
never since using them had he had any conflicts. Het
knew the same circumstances had-happened to other
persona. He thought the Bill ought not to be entertaisr.
ed, unless it were made general ; he would not oppcbal
going to a Committee; but if it were to be confined tei
woods: and plantations, be should oppose the Bill. I
The Earl of CARNARVUN did not mean to oppose,
the second reading of the Bill, but he wished, before,
I their Lordships proceeded to legislate, that they knew
how the law stood at present. One Judge was in
favour of the legality of setting Spring Guns; *pother
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, be be-
lieved 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
Lord.hips would not do their duty. He wished that
the subject should at once be exhausted, and either the
setting of Spring Guns should be declared unlawful at
ill places, or the exceptions should be specified. He,
for one, was quite ready to prohibit the use of Spring
Guns altogether; or if they were allowed in any place;
be would-confine the use of them to places within walls, I
'aid having locked gates, and would allow them in no
.spot where there came occasional trespassers. Hegave
Isis consent to the Bill going to a Committee, and he
hoped that the question would be so di.posed of as that
no persons should be liable accidentally to suffer from
others using Spring Guns.
Lord SUFFIELD explained, that he did not originate
this Bill. It came from another place, and he had no
power to alter it. He would willingly adopt the al-
telation suggested, of extending the principle of the
but be was not competent to . alter it, except by
proposing Amendments in the Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed to-morrow.—Adjouroed.

places would have the effect Of legalising the netting-
P
them in other plat's'. If theßill was founded on aloe l:IC
principlir, as he thottht it was, it ought to Is! made web ms
gmieral. Setting Spring Guns wit altngether objec passing.
(Joinable, as it was not, under any circumstances, proper. bin wa
w, to destroy life by their means. The present Bill was, was dli
sw in his opinion, imperfect in principle, and odious in plastiN4
m, operation. It was directed against one class persobens Gabor la
r *a another Bill - asset*