The Sun. — 1825-06-23 (London, England)

NEW TIMES.] We rejoice that the second reading of the Spring Guns 13111 was carried, and are only surprised. that Gentlemen of acknowledged humanity. could view so cruel a custom, as the use of those engines, with any thing like approbation. It should be considered, that the person who contends for a right to set Spring Guns, where they may, and often do, kill innocent men, does, in fact, contend for the right of shooting innocent men. Now this right of shooting innocent men is said to he justified, because, the intention; is to shoot poachers; and the shooting of poachers by Spring Guns is said to be justified, because, if they were not so shot, they might be shot by gamekeepers-; and •the shooting of them by gamekeepers is said to be justified, because the poachers won't submit to be disarmed or seized by the 'gamekeepers, and thereupon contests arise',-, and the gamekeeper, finding.- his own life in danger, kills his adversary. 1 t appears to US that the main error consists iu the impression that irt, is, lawful and just to take away the life of a maw for shooting a pheasant. A poacher , attoots a pheasant, which he certainly has no right. to do ; and he shoots it for the purpose of carrying it away, and convertimrit to his own .use or profit, which renders his offence the greater; but if the Lord of ,the Manor himself were present, and in revenge for the loss' of his bird were to shoot the poacher through the head, this would be murder, and •the Lord of the Manor would be hanged -Now, the crime does not surely consist in the mode of firing the gun. Whether it be Alone by the hand or by a spring, appears to us to he very immaterial u, determinhie, the quality of the offence and therefore we cannot help thinking, that to kill a poacher by a  spring gun is, really and essentially, murder too. But if it be unjustifiable to lay a snare for the life of a man who is breaking the laws, how much more so is it to lay a snare which may take away the life of a man wholly guiltless ! Spring guns are often set in places to which strangers may have access, without being aware that they are wandering from a public path. Industrious mechanics car. rying home their work ; ladies or children walking out for health or recreation ; nay, sometimes the very individuals who have set the guns have been wounded by them or killed. The last case may, perhaps, be considered as the least lamentable ; for if it were to happen three or four times in quick succession, it would probably put an effectual stop to the use of these engines. The argument in defence of spring guns is, that less blood is shed by them than in the contests between Gamekeepers and Poachers. This does not meet the whole objection. With those contests the accidental traveller has nothing to do ; but he may be killed by a spring gun. Is this the fair or proper remedy for the evil of poaching ? Is there not a more direct remedy, or at least palliative for that evil ? We apprehend that poaching has only become so prevalent an offence in the country of late years, in consequence of the formation of numerous and extensive preserves for game. Game has been too much multiplied, and brought together into spots which hold out an irresistible temptation to poaching. If it were more spread over the country, it would be better for the genuine Sportsman, hut worse for the Poacher.  [