Besides, it was inconvenient to the state itself, for there were many purposes, on account of which, a man could justifiably enter upon the land of another; and for which the law should secure to him the power of entry. Take the case of the damage by the injury done to individuals, by this practice, and whether it did not therefore enter into the class of public wrongs, as to which no man could be considered as "Volens." The maxim had exclusive application to matters of private wrong, and could have none whatever pursuit of a felon, or of escape from upon any subject connected with the cri- felonious attack-the execution of civil minal jurisprudence of the country. Mr. or criminal process upon the land, on the Justice Best had adverted to the principle part of public officers, and various other that a man must so use his property, as cases which might be assigned. But these not to injure another, but denied its ap- justifiable entries would be precluded, if plication where that other person was men could lawfully set spring guns upon guilty of a trespass. To agree with the their ground, and thus prohibit the aplearned judge, it was necessary to assume proach of any human being, however that a man had that sort of an absolute necessary and warrantable. If spring dominium over his land, which would ex- guns were found to prevent poachers clude all mankind from it in all suppos- from trespassing on the ground where able cases; but, it appeared to him, that they were placed, they would naturally property of every description was rather resort to property not so guarded. This of a qualified, than an absolute nature, gave an undue advantage to him who whether it were in land or any other pos- scrupled not to offer up his fellow beings session. In a state of society, a man's as sacrifices, upon the altar of his pleasures, property was evidently qualified, rather while the humane proprietor suffered acthan absolute, even in those possessions cumulated depredation. Accordingly, if which were more immediately and person- the legislature decided to tolerate the ally his by nature, as in his strength, or practice, it must deem it advisable and even his life. They must not be employ- desirable that it should be general, in ed in a manner incompatible with the order to secure an equal protection, and good of the society to which he belonged, put an end to depredation altogether by or the one might be coerced, and the these means; and then, he would ask, other might be forfeited. The policy of what would be the condition of the counstates had assigned to individuals separate try, if every hollow contained a man-trap, property, the extent of a man's power and every bush a spring gun? The earth over which, varied according to the vary- would become a hell, and mankind would ing temper and circumstances of differ- be divided into devils and victims. A ent governments. It was assigned to him legislature was bound thus to look at the out of what was originally fisc, or com- general consequences of any practice submon stock, and the usufruct was thus se- mitted to its review, and there could be cured exclusively to him, in order to in- no doubt that this was one which must duce him to improve it to the utmost, produce both practically and morallywhich was for the public benefit as well as both immediately and by consequence, for his own. But this purpose being an- the most baneful results to the country. swered, it was not expedient that those He now came to a consideration of the persons, in whom the possession of the remedy for this evil, provided by the bill soil was vested by conventional laws, before the House. First; the act of setshould render the earth, which was given ting the engine was declared to be unto mankind in general as an abiding place, lawful, and any injury short of death was unfit for that main purpose; it was not constituted a misdemeanor. Next, hojustifiable that any man should so deal micide by means of a spring gun was dewith the portion of land which fell to clared to be manslaughter. He had his lot, as to render it an infernal re- shown, that it could not be justifiable or gion, within which he might usurp the excusable homicide, and he thought he power of inflicting death on all comers; had also shewn that, consistently with of inflicting it without warning, and before legal principles, it might be dealt with as the case of the individual could be ex- murder. The noble person, however, amined into, according to the impartial who framed this measure, was restrained practice of that Rhadamanthus, who with- by the humane and benevolent feeling which constantly distinguished him, from treating that as murder which the usage in his -durissima regna Castigatque-auditque. of the country had, to a certain extent, for some time past, tolerated. He had treated it, therefore, as manslaughter, which was defined by the authorities to be, the unlawful killing another, without malice, and either voluntarily, as upon sudden provocation--or involuntarily, but in the commission of an unlawful act. The case of manslaughter by a spring gun, would fall within the last class. The act of setting the spring gun was made an unlawful act-and the death ensuing upon it was assumed to be an involuntary consequence, chargeable, as manslaughter, upon the party. The prohibition to be effected by the bill, of spring guns and man traps, was general. It extended equally to gardens as to fields and woods, and to the night as well as to the day-time. If there was any truth in the principles he had laid down, he could not compromise them by agreeing to an exception in favour of gardens, or to one which would allow the use of spring guns in the night, which some gentlemen desired. Upon those principles both exceptions were inadmissible, and he would rather the matter remain as it was, than accede to any legislative sanction of the practice, however limited. In order, however, to supply the deficiency of the existing laws for the protection of gardens, a deficiency from which had originated the use of spring guns and man traps for that purpose, he had another bill from the Lords to recommend to the notice of the House, which was, to make it felony to steal in a garden, although the fruit or vegetables were severed at the time by the hand of the depredator, in which case, as the law now stood, the depredation could only be dealt with as a trespass, or, under an act of Elizabeth, as a case for compensation, with the alternative of whipping. With these observations, he should leave this bill for the prohibition of spring guns in the hands of the House-and whether it should consider the practice of employing those engines with reference to the homicide and other grievous mischief, which too frequently resulted from it, and which the rejection of the bill would appear to tolerate and even to patronize -or with reference to the inconvenience of permitting individuals thus to make and execute laws for themselves, and to vindicate their property by these bloody and disproportioned extremities, far beyond any which the law itself would administer or whether the House should VOL. XIII. look to the brutalizing effect of the practice on the mind and character of the British people, and to its certain and mischievous tendency to produce a re-action of hostile feeling amongst the lower classes, against the institutions of the country, by destroying that respect for and attachment to them, which it was most important to cultivate and maintain he felt a confidence that it would sanction this measure for putting an end to an anomalous barbarity which was inconsistent with any system of regular government, and especially disgraceful to a country which, in other respects, stood pre-eminent for its laws and institutions, its morals and its usages amongst the enlightened and civilised nations of the earth. He moved, that the bill should be read a second time. Mr. S. Wortley denied, that spring guns were used only by lords of manors for the protection of game. They had been long used by persons of inferior rank, for the protection of various descriptions of property. It was not, therefore, as seemed to be generally argued, a question between the rich and the poor. He contended, that spring guns were not unlawful. According to the law of the land, a man had a right to set them for the protection of his property, provided he gave due notice of his doing so. That had been over and over again determined by the judges on the bench. There were no doubts on the subject: but the bill professed to be for the removal of doubts. It was founded, therefore, on a false principle; and, were it on that ground alone, he would vote against it. The other House was in the habit of criticising bills which they received from the House of Commons. It was but fair to look closely in return at the bills received from the other House; and he would say of this bill, that the preamble was false, and that the clauses were contradictory and unintelligible. In support of his opinion of the legality of the practice, he quoted the opinions of several of the judges, especially that of Mr. Justice Bailey, one of the most humane men living. If spring guns were illegal, then all kinds of property had been up to this time illegally defended, One of the main benefits of the use of spring guns was, that they not only acted as a great discouragement to poaching, but tended to prevent the dreadful evils which resulted from the affrays and fights between bodies of game-keepers and poach4 M ers. Among other instances of the kind, he knew of one in which poachers having been deterred from going on his (Mr. S. W.'s) grounds, in consequence of knowing that there were spring guns set in it, had proceeded to a neighbouring manor, where they were met by a body of gamekeepers. A sanguinary conflict took place. One of the game-keepers was severely wounded; one of the poachers also was wouned, and another taken and transported. Such evils as these were averted by spring guns. If the bill should proceed, it was his intention to propose an amendment, that the use of spring guns should be illegal only during the day, but not in the night. were among the greatest evils with which the country was afflicted; and it was incumbent on the House to do what they could to put an end to a system which maintained a kind of civil war, and which prevented that good feeling which would otherwise subsist between the rich and the poor. If the setting of spring guns would, as the hon. member for Yorkshire seemed to suppose, prevent such an evil, the practice might almost be tolerated. But, we had all the evils resulting from the Game laws added to the evils resulting from this cruel system. Mr. R. Colborne observed, that he was one of those who objected to the bill, not because they were admirers of spring guns, but because they preferred that mode of preserving game and other property, to other measures which might be adopted. As to humanity, he could not highly applaud the humanity of persons, who ob well-organized bodies of armed men, to turn out and fight with the poachers. It was his firm opinion, that if the quantity of blood spilt in the nightly conflicts to which he alluded, could be compared with the quantity of blood spilt accidentally by spring guns, the tide of opinion would not run so strongly as it did in opposition to the latter mode of defence. Sir F. Burdett observed, that there was scarcely any instance on record, of spring guns having taken effect on the persons against whom they were planted. Their general operation was on innocent perSORS; and was something very like assassi-jected to spring guns, but who prepared nation. After adverting to the decision of the court of King's-bench on the subject, he observed, that previous to that decision the judges of the court of Common Pleas were divided in opinion respecting it; so that the assertion in the preamble of the bill, that doubts existed respecting the legality of the practice of using spring guns, was well founded. The English law was so tender of human life, that it did not permit it to be taken, except when property could not be otherwise defended. Yet here was a mode of taking life operating principally upon the innocent, and which, even if it operated upon the most guilty, would inflict upon them a punishment more than adequate to their offence. Those upon whom it principally operated were children straying into the woods to pick up sticks or flowers; or travellers, wandering out of their road. It was allowed, on all hands, that the use of spring guns would be illegal, were it not accompanied by due notice; now, from the very nature of the case, due notice could not be given. But, the greatest evil attendant on spring guns was, their being applied to the protection of game. He could not coincide with those who thought so discreditably of English gentlemen, as to believe that the preservation of game was indispensable to their residence in the country, and their performance of the various duties of their situation. To call such an argument in aid of the use of spring guns was a proof of the weakness of the cause. The Game laws generally Mr. Hudson Gurney said, he thought the country under great obligations to the noble lord with whom this measure originated in the other House; who was himself a great proprietor, and had more game than any other individual in the county of Norfolk. The infamous practice of setting spring guns was, he said, of very modern introduction; the victims of it were generally the innocent. Unhappily, it had of late been very much on the increase. He believed himself that it was entirely unlawful, and trusted it would ever remain so. Lord Binning was in favour of the principle of the bill, as it applied to the question of game, but there were some clauses in it to which he could not assent. Mr. Scarlett observed that, by the law of England, game was not property. If it were, the setting of spring guns might be the more excusable; but after the decision in the courts, some revision of the law was requisite. He should therefore vote for the second reading, in the hope of accomplishing it. After a short reply from Mr. Tennyson, the House divided: Ayes 39; Noès 27. List of the Majority and Minority. Browne, D. Cooper, Bransby MAJORITY. Scarlett, J. Stuart, lord James Binning, lord Phillimore, Dr. Plummer, W. Burdett, sir F. Rice, T. S. Russell, lord J. Corbett, Panton Denman, T. Evans, W. Forbes, sir C. Gurney, Hudson Hardinge, sir H. Twiss, Horace Haward, Henry Wilson, C. Hendley, H. Hume, Jos. Hutchinson, C. H. Wilson, sir R. TELLERS. Hobhouse, J. C. Percy, capt. TELLERS. sessions, that delays were not confined to the court of Chancery. After the wish that had been expressed, he would withdraw the bill; but would introduce it next session. HOUSE OF LORDS. The RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.] Marquis of Hastings rose to move the second reading of the bill he had introduced to explain the clause of the act of the 13th of Geo. 3rd, relating to interest payable in the East-Indies. He observed, that as the learned judges were now present, as well Wodehouse, hon. col. as several noble lords who were not in their places when he introduced the bill, he should recapitulate the arguments which he had addressed to the House on that occasion. His bill was intended to define the true scope and meaning of the limitation of interest contained in the clause. The opinion which the law officers of the Crown had given was now before their lordships, and they would find, that that opinion was contrary to the understood meaning of the clause in India, and to the practice which had always been followed there. The bill he introduced, therefore, declared in express terms, that the clause in the 13th Geo. 3rd did not extend to persons within the territories of an independent sovereign. The law officers of the Crown, whose opinions were asked on this clause, had been under the necessity of extracting some meaning or other from it; but they had fallen into an error in conceiving that it extended beyond the British dominions in India. If they had looked into former statutes, they would have found that, in the greater part of those statutes, the words "East-Indies" were exclusively applied to the possessions of the East-India company. The noble marquis then reiterated what he had before stated respecting the practice of the Indian government, and repeated his argument, that offences committed in an independent state could not be prosecuted in any of the three presidencies, since the courts of those presidencies did not even take cognizance of offences committed within the jurisdiction of each other. In the paper on the table, their lordships would find a reference to the 37th of the late king; but that act threw no light on the clause in question; and it would, indeed, have been very extraordinaryiftwenty years had been suffered to elapse without this Colburn, Ridley Shelley, sir John ASSESSORS AT ELECTIONS' BILL.] Mr. H. Twiss moved the committal of this bill. Mr. Hobhouse said, that the bill had been before the House almost as many sessions as he had been a member of it; and yet he had hardly heard any reason in its support. The learned mover seemed to think that there was a want of lawyers at elections; now, he thought the evil was of an opposite character-from what he had seen, there were too many lawyers at elections. But without adverting to the provisions of the bill, he had to express the hope that at so advanced a period of the session, the bill might be withdrawn. Mr. H. Twiss said, that the fault was not his that the bill had not been brought on earlier; nor was the situation of his bill peculiar; others, not originating with the government, being similarly circumstanced; so that it would seem, as he had brought the bill before the House four clause being understood. The clause was framed to meet a substantive evil. It was supposed that public functionaries lent money to native princes at exorbitant interest, and the object was, to prohibit such persons from engaging in pecuniary transactions of that kind. The noble marquis said, he would move the second reading, and then put a question to the Jearned judges, whether the bill he had introduced did truly set forth the intent and meaning of the clause in the 13th of Geo. 3rd. The bill was read a second time, and the judges withdrew. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, June 22. PETITION OF F. JONES, COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD.] Mr. Hume said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Frederick Jones, of Bristol, on a subject of great importance the laws respecting our currency. The House were aware that a great increase had taken place in the price of all the necessaries of life, and that it was held as a general principle by many political economists, that where such a great rise took place in all the articles of consumption, it was chiefly attributable to some change in the state of the currency. There were different opinions on this subject; but, as it appeared by the petition which he was about to present, that a large portion of the currency of the country was not immediately convertible into gold, it was very possible that that circumstance might have had a considerable effect in producing the rise to which he had alluded. After a brief history of Mr. Peel's bill, and of the subsequent measure by which country bankers were permitted to issue small notes, the hon. member proceeded to state the contents of the petition. It appeared that the petitioner, having occasion for some gold, presented six one pound notes at the Castle Bank at Bristol, for which he demanded gold; when he was told by the clerk, who tendered him Bank of England notes, that the gold was locked up, and that he could not comply with his request. When, again, he presented forty-five one pound notes of the same bank for payment in gold, gold was again refused; and Bank of England notes were again tendered. On applying to his attorney, he was informed that his only remedy was an action at law; that it would be nine months before the suit could be brought to a conclusion; and that the operation of the verdict might then be further postponed by a writ of error. The petitioner therefore prayed for the enactment of a law, enabling persons holding country bank-notes to obtain a summary recovery of their value in gold; or, that the House would apply to the disgraceful and growing evil in question such other remedies as in their wisdom they might think calculated to meet it. With Mr. Peel's bill the House and the country were very well satisfied; but the subsequent measure respecting the country banks had materially endangered the benefits derived from it. What appeared to be wanted was, a bill which should place country banks on the same footing with respect to paying their notes in gold as the Bank of England. The advantage of such a bill would be two-fold. It would prevent inconvenience to those who, for any particular purpose, wished to obtain gold; and it would prevent the necessity of having recourse to legal proceedings for a remedy. Such a measure was well worthy of consideration; and in his opinion, the House ought not to separate before they passed a precautionary act, making country banknotes payable in cash. He knew it was the opinion of his lamented friend, Mr. Ricardo, that the currency of the country was in a good state, while country banks were compelled to pay in Bank of England notes, which Bank of England notes were payable in gold. But the inconvenience felt under the present system, by any man resident in the country, who, wanting twenty or a hundred sovereigns, was obliged to send up to the capital for them, seemed to require some remedy. He now begged leave to present the petition. Mr. J. Smith said, that never in the course of his experience had he heard a more singular petition. Country banks were now placed on the same footing as the Bank of England, and if a country banker refused to pay on demand he was liable to an action. He thought, however, that in case of a great run, country bankers ought to be allowed time to get their specie from London. It might have happened that a house might have been so indiscreet as to refuse payment; but he knew there was not a respectable country banker in England who would refuse to pay notes in gold if demanded. He never knew a petition less necessary, less called |