522 Letter on Affairs in general. MAY, 



little to reason. That part of the statute of 2 Jas. I. cap. 27, is still unre- 

 pealed, which inflicts a penalty of 20 shillings for every pheasant and 

 partridge, which is killed ivith a gun by any person whatever, no matter 

 whether he be qualified or not. " Gentlemen," says Lord Suffield in his 

 admirable pamphlet on the Game Laws, " who are in the habit of bagging 

 upwards of 100 head of game to their single gun in each day's battue, 

 if sued under this statute tor the penalties attaching to their offence, will 

 find battuing rather costly sport/' Let the poachers attend to this hint, 

 and we shall have even the lords of double barrels squeaking for a reform 

 in the law. Lord Wharncliffe's bill, strange to say, leaves this statute, 

 which was made for the protection of hawking, in all its original force 

 and efficacy. 



Along with the two bills I have just been criticising, a third bill has been 

 travelling through parliament to declare the setting of spring-guns unlawful. 

 The object of the proposers of that bill, was to prevent them from being set 

 in any place whatever; but it was defeated by the Marquis of Lansdowne, 

 who carried a clause in the Lords, enabling any man, who thought fit, to 

 set them in his house, and to shoot by accident any of his family. In the 

 debate on the bill, Lord Suffield made an appalling disclosure of the dread- 

 ful devices which the gentlemen of England think themselves justified in 

 employing for the protection of their game. If we are to believe his state- 

 ment, plantations are often converted into large mines for the destruction of 

 poachers. Shells are attached to spring-guns, which explode on the slightest 

 change in the situation of the machinery to which they are attached ; and 

 wooden pheasants, filled with detonating powder, are placed in trees, which 

 have only to be struck by a shot to go off, like a Congreve rocket. These 

 secret engines of death have, strange to say, met with defenders among 

 individuals, who pretend to liberality of feeling and kindness of disposition. 

 It is argued, that if they hurt one man, they deter another; and that it is 

 better humanity (*) to kill a poacher at once, than to send him to a gaol, 

 where he is certain to become indifferent to guilt, and to graduate rapidly 

 in every species of crime. I shall not waste words in pointing out the 

 absurdity and wickedness of this argument, which, if it is worth any thing, 

 is the severest censure that has yet been pronounced upon the impolicy 

 of the Game Laws. The mischief is, that this rural artillery cannot 

 discriminate between the innocent and the guilty, and that it will 

 shoot a squire with as little remorse as a labourer or a poacher. 

 Besides, if it even could discriminate, a poacher is not such an outcast 

 from society, as to be shot without either judge or jury ; " inter 

 pontem et fontem, he may yet," as Lord Coke says, " find mercy." 

 I know, that the setting of these machines is defended by the setting of 

 spikes and tenter-hooks on walls to prevent trespasses upon gardens ; but 

 I doubt the legality of the latter practice, and am sure that there is a wide 

 difference, not only in the magnitude of the evil inflicted by them, but also 

 in the notice of the danger which is given to the eye, and in the criminal 

 intention of the party trespassing. My own opinion is, that there is in the 

 setting of spring-guns such a formed design of doing mischief to some party, 

 as constitutes that degree of legal malice which makes murder of a killing 

 by them ; and had I time, I should like nothing better than to run over the 

 cases in Hawkins, and the other writers on the pleas of the crown, which 



* Vide "Observations on Lord SuffiehPs pamphlet on the Game Laws, by a Country 

 Gentleman." London. Chappie. 182.-5. 



