press our doubts, or shall we confidently state at once the immense wealth he had acquired?-a prodigious variety of insects, two hundred and thirty birds, ten land-tortoises, five armadillos, two large serpents, a sloth, an ant-bear, and a cayman. At Liverpool, the custom-house officers, men ignorant of Linnæus, got hold of his collection, detained it six weeks, and in spite of remonstrances to the treasury, he was forced to pay very high duties. This is really perfectly absurd; that a man of science cannot bring a pickled armadillo, for a collection of natural history, without paying a tax for it. This surely must have happened In the dark days of Nicolas. We cannot doubt but that such paltry exactions have been swept away, by the manly and liberal policy of Robinson and Huskisson. That a great people should compel an individual to make them a payment before he can be permitted to land a stuffed snake upon their shores, is, of all the paltry custom house robberies, we ever heard of, the most mean and contemptible-but Major rerum ordo nascitur. The fourth journey of Mr. Waterton is to the United States. It is pleasantly written; but our author does not appear as much at home among men as among beasts. Shooting, stuffing and pursuing are his occupations. He is lost in places where there are no bushes, snakes, nor Indians-but he is full of good feeling wherever he goes. We cannot avoid introducing the following passage: The steamboat from Quebec to Montreal had above five hundred Irish emigrants on board. They were going "they hardly knew whither," far away from dear Ireland. It made one's heart ache to see them all huddled together, without any expectation of ever revisiting their native soil. We feared that the sorrow of leaving home for ever, the miserable accommodations on board the ship which had brought them away, and the tossing of the angry ocean, in a long and dreary voyage, would have rendered them callous to good behaviour. But it was quite otherwise. They conducted themselves with great propriety. Every American on board seemed to feel for them. And then " they were so full of wretchedness. Need and oppression stared within their eyes. Upon their backs hung ragged misery. The world was not their friend." "Poor, dear Ireland," exclaimed an aged female, as I was talking to her, "I shall never see it any more!"'-(pp. 259, 260.) And thus it is in every region of the earth! There is no country where an Englishman can set his foot, that he does not meet these miserable victims of English cruelty and oppression-banished from their country by the stupidity, bigotry, and meanness of the English people, who trample on their liberty and conscience, because each man is afraid in another reign, of being out of favour, and losing his share in the spoil. We are always glad to see America praised (slavery excepted). And yet there is still, we fear, a party in this country, who are glad to pay their court to the timid and the feeble, by sneering at this great spectacle of human happiness. We never think of it without considering it as a great lesson to the people of England, to look into their own affairs, to watch and suspect their rulers, and not to be defrauded of happiness and money by pompous names and false pretences. ers of humour, would improve this gentleman's style. As it is, he has a considerable talent at describing. He abounds with good feeling; and has written a very entertaining book, which hurries the reader out of his European parlour, into the heart of tropical forests, and gives, over the rules and the cultivation of the civilized parts of the earth, a momentary superiority to the freedom of the savage, and the wild beauties of nature. We honestly recommend the book to our readers: it is well worth the perusal. MAN TRAPS AND SPRING GUNS. (Edinburgh Most of our readers will remember, that we very lately published an article upon the use of steel traps and spring guns; and, in the course of discussion, had occasion to animadvert upon the report of Mr. Justice Best's judgment, in the case of Ilott and Wilkes, as reported in Chetwynd's Edition of Burn's Justice, published in the spring of the present year. In the Morning Chronicle, of the 4th of June, 1821, Mr. Justice Best is reported to have made the following observations in the King's Bench : 'Mr. Justice Best said, Mr. Chetwynd's book having been mentioned by my learned brother Bayley, I must take this opportunity, not without some pain, of adverting to what I am reported, in his work, to have said in the case of Ilott v. Wilkes, and of correcting a most gross misrepresentation. I am reported to have concurred with the other judges, and to have delivered my judgment at considerable length, and then to have said, "This case has been discussed at the bar, as if these engines were exclusively resorted to for the protection of game; but I consider them as lawfully applicable to the protection of every species of property against unlawful trespassers." This is not what I stated; but the part which I wish more particularly to deny, as ever having said, or even conceived, is this" But if even they might not lawfully be used for the protection of game, I, for one, should be extremely glad to adopt such means, if they were found sufficient for that purpose." I confess I am surprised that this learned person should suppose, from the note of any one, that any person who ever sat in a court of justice as a judge could talk such wicked nonsense as I am made to talk; and I am surprised that he should venture to give the authority he does for what he has published; for I find, that the reference he gives in the appendix to his book is 3 Barn. and Ald. 304, where there is a correct report of that case, and where it will be found that every word uttered by me is directly contrary to what I am supposed, by Mr. Chetwynd's statement of the case, to have said. I don't trouble the court with reading the whole of what I did say on that occasion, but I will just say that I said--"My brother asked, namely, Can you indict a man for putting spring Bayley has illustrated this case by the question which he guns in his enclosed field? I think the question put by Lord Chief Justice Gibbs, in the case of Dean v. Clayton, in the Common Pleas, a still better illustration, viz. Can you justify entering into enclosed lands to take away guns so set? If both these questions must be answered in the negative, it cannot be unlawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set, as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Humanity requires that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity." A popular work has quoted this report from Mr. Chetwynd's work, but has omitted this important line (which omission reminds one of the progress of a thing, the name of which one does not choose to mention,) "that I had concurred in what had Now, what shall we say, after all, of Mr. Waterton ? fallen from the other judges;" and omitting that line, they That he has spent a great part of his life in wandering state, that one had said, "It is my opinion, that with notice, or without notice, this might be done." Now, concurring in the wild scenes he describes, and that he describes with the other judges, it is impossible I should say that. It them with entertaining zeal and real feeling. His is right that this should be corrected, not that I entertain stories draw largely sometimes on our faith; but a any angry feeling, for too much time has elapsed since then man who lives in the woods of Cayenne must do many for any anger to remain on my mind; but all I claim, with odd things-things utterly unknown to the dwellers in respect to the observations made in that work, severe as Hackney and Highgate. We do not want to rein up mercy if I should ever entertain such doctrines,) is, that I they are, (and I, for one, feel that I should deserve no Mr. Waterton too tightly-because we are convinced may not be misrepresented. It is not necessary for me, in he goes best with his head free. But a little less of this place, to say, that no man entertains more horror of the apostrophe, and some faint suspicion of his own pow-doctrine I am supposed to have laid down than I do, that 'Our western brother is in possession of a country replete with every thing that can contribute to the happiness and comfort of mankind. His code of laws, purified by experience and common sense, has fully answered the expectations of the public. By acting up to the true spirit of this code, he has reaped immense advantages from it. His advancement, as a nation, has been rapid beyond all calculation; and, young as he is, it may be remarked without any impropriety, that he is now actually reading a salutary lesson to the rest of the civilized world.'-(p. 273.) the life of man is to be treated lightly and indifferently, in comparison with the preservation of game, and the amusement of sporting; that the laws of humanity are to be violated for the sake merely of preserving the amusement of game. I am sure no man can justly impute to me such wicked doctrines. It is unnecessary for me to say, that I entertain no such sentiments; and therefore I hope I shall be excused, not on account of my own feelings, but as far as the public are interested in the character of a judge, in saying, that no person should blame a judge for what has been unjustly put into his mouth.' His lordship's speech is reported in the New Times of the same date, as follows: one species of out-door property and another, (except in cases where the taking or breaking into the property amounts to felony.) If the owner of woods cannot set spring-guns in his wood, the owner of an orchard, or of a field with potatoes or turnips, or any other crop usually the object of plunder, cannot set them in such field. How, then, are these kinds of property to be protected, at a distance from the residence of the owner, in the night, and in the absence of his servants? It has been said that the law has provided remedies for any injuries to such things by action. But the offender must be detected before he can be subjected to an action; and the expense of continual watching for this purpose would often exceed the value of the property to be protected. If we look at the subject in this point of view, we may find amongst poor tenants, who are Mr. Justice Best said, "My brother Bayley has quoted prevented from paying their rents by the plunder of their Mr. Chetwynd's edition of Burn: I am surprised that the crops, men who are more objects of our compassion than the learned author of that work should have made me talk suffers. If an owner of a close cannot set spring-guns, he can wanton trespasser, who brings on himself the injury which he such mischievous nonsense, as he has given to the public, in a report of my judgment, in the case of Ilott and Wilkes. Put glass bottles or spikes on the top of a wall, or even have a I am still more surprised, that he should have suffered this been said, in argument, that you may see the glass bottles or savage dog, to prevent persons from entering his yard. It has judgment to remain uncorrected, after he had seen a true spikes; and it is admitted, that if the exact spot where these report of the case in Barnwall and Alderson, to which report he has referred in his appendix." Mr. Chetwynd's maintain any action for the injury he received from one of guns are set was pointed out to the trespasser, he could not report has the following passage: "Mr. Justice Best con- them. As to seeing the glass bottles or spikes, that must decurred with the other judges." His lordship concluded as follows:-"This case has been discussed at the bar, as if pend on the circumstance whether it be light or dark at the time of the trespass. But what difference does it make, whethese inquiries were exclusively resorted to for the protecther the trespasser be told the gun is set in such a spot, or that tion of game; but I considered them as lawfully applicable there are guns in different parts of such a field, if he has no to the protection of every species of property against un-right to go on any part of that field? It is absurd to say you lawful trespassers. But if even they might not lawfully be may set the guns, provided you tell the trespasser exactly used for the protection of game, I for one should be extremely where they are set, because then the setting them could answer glad to adopt such measures, if they were found sufficient for no purpose. My brother Bayley has illustrated this case, by that purpose." A popular periodical work contains the passage just cited, putting spring-guns in his enclosed field? I think the question the question which he asked, namely, Can you indict a man for with the omission of the words "concurred with the other put by Lord C. J. Gibbs, in the case of the Common Pleas, a judges." Of this omission I have reason to complain, because, still better illustration, viz., Can you justify entering into if it had been inserted, the writer of the article could not have enclosed lands, to take away guns so set? If both these quessaid, "It follows, that a man may put his fellow-creatures to tions must be answered in the negative, it cannot be unlawful death for any infringement of his property, for picking the to set spring-guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any sloes and blackberries off his hedges; for breaking a few dead road, giving such notice that they are set as to render it in the sticks out of them by night or by day, with resistance or with-highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood out resistance, with warning or without warning." The judges with whom Mr. Chetwynd makes me concur in opinion, all give their judgment on the ground of due notice being given I do not complain of the other observations contained in this work; they would have been deserved by me had I ever uttered such an opinion as the report of Mr. Chetwynd has stated me to have delivered. The whole of what I said will be found to be utterly inconsistent with the statement, by those who will read the case in "Barnewall and Alderson." I will only trouble the court with the passage which will be found in the report of my judgment, in "3 Barnewall and Alderson, 319"-" It cannot be unlawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set, as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Humanity required that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity." I have taken the first opportunity of saying this, because I think it of importance to the public that such a misrepresentation of the opinion of one of the judges should not be circulated without some notice.' We subjoin the report of Messrs. Barnewall and Alderson, here alluded to, and allowed by Mr. Justice Best to be correct. must know that they are so set. Humanity requires that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity. It has been said in argument, that it is a principle of law, that you cannot do indirectly what you are not permitted to do directly. This principle is not applicable to the case. You cannot shoot a man that comes on your land, because you may turn him off by means less hurtful to him; and, therefore, if you saw him walking in your field, and were to invite him to proceed on his walk, knowing that he must tread on a wire, and so shoot himself with a spring-gun, you would be liable to all the consequences that would follow. The invitation to him to pursue his walk is doing indirectly what, by drawing the trigger of a gun with your own hand, is done directly. But the case is just the reverse, if, instead of inviting him to walk on your land, you tell him to keep off, and warn him of what will follow if he does not. It is also said, that it is a maxim of law, that you must so use your property as not to injure another's. This maxim I admit; but I deny its application to the case of a man who comes to trespass on my property. It applies only to cases where a man has only a transient property, such as in the air or water that passes over his land, and which he must not corrupt by nuisance; or where a man has a qualified property, as in land near another's ancient windows, or in land over which another has a right of way. In the first case, he must do nothing on his land to stop the light of the windows, argued, as if it appeared in it that the guns were set to pre or, in the second, to obstruct the way. This case has been serve game; but that is not so: they were set to prevent trespasses on the lands of the defendant. Without, however, saying in whom the property of game is vested, I say that a man has a right to keep persons off his lands, in order to preserve the game. Much money is expended in the protection of game; and it would be hard if, in one night, when the keepers are absent, a gang of poachers might destroy what has been kept at so much cost. If you do not allow men of landed estates to preserve their game, you will not prevail on them to reside in the country. Their poor neighbours will thus lose their proit derives from an independent, enlightened, and unpaid matection and kind offices; and the government the support that gistracy.' 'Best J. The act of the plaintiff could only occasion mere nominal damage to the wood of the defendant. The injury that the plaintiff's trespass has brought upon himself is extremely severe. In such a case, one cannot, without pain, decide against the action. But we must not allow our feelings to induce us to lose sight of the principles which are essential to the rights of property. The prevention of intrusion upon property is one of these rights; and every proprietor is allowed to use the force that is absolutely necessary to vindicate it. If he uses more than is absolutely necessary, he renders himself responsible for all the consequences of the excess. Thus, if a man comes on my land, I cannot lay hands on him to remove him until I have desired him to go off. If he will not depart on request, I cannot proceed immediately to beat him, but must endeavour to push him off. If he is too powerful for me, I cannot use a dangerous weapon, but must first call in aid other assistance. I am speaking of out-door property, and of cases in which no felony is to be apprehended. It is As Mr. Justice Best denies that he did say what a evident, also, that this doctrine is only applicable to trespasses very respectable and grave law publication reported committed in the presence of the owner of the property tres- him to have said, and as Mr. Chetwynd and his re passed on. When the owner and his servants are absent at porter have made no attempt to vindicate their report, the time of the trespass, it can only be repelled by the terror of course our observations cease to be applicable. of spring-guns, or other instruments of the same kind. There There is certainly nothing in the term report of Mr. is in such case no possibility of proportioning the resisting Justice Best's speech which calls for any degree of force to the obstinacy and violence of the trespasser, as the owner of the close may and is required to do where he is pre- moral criticism; nothing but what a respectable and sent. There is no distinction between the mode of defence of temperate judge might fairly have uttered. Had such to say I entertain set, as to render it in the highest de- There is, perhaps, some little inconsistency in these opposite extracts; but we have not the smallest wish to insist upon it. We are thoroughly and honestly convinced, that Mr. Justice Best's horror at the destruction of human life for the mere preservation of game is quite sincere. It is impossible, indeed, that any human being, of common good nature, could entertain a different feeling upon the subject, when it is earnestly pressed upon him; and though, perhaps, there may be judges upon the bench more remarkable for imperturbable apathy, we never heard Mr. Justice Best accused of ill nature. In condescending to notice our observations, in destroying the credit of Chetwynd's report, and in withdrawing the canopy of his name from the bad passions of country gentlemen, he has conferred a real favour upon the public. been the report cited in Burn, it never would have drawn from us one syallable of reprehension. We beg leave, however, to observe, that we have never said that it was Mr. Justice Best's opinion, as reported in Chetwynd, that a man might be put to death without notice, but without warning; by which we meant a very different thing. If notice was given on boards, that certain grounds were guarded by watchmen with fire arms, the watchmen, feeling perhaps some little respect for human life, would probably call out to the man to stand and deliver himself up-Stop, or I'll shoot you!' 'Stand, or you are a dead man or some such compunctious phrases as the law compels living machines to use. But the trap can give no such warning-can present to the intruder no alternative of death or surrender. Now these different modes of action in the dead or the living guard, is what we alluded to in the words without warning. We meant to characterize the ferocious, unrelenting nature of the means used-and the words are perfectly correct and applicable, after all the printed notices in the world. Notice is the communication of something about to happen, after some little interval of time. Warning is the communication of some imminent danger. Nobody gives another notice that he will imme- Mr. Justice Best, however, must excuse us for saydiately shoot him through the head-or warns him ing, that we are not in the slightest degree convinced that he will be a dead man in less than thirty years. by his reasoning. We shall suppose a fifth judge to This, and not the disingenuous purpose ascribed to us have delivered his opinion in the case of Ilott against by Mr. Justice Best, is the explanation of the offend- Wilkes, and to have expressed himself in the following words. We are thoroughly aware that Mr. Justice ing manner. But we must caution Mr. Chetwynd Best was an advocate for notice, and never had the against introducing this fifth judge in his next edition most distant intention of representing his opinion of Burn's justice; and we assure him that he is only otherwise and we really must say, that (if the report an imaginary personage. had heen correct) there never was a judicial speech My brother Best justly observes, that prevention where there was so little necessity for having recourse of intrusion upon private property is a right which to the arts of misrepresentation. We are convinced, every proprietor may act upon, and use force to vinhowever, that the report is not correct-and we are heartily glad it is not. There is in the Morning Chronicle an improper and offensive phrase, which (now we know Mr. Justice Best's style better) we shall attribute to the reporters, and pass over without further notice. It would seem, from the complaint of the learned judge, that we had omitted something in the middle of the quotation from Chetwynd; whereas we have quoted every word of the speech as Chetwynd has given it, and only began our quotation after the preliminary observations, because we had not the most distant idea of denying that Mr. Justice Best considered ample notice as necessary to the legality of these proceedings. dicate the force absolutely necessary for such vindication. If any man intrude upou another's lands, the proprietor must first desire him to go off, then lay hands upon the intruder, then push him off; and if that will not do, call in aid other assistance, before he uses a dangerous weapon. If the proprietor uses more force than is absolutely necessary, he renders himself responsible for all the consequences of the excess. In this doctrine I cordially concur; and admire (I am sure, with him) the sacred regard which our law every where exhibits for the life and safety of man-its tardiness and reluctance to proceed to extreme violence: but my learned brother then observes as follows;" It is evident, also, that this doctrine is There are passages in the Morning Chronicle alrea-only applicable to trespasses committed in the predy quoted, and in the term report, which we must take the liberty of putting in juxtaposition to each other. Mr. Justice Best in sence of the owner of the property trespassed upon. When the owner and his servants are absent at the time of the trespass, it can only be repelled by the terror of spring guns, or other instruments of the same kind." If Mr. Justice Best means, by the terror of the Morning Chro- Mr. Justice Best in the Term Reports, the spring guns, the mere alarm that the notice exnicle of the 4th of June, 1821. It is not necessa Barnewall and Alderson. cites-or the powder without the bullets-noise without danger-it is not worth while to raise an argument When the owner and his servants upon the point; for, absent or present, notice or no ry for me in this are absent at the time of the trespass, notice, such means must always be lawful. But if my place to say, that it can only be repelled by the terror of brother Best means that in the absence of the propri no man entertains spring guns, or other instruments of etor, the intruder may be killed by such instruments, ore horror of the the same kind. There is in such cases, after notice, this is a doctrine to which I never can doctrine I am sup- no possibility of proportioning the re-assent; because it rests the life and security of the posed to have laid sisting force to the obstinacy and vio- trespasser upon the accident of the proprietor's predown, than I do, lence of the trespasser, as the owner of sence. that the life of man the close may, and is required to do, In that presence there must be a most cautiis to be treated when he is present.-317. ous and nicely graduated scale of admonition and lightly and indif- Without saying in whom the proper-harmless compulsion; the feelings and safety of the ferently, in com- ty of game is vested, I say that a man intruder are to be studiously consulted; but if business parison with the has a right to keep persons off his lands, or pleasure call the proprietor away, the intruder may preservation of in order to preserve the game. Much be instantly shot dead by the machinery. Such a money is expended on the protection state of law, I must be permitted to say, is too inconof game; and it would be hard if, in one night, when the keepers are absent, gruous for this or any other country. a gang of poachers might destroy what has been kept at so much cost.-320. game and the amusement of sporting-that the laws of humanity are to be violated for the sake merely of preserving the amusement of game. I am sure no man can justly impute to me such wicked doctrines; it is unnecessary for me If an owner of a close cannot set spring guns, he cannot put glass bottles or spikes on the top of a wall.-318. If both these questions must be answered in the negative, it cannot be unlawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road; giving such notice that they are 'If the alternative is the presence of the owner and his servants or such dreadful consequences as these, why are the owner or his servants allowed to be absent? If the ultimate object in preventing such intrusions is pleasure in sporting, it is better that pleasure should be rendered more expensive, than that the life of man should be rendered so precarious. But why is it impossible to proportion the resisting force to the obstinacy of the trespasser in the absence of the pro 'There are crops, I admit, of essential importance to agriculture, which will not bear the expense of vigilance; and if there are districts where such crops are exposed to such serious and disheartening depreda tion, that may be a good reason for additional severity of the legislator, and not of the proprietor. If the legislature enacts fine and imprisonment as the punishment for stealing turnips, it is not to be endured that the proprietor should award to this crime the punishment of death. If the fault is not sufficiently prevented by the punishments already in existence, he must wait till the frequency and flagrancy of the of fence attract the notice, and stimulate the penalties of those who make laws. He must not make laws (and those very bloody laws) for himself. prietor? Why may not an intruder be let gently down spring guns, are founded-1st, in the magnitude of the into five feet of liquid mud?-why not caught in a box evil inflicted; 2ndly, in the great difference of the nowhich shall detain him till the next morning?-why tice which the trespasser receives; 3dly, in the very not held in a toothless trap till the proprietor arrives? | different evidence of criminal intention in the trespass-such traps as are sold in all the iron shops in this er; 4thly, in the greater value of the property incity? We are bound, according to my brother Best, vaded; 5thly, in the greater antiquity of the abuse. to inquire if these means have been previously resort- To cut the fingers, or to tear the hand, is of course a ed to; for upon his own principle, greater violence more pardonable injury than to kill. The trespasser, must not be used, where less will suffice for the remo- in the day-time, sees the spikes; and by day or night, val of the intruder. at all events, he sees or feels the wall. It is impossible he should not understand the nature of such a prohibition, or imagine that his path lies over this wall; whereas the victim of the spring gun may have gone astray, may not be able to read, or may first cross the armed soil in the night time, when he cannot read;— and so he is absolutely without any notice at all. In the next place, the slaughtered man may be perfectly innocent in his purpose, which the scaler of the walls cannot be. No man can get to the top of a garden wall without a criminal purpose. A garden, by the common consent and feeling of mankind, contains more precious materials than a wood or a field, and may seem to justify a greater jealousy and care. Lastly, and for these reasons, perhaps, the practice of putting spikes and glass bottles has prevailed for this 'I do not say that the setter of the trap or gun al- century past; and the right so to do has become, from lures the trespasser into it; but I say that the punish- time, and the absence of cases, (for the plaintiff, in ment he intends for the man who trespasses after no- such a case, must acknowledge himself a thief,) invetice is death. He covers his spring gun with furze terate. But it is quite impossible, because in some and heath, and gives it the most natural appearance trifling instances, and in much more pardonable cirhe can; and in that gun he places the slugs by which cumstances, private vengeance has usurped upon the he means to kill the trespasser. This killing of an province of law, that I can, from such slight abuses, unchallenged, unresisting person, I really cannot help confer upon private vengeance the power of life and considering to be as much murder as if the proprietor death. On the contrary, I think it my imperious duty had shot the trespasser with his gun. Giving it all to contend, that punishment for such offences as these the attention in my power, I am utterly at a loss to is to be measured by the law, and not by the exaggerdistinguish between the two cases. Does it signify ated notions which any individual may form of the whose hand or whose foot pulls the string which moves importance of his own pleasures. It is my duty, inthe trigger?-the real murderer is he who prepares stead of making one abuse a reason for another, to rethe instrument of death, and places it in a position call the law back to its perfect state, and to restrain that such hand or foot may touch it for the purposes as much as possible the invention and use of private of destruction. My brother Holroyd says, the tres-punishments. Indeed, if this wild sort of justice is to passer who has had a notice of guns being set in the be tolerated, I see no sort of use in the careful adaptawood is the real voluntary agent who pulls the trigger. tion of punishments to crimes, in the humane labours But I most certainly think that he is not. He is the of the lawgiver. Every lord of a manor is his own animal agent, but not the rational agent-he does not Lycurgus, or rather his own Draco, and the great purintend to put himself to death; but he foolishly trusts pose of civil life is defeated. Inter nova tormentorum in the chance of escaping, and is any thing but a vo- genera machinasque exitiales, silent leges. luntary agent in firing the gun. If a trespasser were to rush into a wood meaning to seek his own destruction-to hunt for the wire, and when found, to pull it, he would indeed be the agent in the most philosoph cal sense of the word. But, after entering the wood, he does all he can to avoid the gun-keeps clear of every suspicious place, and is baffled only by the superior cunning of him who planted the gun. How the firing of the gun then can be called his act-his voluntary act-I am at a loss to conceive. The practice has unfortunately become so common, that the first person convicted for such a murder, and acting under the delusion of right, might be a fit object of royal mercy. Still, in my opinion, such an act must legally be considered as murder. 'It has been asked, if it be an indictable offence to set such guns in a man's own ground; but let me first put a much greater question-Is it murder to kill any man with such instruments? If it is, it must be indictable to set them. To place an instrument for the purpose of committing murder, and to surrender (as in such cases you must surrender) all control over its operation, is clearly an indictable offence. 'All my brother judges have delivered their opinions as if these guns were often set for the purposes of terror, and not of destruction. To this I can only say, that the moment any man puts a bullet into the spring gun, he has some other purpose than that of terror; and if he does not put a bullet there, he never can be the subject of argument in this court. 'My Lord Chief Justice can see no distinction between the case of tenter-hooks upon a wall, and the placing of spring guns, as far as the lawfulness of both is concerned. But the distinctions I take between the case of tenter-hooks upon a wall, and the setting of 'Whatever be the law, the question of humanity is a separate question. I shall not state all I think of that person who, for the preservation of game, would doom the innocent-or the guilty intruder, to a sudden death. I will not, however (because I am silent respecting individuals), join in any undeserved panegyric of the humanity of the English law. I cannot say, at the same moment, that the law of England allows such machines to be set after public notice; and that the law of England sanctions nothing but what is humane. If the law sanctions such practices, it sanctions, in my opinion, what is to the last degree odious, unchristian, and inhumane. 'The case of the dog or bull I admit to be an analogous case to this: and I say, if a man were to keep a dog of great ferocity and power, for the express purpose of guarding against trespass in woods or fields, and that dog was to kill a trespasser, it would be murder in the person placing him there for such a purpose. It is indifferent to me whether the trespasser is slain by animals or machines intentionally brought there for that purpose: he ought not to be slain at all. It is murder to use such a punishment for such an offence. If a man puts a ferocious dog in his yard, to guard his house from burglary, and that dog strays into the neighbouring field and there worries the man, there wants, in this case, the murderous and malicious spirit. The dog was placed in the yard for the legal purpose of guarding the house against burglary; for which crime, if caught in the act of perpetrating it, a man may legally be put to death. There was no primary intention here of putting a mere trespasser to death. So, if a man keep a ferocious bull, not for agricultural purposes, but for the express purpose of repelling trespassers, and that bull occasion the death of a trespass. er, it is murder: the intentional infliction of death by any means for such sort of offences, constitutes the murder: a right to kill for such reasons cannot be acquired by the foolhardiness of the trespasser, nor by any sort of notice or publicity. If a man were to blow a trumpet all over the country, and say that he would shoot any man who asked him how he did, would he acquire a right to do so by such notice? Does mere publication of an unlawful intention make the action lawful which follows? If notice is the principle which consecrates this mode of destroying human beings, I wish my brothers had been a little more clear, or a little more unanimous, as to what is meant by this notice. Must the notice be always actual, or is it sufficient that it is probable? May these guns act only against those who have read the notice, or against all who might have read the notice? The truth is, that the practice is so enormous, and the opinions of the most learned men so various, that a declaratory law upon the subject is imperiously required.* Common humanity required it after the extraordinary difference of opinion which occurred in the case of Dean and Clayton. For these reasons, I am compelled to differ from my learned brothers. We have all, I am sure, the common object of doing justice in such cases as these; we can have no possible motive for doing otherwise. Where such a superiority of talents and numbers is against me I must of course be wrong; but I think it better to publish my own errors than to subscribe to opinions of the justice of which I am not convinced. To destroy a trespasser with such machines, I think would be murder; to set such uncontrollable machines for the purpose of committing this murder, I think would be indictable; and I am, therefore, of opinion, that he who suffers from such inachines, has a fair ground of action, in spite of any notice; for it is not in the power of notice to make them lawful.' HAMILTON'S METHOD OF TEACHING LAN. GUAGES. (EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1826.) We sons; by which is meant, we presume, that the money is to be returned, if the progress is not made. should be curious to know how poor Mr. Hamilton would protect himself from some swindling scholar, who, having really learnt all that the master professed to teach, should counterfeit the grossest ignorance of the Gospel of St. John, and refused to construe a single verse, or pay a farthing? Whether Mr. Hamilton's translations are good or bad, is not the question. The point to determine is, whether very close interlineal translations are helps in learning a language? Not whether Mr. Hamilton has executed these translations faithfully and judiciously. Whether Mr. Hamilton is or is not the inventor of the system which bears his name, and what his claims to originality may be, are also questions of very secondrate importance; but they merit a few observations. That man is not the discoverer of any art who first says the thing; but he who first says it so long, and so loud, and so clearly, that he compels mankind to hear him-the man who is so deeply impressed with the importance of the discovery that he will take no denial, but at the risk of fortune and fame, pushes through all opposition, and is determined that what he thinks he has discovered shall not perish for want of a fair trial. of coal gas in producing light; but Winsor worried Other persons had noticed the effect the town with bad English for three winters before he could attract any serious attention to his views. Many persons broke stone before Macadam, but Macadam felt the discovery more strongly, stated it more clearly, persevered in it with greater tenacity, wielded his hammer, in short, with greater force than other men, and finally succeeded in bringing his plan into general use. Literal translations are not only not used in our schools, but are generally discountenanced in them. A literal translation, or any translation of a schoolbook, is a contraband article in English schools, which a schoolmaster would instantly seize, as a customhouse officer would a barrel of gin. Mr. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintains, by books and lectures, that all boys ought to be allowed to work with literal 1. The Gospel of St. John, in Latin, adapted to the Hamilto- translations, and that it is by far the best method of nian System, by an Analytical and Interlineary Translation. learning a language. If Mr. Hamilton's system is Executed under the immediate direction of James Ham-just, it is sad trifling to deny his claim to originality, by stating that Mr. Locke has said the same thing, or 2. The Gospel of St. John, adapted to the Hamiltonian Sys-that others have said the same thing, a century earlier tem, by an Analytical and Interlineary Translation from the Italian, with full Instructions for its use, even by those who are wholly ignorant of the Language. For the use of Schools. By James Hamilton, Author of the Hamiltonian System. London, 1825. ilton. London, 1824. WE have nothing whatever to do with Mr. Hamilton personally. He may be the wisest or the weakest of men; most dexterous or most unsuccessful in the exhibition of his system; modest and proper, or prurient and preposterous in its commendation: by none of these considerations is his system itself affected. The proprietor of Ching's Lozenges must necessarily have recourse to a newspaper, to rescue from oblivion the merit of his vermifuge medicines. In the same manner, the Amboyna tooth-powder must depend upon the Herald and the Morning Post. Unfortunately, the system of Mr. Hamilton has been introduced to the world by the same means, and has exposed itself to those suspicions which hover over splendid discoveries of genius, detailed in the daily papers, and sold in sealed boxes at an infinite diversity of prices-but with a perpetual inclusion of the stamp, and with an equitable discount for undelayed pay ment. than Hamilton. They have all said it so feebly, that their observations have passed sub silentio; and if Mr. Hamilton succeeds in being heard and followed, to him be the glory-because from him have proceeded the utility and the advantage. The works upon this subject on this plan, published before the time of Mr. Hamilton, are Montanus's edition of the Bible, with Pignini's interlineary Latin version; Lubin's New Testament, having the Greek interlined with Latin and German; Abbé L'Olivet's Pensées de Ciceron; and a French work by the Abbé Radonvilliers, Paris, 1768-and Locke upon Education. One of the first principles of Mr. Hamilton is, to introduce very strict literal, interlinear translations, as aids to lexicons and dictionaries, and to make so much use of them as that the dictionary or lexicon will be for a long time little required. We will suppose the language to be the Italian, and the book selected to be the Gospel of St. John. Of this Gospel Mr. Hamilton has published a key, of which the following is an extract : 1 Nel principio era il Verbo e il Verbo era In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was il Verbo era Dio. appresso Dio, e near to God, and the Word was God. 2 Questro era nel principio appresso Dio. It may have been necessary for Mr. Hamilton to have had recourse to these means of making known his discoveries, since he may not have had friends whose names and authority might have attracted the notice of the public; but it is a misfortune to which his system has been subjected, and a difficulty which it has still to overcome. There is also a singular and somewhat ludicrous condition of giving warranted les-without of him nothing was made of that, which is been This has been done. Per mezzo di lui tutte le cose furon fatte: 43 senza fatto. |