§ MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter published in the Newspapers, in which it is stated that six persons of good previous character have been sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment by a Cornish Magistrate for trespassing off a public path through a copse and taking whortleberries?
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that the case had not come under his cognizance. Since he entered the House, however, he had been informed that his hon. Friend the Member for West Cornwall, who was well acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, had expressed a desire to answer the Question.
§ MR. KENDALLsaid, that the owner of the property on which the trespass to which the Question related occurred was Sir C. Rashleigh, his son-in-law, and that he had received in reference to the matter the following letter from the magistrate by whom the persons charged with the trespass had been committed:—
§ "My dear Kendall—I see Mr. Taylor has given notice to ask a question of the Home Secretary regarding six persons committed by me for three weeks for trespassing and destroying the underwood in Prideaux Wood. The facts are as follows:—Parties have constantly been brought before our bench for trespass and damage in Prideaux and Tregeehan Woods; we have generally fined the parties so brought before us, hoping that leniency would have the desired effect. A day or two before these persons were found the 1514 keeper met a party, who, on being spoken to, defied him in most violent language. He did not know the parties, so could not apply for sum monses. A day or two afterwards Battie fell in with this party. He applied to me for summonses, When the parties were brought before me they all pleaded guilty, and I sent them to Bodmin for three weeks, in hope that this punishment may have the effect of stopping others, which fining has not done. There was no question about 'whortleberries' The summonses were granted, and the conviction made under the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 97.—Yours very truly,
§ "JOHN W. PEARD."
§ The House would therefore see that the case had nothing at all to do with whortleberries, and he was assured that was the fact by the owner of the property himself, whom he had seen in town that morning. A portion, be might add, of Sir C. Rashleigh's income was derived from letting part of a large coppice wood every year. The bark of the trees and the young oak shoots in the wood were, it appeared, seriously damaged by trespassers, who had over and over again been summoned for the offence. His son-in-law, who was one of the kindest-hearted men in the world, had himself paid the fines inflicted on some poor people last year; but it was then distinctly intimated from the bench that confinement would be the result of a similar offence if it again occurred. One of the parties who had rented the coppice wood had informed Sir C. Rashleigh that there was no use in taking it, so great was the damage done by persons trespassing upon it. Under these circumstances, he felt assured that the House would be of opinion that nothing like undue harshness had been exhibited in the course of those proceedings.